brainfire

The PC release of No Man's Sky apparently was built to use SSE4.1 instructions, leading to unexpected problems for users with older processors that would otherwise have been fine.

We have in the past received different binaries from vendors to use depending on which processors we're using.

I always respond to the pop-up newsletter signup solicitations with "abuse@(sitedomain.tld)".

I don't know where you're from, but my personal experience in my area (Maryland, USA) is that everything in your post is incorrect.

None of these are an argument against HSTS. They are ways you can attack DESPITE it, IF you put in the extra effort or have specific favorable circumstances.

The only way your proposed solution (secure-only protocol) avoids your identified design flaw (non-secure connections are sometimes possible) is if everyone immediately switches it and retires HTTP. That's not going to happen.

Considering a number of your attacks rely on the user not looking at the site security level (or in some cases, even at the domain name spelling), I find it curious that you think another visual indicator will make a difference.

The Firefox reference is in the second vulnerability discussed in your link 1, and is unrelated to your link 2 and parent submission. That second vulnerability apparently only affected the version 4 line of the Firefox plugin, which is marked beta in the Mozilla repository.

Mid-2015, the US White House Office of Management and Budget released memorandum M-15-13, stating that "Agencies must make all existing websites and services accessible through a secure connection (HTTPS-only, with HSTS) by December 31, 2016." Their reasoning is outlined in the memo- see https://https.cio.gov/

Gross negligence AND the actual loss/spillage of the information would, together, be sufficient under section f. Is there evidence of the latter?

Your parent post is talking about the (already illegal) negative effects that follow from the presence of a transient population.

Who's implementing it and why would it cost me less than paying a sysadmin to use sudo?

Why enable auditing when you already get the information you want with your current setup?

I add the entire domain of those sites to my blacklist and never look back. I don't have the time to deal with websites where the operator considers the actual content to be secondary.

Sure, but you could have it delivered sans signature to an empty house and grab it off the step. Or bounce the money through people who click on those "I made $234k last month working from home" ads.

Brian Krebs has written a few things about ways they (try to) get away with it: http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/money-mules/

They said conservatives but they meant Republicans. It's exactly the sort of manufactured outrage they've excelled at milking recently- create a scandal, claim the "patriotic"/change-resistant side, and use it to create fear of the enemy.

(Switch in Democrat instead of Republican, and "progressive"/faux-scientific, and I'm sure you can think of some recent examples on "the other side." It's a disease of politics, not of a particular viewpoint.)

Want hard examples? Look at Ben Carson's statement regarding putting Harriet Tubman on the 20, and the fact that it's turned into a big deal at all.

Are scalable web hosting costs really a significant portion of the operating costs of most news publishers with websites?

Additionally, losing visitors means losing the links they share on social media, so ad revenue may not be stable either (assuming adblocking users' links are visited by non-adblocking users.)

There are actually already physical barriers throughout the governmental parts of Washington DC to prevent this sort of thing. There are permanent walls, blocks, and poles along the edges of the roads (often well-integrated into the architecture,) and raise-able barriers built into the road surface at intersections. Ain't no cars running over our president!

What about the trans man who's now stuck in the women's room? Now everyone's uncomfortable. Oops.

Or, more realistically, if your presented gender doesn't match your birth sex, or if you're "weird" and someone feels like challenging you under this law, you now don't have the right to use a public restroom. Just be honest and admit this is your goal instead of cherry-picking a single scenario.

I assume everyone who argues that there's no right to employment is also arguing in favor of a guaranteed income - decoupling survival from employment.

> It's my information to be stolen, not yours.

Many computer logins protect information other than the password-bearer's- for example, any business or government. As a result it's best to consider it, then discard as your use case may require.

I absolutely agree on the account recovery point - it WILL happen, your choice as designer is just whether it happens within a designed process or without.

Really, without details like that it's just unverifiable FUD.

Or Germany (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/germany-hands-ove...) or Spain (http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/14/spain_encrypted_email_...), or...

I spoke to someone at Google on the phone about a problem I had with Google Music. There is a "request callback" link in the help/support section. I've also asked questions on the phone regarding purchasing videos from their digital store- specifically, what quality playback would be supported on my Chromebook model. It didn't take long from question asked -> question answered in either case.

I imagine my electric company sees low usage of Chrome- because their site doesn't actually allow you to log in using Chrome.

"knows what they are doing"

I'm not sure that necessarily applies to most large companies.