Sorry, no, won't work. See, in order to get a valid SSL cert installed, it has to match the FQDN, or you still get warnings. Which means the embedded device suddenly needs writable storage and routines for uploading said cert, which is a much bigger security risk than someone setting up a man-in-the-middle attack inside your home between you and your DVR.

There are thousands of different web-enabed devices on networks, accessible through unencrypted methods. Because most of them they don't need it. I don't need a certificate on my printer any more than I need auto-locking doors everywhere in my house.
It's only adding overhead, and not giving any tangible benefits.

SSL isn't a silver bullet. It's mostly theater, giving the unwashed masses a feeling of security. It's not implemented in a secure way, but relies on distributed trust - a system that doesn't work.
You have to be horribly ignorant to trust that none of the CAs in your browser's or OS' key store have been compromised, or handed out to someone. Do you verify that the certificate for "secure" sites you visit actually are from the signing authority the web site is expected to use? No? Then how can you possibly trust it?

It's worse than nothing in that it makes you feel warm and cozy and safe, and lulls you into a false sense of security, much like AV software does.

Security is a state of mind. Not a technical piece of shit you can force on everything and say "look, it's secure now!"

Oh, it definitely sounds like the majority of humanity the majority of the time. I just don't think it's one of our more admirable traits.

In our case, it's necessary, because we evolved with mediocre brains. I'd like to see our successors do better. They aren't yet, which is what this article is pointing out. This promising system isn't ready yet. It's just not wrong for the reasons that the GGP post thought.

Norway hasn't had any school shootings that I know of, except one where a girl got shot in the arse with an airsoft gun about 20 years ago.

If you mean the UtÃya massacre, that wasn't a school shooting, but a right wing nutter first bombing a government building and then impersonating a policeman and shooting indiscriminately at a political youth camp.

Citizens being allowed to carry guns would have stopped neither.

And pray tell how, exactly, I install a certificate on a DVR on my home LAN (or switch it to using https for that matter)?
These are embedded devices.

Especially ones lined with Original Reynolds(tm) material? They will have a huge market.

That you can get free certs doesn't mean it's easy or in some cases even possible to install them. These days, you find web servers in lots of embedded devices. Should i have to click by a warning every time I want to access my DVR on my LAN?

Encryption is useful when it serves a purpose. It doesn't always, and then it's just a waste at best and a false sense of security at worst.
SSL is inherently a weak solution - it is never any stronger than the least strong of the enormous list of CAs built into every browser. If just one of them is compromised (or have handed over the keys to a three letter agency), visitors lose the protection against MITM attacks and similar.

Self-signed certs are actually far safer, if done right, where the user has to actually validate the cert the first time. But those gets warned against.

Make no mistake, Google doesn't do this because they have our best interest in mind, but because caching means they can't always tell exactly how many and who saw a particular page or ad. They hate caching unless it's them doing it. Going https instead of http defeats most caching, at the expense of the web sites easily having to serve twice as much data to serve the same number of visitors - some of that from the overhead of https, and some of that because of less caching.

Again, follow the money trail, and you'll get the answer for why Google wants to push everyone to https.
The guys over at squid-cache.org are not amused.

My S&P400 company gives us all both MsOffice and Google docs. Free to use whatever we want. I see Google docs being preferred over MsOffice for almost all the documents. Some fancy presentations with animations is the only time people fire up MsOffice. Send a link to all, and they get the most updated version of the document, don't have to bother working through comments and change history and emailing docs back and forth. Almost all the corporate back office forms are google spreadsheets now. All team leads directly post their budget proposals for the next year and it all gets consolidated and gets reported to admin.

It's not just returning a matched image, though. It's also returning a confidence level, and in the cases they've discovered, it's returning 100% confidence. That's clearly wrong.

... Smothsonian channel will spend two episodes to cover it in Mighty Ships series. Wonder who watches that thing. It keeps showing up in the listings, but do people really watch them?

He is not losing that many votes. These Cuban Americans are captive to GOP. High time Democrats stop pursuing the vote they are never going to get. Might as well play to the base and show America what happens if both parties start appeasing their base.

Well, almost all the software we pay for has boilerplate EULA that says, "We promise you lots of stuff. But if the software you bought for does not do it, well, tough luck buddy, suck it. Cant sue us". In fact some software actually said, "this software is not fit to do anything. not nuclear reactors definitely".

Everyone knew as long as MS-Office franchise is delivering money to Microsoft in fire hoses, there is no way anyone can compete with it in *any* sphere. It will sustain losses year after year to deny revenue to the competition. Once the competition folds it has the market for itself. Look how long it was able to sustain losses to gain dominance with XBox franchise. Everyone knew that. Many people had ideas to attack it, but lacked the resources. People with resources, I am looking at you Sun microsystems, lacked the competence to pull it off.

Google went about it strategically. First it peeled of the low hanging fruit, people who don't need all the bells and whistles of a full suite with Google docs/apps. Then it leveraged the central server doing the edits, to create a collaborative edit features that were well ahead of MsOffice when it was introduced. Priced it cheap, pitched it to the enterprises. When it was forcing Microsoft to scramble to offer collaboration tools, Apple helped in the upgrade tread mill battle. In an earlier era, the top exec gets the latest and greatest laptop every six months with latest Office pre-installed and starts belting out documents in the latest format. IT will upgrade rest of the corp. But Apple took all the top execs with its iPad, and now PC is not the latest toy these top honchos were getting. Side effect: The corporate upgrade treadmill slowed down significantly.

Now it is going for the last section that really needs all the bells and whistles of a full fledged office suite. Instead of spending the money to reinvent the wheel inside google docs, it is just using the well established code base of OpenOffice and the ODF. Even though Microsoft lost the mind share and the market share in percentage terms, its cash cows were producing milk at the same old prodigal rate. Cutting off a significant portion of the MsOffice revenue stream is important for Google's business ops in other spheres. Else Microsoft will under cut it. It even tried to pay people to use Bing.

Google does not really want to make much money off its google docs franchise. It uses it just to crimp the revenue stream of Microsoft. It is making money elsewhere.

What kind of idiot modded this drunken drivel insightful? A sock puppet account?
Look at the GP post - the guy didn't predict anything. He correctly used the present tense for describing timeline events, and drew no conclusions. If you drew your own conclusion and then knock it down, that is not insightful, nor any skin off his back.

Good. There are supposed to be droughts and forest fires. That's why the tall conifers were everywhere in California - trees evolved to survive droughts and fires.

Those not willing to live with the natural climate of the land they have settled on better be prepared to pay high and continuing costs for fighting nature.