If they were doing what you suggest, why wouldn't they just release their u-boot source?

So you think they wrote their own bootloader for their router, named it the same as a well known bootloader that's used in lots of other routers, and then when people request the source (including one of u-boot' copyright holders) they wouldn't just say "it's not *that* u-boot, it's are own proprietary bootloader and we're keeping it closed"? Grasping at straws much?

Your scenario would make sense if this was just a one time thing, but the issues with Ubiquiti have been going on for many months.

Your theory that one employee or one team screwed up might fit if this were just a case of a single customer requesting the source and the employee or team mistakenly saying no, but that's not the case here. This has been going on for months now, with multiple contacts to the company. Even the copyright holder of uboot sent them a letter last July threatening legal action if this doesn't get resolved, and they've ignored it for 9 months now. That's far beyond a single person or team making a mistake, or a miscommunication, now you're in the territory of a company willfully violating the licence.

It means they didn't find any backdoors, and the four vulnerabilities that were found weren't critical (despite what the summary incorrectly says).

From TFA:

"Microsoft is changing how Do Not Track (DNT) is implemented in future versions of our browsers"

In fact, the only mentions of IE in TFA are where they are discussing the previous behavior.

Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil invented spread-spectrum communications in 1942. It's used in WiFi, but I wouldn't call that "inventing WiFi".

While those things are possible, they are far from easy. Your garden variety script kiddie can't do that. Even far more skilled types would have to find a way to get malware onto your machine first, and have it go unnoticed. Realisticly, only governments can pull off these attacks. While that means https isn't perfect, it's far better to be vulnerable to a few than vulnerable to everyone.

Sure, they were more expensive in the past, but that's not relavent now unless you have a time machine. Same as far as dimmability, most today are dimmable. I'm sure early adopters paid a lot and were sometimes disappointed, but that goes for any new technology.

I remember in college in the mid-1990s, our dorm switched to early CFLs for our desk lamps. They were $30 apiece (which we'd have to pay for if we broke one), were odd-shaped so they fit the lamps poorly, and they had far more mercury in them than today's CFLs. I don't judge today's CFLs based on those.

Either way, the OP's claim that they cost $40 is nonsense. As is sexconker's claim that they aren't dimmable.

Here's a 1-pack of 800 lumen for under $10:
http://www.amazon.com/Philips-...

Obviously 1600 lumens costs more, but they have some Philips 1600 lumens LED bulbs for around $20, which is still way less than the $40 OP said.

They weren't actually stories of people doing those stupid things, the maker (Palcohol) suggested doing those things on the website:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4...

$40???? Amazon has name brand, dimmable LED bulbs for under $10.

You only answered half of the previous poster's question.

Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.
Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.

You addressed the 2nd amendment part, but don't explain the former. How is it that the 2nd amendment perfect only because its "old", and at the same time the 1934 act is flawed only because its old (according to you)?

According to Wikipedia, it would take 2 million years for any comets perturbed by this encounter to get to the inner solar system.

Scholz's Star