The reasons why folks marry have changed over time, but until recently, the basic principles of it has not (even if people routinely violate said principles.)

Yes, I'm fully aware of "open" marriages - few of them last very long, at least judging from folks in my social circles. Then again, why would they be embarrassed by the revelation of their names on such a website? Are you saying that even a quorum (let alone a majority) of the folks on that site practice such relationships? If so, the revelation of their names shouldn't be a problem (though actively seeking to hook up with folks from non-open marriages is rather questionable). I'm more than willing to wager that the vast majority of the users are keeping up a façade at home while cruising for some strange on the website.

Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas. There are most likely websites out there for folks in open marriages to meet up and do whatever they please... can't really bring myself to feel sorry for 'em.

There is no puritanism here, merely a respect for marital trust, and the unwillingness to violate it.

Marriage isn't a mere contract that you can seek out loopholes for, or something you do just so that you can have sex-on-demand. It's a commitment; a sacred trust between two individuals who become as one in spirit. You do this for life, and bind your lives and fortunes together.

Many things are negotiable in this world, even in marriage - but remaining faithful to someone you are married to is not something you can (or should ever) negotiate over. If you haven't the maturity to understand that, then don't get married.

The question isn't how you feel, but the level of commitment you made. If you married someone, you have made it known to one and all that you love that person (outside of countries where contractual marriage is still a thing, anyway). This carries a certain level of responsibility - unless both partners know up-front that the marriage is "open", then avoiding adultery at all costs is automatically and universally assumed to be one of those responsibilities.

Dunno - one good spearphishing campaign based on the personal info gathered from the hack would probably garner quite a bit of money... and none of us would ever hear about it. The public announcements would only add to the credibility of the blackmail threats.

...as long as you don't cohabitate in certain states (where common-law marriage may apply).

This, right here.

It's not that hard to keep yourself in check, gents. You either love your S/O or you do not. If you do, you will do your level best to remain faithful. ...besides, most of you schmucks are geeks - if you found someone that actually puts up with our little quirks and habits and loves our kind in spite of ourselves, why would you screw that up?

To be honest? The act is criminal, but if the affected want sympathy? They can find it in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis".

Point of order: PCI compliance demands that you do *not* store customer CC data unless absolutely necessary (mind the PDF, Henry).

On the other hand, the company is based in Canada, and I'm not sure what their data retention laws may entail. Since the company is pre-IPO, they may have aligned their policies to the Canadian equivalent of SOX (if they have one), but otherwise I don't see much demand to store the CC info for any legit business purpose.

...and yet given its much larger marketshare for Internet-facing and enterprise servers, one would think it to be far more attractive (even if only as carriers of Windows malware to end-users...)

Point of Order: Apache and OpenSSL are not "Linux". I can run a user-oriented Linux desktop/laptop box just fine without either.

If we're going to talk vulns in an OS, then let's stick with the OS, not middleware or applications.

Dude - there's a reason PDF exists, and so long as you;re not cooperatively editing docs, it would work just fine for the purpose.

True (and you should be modded up for that post, big-time).

Then again, how many folks are going to go mucking around disabling services, let alone set up WSUS/SCCM ?

How on Earth would a Windows Update break ESXi? the vSphere server maybe, but that's only because VMWare's UI/Utilities dev teams are retarded. Then again, VMWare ain't the only game in town anymore, either.

Personally, I'd love to see Foreman chained onto a working Linux-only virtual solution and cut Microsoft out of the picture entirely... oh, wait...

Actually, neither is astounding, considering how shallow their bench is.

For those among us with a leftward ideology and a twitchy knee, set the ideology aside for a bit and think it through: How many Democrats are 1) nationally recognized, 2) have proven executive ability (e.g. as governor - senators/reps rarely get elected) 3) have enough of a following among their base to push through the primaries?

The Republicans have many of those - in waves, and it shows in the zillion-candidate cage-match they're going through now (though to be honest, only about 8-10 of them have any hope in Hell). Yes, they have some toxic folks among them (e.g. Trump), but they'll flame out long before the primaries are underway.

The DNC? Not so much. There's a couple of outliers (dude from Maryland for example), but they lack any real name recognition, or a political machine to promote their name. Sanders has the populist imagination (much like the Tea Party does with the GOP), and Hillary has the Clinton name, as well as the massive political machine to back her up. Everyone else is either way too old or way the hell too, well, toxic to get the independent voter's nod. I mean, really, who else has a chance there?

I disagree (disclosure: I live here).

Before the 1980's, Portland was staunchly conservative; there was a church on practically every corner ( the vast majority of which were Catholic), and it was considered a working-class town with those particular values (albeit the strip clubs and etc were thriving from Burnside northwards, etc).

All one has to do is to check the political parties of successive mayors, really.