Thankfully, this looks to be an implementation issue and not a protocol issue like SSL had. From the blog of the folks who run that SSL test:

As problems go, this one should be easy to fix. [...] [E]ven though TLS is very strict about how its padding is formatted, it turns out that some TLS implementations omit to check the padding structure after decryption. Such implementations are vulnerable to the POODLE attack even with TLS. [...] According to our most recent SSL Pulse scan (which hasn’t been published yet), about 10% of the servers are vulnerable to the POODLE attack against TLS.

Suspecting and Knowing are 2 different things.

Not in this case. While we weren't aware of the extent of their torture ("brutal/enhanced interrogation" my ass, it's torture), we did know they were doing it (at least since 2010, but perhaps earlier). They (namely Dick Cheney, but others as well) just played it off as "enhanced interrogation", as though they were Jedis hand-waving the American public.

Sadly, it seems that worked. Despite the atrocities that are Guantanamo and waterboarding, there were only a few (very loud) voices calling for charges against those who authorized them. Sure, some guys got roped in when the Guantanamo thing first broke, but the facility is still up and running. And, sadly, I doubt anyone will be taken to task over this; maybe some low-level nobodies in an attempt to placate the few angry mobs, but no one that actually made decisions.

It's kind of like the whole NSA thing. We had bits and pieces, knowing enough to know that they were doing some sort of illegal data gathering, but until the Snowden documents didn't know the details or scope of what they were doing.

That gave me some hope for the world.

Your hope comes easier than mine, then. That the officers were okay with sessions in the first place is highly disturbing to me, and only "some"/"several" were actually disturbed after it happened for a few days.

Now cue scores of sexist, white-knight "do-gooders" who will say things like "sex-work endangers women" and other sexist statements that treat women like children.

Building off your statement, which I agree with: (American) Football purposefully endangers men, having them slam against each other at higher-than-normal velocities, and yet, despite many recent medical revelations, there's no large trumpeting call to shut the whole thing down.

The only difference between football and prostitution is how they're using their bodies for entertainment. The first is done for physical competition for a public audience; the second is physical excitement amongst private participants. The only real problem with the difference, as far as I can tell, is America's very reserved view of sex.

In addition, legalization has brought down the dangerous aspects of many things. Ending alcohol prohibition severely hurt the mafia. The slow legalization/decriminalization of marijuana appears to be having the same affect on many gangs. Legalizing abortion made a botched or fatal operation extremely rare (AFAIK). If there's a case where legalizing something made it more dangerous, I'm not aware of it. While I don't have data to back me up, I can only assume that legalizing prostitution would be good for prostitutes:
1) Keeping it illegal keeps it in the shadows, so it's hard to see things that are actually bad happening (abuse, theft)
2) Making it legal allows for regulation, so that prostitutes have to receive regular checks for STDs and some health department can make sure the places of business are sanitary and the prostitutes not abused
3) Making it legal might help lower the spread of various STDs; part of it is requiring regular checks of prostitutes, and larger brothels might be able to get scientists to develop a quick and fairly reliable test for various STDs that clients have to use before being allowed in

Also, while not as popular, there are male prostitutes so this helps them as well.

Going quite a bit off topic here, but I'll bite:

Build a border that can be enforced

I hope you're not talking about building a wall. A wall is one of those ideas that seems pleasant, simple, and realistic at a quick glance, but when you get into details it starts to break down. Even the Great Wall of China failed many times.

Rather than trying to go back to Isolationist policies, we should be looking at A) why they come here, and B) what steps we can take to diminish A. In the long run, removing their need/desire to come to America illegally will have far more benefit for everyone than simply trying to hide the problem behind a chain-link fence.

A isn't easy; a lot of people will claim "because America is the greatest country in the world!" Except we aren't turning back a tide of Canadians at our northern border, so far as I'm aware, meaning either America and Canada are roughly equivalent in greatness or there are other reasons that Mexicans are risking quite a bit to come to the U.S. While I'm no expert on Hispanic relations, it seems to me that what is happening is not so much Mexicans wanting to come to the US, but Mexicans wanting to leave Mexico and the US being the most natural choice. (I'm not aware of Guatemala offering a lot, and in fact Mexico is facing its own illegal immigrant problem with Guatemalans)

The main cause that I'm aware of is the Mexican Cartels, who mainly use drugs as their source of revenue. The surging movement in America to legalize weed is having a growing impact on that. They still have crack and heroine, of course, but these are far more destructive drugs that will result in fewer return users.

There are likely other other factors, such as poverty, especially in the border towns (driving along the highway by the border in El Paso, TX gives you an eerie comparison between Juarez and El Paso, especially when you consider that much of the El Paso side is still lower class.) Government corruption might be a factor.

For B, I already mentioned the legalizing of weed in America. If we can change the discussion of our "War on Drugs" from punishment to rehabilitation, we could lower the demand for drugs from Mexico (and other countries dealing with the same thing) even further.

For poverty, I don't have a good plan. But let's consider that fence again. It could cost $22.4 Billion to build (though the full cost is hard to figure out, apparently). A quick search tells me that the estimated population amongst the six Mexican border states was 12,246,99... in 1990. So that number's a bit old, we'll bump it up to 20M (another source says 24M by 2020, but that's for both sides of the border.) With about 27.9% being kids, that's about 14M adults, giving us $1600/Mexican adult (more, actually, as the "kids" only includes up to age 14). The average yearly income for Mexico is about $13K, so that's significant but not huge.

What if, instead of spending that money on the border, we use it to improve the cities on the Mexican side of the border? They would give at least a small economical boost, though short-term, and while improving those cities we could have US law enforcement work with Mexican law enforcement to further route the gangs. This isn't without risk, of course, and a lot of people would like to see that 22.4 Billion invested in our own country through either education or infrastructure, but if we're talking about ways to fix the "problem" of illegal immigrants then I believe it will be far more useful to use money appropriated for such a task in that capacity.

Valve is a slumbering behemoth. They seem to have dropped any big push for SteamOS (as the goal was to loosen Microsoft's control through their App Store, and this appears to have been successful), but if they really wanted to brute force it they would have a lot of power to bring to bear, in terms of both capital and support. The MAFIAA has far more capital and legal resources, but Valve wouldn't go down without giving them a large bruising and, perhaps, getting some victories that weaken the copyright cases the music labels want to bring against smaller entities.

And if they needed quick cash, all they have to do is release Half Life 3. It could be nothing more than Goat Simulator with Gordon Freeman instead of a Goat, and the frenzy caused by releasing it would give them a large boost. A real, actual Half Life 3 would probably double whatever they have for a war chest.

Despite the sale price, Twitch is a relatively small player and easier to push around. Being bought by Amazon only makes this worse, as it gives media companies some extra leverage against the sales giant by saying they'll up the ante on Twitch DMCA filings if Amazon doesn't agree to better terms for the media companies.

On a TF2 server I regularly play on (I only play on other servers if it's empty or on a map I hate), we have about 40-50 regulars that are there at least once a week, if not multiple nights, for many hours. One of these was a guy who was usually getting on at least one person's nerves every night, but he's been absent for a few weeks, likely just busy. In the meantime we have a new person who has taken on the same role. He's a dick, but has some intelligence and is never a *huge* dick (at worst one or two people will try to votekick, but most who find him annoying have just muted him.)

Last week one of the old regulars, also an admin on the server, was on at the same time and was telling the new person that the admin appreciated his presence, because there was universal annoyance, at best, amongst the server population that helped bind them together. It was something like a common cause, but replacing productivity with hate. While it was certainly intended to be a riff on the dick, there was some truth to what the admin was saying.

Perhaps that's what Bennett is to us. The whole Beta thing has really died down (or I've willfully ignored it), and that was a very uniting aspect of millions of /. users. Since it's died down, these "stories" by Bennett Hazelton have begun. Perhaps these aren't intended to be actual stories, but to give a "common distaste" (or detest, if you prefer) amongst /. users that will act as a common ground:
A: "Hey fuck you ignorant conservative"
B: "No fuck you, lazy liberal"
A: "Ah man, it's another Bennett article. I hate that guy's drivel."
B: "Oh, really? Me, too. Wish I could ignore all of his articles."
A: "Heh, yeah. So, hey, about earlier..."
And thus /. can act towards a large goal, fueled by our mutual hate for Bennett blog posts. A grand conspiracy by /. editors (and Dice?) for the greater good.

...ah, who am I kidding, it's just wishful thinking...

I REALLY like to see people make fun of him in the comments, so I click on the post.

I hear ya, man. I figure I could give up Bennett at any point. Snap, just like that. But do I have to give up Bennett? Is it really so bad? Sure, I'm wasting time, and sometimes after reading Bennett I temporarily forget how to work the thermostat or what the Judicial branch does, but I only do it now and then, there's no problem.

Yeah, I can give him up any time. When I'm ready to, I'll just read one more Bennett regurgitation, for old time's sake, and then close the tab for the last time. In fact, maybe this will be the last time I click on a Bennett link...

In America, "free market" is just short-hand for "the market is free to do my bidding".

So, the suggestion is that we should allow the police to illegally stop and search us until we can be in a safer environment to tell them they're doing something illegal?

Because telling them in an unsafe environment will stop the cop? "Oh, I didn't know I was in violation of the 4th Amendment, you have a good day sir." More likely they'll just make the interaction worse for you since you were "backtalking", perhaps find some more things to fine/charge you with. While telling the cop he's wrong is noble and courageous and all, it will have no positive effect and may make fighting them in the court even harder.

They just do whatever they want because they have the guns and badges.

Exactly, and the only thing we have to stop them in the long run is a gun or a gavel. I don't know about you, but I know it wouldn't end well for me if I tried to use the gun method.

I propose something else: all police wear cameras and audio recording 100% of the time, and a zero tolerance for police who do not adhere to the law, and dismissal/criminal charges are the outcome. Any police officer who turned off his recording stuff is presumed to be lying.

I support the idea, but this also requires the gavel. Unless we can set up some uncorruptable, citizen-run group that monitors every police feed in real time and sends out a Cop Block if they see one doing stuff they shouldn't, the cameras can only help citizens after the fact.

If a bunch of dudes 2000+ years ago could talk directly to the Abrahamic God, and one in particular through a burning bush, why not some dude in the modern days through a computer?

If Terry Davis isn't a real prophet today, then why can't we call the prophets in the Bible schizophrenic?

the USA isn't geared for looking after people, it's geared towards profit-making

FTFY. The Dollar is our holy god in America (which is why we have "In God We Trust" on it, so we could pay lip service to religion while worshiping it). Controlling people is just the easiest way for the government to ensure that profit in a selection of private industries, namely military contractors.

We have a history of being "cowboys" (even if the stereotype only largely existed in movies) and still hold to our rugged individualism and the notion that everyone who has "made it" did so on their own laurels. It doesn't matter that such cases are the rare exception rather than the status quo, the general American public will look to those and say "see, they didn't need help from the government, so no one should." And the elite (both rich and elected officials) will happily maintain this illusion, as it allows them to consolidate their own power. They've tricked much of the American public into fighting against higher taxes for the rich (even if those high taxes only affect, say, income after the first $1M) by making Joe Sixpack think that they're just one or two good events away from being in that tax bracket, and how would Joe feel if he had to pay these onerous taxes on his current salary?

Our country may be controlled by a small number of moneyed interests, but it's the American people who handed them the reigns.

He could also be concerned about tracking via the cellphone, a reason to get rid of it entirely.

But even outside of that, some people just seem addicted to their devices (in metaphor if not in the literal sense), and the only way to break that is to get rid of it entirely. You wouldn't expect an alcoholic to keep beer around in case his friends want a cold one when they visit, so to me it's quite reasonable to toss the phone entirely.

After a few weeks of thought I just today came to the conclusion that I am completely over the Pokemon series, which I was in love when it first released in 1998 at 13. Black, for the DS, was the last version I purchased. Maybe if they ever give it a huge overhaul or MMO...

Anyway, more on topic, I would have thought that Nintendo would learn from the DSi. Not that it's a bad system, but the camera features went mostly unused because there was no guarantee that players had a camera-equipped system. Only a few games made heavy use of it, and a few more than that had some incorporation that could be ignored if you weren't on a DSI (or DSi XL).

So here we are with the 3DS and now Nintendo is releasing their "New 3DS" (what a horrible name) that has some nice features that will also probably not be used. The big selling points are the "nub" (why couldn't we just have a second, if smaller, stick?), two extra shoulder buttons, and, most importantly, added horsepower. They've already announced Xenoblade Chronicles 3DS, which will require the New model as it will need the better specs, and the already-released Smash Bros. 3DS will not allow you to use many system tools you could normally use while running a game because of its requirements on the 3DS, but you can on the New 3DS. This will wind up with the same thing as the DSi, with so much fractioning of the base that developers will have to program with the assumption of the Old model; at best we'll get more games that will use more of the Old processing power, like Smash Bros., but otherwise it will play out the same. Some games will have support for the extra controls, a scant few (likely those that need the New hardware) will require the controls, and most games will ignore them completely.

And US/EU will get it at some point in the near future... maybe. Nintendo kinda shot themselves in the foot by announcing it, and giving it to only Japan and Australia this year (though it's cool that our kangaroo friends are seeing some love after usually being the last to get stuff). Sales for the existing models of the 3DS in America and Europe are likely going to flatline this holiday season, purchased only by parents for their kids who don't keep up with gaming news (or are too little to do so.) Anyone else who had been considering the system is now going to sit on that cash, because why would you buy the old model now when the new hotness could come in a few months?

After the poor reception of the Wii U, I'd hoped that Nintendo would look at their failures and learn from them. Instead, it seems like they're only doubling-down...

Jobs, college debt, and personal liberty are extremely important issues to this generation.

Then why in the name of all that is noodly would they vote Republican? If young voters did swing from Democrat to Republican, I bet they did so for one of two reasons:
1) blindly believing candidate rhetoric (which both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of spewing), or
2) they were upset with "their guy" and mistakenly thought the "other guy" would do better.

Considering that the voter turnout was only 36.4% for the 2014 midterms (lowest since WWII), and low turnout favors Republicans (who are more likely to vote, it seems), I would guess the Republican victory isn't due to Millenials switching parties but far less Democrat Millenials turning out, if it's due to Millenials at all. Your own article supports this:

Though the GOP is closing the gap on Democrats in relation to young voters, a push away from the left may not guarantee a win for the right among the politically apathetic voting demographic.
[...]
Among those who said they “definitely will be voting” in next week’s midterm elections, 51 percent of young adults said they would prefer a GOP-controlled Congress. That's up from 43 percent during the 2010 midterms.

When the question is broadened to include all young adults, including those admitting they are less than certain they will vote on Tuesday, 50 percent said they would favor a Democratic Congress, compared to just 43 percent preferring the GOP.

“A lot of it, frankly, comes down to turnout. It seems that young Republicans are significantly more likely to turn out and participate next week,” said John Della Volpe, the institute's polling director. “It’s less about young people becoming more Republican, they’re just a little bit less Democratic than we’ve seen through the Obama years from 2008 to 2012.”
[...]
But bad news for Obama does not necessarily mean good news for the GOP, especially considering Obama maintains a significantly higher approval rating than Congress does among young adults. Only 23 percent of the demographic approves of the job Republicans are doing in Congress, compared to 35 percent approving of Democrats.

A reported 33 percent of young people surveyed identified as Democrats, compared to 22 percent siding with the GOP and about 42 percent of young adults identified themselves as independents.

On Slashdice, an "Insightful" vote is used to say "this aligns with my worldview and so I approve of it even if it is logically inconsistent/fallacious or based on demonstrably false data or notions"