Unless your tweets are protected there is very little obvious reason to use https for twitter, since they would all be public anyway, and the login does use https.

Facebook always uses HTTPS for logins, so your password is never sent in the clear anyway.

Your employer has the right to look at whatever you do with _their_ computers. They cannot come to your home and look at your gmail account or use your company email password to get into your gmail account. This is obviously different. Your gmail account is private in that sense.

I think this comparison should only be made alongside when people are beginning relationships. For instance, perhaps there is a sharp rise in breakups after Valentine's Day because people are feeling sentimental before VD or don't want to be alone and so are more likely to begin a romantic relationship shortly before--couple that with the conventional wisdom that most relationships don't last 5 weeks and it seems obvious that the breakup rate would be highest just a few weeks after Valentine's Day. Or, potentially, you might find that those breaking up around spring break very quickly began new relationships suggesting that they were cutting ties with their SOs prior to spring break so that they can "have a good time" and "meet some new people" on Spring Break.

Who cares? This isn't censorship. They just don't want to get a bunch of complaints from your grandmother when she searches for "penitence" and after hunt-and-pecking "p-e-n-i" gets something that upsets her. You can still search for whatever you want, they just aren't going to automatically guess you mean something dirty because it might offend you greatly if you don't, which would be a PR nightmare. The converse is not true. It doesn't offend anybody (except maybe people who are rabidly-irrational about anything that could possibly be construed as censorship) to get benign results when searching for something dirty as long as they can get to the results by pressing the "Enter" key.

Or, "Intel Threatens to use DMCA against HDCP Crack Users."

Regardless, I agree--that is one poorly written headline.

I wonder if the opposite is also true. Perhaps those with lower testosterone tend to accept mergers & acquisition offers when it is not in their best interest.

The website is being hosted by a private company--Rackspace--which has a vested interest in its own self image and no obligation to host a site on its privately owned servers unless it has a contractual obligation to do so. Doesn't matter what loophole they put in their contract, they could have put "if we decide we don't like your site we will take it down," if they wanted, and if this site is indeed in violation of their contract, however loopholey it feels, they have every right to take it down. Nobody has a right to have their site hosted on someone else's server.

That said, the media is making a non-story a story. This is one crazy guy with his 50 crazy friends burning some books. He isn't a spokesperson for any organization other than the 50 crazy friends. If the Pope or Billy Graham or Richard Dawkins or some political figure decided to do this, then it might have merit as a story, but as it stands this is a very tiny molehill being made into a really huge mountain.

I pictured it pretty much as it was in the film, but I had seen the Alan Lee paintings.

'Do you think Doritos would be allowed to sell bags as "up to a pound" when they averaged 9oz and some had quite a bit less?'

I don't see why not. Isn't that exactly what w00t does with its bag of random stuff. At least, I don't think it is false advertising. They said "up to" not "averaging" so anyone who speaks english and has an iota of mathematical sense should know that they aren't going to see those speeds.

That said, I hate these companies. I just think we should complain about all the legitimate things they give us to complain about rather than engineer a problem using a bad understanding of pseudo-mathematical terms.

Oh, and the point of all this being that the OP wants to be able to jailbreak his phone through his browser even though any method of making changes to the OS via a webpage represents a serious security hole in the browser.

"There is a jailbreak application that prompts the user before downloading any PDF via the Safari browser, meaning that you have to allow the browser to download any exploit."

I, at least, read this as saying that instead of fixing the problem the jailbreak application that he would prefer Apple mimic, simply prompts a user every time they download a PDF so they have to allow the browser to "download the exploit." That means that the exploit is still in the PDF being downloaded, its just that a website can't secretly send you to a PDF when you think you are getting a webpage.

Sorry about that... I think I was reading into your post what I wanted to read, since I had already read several posts above saying exactly what I thought you were saying. Doh. (Inserts foot in mouth =D).

WHAT? The real security issue is that a website could own your device. Who cares that jailbreakers were using this to do something they wanted to do to their own devices, it could just as easily have been malicious.

You said: Once they do that, these vulnerabilities will no longer have a beneficial side to them.

I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? I can think of a ton of vulnerabilities that would have a "beneficial" side to them. Say, for instance, a website were to install a key logger and capture all your passwords, or credit card numbers, or whatever... This vulnerability is far worse than simply allowing people to jailbreak their phones. It gives some other entity remote code execution to your device and that is pretty much the worst sort of vulnerability and Apple is right to patch it as quickly as possible. Period.

So what you are saying is that Apple should leave the hole allowing a PDF to do remote code execution (which no PDF reader should allow), then they should harass all users every time they download a PDF to tell them it might have the ability to own their device (since they decided to leave the huge security hole) and all this just so that people who want to jailbreak their phones don't have to plug them into a computer via USB? You were kidding, right?