Thanks for this. My experience with the refurb vendors has been fair to terrible. I wonder if I should just replace the caps on a leaky refurb toner I got. Brother makes good machines and sells their carts for a king's ransom. I was literally contemplating $50 more for a new Brother color laser than for a set of toner carts for my existing Brother color laser. The refurbs run 25% of the cost, but I'd rather refill them myself now that I know it's possible.

As to the OP - don't spend a gallon of gasoline to bring a toner cart in for recycling - just toss in the trash if that's your only option (for a brand without a mail-back program). Economics is hard, but recycling without considering economics is stupid.

I don't like what you're saying, but it's true. For this reason I disable ipv6 wherever I care about security (vmlinuz ipv6.disabled=1), because I can't trust the existing implementations and I'm pretty sure there will be data leakage if I don't (this story doesn't help assuage my concerns). Therefore, I'm not engaged in filing bug reports very much, because I mostly have to avoid it. Quite a Catch-22.

Also my ISP doesn't offer it and most endpoints don't offer it, so it just adds latency for Internet operations. There are clearly incentives missing or the situation would be better. The recent move to monetize IPv4 space transfers might finally be the impetus needed for network operators to move their internal nets to IPv6, but look at Android 5 not even supporting DHCPv6 (which administrators seem to want) and you can see how far we have to go - whether Google or the admins wind up backing down, there are still fundamental philosophical disagreements about how v6 should be disabled and no amount of shouting "but I'm right" will solve it. That's in 2015 with at least a lead time of five years for everybody to get on the same page, *after* there is agreement. And even if monetization of IPv4 does start to work, the BGP community has had its head in the sand for two decades and really can't handle it.

IPv6 is necessarily more complex than IPv4 since it shifts the complexity of kludges into services (the tech schools aren't even teaching it so only alpha nerds even understand the stack) and fundamentally the transition plan was "we'll make a spec and then everybody will support it for altruistic reasons") which is such a monumental failure in understanding human action that it's socially embarrassing to be associated with the spec. The IPv6 transition will be a warning to future generations about how not to advance technology in society.

Yet we still need it.

Personally, I find jQuery great as the baseline to support bespoke programming solutions.

There is a LOT of love for framework over libraries like jQuery, but in my experience most hit up against Dietzler's Law* pretty hard. with frameworks one has to be rock solid in the real browsers stuff AND the framework one chose AND the hacks you had to set up to meet the gap between requirements and the framework sweetspot. (vs bespoke, where it's just the real browser stuff and then straight to the gap ;-)

*Dietzler's Law: "Every Access project will eventually fail because, while 80% of what the user wants is fast and easy to create, and the next 10% is possible with difficulty, ultimately the last 10% is impossible because you can’t get far enough underneath the built-in abstractions, and users always want 100% of what they want" - but it's generally applicable

It will display a warning and let you continue

No, it won't - and that's the whole problem. It prompted me to write this piece on re-enabling SSLv3 on Firefox which is probably the most heavily-trafficked post I've done on that blog.

Most of these devices will support HTTP and HTTPS. The posture of the browser developers is to blow up HTTPS support on SSLv3 everywhere, regardless of the risk profile.

There are very few people who are going to get $1100 to replace a PDU because the current one only supports SSLv3. As it currently stands, those people have to re-enable SSLv3 for the whole Internet on their browsers to admin their local devices. Pretty soon they will have to stop updating their web browsers entirely.

There are only two possible real world outcomes:
1) people will re-enable HTTP administration and start sending their passwords cleartext on their LANs
2) the very people in companies who do security work will be running outdated browsers, on purpose, to connect to their gear.

3) a million dollars will appear overnight in a company's budget to replace gear for highly theoretical risks

simply is not an option that exists concurrent with reality.

If the browser engineers had handled the situation the same way as self-signed certs, or even made a more complex UI to specifically whitelist certain hostnames or subnets, then we could have made a reasonable transition. But that would have been hard work with real analysis required, and why do that when flipping a switch and boldly posturing is more crypto-macho?

The very same people who jeered corporate people for staying on IE6 are creating exactly the same situation in regards to SSLv3. They may understand a narrow aspect of cryptography very well, but they completely fail to understand the security of complex systems. They are hurting the security and privacy we're working so hard to achieve. Jeers indeed.

Or be a better netizen by running your own and forwarding to your ISP's.

The whole reason OpenDNS even exists is because ISP's proved they cannot be trusted to run an honest DNS. And let's not pretend that DNSSEC is universally deployed.

Most people here can setup up a 99 cent VPS with an openvpn endpoint running a recursive resolver, limited to the openvpn net. That fits in the smallest slice of RAM available in 2015 and will work fine.

Most other people cannot, though. Google's DNS is honest, if you don't care about tracking - but most people care more about free stuff than privacy.

If he has any brains, simply send every time there is "discovery" the same sheet of paper proving he has had it for 15 years.

You can tell the plaintiffs lawyers to go fuck them selves over and over and over again.

I have actually used the words "go fuck yourself" in response to a lawyers letter.

Lawyers hate being called out as the spineless slime they are.

Lemon Pledge. No seriously. The high dollar aircraft windshield treatment for bugs and water called Plexus is nothing more than Pledge wax with no scent.

Lemon pledge is used heavily by high mileage motorcyclists for years.

American corporations will instead do the following.

Get a government grant for the coatings, claim the actual full purchase price at full retail as the cost and pass that cost to ticket buyers.

Use the 5% fuel savings as a ,"we are saving the planet.... see? SEE?" advertising campaign.

Also add the costs of the advertising to the ticket prices.

Profits go up an additional 75%, claim they need more government subsidies.

and now retroactively Oracle can claim copyright on it?

No, there's no retroactive claim necessary under the Berne Convention - everything anybody ever writes is automatically copyrighted. All expression is by default subsumed by the State under that treaty (so cut the guys going apeshit over TPP some slack).

You wanted the government controlling every aspect of human interaction, you got it. Now the US software industry can proceed to burn in flames, the way the democracy wants (hence the term democracide).

If there's a silver lining, it's that this will breed further contempt for the law among the educated. As they flee its jurisdiction.

The idea that we can not produce enough "green" energy is simply idiotic, and certainly not insightful.

Can vs. should. Many more people are dying falling off roofs installing solar panels than have ever died from a nuclear power plant. Fear is a motivation that achieves terrible results.

"Oh, it's just human lives - I'll take my fear, thanks" seems to be the current attitude of the econuts. We can't call them 'greens' or 'environmentalists' because they're really just supporting coal power, empirically. Real environmentalists rationally seek solutions that minimize environmental impact. Unless depopulation is also a goal, but why would they want to depopulate the solar installers first?

Covering 1/4 of New Mexico has been proposed as well - fewer roof-fall deaths, but an ecological disaster to fence of that much environment (not to mention the impact of the rare-earth mining in China that fuels these things).

Maybe Gates will come up with the needed order-of-magnitude improvement that we need. But it won't be on rooftops because the very best we can mathematically hope for is a low single-digit multiplier (3 would be *amazing*, 4 approaches impossible).

I'm one of the people who voted to shut down Rancho Seco back in the day,

And "thar's yer problem". Energy problems are all political at this point, not technical. Nuclear plants are less dangerous than other forms of power, even including the crappy old light water reactors we have to deal with (and which should have gone extinct by now, except for politics, especially the dominance of public nuclear insurance).

One thing Gates could do, that would be really good, is to advance the progress of superconductors. It already is cost-effective to run superconducting cables for power, if your demand is as great as NYC, but it's still only good for short runs.

With superconductors we could even deal with the political problems of nuclear power by putting most of the plants out in the Nevada desert and running the power on superconductors to where it needs to get used. For that matter, he could fund studies of a theory of gravity that might help us get to high-temp superconductors faster.

There are dozens of variables that all interplay; presumably Gates is aware of those factors and won't be too narrow-minded. A quarter billion dollars in lobbying money for the diffuse energy consumers' interests would do tremendous good in our corrupt system that's otherwise intent on democracide.

How is it that only now anyone is introducing a reputation system to this industry?

Because a reputation system would have been harmful to the cartels' profits so the politicians were well-paid to ensure that didn't ever happen?

How is it that only now the barrier of entry to this industry is coming down?

Because a reputation system would have been harmful to the cartels' profits so the politicians were well-paid to ensure that didn't ever happen?

What exactly does a stringently controlled supply of government-licensed "taxi" drivers do for the consumer anyway?

Ensure the cartels' profits, a nominal revenue stream for the city, and a stream of graft for the politicians?

Wait ... which part of this situation hasn't been obvious for 80 years? The same conditions apply in nearly every politically-regulated industry (which is why consumer-regulation is always far more effective).

they are hopelessly incapable of spotting that corruption

To call out that corruption in a different situation is to deny yourself the very corruption you enjoy in your favored situation.

The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else.
- Frederic Bastiat, 1848

The patterning comes from young children not challenging their parents' misbehavior, for genetic fear of being left to starve on a hillside. The fundamental problem is American adults who are willing to allow themselves to be treated as children.

Most of them a good 51% of the human population are idiots.

This is from personal observation and working a few years when I was young at an amusement park. the bulk of people are really morons.

Taze yourself, Guaranteed to get far more likes and clicks than any selfie you can take.