A more appropriate terminology is "hide". There is zero improvement in the gov' capacity to actually block such websites from the source (which would at least have a chance to be effective). Instead, they just mess with the DNS to "prevent access" to a list of websites containing gods know what. I wouldn't know such blockage exist without news outlet since I'm not using my ISP's DNS.
And there's not much uproar about these "weapons" (the media call the recent laws "arsenal") being targeted at everyone, very marginally hitting actual terrorists (and not, in any way, hindering their capacity to communicate and recruit). Way to go France.

Geez, improving their software's security by taking advantage of better kernel support, Google really are deadbeat stupid. Better drop the sandboxing idea, have everything in the same process, preferably run as root. We'll be all safe with this old, not up-to-date version of openssl with brand new SSL3.0 support.

The actual replies are worse than the slashdot summary; when someone asked for TSYNC support, the answer was "sounds like another good reason not to use Google Spyware". The followup are in the same vein about Flash.
Now one can have his opinion and think that Chrome/Flash are evil incarnates and must be wiped out from our universe, that doesn't change the fact that Flash still exist, is still in use by an awful lot of websites, and Chrome is the only way to get this content under Linux. Telling people "nah, not gonna have it, kthxbai" is probably more hurting than anything.

The head tracking, being sort of cut from outside visual noises, and the overall immersion? Stereoscopy is a very little aspect of a VR headset.

I hope too. Even with the best intention in the world, doing this would only have negative consequences (and not the expected one).

• Filtered content would still exist and grow happily with at most the small annoyance of hiding it slightly. Or simpler yet use a vpn that even a grandma could set up nowadays and proxy to an unfiltered ISP.
• People responsible for "drawing the line" of what is forbidden will go haywire. Any situation where the lines are fuzzy need dedicated examination and reaction, not a handful of guys saying "hey, block me this just 'cause".

But I'll admit I might be a bit optimistic trying to use logic and basic thinking about what will be a political discussion.

For desktop users.
Most "not power" user simply want their computer to access "the internet" and don't care much about anything in between. NetworkManager does just that: plug the ethernet, you get a working connection. Input a wifi password in a simple, straighforward input dialog, and it works.
I don't know if it was designed explicitely for this usage, but it work wonderfully there. In other scenarios... not so good. On a dev system, or a server, you'll want to remove it. Bet let's not forget the desktop users :)

The proposition to have multiple init system in Debian was promptly rejected with arguments ranging from infeasible to "who is going to make all these packages compatible with sysv init" (although they were compatible a few month ago).
I don't think doing it anyway in Debian was a good choice in that ambience.

Story time... A few days ago (less than a week!) the SCPP (the french RIAA) finally got a ruling forcing ISP to block TPB. At the time, we all laughed at both the idea that blocking a website is useless, and at the price we payed for this (it took a lot of court time to get this result, which translate into taxpayers money). Fastforward yesterday, TPB disappear. If the situation stay this way it will truly be a ridiculous ruling on all account. Fantastic.

No problem, he's not saying there are bugs in the Linux kernel. He's saying there were bugs in the Linux kernel.

There's some middle-ground to find. Sure, there is no 100% foolproof way to secure your network, but if a company get hacked and preliminary investigations shows that this company used debug configurations with outdated software, coupled with bad habits of storing sensitive information in a plaintext, unprotected database, then this company is guilty of something.

Why should you rely on others opinion when it's free on every major system for you to test it out, and install almost instantly given you don't have an internet connection from the third-world?

As per tradition, I didn't RTFA, but Microsoft have a nasty history with opensource and licensing. It's so bad, that some developer take care of not *seeing* any MS source to avoid future litigation... I would be very careful with the condition attached to using .Net.

You.... don't?

This one is too hard to defend. Sometimes I've been really enthusiastic about small and/or useless stuff on crowdfunding sites and early access stuff, but this is simply overpriced off the shelve hardware with a sticker...

Well, as long as there are people willing to send money to them, I suppose it's a "good" idea from a commercial point of view...

Ah, I get it you don't take the subway (or other crowded public transportations) too often...

Regarding the time needed for this, when I put my own card behind my phone, it really worked in roughly a single second. And it does work as fast through multiple layers of clothing as long as there's nothing metallic in the way. Now, in very crowded area, peoples get pushed on each others. If it was enough in the past for a skilled pickpocket to steal your wallet without you noticing, clearly it's enough promiscuity to do a contactless swipe over your pocket.

Now, the question of multiple NFC cards is real, but you assume that people who have multiple contactless cards hold them all in the same place. Unfortunately, for it to mitigate this "attack", all the card need to be on the same technology (for example, my transportation card doesn't talk NFC and don't seem to interfere with my phone NFC reading capabilities). And some people find it more convenient to "spread" their contactless card, so they can just push their wallet/handbag/whatever on the NFC reader instead of taking out the card itself. Again, convenience my very well be in the path of security.

So, all in all, yes, I have evidence that reading an NFC card through clothes can be done efficiently and go unnoticed. Also, since you mention tinfoil wallet time, for NFC it might be enough. I said it in another post, but a "simple" metallic card holder render my cards invisible as far as my phone NFC reader is concerned, so it might be a short term solution. But I also don't doubt that it's infaillible, as boosting the signal from the receiver side might be enough to get through that. YMMV.

Don't know about "faraday cage" wallets, but I carry most of my cards in a simple metallic case that loosely close (it's not airtight or anything). It is enough for my phone to not pick up the card inside when I put them together, so I suppose it would be a severe hindrance to people trying to read an NFC card with a quick bump.

Still, some tweaked hardware to boost the signal on the receiver side might get through. Hmm I need to run some more tests...