Then either the price goes up a bunch or Bitcoin isn't actually being all that disruptive.

You missed a third alternative.... The price of Argentinian Pesos crashes utterly. So that amount of pesos officially worth "$50B USD" crashes down and becomes worth "$1B USD"

Argentenians buying Bitcoins doesn't necessarily elevate the value of Bitcoins ----- it can equally devaluate Pesos, resulting in more and more Pesos sold for fewer and fewer BTC per Peso.

That circles around towns lowering 'hooks' to grab people at designated points, pick them up, whisks them through the air aways -- without having to load them up into a cabin, and drops them off at their destination when they push their personal 'eject' button.

Did he sell the M60? No? Then no, he didn't complete Step 4.

I suspect Step 4. is totally awesome duck-hunting, not selling it.

A person in the FCC with past in the industry can be biased in favor of their previous employers in some ways, and not so biased in others.

In other words: the bias can be unintentional or subconcious and systemic ---- For example, it can lead to certain ways of thinking about certain policies ; However, in extreme situations, they will not overtly side with their past employer when it would be obviously to unfair degree against the interests of whom you are supposed to serve.

A good outcome out of a few policy definitions cannot definitely affect this for the positive.

It can be very easy to prove bias exists, if you have an extreme enough pattern.

Proving no bias or "fair treatment" not counting more than fair weight to the corporate position of previous employers, in policymaking consideration; would be extremely difficulty (if impossible) to ever establish.

So they're trying to protect the site's reputation AND their users' security.

Sure, they take the notification seriously and are patching by all apparent counts --- i'm not doubting that they are concerned about their site's security as well.

That doesn't fully speak to the purpose of the "responsible disclosure" policy, and why they've decided to smite the researcher, however.

Groupon doesn't fear bad PR. If it was afraid of bad press, it would have folded long ago.

Possibly they don't mind bad press, but i'll bet they mind press that says their site is insecure, or that if you do businesses with them, "Your identity/credit card number might get stolen"

That's probably why they got fussy and denied the researcher's bounty, when a note that a XSS bug (without substantive details) had been published.

Sounds like maybe the "responsible disclosure" policy was about protecting the site's reputation, not their users' security.

Can you explain why?

Because there are too few of them to pose a significant risk. There is an acceptable margin of non-vaccinated people.

And the number of people who are immunocompromised, or cannot have vaccination due to legitimate medical reasons is such a small number, that they fall within the margin of acceptable risk.

The number of people attempting to avoid vaccination for the sake of convenience, Or based on unqualified hearsay or personal opinion, far exceeds the acceptable margin.

Therefore, yes, as a whole: this group of people is more infectious and a much more serious public health danger.

They should disclose these vulnerabilities to build a safer Internet, not to line their pockets.

A safer internet doesn't put food on their table.

It's Groupon who is lining their pockets, when they could be building a safer internet by actually paying money for security. It's the reluctants of companies to take security seriously and spend time and money on it that leads to an unsafe internet.

And then we get dumb things like this "responsible disclosure program," which is really not about protecting users, but protecting Groupon's reputation. That is to say... it's a PR-protecting policy, not a policy for protecting users' safety. The unintentional disclosure they referenced regarding ONE of the 30 vulnerabilities didn't even reveal meaningful information about the vulnerability, therefore: Groupon was not concerned about exploit details being disclosed, but ONLY the fact that there was publicity being generated that said their site was insecure.

The researchers need the bounty proceeds to justify spending the time researching to discover them. It's the companies that are lining their pockets, by avoiding hiring people like these folks and other security professionals to do this ----- instead offering small bounties, only available if they DO discover something wrong after spending possibly thousands of hours beating around looking for something wrong.

Not being vaccinated is more like not digging a fire break around my house.

Your living spaces are right by each other, but you don't want to install the fire barrier required by the building code to stop rapid spread of fire, because you heard it through the grape vine that fire barriers fail catastrophically and cause cancer.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is; the authority having jurisdiction can deny you the right to occupy that structure, and issue an order that it be remediated into compliance within 10 days or will be demolished.

It isn't the community's job because it is no job at all. Property rights, living rights, trading rights, and travel rights are all pretty fundamental and it requires no effort to not interfere in them.

Wrong. It does require efforts to support these legal rights. Property rights require assignment of rights to a scarce public resource (land). Property rights require ownership records, police and courts to protect, and support infrastructure. Travel requires maintenance of roads.

They are not human rights; or more specifically, they are not among the inalienable rights. They are rights that can be and are withheld, not given to, or taken away from people.

Property/travel/trade rights are frequently withheld from people who fail to pay taxes, fail to appear when summoned by the court to appear, or who fail to meet other standards or fulfill other duties that have been imposed upon them; Even people travelling in a dangerous manner, can lose travel rights due to DUI, can get fines for speeding --- ultimately resulting in restriction of travel (loss of license), or jail time, in some cases.

Refusing to take vaccinations is really no different fundamentally from refusing to do other thinks required.

Why should your right to drive how you want

Driving is a highly-regulated activity, and as officials are apt to repeat often: your eligibility for a license to do so is a privilege, not a right.

The same is true, also... regarding your ability to access public goods in any manner.

You have the right to equal protection under the law; however, so you have protection from being deprived of the privilege, except if you fail to meet a standard required by the law.

Disobeying a traffic law can lead to failure to meet the standard: resulting in revocation of any privileges the law sees fit to revoke.

So vaccination could be the same.....

It seems like people might have more second thoughts about this whole home schooling thing; if in addition proof of vaccination or medical exemption were required not only to access schools, BUT also for the person to take a GED exam after, to obtain or renew driver's licenses, to board a plane or train, to enter a concert or other public event, to open a bank account, to transfer real property, or to obtain a passport.

No, it really isn't. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you feel it is justified to force vaccinations on others for your own health benefit.

It's part of the social contract. If someone feels that it isn't their civic duty to take the proper vaccinations required and demanded of them for their part in protecting society, Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.

Such rights only exist under the civilized society, AND if you choose to live in the civilized society, then you MUST take every obligation that comes with that choice --- that choice is only available if you also are to pay your taxes, and respect the well-being of other people, for example: by not killing them, or robbing from them, BUT, also, taking the required steps to see that you are not making them sick or putting their lives at risk through your own negligence.

Failure to receive the minimal recommended and required vaccinations is negligence.

It's no different than creating a humongous unreasonable fire hazard in your backyard, and claiming you have no duty to prevent it from catching your neighbor's house on fire; that just aint so..

Such people who would refuse vaccination for no provable and rationally justifiable medical reason --- can and should then be put into quarantine or deported / removed from civilized areas, with steps taken to ensure they stay out until they agree to vaccination.

any program that can control what happens within its address space can manipulate data moving in and out of the CPU cache.

Yes, but it cannot observe what data from other processes is moving out of the cache The attacking process already has to know what bits the other process might have in the cache that they are attempting to time. The cache side-channel attacks are using statistical techniques... in artificially constructed scenarios: where only one other process has shared data you want to do a timing attack against.

It only works when the spying process knows the bits; And the timing at which those shared known bits are accessed, reveals information that can be used to infer other bits

Cryptographic algorithms are susceptible to this, BUT the algorithms and implementations can be made resistant through various methods.

Ireland either (1) Agrees to a new treaty extending US National Security Letter, wiretap, and subpoena privileges to cover resources hosted in Ireland, OR (2) Ireland gets added by the US to the state sponsors of terrorism list

Only because it's socially unacceptable to even joke about that / most people don't find that very funny / some people may not recognize it as a joke, and it can cause panic since the joke is too "believable", so even jokingly it's a terrorist threat.

On the other hand..... "Dropping O2 masks"; isn't the same.

Even if it's not a joke: how exactly is that life-threatening?

Dropping O2 masks falsely would be property damage for the airline, since now they would incur additional expenses after the flight to restore/reset safety systems, not a life-threatening event in itself.