Two words: Fox News.

Perhaps, but my point about zealotry, not ideology or religion, being the issue stands.

That you know about. It's entirely possible that things went on in retaliation for Piss Christ that were not reported by the media. If the editor of the newspaper that would have run the story was a crazy fundie, he/she could decide that running the article would make it harder for them to retaliate the next time, so under the radar it goes.

Zealotry is zealotry, whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Athiest, Capitalist, Libertarian...

The major American AV vendors announced a joint task force today to respond to these results.

When asked how they would ensure that corporate members of the task force would be held accountable for this sort of cheating, their spokesperson responded with the following:

"Accountable for cheating? No, no, no, the point of the task force is to keep from getting caught like this."

There's no rule of law in the USA either, if you have enough money and your skin is the right color.

Because it's a browser from Microsoft. They don't have a great track record. I can't wait to see all the "standards" they make up so that everyone has to do their site design twice.

Rand Paul should focus on freedom of communication, which sidesteps this debate once and for all.

It's not about freedom, it's about letting corporations do whatever the fuck they want. It's only freedom if you don't have to give a shit about anyone else.

It's not a "crappy" car. I quite like it. It gets better mileage than any SUV, it's fun to drive, and it has all the toys that I want.

Using less gas helps others. Driving a car that doesn't weigh 3 tons helps others. Driving a car that doesn't block others' view helps others. Not driving a car that overcompensates for any physical shortcomings helps others.

But you're convinced it doesn't matter what car you drive so long as you like it. Our choices affect others. I wish you could see that.

"*overpaid empty suit* is leaving to spend more time with his family."

"Change it or you're fired."

He got his non-compliant password.

Executives are immune from inconvenient policy.

Don't know about that, and don't care. I left that shithole a year and a half ago.

It's certainly your problem when they fire you for not doing it.

If the policy in place is dumb, make it obviously so. This way it can be solved, if you don't do it, you are part of the problem.

In my experience, the dumbness of the policy is directly proportional to the difficulty in making anyone understand how dumb it is. It's also directly proportional to the likelihood that someone whose job title starts with "Chief" wrote the policy and will not change it, no matter what.

It's also dumb to allow the CEO to have a non-expiring password that is the name of the company. But good luck telling the CEO he can't have it. I'll see you at the unemployment office.

And sometimes not even then. I was at a company when they had a breach involving financial info. It cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase credit protection for thousands of our customers. However, they just kept on operating the same way, storing credit card information in the clear because that's the way they've always done it, and upgrading the back-office accounting system to allow tokenization of transactions would have cost money. Nobody in upper management had the balls to go to the CFO and say "You will fix this, and you will fix it now. I don't want any excuses. Get it done."

So, as far as I know, they're still doing it. At least they're not storing CVV numbers anymore...

You want a big company to actually do what it promised it will do? Why do you hate America?