The great unwashed masses fucking EXPECT them to render in exactly the same way.

That's why.

'But it looks different at home .... blah blah blah"

If that quote above, didn't give you fits of anger, you haven't done enough web development and need to shut up on the subject you don't know anything about.

It will be 911 times 2356?

Google has already fucked with the icon in the address bar.

They have started to reject certain encryption protocols and now state "no public audit records available" for quite a number of domains and certificates. These changes went out a couple weeks ago.

So the "but they didn't start fucking with it yet!" comment is not valid. They'll request feedback and then do what they are already planning to do anyway.

Harder for whom?

I am going to bet, that the big players in the data collection game already have a way to sniff traffic in SSL mode because they stole the root keys, certificates, intermediates, and even your certificate a long time ago.

Do you really think Network Solutions or GoDaddy are going to fight off the NSA or Mosad? (if they even _wanted_to?)

They are most certainly going to far.

Last week, with the latest update of Chrome, they started putting a yellow warning triangle on any cert with SHA1 encryption. While SHA1 should be avoided, they are issuing what is basically a big "FUCK YOU" type warning. There were a number of CAs that didn't provide an option for anything else up until last year, so basically Google is forcing site owners to pony up for a new cert ahead of cycle, or do the paperwork to re-issue a cert and then re deploy it.

Likewise, Chrome is now bitching about lack of "public audit records" that have barely begun to be deployed with CAs, Let alone something that every certificate and domain have yet.

The changes mentioned in the article are not the first attempt at screwing with the function of the symbols in the address bar.

That little lock is one of the FEW things that end users have properly picked up on as part of security, now Google is undermining that. Instead of getting certs to "their standards" (who the fuck voted them boss on this?) they are going to end up teaching users what happens up there doesn't matter.

For a long time, people feared the Internet turned into something only the sanctioned big players could play in, assuming it would be media producers, TV networks, large telcos and internet providers.

Instead, we have Google doing it. If they succeed, the "little guy web site" is going to disappear from the internet.

My response is going to be "Chrome doesn't work right anymore, switch to Internet Explorer" Not going to bother complying to a standard that is unreasonable and unwanted at this time. Sure, in the FUTURE, however rushing shit through in a few months is pant-on-head retarded and extremely arrogant at the same time.

Link?

In IE 6.0, you can enable TLS 1.0. It is not on by default.

It is deep in the "Internet Settings" in "Security". Scroll down the list and find where it mentions TLS.

IE 6.0 does not do TLS 1.1 or later, so when TLS 1.0 gets shut off, you are done with it.

I believe RC4 is only in SSL 3.0 so that being on or off doesn't matter.

PS, most sites already have 3.0 off, so you may be in the clear already.

For someone asserting they know all kinds of "unknoiwn" details, you sure are behind.

The description above is called a "Constant Velocity Transmission" and both Nissan (recently) and Subaru (since the 70's) have these. Subaru has had MOST of their new non-performance car fleet use CVTs for the last three years. Nisssan's CVT uses a "pusher" belt made of stacked plates connected by a chain. Subaru, a regular chain.

This is not "specialists" parts anymore. This is just a different type of automatic transmission.

True, "going back to the old" works sometimes, often that is because materials and engineering concepts have advanced far enough to actually make the stuff work now. That doesn't mean tinkering with, or taking another try at these old methods isn't worthwhile.

Yup.

The grandparent poster is stating the socialism spin on an accurate statement.

There is no "duty" to protect the weak as it were. There just isn't. Philosophically you can't get there. That's pure political progressive ideas based on emotion and not actual thinking.

You CAN however, expand the argument a bit and come up with a compelling reason why helping the weak is actually helping yourself. First, everybody, at some point, is "weak" or "strong." For example. I am a nerd. I am generally, less physically capable than other adult men. (This is my own doing, shut up, I know.)

On the other hand, I carry a gun.

Someone, a large young man, could walk into a store and toss around a clerk or two while stealing swisher sweets and be the "strong" one. While he has no philosophical duty to protect the weak, it is SMART for him to do so, because there just may well be a nerd behind him with a loaded gun. Or, a skinny cop may tell him to get back on the sidewalk, where playing "tough" only gets the moron deaded.

The short version is, the "philosophy of using strength" gets you into conflicts in a society, where "philosophy of cooperating" tends to keep you out of conflicts. No matter how tough you are, you might end up standing in front of a nerd with a gun. This is true whether or not you are a socialist or some other political bent.

I agree they are teaching the wrong people.

Though, this effort would be best spent on the parents of the kids that get in trouble, along with the kids who DONT SHOW UP FOR SCHOOL.

What these classes do is make it clear to the non-criminals how collossally stupid the average thuglet really is. The people that need to know how not to get beat, don't pay attention to anything anybody tells them... or they would already know how not to get beat.

I suggest the sales department phone number. Those seem to be able to accomplish things with screeching to management and IT.

Yup. The market will adjust.

The problem is, the adjustments will be wild and put companies out of business.

Cocoa comes off a tree, so switching land from bananas to coca is not a "next year we'll grow that" type of transition. While that expansion happens, the price goes where ever. Also, with that start up time, a local farmer might get burned by being a little too late where large numbers of other fields are converted too. Leaving him out of business or at least less willing to do cocoa again.

If my industry relied on the good stuff, I'd be looking hard at geographically spreading my supplies out and getting production in places it hasn't been done before, AND stockpiling it if it keeps well. Just set a price, buy all of it you can.

In the cities where they are needed, that's not a whole lot of money. I bet those guys live in hovels or commute from waaaayyy outside the cities the work in.

Or, just now realizing the power structure of parallel construction, back room deals to harass people for political reasons, massive and invasive domestic eavesdropping abilities etc. are all going to be in the hands of the Republicans when Democrats lose the white house in 2016... and fearing the machine they created being turned against them.

People who "didn't do anything wrong" don't destroy emails that prove that they "didn't do anything wrong." The act of destroying the emails itself, is something wrong.