True. But bad Node.js code is faster than bad Ruby code. Will probably have even more bugs in it, though, because of the limitations present in both Javascript and Node.js.

I've got a Samsung S3 with a broken screen sitting at home. I was getting out of our truck with my hands full, and my phone fell. I think it actually broke when it hit the running board. My fault, and these things happen. I have a new screen to put on it, but I haven't gotten a heat gun yet to remove the old one. I didn't know how easy they were to replace until I was at a car dealer, and the financing guy saw the broken phone and showed me the kit to replace the screen, and says he does it all the time for friends and family. (He happened to have one in his office because a coworker had broken her phone.)

-5 seconds to comply...
-10 seconds to comply...
(They're unarmed.)

Big ship turns slow -- the inertia of government / judiciary is fearsome.

Maybe they spent the time gathering intel and evidence, dotting Is and crossing Ts. Building a case. Due process and all that.

Either way.. win!

No, the Mom and Pop likely uses a 3rd-party payment processor.

What, you thought *everyone* taking credit / debit payments have their own in-house?

Mom and Pop don't have their own POS. They use payment processing houses. It's the Big Dogs that have their own POS systems.

So you'd rather have it so there are no Federal consequences for being a sloppy, lazy, bug-infested easy target?

Sometimes regulation protect all of us, not just corporations. This could be one of those.

OK, I have a non-regulated approach to fighting breaches: If your company is stupid enough to get breached, the banks and card issuers must block you from doing credit and debit card business again -- ever. Good luck with cash-only.

Is that too cold-hearted for you? You'd rather have that instead of rules and consequences for data breaches?

The last sentence of TFS has a link to an article mentioning bankers are pressuring retailers to pay for the banks' costs in a post-breach cleanup.

Money talks. In this case the bankers hold all the cards and the retailers will have no choice but to armor their payment systems. That, or spend hand-over-fist in cleanup and damaged reputation.

Which road will they take? The cheaper one -- which I suspect is to armor their POS systems.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I've lived in the US my entire life, and I've read a lot about the rise and fall of the Berlin Wall, but the GP post was the very first time I'd heard this supposed strong connection between Reagan's speech and the wall falling. His speech may have been a significant event - everyone remembers "Tear down this wall!" - but I've never heard the theory that that's what caused the opening. I've also never heard that the Hoff had anything to do with it, either, other than singing atop it after the gates opened. I didn't bother to check the article for the other three people.

There was a roach bug in that film. Complete with electronics backpack and ridiculous but hilarious dish antenna.

Instead of confusing directions from relatives, you occasionaly get improbable confusing directions from your satnav.

"Ahead, drive straight ahead" twice in 30 seconds.
*looks at map*
The blue line showing intended course shows a left turn. "Dammit, left turn in 500 feet? WTF?" followed by quick mirror glance and hard left if possible. Which isn't often at all. x.x

Tom Tom, get yer shit together!

After using satnav for 5 years I can see how we (US) can miss the intended target and make a holy place a holey one instead by accident.

I still won't go back to paper.

It's probably the same list for each candidate from the two major parties.

Often, they build an assembly plant in the US to get around this issue. Then, this happens.

Aha! The real reason why <> has been deprecated in favour of !=

I think a technical debunking of her claims of being hacked is ideal Slashdot material.

We don't have enough information yet. to properly analyse those claims. What I've seen written so far has been sensationalised and technically incoherent. That's reason enough to dismiss it, but not reason enough to consider it proven false.