Removng TSYNC support would be incredibly stupid. You have no idea what your talking about. The feature is there to sandbox the browser. Given the history of security problems in nearly all C software programs, this is of critical importance. TSYNC can also be used by all other network programs in the system as well, so this is not chrome specific. Firefox needs to use this feature badly. Just backport the feature to older kernels. This is what Debian is refusing to do because they are a bunch of stubborn fools. Debian basically wants to keep their users unnecessarily in a less secure state because they dont like Google.

The feature added on the kernel side is not particularly for Chrome, it can be used by other networked applications, in fact, such use would be highly advisable. Firefox needs to use this itself, and can. Its a sandbox feature for protecting the system from a compromised process. Its debian that refused to apply the patch for older kernels. The feature should be considered a security patch as the situation with browsers, not just the browser but some plugins some users use such as Flash, has become serious enough that having a sandbox nowadays is a critical extra layer of security. You basically shouldnt be running a browser without the sandbox anyway. So backport the sandbox to older kernels and be done with it.

Its not bloatware. The feature is something that can be widely used by any networked program, it provides a security layer. Given the problems browsers have faced with security issues, its a badly needed extra layer of security. You are basically saying that protecting the system from an compromised process is bloatware. Thats nonsense. If anything, Firefox needs to play catch up to implement the sandbox.

They are not specific to chrome browsers. Firefox can use these too.

The feature added is something that is generally useful for a large number of network applications, not just Chrome. Its a sandbox feature that other programs and servers could benefit from, not just Chrome. Given the dangers of the web browser today, you basically shouldnt be running a browser without a sandbox, the security imperative is certainly justified enough for a backporting of the feature to older kernels to add the additional security.

Whether you use a card or a device, the only safe form of electronic payment is one that encrypts the data from your card or device all the way to the bank. You don't want the POS to be able to read it. The US is way behind the times on this and it took billion dollar scams for US banks to finally push chipped cards in the US, which Europe has had for years. This is the apathy and complacency which leads to so many problems. I saw a woman using a smartphone to pay and the smartphone would display a pattern on its screen, hopefully that was a one time code because someone nearby could take a picture of it and use it in a replay attack. Note that credit cards still have the number printed on them in very very visible numbers, how easy would it be for someone nearby to take a shot of the card with their cell phone cam when you are swiping it? Thats why even the numbers bring printed on the credit card can be a security threat. Perhaps the number should be hidden on a pull out piece of plastic that is stored inside the card, so that it is not normally visible.

A lot of people care about video over LAN, which has many uses. Why wouldnt they? There are those who want to be able to have their own video station or use video conferencing capabilities. This is an application layer thing so can work over LANs or WANs.

They may or not release a proposed rule, this is true. however that does not change the fact that they did not.

Fail. That is not true. Blatantly untrue.

Show the link to the rule. Maybe they will release it AFTER they vote on it but it was not available yesterday. You sir are the idiot. You dont know what your talking about.

I double checked and you are WRONG and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is no public copy of the rule. Just the summary which is NOT legally binding. If this is so benign then why dont they make the rule available? How can anyone comment or have an opinion on a rule they have not read and therefore they do not know what is in it.

There is no rule available regarding what will be voted on Thursday. You are mistaken about this, if the rule is there, where is it? What you posted was a Summary which has no binding legal effect. Why not simply post a link to the rule?

NO! You are wrong! You don't know what your talking about. There is no online copy of the rule that will be voted on, on Thursday, that I could find anyway. That was a SUMMARY! It has absolutely no legal bearing. We have no idea whats in the final rule.

If its all so benign, then why is the regulation itself secret and not available for public review. Also, the size of the regulation at 320 pages is very suspicious, its hard to understand how so many pages could be needed for what seems like a few simple rules.

A free market works to weed out abusive bad companies that provide bad service and products IF there is a lot of consumer choice, markets can work very well. The reason markets do not function well with broadband is its a near natural monopoly, or a natural duopoly rather. Because of the huge investments needed in the infrastructure its only possible for a few companies to be involved. So, the effect of the market is weak to non-existant, thats why regulation of these kinds of things can be beneficial.

There are some other cases such as consumer safety. If you didnt have regulation of restaurants, when people are harmed from food poisoning, those restaurants might go out of business yes, but food poisoning is too a high a price to pay for relying on market response. The market response tends to be reactive, and sometimes you have restaurants run by the incompetent who dont care or understand the threat to their business that food poisoning cases would involve, people should not pay with their health until we can find out what restaurants are badly run. So, pre-emptive regulations that prevent food poisoning in the first place is well justified. Other things about restaurants such as the taste of the food are unregulated however since they are not deadly and the market can be left to react to this.