So the NSA compelled you to hand over your old keys. Now you've generated new one. Gee, if only the NSA had some way to compel you to hand over those new signing keys, too.

I seriously can't believe you didn't think that one through

A few weeks ago I want to Costco. I wasn't yet aware that they even carried 4K TVs. I wasn't even paying particular attention to the TV section. As I was walking by, I just glanced over at one of the 4K TVs without knowing what it is, and I was like "Holy crap, thats amazing! What is it?". My wife looked over and had the same reaction. I looked at the tag and realized it was a 4K. I've never had a reaction quite like that to any TV I've ever seen. I believe it was a 55" model (they caried 2 sizes, and it was the smaller of the two), and I was probably about 10 feet away.

Follow the first link in the article. It includes a slide of words/phrases you should use instead. So, instead of "problem", you should say "issue", "condition", or "matter". Instead of "defect" you should say "does not perform to design". OK, I suppose those make sense.

And what about the word "safety"? Well, it says that instead, you should use the phrase "has potential safety implications".

In theory, yes your super secure system should not leak any info. On the other hand, it's nice when you also make this stuff user friendly.

because some systems allow any username, some require email addresses instead, some require username but have some sort of odd limitation on it (must be 10 chars, or must have a number, or 2 numbers, etc), it's actually quite useful to know if I've even got the right username before attempting all of the passwords it might be (which again may be various, because you've imposed stupid limitations on what the password can or cannot be).

Furthermore, if you are going to lock me out of the account, please let me know how many attempts I have. This is especially important on systems which do a permanent lockout (rather than a 20 minute lockout or whatever), which requires a phone call to unlock (a few banks are guilty of this). If I've got 5 tries and can't remember it after 4 tries, then I'll just give in and use the password reset option rather than lock myself out and have to waste time on the phone with customer service.

And then in light of the above two points, if you've got a captcha and you don't tell me what the problem is with my login attempts, I'm going to have to kill you. Captchas these days are so convoluted, it's actually pretty routine to get them wrong. So when my login attempt fails, I'm going to assume over and over that it's the captcha that I'm just not reading correctly (is that distorted Y character an uppercase or lowercase?). When I try that 10 times, only to later discover that the problem was that I couldn't use one of my usual login names because your website required me to use 2 numbers in my login name, blood will be spilled.

Also, in reply to your previous post:

Error, on your part. You just proceeded to tell us about the vulnerabilities in your login system, therefore you too are in error when you say your product is a secure login system. :-)

Really? Stock ownership has nothing to do with production? Let me ask you a series of questions:

Why does the stock exist in the first place? Did the actual owners/producers just decide that they wanted to be kind and give away a share of their potential future profits? No, the reason is that the owners decided they wanted to give up a portion of their ownership equity in exchange for money that they could use to help grow the company. So the person who bought the stock gave them money to grow the company. Sure seems like they produced something.

So now you might say that only applies to the original stock purchaser, who gave the money directly to the company, and that it doesn't apply to secondary purchasers shift money-for-stock back and forth. Well, that ALMOST makes sense. Except that in most circumstances, the original purchaser wouldn't have purchased had they not known there was a secondary-sale market for them to sell off their stock to either cash in on the success of their investment (if the business succeeds) or cash out their remaining value (if the business stays flat or fails).

Now, in some cases, the company itself might offer to buy back the stock directly (eliminating the need for a secondary-sale market), but usually that's not the case. The company usually wants to keep their hands on that money so they can continue to grow the business.

So I would contend that stock ownership enables business growth, which grows production.

I love that logic. By your reasoning, we had been using asbestos for 4500 years, so surely if there was something inherently unsafe about it, we would have known about it 4400 years ago.

One? Just one plant? Even if you are just talking about Detroit itself, ignoring the suburbs, there is a GM plant and 2 Chrysler plants in Detroit. But when people talk about Detroit and auto companies, they mean the entire metro detroit area. And in that area, there is:

Ford: (Wayne, Flat Rock)
GM: (Detroit, Orion)
Chrysler: (Detroit x 2, Sterling Heights, Warren)

So that's 8 auto assembly plants in metro Detroit. Yep, just one plant here.

If Costco never planned to sell it, that would be one thing. However, Costco was initially going to sell it and then rejected it after the first several loads were leaking oil. That certainly wouldn't help their case.

Not at Costco, they don't. Costco sells thing in only 1 size: fucking huge.

But more seriously, if this happens to be the Kirkland brand natural peanut butter that Costco sells, it comes in a 2-pack of 40oz jars.

Please, give me a break. Do you really buy into all the expiration date BS? Yes, some stuff expires relatively quickly, but most of it is BS...a combination of covering their ass and encouraging you to throw good product out to buy more. The best is when I see stuff like bottles of vinegar or water dated only a few months out. Give me a break.

But that aside...RTFS:
"Costco initially agreed to allowing the peanut butter to be sold"

Yes, I'm sure Costco agreed to sell a product that was so clearly rancid that even some slashdot poster could tell just by reading about it.

If you knew a little bit about how macrovision worked, you'd be able to reason why your "fun fact" doesn't make logical sense. So let me give you some details

1) Most VCRs (I'm not sure if this was always the case or only in later years) contain an automatic gain control in the recording mechanism. The AGC would try to adjust the picture brightness based on the signal it received, so that what you recorded would be neither too dark nor too bright. I'm not familiar with the exact mechanisms they use to calculate how much adjustment to apply. Many VCRs also apply this AGC processing to signals that are merely passing through the VCR, even if you aren't recording

2) As an unrelated fact, analog video signals actually include the closed captioning data encoded into the video feed. This data is encoded into a part of the video stream that usually isn't displayed on your TV. However, sometimes you may see this data when playing back the analog signal on a digital display, if overscanning is turned off. If you've ever seen video with a row of black and white dots/bars at the top, that's the closed captioning data.

3) Along comes Macrovision. Some assholes discovered that if you manipulate the signal contained in the closed captioning data, you can often screw with the AGC mechanism in VCRs, causing it to repeatedly alter the video signal from brighter to darker. Also, because VCRs often apply this AGC to signals being passed through, this also explains why you usually couldn't hook up your DVD player to your VCR to get around the fact that your older TV didn't have RCA inputs.

So if you think about this, there is no reason why it should matter if the VCRs are the same brand. With any VCR, the signal it outputs is going to be the same, no matter whether hooked up to a TV, a VCR of the same brand, or of a different brand. Likewise, the input signal is going to be processed the same, no matter whether coming from a VCR of the same brand or different brand, a DVD player, a camcorder, or a cable box. The only thing that makes the difference is the implementation of AGC in the VCR. Either
A) Your VCR implements AGC in a manner that is susceptible to macrovision manipulation
B) Your VCR implements AGC in a manner that ignores this extra data.
C) Your VCR doesn't do AGC

If the VCR doing the recording falls into category A, then it won't work right. If the VCR falls into category B or C, then the macrovision won't have any effect on you. I think Occam would say that the simplest explanation would be that the VCRs you worked with fall into category B or C.

It's kind of funny you didn't even bother to read my post carefully before responding

Firefox: " Once the memory hits about 800MB, it starts to hiccup/pause all the time. When it gets to its worst, I can't even watch a video on youtube without it pausing for 1/2 second every 5 seconds"

Chrome: "Chrome is using nearly 3GB of memory...Despite that, performance is still perfect."

Clearly from my post, I don't care very much how much memory the app uses. It's the fact that, as firefox grows in memory size, it becomes less and less responsive. Chrome at 3GB seems no less responsive to me than Chrome at 60 MB. Can't say the same for firefox, not even at 800MB (and I'd have to kill myself before suffering long enough for it to actually get up to 3GB).

The question was asked: "I really just don't see why anyone would use Chrome...What positive purpose does it serve?". I was simply answering. Isn't that what we do here in slashdot discussions?

As for any denial, there's nothing for me to be in denial about. I've been using chrome as my primary browser for (I'd guess) approximately 2 years now and I've never had cause to complain about it. Like I already acknowledged, memory footprint is probably the big issue people complain about with Chrome, but that's a negligible issue to me. I've got plenty of memory.

I do tons of web development, so I'm back and forth between these browsers (and others) on a regular basis for development purposes, but for regular use I stick to Chrome and have seen no reason to switch back to Firefox. My wife is much more of your ordinary, non-technical user. She was the first one to make the switch to Chrome permanently because of several issues she had (which went away once using Chrome). My mother-in-law has a very old, quite under-powered machine. Somewhere along the line, firefox started becoming extremely unresponsive to the mouse. It's the only application that behaves that way. No idea what caused it (tried updating video drivers and searching online for solutions...no luck). Switched her to chrome and it's been fine for her (she never uses more than 1 tab, so memory issues are not a problem for her underpowered machine either)

Those are just my experiences. Like I said earlier, your experiences may differ. Use what you like. I'm not particularly religious about browsers.

Yep, and then when you reload all of those tabs:
1) oops, those ones don't reload because you have to log back in, and then you lose your context
2) oops, those other tabs use server side sessions which are now expired, so the page is no longer valid and can't be reloaded
3) oops, any pages that have any complex script state need to be put back into the proper state
Not to mention that just closing the browser takes it like 5 minutes to unallocate its 2 GB of memory.

Seriously, why do you seem so upset that I've not enjoyed my firefox experience and that I now find Chrome better? If it works for me and makes me happy, why does that have to bug you so much that you have to be an asshole with comments about breaking out in a sweat and having low UID self esteem issues?

Why did I chose Chrome over Firefox? Because I got sick of the memory leak problems under firefox. When I browse, I use a shit-ton of tabs. After about 3 days, firefox is consuming over 1GB of memory even after I close every single tab. If I let it go about a week, it's up to nearly 2 GB. Once the memory hits about 800MB, it starts to hiccup/pause all the time. When it gets to its worst, I can't even watch a video on youtube without it pausing for 1/2 second every 5 seconds. I went through year after year of "sorry, but there's no memory leaks", followed by "oh, we fixed those leaks...there are no more leaks", followed by "now we've redesigned it all so it won't leak any more", etc. Sure, go ahead and deny the problem and blame it on the plugins if you like. Switching to Chrome has resulted in flawless performance for me since then, despite me using an equal number of similar plugins.

Does chrome use a crapload of memory? Sure, but I don't really give a shit. I've got 12GB of memory in my machine and rarely come close to using it all. Chrome is using nearly 3GB of memory right now across about 50 processes, but I've still got 6GB free on my box. Despite that, performance is still perfect. I could never say the same about firefox. And if I close Chrome down to a single tab, it will shrink back down to 60MB or so of memory. It cleans up perfectly (due to its process-per-tab design).

That was the one major thorn that twisted in my side with Firefox year after year, but it wasn't the only one. Another one was the firefox instance that didn't start but also didn't terminate, resulting in firefox refusing to open another copy until I manually killed the previous process. Then in the last year or 2 of me using it, it seemed like an increasing number of small changes/bugs/whatever causing one site or another to stop working properly when I upgraded versions. Since switching to Chrome, that's all been a thing of the past.

Your experience may differ from mine, but for me Chrome has been a much nicer experience. I don't miss firefox the slightest bit.