Or because not everyone has to share the same opinion, so its obvious people are not going to necessarily share the opinion that network neutrality is a great thing? Shocking I know, but there you have it.

A hell of a lot of one time pad encrypted messages have been broken due to pad misuse in the past - take a look at the Venona Project, where the Soviets reused pads for different communication types, and thus western analysts were able to break a non-trivial amount of them.

All UK ISPs are subject to UK law however, and they will get the job of enforcing this through blocking non-conforming websites.

In the UK, modifications such as you suggest still need to meet the vehicle roadworthiness test for the car to gain its MOT certificate - can't hit the road without one of those, so the work is definitely regulated.

So he just handed a fuckton of information over to unvetted people?

How is that not the same as releasing it? Its still Snowdens responsibility. But I can see from my down modding above that certain twats dont want it pointed out that their messiah has flaws, and isn't the perfect little shit they profess him to be.

As for Argentina having a claim, sorry but there is no such thing as a claim based on geographical vicinity, and imperialism doesn't come into it as Argentina was created through imperialism in the first place, And the British claim predates the creation of Argentina anyhow.

Pointing out that justified intelligence actions are being damaged is a side show? What world do you live in? Snowden can justify releasing information about immoral intelligence gathering, but what about when the intelligence gathering is legitimate and within the purpose and intent of the agencies involved?

Releasing details about legal intelligence operations is throwing the baby out with the bath water and puts Snowden in a very different light - he justifies his actions by saying he wants to raise awareness of illegal actions by the various government agencies, and yet he has also released details of actions which don't fall into that category.

Hardly a "side show" when it calls into question his justification, now is it?

Snowden isn't exactly all white as snow either - look at the shit that just came out from Snowdens bag of goodies about the UK spying on Argentina between 2006 and 2011.

Argentina invaded UK sovereign territory in 1982, got the shit kicked out of them by the British armed forces and thrown out of that territory, but has been very vocal and belligerent about it ever since. There has been successive escalations from Argentina ever since, including blocking medical flights, forcing South American companies to stop trading with the Falklands and other acts. Oh, and the repeated claims of ownership over the islands themselves. Just last week they again tried to claim jurisdiction over the Falklands by threatening to prosecute any oil company that drills for oil in Falkland Island waters.

So, Snowden, in what world is spying on such a nation in such circumstances not justified? Why would you release details on justified intelligence gathering operations?

All of the CTP and preview releases have been shipping with Apache Cordova and an Android build target using mono for the underlying .Net implementation. Been like this for the past several months, targetting Android has been well known amongst .Net developers following VS2015.

So we are back to a third party, only this time involving lists that need updating and collating...

Ok, how do you get the general population to "use self signed certs correctly"? Go on, convince me that you can.

If its hard, people won't do it. Thats why email encryption has never caught on while https usage has. So if you want to do away with third party CA usage, then you need to come up with something that is better security wise, but is no harder to use. If its any harder to use, you are already well on the back foot convincing people to use it.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your assertion that self signed certs are the solution to anything at all.

So, with the third party out of the equation, how does one know that the security certificate you receive from random-site.com is the one that random-site.com intended you to receive? This is where going to two entity encryption fails, because the web has no inbuilt ability to verify the communication with the website is as secure as intended without going to a third party.

Just allowing self signed certs won't solve anything, because most people who use the web won't bother with any independent verification (which you would have to do offline or on a different internet connection for it to mean anything anyway) - fuck, do you remember how long it took to beat "look for the padlock symbol" into people in the first place? All it will do is what people have been bitching about for similar other approaches for years now - people will get so many pop ups, they will stop caring and just click OK.

The CA system isn't the best solution in the world, but its better than most suggestions, including allowing self signed certs for general communication.

The Apache can carry up to four troops on its payload wings - its been done in several situations where troop carriers were way way too vulnerable, especially in combat rescue scenarios.

There is a 50 year difference in expectations between TOS and today.

James Bond, Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc etc ;) All mostly filmed in the UK.

No, that isn't why people are stuck on old versions of IE - I work for a major UK insurance broker, we have Windows 7 here and we run IE 11, however the major UK insurer (household name) that I deal with on the web side of things is also on Windows 7 but they use IE 8. Scary eh? When I build a new insurance website, the only people I'm dealing with who have IE issues are these people.

Most people are stuck on an old browser for reasons other than they are too cheap ass to pay for an OS upgrade.