The merchants already know what you're buying. Target takes any information they can and ties it to a guest ID. You use a coupon you got emailed with a credit card- they tie the email and credit card to your guest ID. You use the same credit card and buy tobacco when they scan your drivers license - they append the info from the driver's license to your guest ID. With your physical address from your driver's license, they mail you a coupon and you use that with your debit card - they tie the debit card to your guest ID.
The big win of CurrentC for the merchants is that it gives them a platform to share this information from each other and build up this information across stores. Now Walmart knows what you bought at Rite Aid.

It's been said in a variety of ways, but this article assumes that the carrots offered by the retailers will trump all the problems with this system. Let's think through this:

1. It requires you to give your bank account number, driver's license number, and social security number to a random app. Competing mobile wallets require none of these. Additionally, this is being asked by an app for a group of people who consumers have relatively low amounts of trust for right now - retailers, currently reeling after huge breaches.
2. It requires you to unlock your device, enter a PIN, and either scan a QR code, or have the cashier scan yours off your screen. This is far more hassle than placing the phone to the reader and entering the PIN/using a biometric ID on Apple devices.
3. It forces you to use a checking account, which many people don't want since they want the benefits of credit cards.

Beyond the obvious other pitfalls for people in the know (consumer liability is far worse, privacy is far worse with the retailers getting more data- the terms and conditions even require you to approve the collection of health related data), there are huge red flags. I just don't see it happening with sustainable "carrots" to keep consumers using the app - it's too high maintenance for it to be worth it except for massive discounts far in excess of what the merchant fees are. Not to mention one would expect the credit card companies to fight back.

MX Greens have been used with MX Blue switches for a while. Usually the only green switch on the keyboard is the spacebar, it's meant to be a stronger (heavier, requiring more actuation force) version of the blue for that purpose.

The use of MX Greens for an entire keyboard is new though.

As others indicated, you can buy a Unicomp if you want a "real Model M" anyways. The click is not as tactile and the feel from the tactility is different between buckling springs and MX switches (a click leaf is different from the THWACK of a buckling spring buckling and hitting the wall). If you want a heavier actuation cherry switch with a lighter click, get an MX. If you want a Model M-like keyboard, get a Model M or Unicomp Customizer...

Bad writeup here. First article is for Fricosu where a foregone conclusion was found, what OP summary is referring to is a different John Doe case.

Bad editing with the recent Fricosu case (foregone conclusion reached, judge compelling decryption) and the Doe case (what headline refers to, no foregone conclusion, judge rejecting compelled decryption) both in the summary.

They'd still have to prove that you had the USB drive that decrypted the drive. If they had it already, they could decrypt it without you; if they don't, they would need to confessing to having it somewhere in some form or otherwise proving it exists and is yours.

Also in Boucher's case they were able to get specific, and in Boucher's case, he only used a container, so files with names suggesting CP were there, and the defendant voluntarily decrypted them so they could be viewed.

The ICE agent examined the computer and saw a file labeled “2yo getting raped during diaper change,” but was unable to open it. After the suspect navigated to the encrypted portion of the hard drive, the ICE agent located and examined several videos or images that appeared to be child pornography. Id. The district court concluded that the “foregone conclusion” doctrine applied under those facts because any testimonial value derived from the act of production was already known to the Government and therefore added nothing to its case

The circumstances are different here, hence why a foregone conclusion was not found.

The Anon I replied to alleges that addons cover extensions (ABP, Betterprivacy, Ghostery, Skype, etc.) AND plugins (Flash, Shockwave, java - anything that uses the NPAPI).

So if my initial interpretation was correct (same as yours- this is for extensions not plugins), that won't be a problem; if his interpretation is correct (keeping in mind that he challenged mine - plugins/extensions are under the addons umbrella, both appear in the addon manager, etc.) it would be.

I guess the only way to find out will be to install a copy of the beta and then a plugin or two.

The development cycle is better but using major numbers is stupid and has rendered it meaningless IMO. Chrome ratchets up the version number similarly, they just don't trumpet it and instead silently update (which Mozilla is deeply opposed to).

Honestly I think the default option should be default stealth update like Chrome and, during install, ask if people want continuous silent updates. Let the nerds opt out if they have concerns and let everyone who doesn't like to know about every update get it.

If that's true, then it's as comprehensive as I'd hope. I just wonder if Firefox will whitelist certain addons at the risk of seeming to play favorites (if people don't check to enable Flash and then try to go to Youtube, it won't work).

Either that or prompt when a plugin that's present but default disabled would be used and ask if they want to enable it with a notification. Not sure of the handling code for that, but I can't imagine it being impossible.

Mozilla blog mentions that it's for addons, which are different from plugins (plugins use NPAPI - Flash, Java, Shockwave, etc. - vs XPIs). They are separately listed in the addons manager for that reason. At this point, I'd say it probably doesn't apply to plugins, but the page doesn't give enough context to determine that.

Chromium does, they're just doing it at a more frequent rate. People acclimate to minute changes made very often (every few days) over bigger/more changes made at once (even if it's every few weeks instead of every year or so).

eBay changed the color on the background of a part of a page from one color to another - IIRC it was yellow to purple - and users flipped so much they changed it back. Then, over the course of several weeks, they did many intermediate colors, changing it a couple days a week. Suddenly, no one noticed the page they complained about in the past had, again, changed color completely.

The Chromium team has done a great job in that regard.

It's an addon/plugin/profile issue. I'd argue the last one is probably the worst because it's hard to diagnose without creating a new profile.

If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.

You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I support Mozilla. My FF7 installs work very well although I won't lie and say Firefox has been problem free (no browser has been). It may be worth examining if you liked Firefox as 7 is a good improvement over 6 even despite the development time. I don't seem to have the stability/bloat issues others complain about.

Anyhow, up to you if you want to examine it for you. In the end, whatever works for you works for you and you are either going to try to diagnose Firefox or ignore it.

Define better. It really depends on the usage scenario. Not in RAM usage or ability of addons to modify browser behavior beyond the highest level.

I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.

8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party programs.

Yeah, addons that added themselves outside the normal system weren't always removable (through Firefox) and Firefox never asked about them. Yahoo Toolbar, Bing, etc.

Change for the better. Users who don't explicitly want something are unlikely to approve it (since it's disabled by default), and users who don't know better are more likely to ignore it (again, disabled by default). I think you'll have few "click-throughers" that will check the box to enable the addon then hit continue.

However, they're talking addons at this point (Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy, Greasemonkey, Skype etc.) - NOT plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java [except the Console, which is an addon], etc.). In the comments somebody asked if it applied to plugins and they said "Skype is an addon so it will have this" - I'm guessing it won't ask for plugins.