Hey, you can say the same thing about the maternity ward at the hospital.

Nice try, but the article doesn't say anything about the comparative distribution of vaccination rates between these daycares and the rest of the state.

The alarmist conclusions that they try to draw from the data are invalid, because they do not recognize that it doesn't actually show that Silicon Valley has low vaccination rates.

I don't know whether the author really doesn't understand what the data is telling them, or if they just decided that nobody who reads Wired would be interested in an article that says "Surprise! Vaccinations are important, but parents in Silicon Valley aren't any better or worse about vaccinating their kids than the rest of the country!"

The article title is "Low Vaccination Rates At Silicon Valley Daycare Facilities", but the evidence is actually for average vaccination rates compared to national rates.

That's enough to make the whole thing rather suspect.

If you're installing malware that installs a browser extension, the malware can probably just replace your browser. Or patch it so that it doesn't flag a disallowed extension even without the override turned on. Or any other number of nasty tricks.

This is not true in the stable release for Debian. (Source: using it right now, with extensions that aren't from the Chrome web store.) My understanding is that you have to use a command-line switch to enable it in the Windows version, but it is still there.

Only if your software or system is already otherwise either compromised or hopelessly mis-designed. Given that this is Firefox, the latter might be possible, I guess. But overall, the notion that an already-compromised system could be compromised again is not a particularly strong reason to cripple your software.

This is not a good solution for developers who need to test against the stable release builds.

That's just stupid. So passwords are not a security feature if you can disable them? Disabling telnet access by default to a computer is not a security feature? Blocking Flash or Javascript in a browser is not a security feature if you can turn them back on? HTTPS access to a web site is not a security feature if you can access it via HTTP?

The default should be the one that is right for most people, but that's no reason to cripple your software for those that have other needs.

Chrome allows the user to re-enable installation of unsigned extensions.

Re-read that sentence, specifically the word "special." If it's a special developer build, then it's not the same thing that your users are using.

The problem in my eyes is not the default requirement that only signed extensions are allowed; the problem is that they don't even allow users to override it.

Even if you're only concerned about development of extensions, it's a terrible idea to say that, essentially, developers can't test and develop with release versions of Firefox.

..why would anyone in their right mind buy..

Go look at how much it would cost you to a buy a single Raspberry Pi (its capabilities are just about right for this). Then imagine what something like that would cost a huge manufacturer like Samsung (I say this part, so that you'll have some sense of how low the margin will be). That is how much a smart TV costs to make, relative to a dumb TV. On something costing hundreds of dollars, it's nearly free.

And what the game console makers, the smartphone makers, etc (and even pre-loaded OS desktop PC makers) have established over the last few decades is that "nearly free" can become "actually free" or even profitable if someone pays you to bundle malware with your product, or there's some kind of product-tying, or things like that. (So basically, damn near every expensive anything, ought to have a [potentially user-hostile] computer in it. Think of anything that costs $400 or more. That thing needs malware.) So just having a CPU can increase the revenue from the sale, so that from the manufacturer's point of view, it virtually costs less to make. So if you're in a highly competitive market, you can sell it for less.

Thus, the reason people buy these things, is that they cost less (to buy; I mean the cost at the time of the sale, not the costs of using the product).

We simply haven't yet gotten to the point where, when you first buy a TV (or a car) (or for some people, a phone) the first thing everyone knows they need to do with it, is overwrite the preloaded assumed-to-be-user-hostile software with a user-centric replacement. Fortunately, Samsung is joining Apple and Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft, and many others (this is an all-too-common thread to rehash; don't feel offended if I omitted your favorite Peoples' Enemy), in helping to teach us all this basic principle.

Yes, I could leave it unconnected from the network, but then I'm just pushing the problem to another device.

But at that "another device" point, the problem is really easy. You can build (or even still buy) awesome Mini-ITX (or similar sized) systems to use a HTPC and can very likely mount it on the back of the monitor if you really don't have any place for it to sit.

It's only the built-into-the-monitor form factor where there aren't really any good computers avai-- actually, you might look into running Linux on an iMac (though IMHO you'll get less computer for more money, that way) if you simply just must have it down to one single enclosure without any unsightly bumps on the back.

People can't even be bothered to generate and exchange PGP keys with their own friends and family, and then someone talks as though those same people might be willing to vote or revolt.

That's not laymen I'm talking about (they care even less); that's self-labeled geeks/nerds. Slashdot doesn't care enough, for it to ever get to a point as extreme as voting.

What harm is being done to society? Even if he just sits on those domains forever, who cares if "email.com" doesn't point to something useful?

Making spoofing more difficult would also make it easier to block everyone else engaged in phone fraud.

Which is why it is never going to happen.