Comments like the one linked are a great read, but without ANY sourcing what so ever, it's hard to take it seriously.

Certainly, Nvidia is more than happy to donate engineers and code that favours nvidia hardware (as well as the hardware itself) in return for some branding and an exchange of cash, but to claim that it deliberately gimps older or competing hardware seems beyond the realm of likelihood. IF such a thing was happening, there'd be easy ways of proving it and lawsuits would be flying around pretty quickly. Furthermore, ultimately the performance difference in games between similar competing cards is all in line. You get a bit of variance per title, but it's not like 80% difference here, it's a few frames, single-digit percentages.

They've addressed the "why aren't you opening up all components?" part by saying this is just the start and that they'll be releasing more when they're in a better state for other platforms.

Sure, this could be an empty promise but just a few years ago people wouldn't have ever considered that Microsoft would open source any major .net components, let alone the core and with full Linux/OSX support.

Considering that Winforms is very dependant on the underlying Win32 components of windows, it does stand to reason that it'll be one of the hardest things to port over to other platforms so just this once, we can probably give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt.

Because you're not going to try scamming everyone out of a £million, but rather you're going to contactlessly skim everyone for a more realistic sum - say £250 (I think most, if not all, cards here have at least that limit and often much higher).

In fact, you set up a coffee stand and charge £2 per cup. Instinctively people swipe their card, think they're paying £2 but is actually £200. It'll likely take days before anyone even notices and in that time you could have scammed tens of thousands.

Depends on the cards you speak of. The kind used in EMV chip cards (Credit/Debit mostly outside the US for now), which are also contactless, can be had for about £3 a pop, probably less in bulk.

Well yeah, but the person who sold them that counterfeit chip must have known it was counterfeit. The manufacturer of said chip definitely knew.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying the focus seems to be on FTDI when really the issue is much larger.

What about the intent to use/sell counterfeit chips? While I don't agree with FTDI's tactic, they're not the only bad guy here by a long shot.

I agree with this, they said Vista would be the last 32bit Windows OS, then 7, then 8 and now apparently 10.

However I suppose they're trying to kill off 8 as quickly as possible. Everyone on 8 and 8.1 is getting upgraded to 10, so it may as well be 8.2 and I'm guessing that Microsoft would rather keep their updates in sync than half half of their userbase on 8 and the other half on 10.

That is absolutely not a solution. That's braindead idiocy at best. The result is that people will use one password for everything and probably write it down in a few places because if they forget it, they're fucked. Yes, people do that anyway but not allowing a password reset makes the situation much worse.

If your problem is with that "one key system", then perhaps you need to secure that "one key system" better. Twofactor auth on email hardens that single point and makes it very difficult to compromise. If an attacker is still able to compromise it, then I'd wager they'd be able to compromise those other systems anyway.

640KM range probably would be enough for anyone.

In fairness, it's no more unreliable than the 500million+ lines of code, claim. And somehow much more believable.

With encryption without authentication, many people will assume they gain some security when they are not.

Not at all. It would appear to the user like any non-TLS site does today - standard address bar, no padlock, nothing. What goes on in the background doesn't matter as far as the user is concerned. In fact, I'd be surprised if many users have even considered that their data is being sent plaintext on the majority of sites. Changing the background to be encrypted would be a good way to block a lot of passive surveillance without making users feel as though their entire online doings are protected without the padlock.

You've confused encryption with authentication. It doesn't need to be authenticated, the idea is to stop drive-by starbucks script kiddies, mass surveillance. Targeted attacks will always be an issue, even with strong, well auth'd encryption.

I hope that whatever HTTP2.0 ends up being enforces encryption by default.

Choosing not to include some feature in your product is exercising your freedom

Likewise, Choosing TO include some feature in your product is exercising your freedom. What's the issue?

Yes, Firefox is bundling in code to handle DRM, but you are never forced to use it. Firefox itself is not becoming DRM'd, in reality it's not entirely different to including proprietary CODEC support - you're free to use it if you want and free to ignore it if you don't want to use it. Ultimately, giving users a choice is the most freedom.