I doubt this was written by a lawyer. This might be an impediment to being picked up by a serious project because they can't take the risk that the WTFPL doesn't actually mean anything from a legal perspective.
Web Developers have learnt from the past, there will never be a supported code that will be dependant on a specific version again.
Cross-compatibility and Browser Independence is a main focus that hasn't been in the past. Most websites are not locked into a particular browser, so there are more options if things go pear-shaped in a particular browser. If for example Firefox drops XP support and there is a bug with the old version, the customer can change to Chrome until another solution is put in place.
IE6 was the exception, because it was too difficult in many codebases to update it for compatibility beyond IE6 in the short term, for time(=money) reasons. As soon as the codebases were updated (or the solution replaced) to work beyond IE6, IE6 was kicked right out the door. IE6 didn't stay king because so many people loved that browser so much that they didn't want to change, it was because they HAD to keep using it for some reason. It is not uncommon for companies still relying on IE6 to have Firefox installed for general web browsing and IE6 only for the specific app they need. You can bet your ass they have retirement plans on how to eventually get off IE6 (& now also XP) altogether.
Unsupported code (eg: unmaintained websites) that won't work with new versions - Yes that is inevitable.
Supported code - No.
If it is a supported codebase - The web developer's solution would be to update it to work with the new version, not make it work with the old. If that means that it will break compatibility with the old version, then so be it, it is industry practice not to support unsupported software.
It's worth pointing out that Mozilla & Google are not supporting XP - They are supporting their browsers. If there is a problem in XP, they are not going to help you with it.
MitM is a Politically bad idea, not technical. If the proxy servers in the middle have enough bandwidth and resources, the performance could theoretically even be an improvement. I most certainly agree (from a Political perspective) it is a dangerously slippery slope.
From a technical perspective, it doesn't make the internet (banking, shopping, etc or other https activity) any different because a government/ISP MitM filter is no different to a Malicious Hacker MitM attack, which is already feasible. Also, I maybe wrong about HTTPS, but I believe that the Private SSL key would need to be installed on the MitM server, otherwise the MitM server would need to use a different certificate - a red flag - than the real server.
I wouldn't be surprised if government spying agencies are doing their own MitM attacks already on a BGP level, and in the case of HTTPS websites, compromise any private SSL keys they need to do it without detection.
Technically speaking that is, not politically.
I remember reading about this on one of my ISPs' blog a while ago.
I am in a similar situation where I have a couple of Google Apps accounts that I ONLY use for work-related purposes. NOTHING ELSE. Never authorise anything to use them keep it all on my personal. Sure enough LinkedIn has slurped some contacts from sent items. I use different passwords for everything. I hardly have even used LinkedIn, much less with a work related email account open (I hardly open them). The ONLY way they could have stole it (That is the only thing running at the same time) would be a mobile app either from my Android or iOS device. I have these work accounts set up permanently on these devices and foolishly it seems loaded the LinkedIn app.
Funny enough ALL these email accounts have been getting spam lately from "Dr OZ" to their actual address, which is strange when I use disposable email addresses for EVERYTHING, including client contact. The only thing I use the actual address for is to log in and set up the mail client. These email addresses must have been slurped from a mobile app, not sure if it was LinkedIn or another app.
Well Yes and No.
No - I don't agree that the subject matter that has been actually leaked was right for governments to have done in the first place. eg: The deliberate killing of innocent civilians in Iraq. That is wrong.
Yes - I do agree that leaking information is harmful to government and beneficial to enemies, because the enemies can use what the government did wrong as a recruiting tool to gain support against them. With all the negativity against governments having all this data, I would say that it is working pretty well for the enemies of the government.
Note - Being an enemy of the government doesn't necessarily mean you have done anything wrong, it just mean that you don't agree with the governments actions. For example, the EFF is an enemy of the government, even though they are not doing anything wrong.
TL;DR - Governments should stop doing things wrong instead of hiding what they do wrong, because it is what they do in the first place that was leaked which is aiding the 'enemy' (anyone who disagrees with the government) recruit other people against the government (anyone who supports Leaking of coverups), rather than the act of leaking in itself.
WiFi is going to be cheaper.
5 years ago it would be considered a "Hacking" crime to bring to light such a trivial adjustment to the way you access a website by changing it's URL in a small way, but now it is grounds for class action against the operator for actual lax security.
It would be like Obama completely bugging his wife's car, not because she is under the protection of the Secret Service, but because he wants to watch everything that she is up to without her knowledge. GPS Tracking, Sound, Video, the works - he can watch her every breath.
And then when she realises that he has been spying on her, he would say "Well you wouldn't mind if you have nothing to hide! I'm just cleaning out the dirty dishes!"
"Is there a structural problem with computer-aided pilot's ability to fly visual approaches?"
No, Just Pilot error. The 777 has constantly landed at SFO everyday for years without issue and the cause of the Asiana has been well-documented.
Synology have been moving from the personal to the enterprise space as of late with their "DiskStation" NAS line of products. Some of their high end "NAS" boxes can get pretty powerful. There is a function of the DiskStation is called "Cloud Station", essentially a Dropbox clone.
Basically what you would be doing is having your own on-premises 'Dropbox appliance'. It is very easy to setup/integrate with it's user-friendly interface for the admin, and then all you really need to do then is forward the ports and install the client software.
They should have saved this exploit for jailbreaking than to report it, comsidering the chances of an in-the-wild infection are low. Public charge stations are quite uncommon.
From the article, these are the following supported browsers:
Microsoft Windows XP: Internet Explorer 6.0, Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, Mozilla 1.7.7."
Firefox is still available (Windows link) and is fairly independent from the underlying OS, so it would probably work on Vista+/Mac/Linux too (If you can find Mac/Linux links).
Still a pain to have to pick and choose browsers. It is easier for the average person to use the offline version.
Even easier for the hacker to compromise such an outdated website and input their benefits claim directly into the database tables
(and already approved for their 10 fake identities of course).
Then how come you are posting as VertexCortex and not Anonymous coward, still needs to be a mechanism to make sure you are VertexCortex. Ideally you should be able go hit "Login" on your browser, and your browser automatically logs you in for you while using two factor in the background (once you have already two-factored with your browser when you sat down) so Slashdot knows 1. You are VertexCortex (to load your preferences and posting abilities as your name) and 2. You have proven yourself (It doesn't need to know how, it just needs to kniw that you have)