Yes, WebDAV is still around. It's not a bad spec, really useful in corporate environments.

I'm seeing complaints about Chrome's disabling of data: in the navigation bar having broken jsPDF, and that makes sense -- if they try to translate a PDF file into HTML client-side and display the temporary result in a new tab, it'll fail. The same would be true if you were generating SVG or PDF content on the fly and pushing it into a new tab for display (graphing libraries, report-generators, etc. that operate client-side rather than server-side).
It does look like they kept the functionality working as long as it's in an IFRAME, but those can get ugly to work with. At least we won't be the only ones scrambling to create workarounds...

There are legitimate uses for data: URI in the navigational bar, too. I have one that I'll have to recode now, that was the result of having to work around the horrible lack of useful WebDAV support in modern browsers. Popping a new page up in a separate tab (to not mess up a single-page-application) to then do a redirect, etc. was the solution I had to come to, after Firefox killed plugins that don't meet their security requirements (which we don't for our in-house extension, because it uses the Registry and launches apps, to try to get around the same problem of poor WebDAV support -- none of that will get past today's plugin-signing process, so the extension has to die.) Data URI were a quick and easy solution for serving up temporary content in a new tab, which I'll need to replace with some kind of server-hosted page ... not at all impossible, but dang it, I had it working and it was simpler. Phishers ruin it for the rest of us.

Agreed.
I get that developers are lazy and can be expected to shy away from security features that get in the way, but come on, Prepared Statements have been around for a very long time, and in a lot of ways, they make your life easier (prettier code, streamed-blob-handling, no escaping, datatype checks):
They should be your /default/ coding practice, not what you reluctantly pick up after a breach or an audit!

The javascript emulator would have access to https://www.w3.org/TR/webstora...

Wasn't part of the point of NTLMv2 (vs. NTLMv1) that it required a challenge/response with the server, to make stolen hashes less useful?

Why is this being pushed as news? Possibly because of the current dust-up between conservatives (Fox News) and Facebook, accusing Facebook of bias in editorial decisions affecting the "trending now" section; there's talk of overwhelmingly liberal workforce in silicon valley, and anything that supports the idea that silicon valley is not representative of the rest of the country would help buoy that complaint. Or maybe for completely unrelated reasons, I dunno.

When did downloading a file become a copyright violation? As I recall, copyright protects against redistribution without permission, which would apply to the uploaders but not the downloaders, no?

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.c... -- there was already discussion in 2014 about replacing the lift fan with dual (top & bottom) laser domes.

“The fact is that, although the new software may enhance privacy for some users, it severely hampers law enforcement’s ability to aid victims. All of the evidence contained in smartphones and similar devices will be lost to law enforcement, so long as the criminals take the precaution of protecting their devices with passcodes. Of course they will do so. Simply stated, passcode-protected devices render lawful court orders meaningless and encourage criminals to act with impunity.”

Lawful requests are not automatically meaningful -- fetch me the moon, explain love, find the last digit of pi, relocate this unmovable rock... You can always ask, you can punish those who resist the order, but in the end you either need to learn to accept failure, or think twice before asking for the impossible.

The argument is that at some point, law enforcement or a court might want some piece of information, but face embarrassment when naively requesting that which is inaccessible? Cry me a river! Just because information "exists", or is believed to exist, it does not necessarily follow that it should be possible (nor easy) for a judge or detective to fetch it.

A judge may someday want to know where I was, yesterday at 3:14am. Does that mean it would make sense to require me to keep a sufficiently precise diary, or wear an ankle monitor, just to enable that possible future discovery request, so the poor slob doesn't have to face disappointment? Law enforcement has always been a cat-and-mouse game, where it's expected you won't be able to get information the easy way; bills requiring it to be easy won't change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Seems a touch more nuanced than that, but still concerning.

No. http://tracker.firebirdsql.org...

Unfortunately, no. Postgres can only replicate to other instances operating on igneous rocks (e.g. obsidian and sovite) but the data gets lost if sent to instances hosted on chalk or gneiss. Might be fixed in 9.6, though.

Early on mysql was limited in the kinds of joins it could do...
Can it do a FULL OUTER JOIN yet?

I happen to use and love FB, it's been rock-solid for me for over a decade now, but I've never pushed it for *performance* reasons. It's always been about the features: MVCC that always works (unlike Oracle's, and on-by-default unlike SQLServer's), transactional triggers (came in really handy), triggers that do what you intend (unlike SQLServer's), better temporary-table mechanisms than SQLServer, better stored procedures (selectable like a table-valued-function, but can read & write like a stored procedure). There's no equivalent to PostGIS, though, and there's no built-in replication method beyond shadow databases. And other stuff that a Wikipedia page would be better at explaining.

If you're serious about speed, I'd love to see benchmarks to back you up. If you're trolling, I hope readers will consider Firebird anyway, it really is a good DBMS.

I would expect the issue to be MVCC, not FKs. Both Postgres and Firebird do MVCC, which incurs overhead when writing data (never overwrite, always add delta records, then fix pointers so readers can follow the chain, and also cleanup deltas no longer needed by any active transactions) and when reading data (follow pointer chains, verify a given record should be visible to the current transaction despite it being listed in the slightly-larger index), etc.
The switch from myISAM to InnoDB brings MVCC with it (in addition to, as you point out, actual constraints) so the cause/effect may be unclear.