Can we vote the ARTICLE down so it will go away? Or change the headline/summary? Nothing like spreading yet more false security FUD.
>"If implemented, the developers wrote, the change would mean that a warning would pop-up when people visited a site that used only HTTP to notify them that such a connection "provides no data security"."
Arrogant, annoying, unnecessary, stupid, and inaccurate. There are a LOT of sites that have absolutely no need for https and labeling them "insecure" will annoy clue-full users and confuse clueless users all in one swoop. And by encrypting everything, it makes caching far less useful and slows down browsing some.
This type of attitude in design is one of many reasons I don't and will not use Chrome. It is bad enough some of the recent stuff being shoved into Firefox
If we look at jet aircraft, wear depends on the airframe and the engines, and the airframe seems to be the number of pressurize/depressurize cycles as well as the running hours. Engines get swapped out routinely but when the airframe has enough stress it's time to retire the aircraft lest it suffer catastrophic failure. Rockets are different in scale (much greater stresses) but we can expect the failure points due to age to be those two, with the addition of one main rocket-specific failure point: cryogenic tanks.
How long each will be reliable can be established using ground-based environmental testing. Nobody has the numbers for Falcon 9R yet.
Weight vs. reusable life will become a design decision in rocket design.
>"It's as simple as making a light-skinned person feel connected to a virtual, darker skinned self"
Except it is far less about skin color than speech, beliefs, attitude, clothing, how one acts, who one associates with, etc, etc. Race issues are rarely just about skin color... that is WAY oversimplifying the whole topic. Just slapping on a different color might change the way many people initially treat or interact with you, but far too many people point to that as being the main problem, when it has more to do with other factors. Still, it sounds like a good experiment to teach tolerance and remind people that you can't judge a book by its cover (you might have some notions, but should always keep an open mind).
Yay! Ford ditches Microsoft for Unix! (Well, Unix-like.... kinda like Linux is, although not it isn't open source, nor free) (OK, well, I would be much more happy if it were a switch to Linux or BSD... maybe even Android Linux).
I wish we would. My pleas to Finance and Admin have been pretty much ignored. They don't think it is a big deal.
>"Let's be clear: This is an Opt-In "feature". It is neither mandated nor included by default."
That completely depends on the bank and the type of account. It was not optional with Suntrust business accounts. We are forced to use that s**t.
>"If a bank/CD/whatever other crazy thing requires you to install software to use it, take your business elsewhere."
You try telling that to your Finance Department or Board. We did- and it fell on completely deaf ears.
It certainly won't change the fact that we can't run it on Linux and it is a pain in the ass under any platform.
Trusteer Rapport is a HORRIBLE idea and many businesses are being FORCED to deal with it because it is essentially mandatory for many banks (looking at YOU, Suntrust).
It is a totally unacceptable "solution" from an I.T. department perspective. And it is also unnecessary for many situations, if they just allow us some additional common-sense controls (like limiting access to just certain IP addresses, or using hardware token devices).
It is not a "near miss", it is a "near hit", or more properly "Heathrow Plane Nearly Hit a Drone". If it were a near MISS, then the two would have collided.
Here we go again.... WTF is "video chat" a core feature instead of an addon? It really doesn't even have anything to do with web browsing. And I can't imagine the code is small, either. Ug.
Yep, and then some possibly important apps no longer work due to them being locked down. Example: the TiVo streaming video app. And no "masking root" type app works, which sucks.
Deep vein scan (typically of the palm) is the only biometric that I would find acceptable from a privacy standpoint. It can't be "stolen" or "lifted", it is not visible from a reasonable distance, it can't be easily scanned without the user's consent. It requires being "alive". It is reliable and simple to acquire. I have used it and seen it in action... very impressive.
Fingerprints are horribly abused and left everywhere and can't be read through gloves. Easily copied and fooled.
DNA is extremely expensive, extremely slow, has severe privacy implications, and is left everywhere.
Facial recognition is not extremely accurate, is often slow, and is the WORST biometric from a privacy standpoint.
Retina scan is complex and probably the most expensive besides DNA.
Finger spread biometric is inaccurate and insecure (can be obtained from a distance via