Twitter does something useful?
Na you just do like some states did and the radar gun is always right under law.
You forget the prosecutors that would indict them are knowing or at least complicit in this. Core issue is police and prosecutors should be adversarial but are not. Sire issue is police units have manged to carve out special exemptions protecting from these sort of indictments rather requiring an internal review.
I take it you have never heard of "Parallel construction" by which they do not disclose such things. They rationalize it as protecting sources and methods.
The 'article' is an editorial presented as something to be taken as representative of the community at large. My impression is that Canonical is losing mindshare quickly to Mint on the desktop, that Canonical really doesn't care that much about desktop anyway as they pin their business hopes and dreams on servers and embedded (where it also is failing to get much traction business wise).
Note that none of this has to do with the parents referenced points: Gnome 3 (which is largely defined by Gnome Shell, which Ubuntu doesn't even use by default) and systemd (I'm sympathetic, but not sure it's making much of a difference either way in the desktop distribution selection right now).
It was not a billing error, this guy spent nearly all month on long distance with AOL.
Many moons ago had an autopay mess up 240 turned into 24000, sue they would refund me the overdraft not the 17 others who all came out on the first. Had to take them to small claims.
Now I only use my banks system far better and if they screw up it's their issue to fix.
Because they are sponsoring a nonprofit to give out certs.
I suspect that the situation is more complicated than that. Multiple recording labels, multiple interests. All the licensing of the music would revert to square one, with all the current copies having to be disposed of.
The world of intellectual property is too complicated for this sort of thing to be easy, sadly. I also never used Grooveshark. I'm still mostly a broadcast radio kind of person when it comes to music.
Yes, in that scenario, you aren't restricted by firefox's proposed BS. Disabling https would break mozilla browser access, but not such software.
I still think it's an inadequately thought out concept (I also question the wisdom of 'the only network protocol is http' mentality in the world), but out-of-browser development shouldn't be hurt too badly.
the same holds everywhere.
Now I won't go that far. 'everywhere' is a pretty gigantic scope. There are many scenarios where there are no viable debug capabilities on either end of the connection (either because no such capability is implemented *or* you are dealing with some 'clever' appliance that blocks you from access.
Besides, wireshark's dissectors are incredibly useful, and usually beyond other things ability to decode. In the case of *browsers* specifically it's not true these days, but plenty of networking things aren't at that level.
While TLS *could* be secure, I've been in too many discussions where it is assumed to be the only way to be secure and that it is secure in spite of the current state of CAs and the practical behavior of internal servers with respect to certificates.
There really needs to be more critical discussion along this front, as I see quite reasonable security strategies that fare well in the *real* world torn up and replaced with TLS because of an idealized view of how it could be implemented.
Wireshark is a useful debugging tool. The ability to snap off encryption to analyze things at the wire is a lifesaver.
That said, if I'm debugging something a browser is doing, the developer console is usually better anyway. There remains the case where you are trying to debug a tester's experience without access to their browser, but the scenarios where that is true *and* it would be a good idea to disable TLS are limited. Being able to disable encryption is more important for clients that aren't so developer-enabled.
I agree that the more intelligent thing would have been for the site branding to be used for legitimate service rather than trying to shame the users while pointing out other services and hoping for the best.
However, the likelihood that they could have modified it 'slightly' while 'not pissing off the listeners' is pretty slim. The music selection would have had to be torched and started over from scratch (too many content owners without an agreement between them) and something would have had to give to actually extract revenue.
They didn't quite get to 'just walk away'. They were given a choice, an impossibly high fine to pay or hand over all their patents, copyrights, infrastructure, software, basically everything while very publicly scraping the ground about how wrong what they did was.
Essentially, they had something of value that was interesting to the plaintiffs that was bigger than their realistic chances at getting actual money out of them.