You're new here, so let me give you a bit of advice:

1. Prepare for ridicule. You're not providing much of any substance at all, and this little hissy fit has nothing to do with the article anyway. That's not well tolerated here.
2. Very few people will actually see your post, as it's pretty much going to instantly be moderated down as a "troll" post due to its... well, trolliness, really.
3. See #1.

now this... this seems like something I'd be interested in reading about. Is there some real discussion about this, or did you come up with it yourself? (It's not a bad idea at all at first blush)

There most certainly is a "good or bad" - your own assertion that every government in the world is corrupt supports that, in fact. I have no idea why you went on the anti-US rant there, but whatever.

The issue to discuss is the difficult position that Mozilla finds itself in now: an intentional and self-imposed obligation to act when cert authorities are compromised coupled with the unintended consequence of now having to decide if a Sovereign nation, acting legally within its own jurisdiction, constitutes a "compromised" cert auth. But it's their own damn fault for putting themselves in the situation where they presume to act on behalf of their userbase despite the userbase not all having identical use cases for their software.

I think their best course of action is for Mozilla to implement some sort of "greylist" that they can turn on something like a red SSL banner (instead of green) indicating a potentially compromised cert or key authority. That banner could then be turned on and off by the user if they desire, without the effect of cutting off legitimately issued SSL certs in the process. Nobody is cut off, but Mozilla feels better about warning end users of the "problem" that they feel obligated to act on. No harm except for the butthurt that some finite number of users might feel about "imperialists forcing morality" or whatever other rot they can conjure up.

if you're in a community property jurisdiction, then you have a reasonable expectation of being able to use her account to buy something without breaching wiretap/hacking laws. If you know her password, and she knows you know her password, you are a de facto authorized user - all she has to do in order to deauthorize you is to change the password.

Don't overreact just because it's emotionally stimulating to do so.

no, I think he's saying that the city should put up the utility right-of-ways and infrastructure, and let private industry handle the actual delivery of services. Like how roads are built by the city, but your garbage collector isn't run by the city. (Mine isn't, anyway... I suppose YMMV on that.)

Put another way: Austin's power company (delivery portion) is city-owned, and therefore the permits for leasing right-of-way on the poles is an easy road to traverse with only a single agency to deal with. You can still buy your power from any generation provider, but only Austin Energy is going to deliver it on the "last mile", since they own the poles.

I've said for a while now that fiber to the home will become a utility eventually, and just like the power companies all have different generation points, distribution points, and delivery points, same will go with fiber. (DSL is already sorta like this, anyway, with the Bell system usually only providing the last mile connectivity for the other DSL providers in the area.)

Austin is hardly a city to sneeze at... maybe population-wise, sure, but the sheer number of tech companies moving or expanding here is rather eye-opening. The people who make decisions about moving tech companies here are going to have a much easier decision once the GF infrastructure is done. ISPs are largely regional anyway, so the fact that the "flyover" region is the only one starting to get the Google treatment doesn't mean that your region's ISPs aren't paying very close attention, too.

I hear the Freewinds runs on circular logic. Screw nuclear power, you've got free energy forever with that stuff!

actually, I'd wager it's Google who bungled it - they store items their own way - because they can - and when asked to move the old mailbox, my bet is that Google didn't use the IMAP protocol as written and transferred all the deleted mail in a folder marked something like "Google-like deleted folder but not really deleted just archived". When the Yahoo servers received it, they ignored it as non-standard and shunted the "deleted" (but not actually deleted) mail to the inbox.

If Google had actually deleted the mail instead of archiving it, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Yes.

It's talking about spoofed requests - much like if someone sent a request for more information to a Scientology center, and they put your return address on the form. Suddenly you're getting very creepy mail from the Scientologists and you have no idea where it came from. If they do it enough times to enough organizations, and your mailbox is full, and your Netflix Blu-ray of Tootsie is deferred until you can clean out your mailbox.

because the demand for unedited audio is low enough that it's not usually worth the effort of authors to provide it - and if you include doing voiceovers for the author's own commentary, which generally happens after the interview is complete and the author has the time to verify and rebut statements made by the interviewee, you're talking about a LOT more work than simply putting out a text-based article.

You could always try text-to-speech.

this, like most laws, clarifies and expands on an existing statute... so, essentially, they're doing exactly what you propose.

submitter is playing a bit fast and loose in the description here... the law is *centrally* concerned with gambling, and any operation not involved with gambling but that does provide computers for the public's use is completely untouched by this - not just places like Starbucks. Not sure why the outrage, really. If gambling is illegal in Florida, this closes existing loopholes that some gambling houses used to skirt the law. It doesn't affect non-gambling "internet cafes" as they are traditionally known.

if they don't actually implement it, though, then they'll have some serious antitrust questions to answer.

yes, because a youtube link makes you* much less of an ass.

*(I treat all ACs as if they were the same poster)