lambada

Pure number of votes. THough the regions will declare separately, it's the net remain vs leave votes overall that matter.

I'd note the original question is posted on serverfault, so the context isn't that of a traditional end user, but instead a server admin on a multi-user (or publically accessible) server.

I've done that several times in the past, never had to contact support. Just go through as a new user. It means you have to revalidate your domain ownership but that's not much of a hassle.

Rootfool doesn't work any more.

From their readme: "P.S.: 10.11.4 update removed csr_set_allow_all() function used to enable/disable SIP. It means this code does not work on El Capitan 10.11.4 or newer versions when released."

Also even when it did work it needed you to get a Kernel Extension signing certificate from Apple - which they could (probably) revoke pretty easily when they saw it being misused.

And then after doing that you're left without a flat and have to find yet another one, with another landlord or agency who will likely do exactly the same

What license are these logos being released under? The alternative set specifically states CC-BY 3.0... but the main set, as far as I can tell only have the implied licence granted by being allowed to use them to advertise the license.

Given that OpenSSL has supported SHA-2 since 2005, and the Mac App Store was announced in 2010, then released in 2011, I'm really not sure you can blame Apple for thinking it'd be reasonable to expect App Developers to not be using 5 year old versions of dependencies.

This needs to be upvoted, and the title changed. Turns out it was due to developers using incredibly old security code. Rather than an expired certificate.

"Isnt help anyone else doing that taking away your legal right of free speech?"

Not in the US at least. In the US the legal right only prevents the government making laws that abridge them. It doesn't prohibit any private person or company from limiting speech in any way they like.

https://exonerator.torproject.org/ There is.

By 'some' you mean 'one'.

Here's the section of legislation in question.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospe...

Specifically it turns

Section 1(1) [Unauthorized access offence definition] above has effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure; and [...]

into

Sections 1 to 3A [Unauthorized access / access with a view to further offences / access with intent to impair / making or supplying artefacts to enable the above] have effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure or of any other enactment by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or required ; and [...]

The governments position is that this change (I believe this is the right one anyway) gives ordinary rank-and-file GCHQ officers immunity from hacking offences because their conduct will be 'authorized' (by the government) and 'required' (to protect us from the Bad Guys). Previously what was permissible under the Act could be construed to be tighter than what GCHQ were doing - were they only inspecting searching and seizing? Certainly before the Act didn't give them explicit immunity from the later offences such as intent to impair the system.

Side note 1: Enactment is defined in a legal sense, to mean pretty much any legislation. I'm unusure as to whther the definition it provides allows for e.g. Statutory Instruments (which rarely have any debate in Parliament) to also be covered under the definition.

Side note 2: It also makes the same changes to Scotland, which for legal reasons, tends to get called out in separate subsections with minor variation on the wording if the Act applies at all.

Obviously, IANAL.

That's not how Tor Hidden Services work. They're encrypted end-to-end (well, from your node to the host of the Hidden Service. So accessing via that address leaves no room* for anyone to get your number/password or steal your identity.

* (Usual caveats about that being the correct .onion address, about the encryption not flawed etc)

The scheme you propose is exactly what Whonix provides. https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Main_Page

Looking at the spec [0] I'm concerned about the section on 'Recovery Tokens'.

"A recovery token is a fallback authentication mechanism. In the event that a client loses all other state, including authorized key pairs and key pairs bound to certificates, the client can use the recovery token to prove that it was previously authorized for the identifier in question.

This mechanism is necessary because once an ACME server has issued an Authorization Key for a given identifier, that identifier enters a higher-security state, at least with respect the ACME server. That state exists to protect against attacks such as DNS hijacking and router compromise which tend to inherently defeat all forms of Domain Validation. So once a domain has begun using ACME, new DV-only authorization will not be performed without proof of continuity via possession of an Authorized Private Key or potentially a Subject Private Key for that domain."

Does that mean, if for instance, someone used an ACME server to issue a certificate for that domain in the past, but then the domain registration expired, and someone else legitimately bought the domain later, they would be unable to use that ACME server for issuing an SSL certificate?

[0] https://github.com/letsencrypt/acme-spec/blob/master/draft-b...

Some of YubiKey's products claim to be compatible with the U2F FIDO standard. https://www.yubico.com/products/yubikey-hardware/

I doubt there is a major group of deliberately evil people. But there are unconscious biases that we pretty well documented, and should be fought just as much. That's a third option between your two.

Oh, I see. I assumed the 'it' in the post title referred to the 'Cheating Dalvik' that followed. Not that it referred to a more generic concept of bad-practise.

I don't see how facebook cheated Dalvik 'again'? Seems like it's still just the one 'patch'/'hack'. Am I missing something?

But if things have got better, then perhaps the criticism is no longer valid? Criticism leads to things getting better which leads to the (original) criticism having been resolved and no longer applicable to the current versions.

(I'm not going to weigh in on whether any of the criticisms have been resolved in PHPs case specifically, as I've been away from PHP long enough to not be able to talk on any problems with the current language)

Because this simulation is concerned with simulating as many games as possible. So overall speed matters.

Encypt it offline, copy paste the encrypted text+signature into the GMail compose window. Unencrypted never hits the DOM (unless the recipient has an extension that decrypts in the DOM).

I think the difference here is that Facebook will categorise all the content. in effect they will manage what goes into the Tech or news or Creativity buckets. You just say which you want to see by default.

Do you have a citation for that US usage statistic?

>1) Android learns how to receive partial system updates outside of device and carrier certification processes (maintenance releases). Through the Play Store, for instance.

That's what google is doing with the Google Play Services 'super app' - it's meant to untie Android API updates from carriers. With the bonus of the app being closed source and thus not part of stock AOSP.

Those cases are US cases. Given this thread concerns UK law, it might be better to find equivalent UK cases that establish this. (Indeed, the lack of previous UK cases is why the threads link is so notable)

Actually, the client for accessing these desktops is a standalone app, that requires Windows, OSX, Android (incl. Kindle Fire) or iPad.

As long as the politics of wikipedia remain as they are, it will be hard for this to convert many of the 'new users' into long term editors.

> the general public has no idea how advanced the manufacturing sector really is.

I feel this is likely. I know of no-other company that regularly releases videos (or marketing material) of how its products are made.

To me the problem is the combination. Soylent market themselves as a full meal replacement solution, no extra nutrtition required. This means they need to prove that a) it does provide everything the body needs, and b) that continuous consumption has no bad side effects.

Mcdonalds on the other hand never market their food as a complete meal replacement solution. In fact, here in the uk, they're very careful to point out you still need a healthy balanced diet (admittedly due to regulations, but still... They do it, Soylent don't)