Is it expected from all CAs that they obey CAA records, or is it something just made up by the community to crush the big CAs? I see an RFC from just a few years ago, and I'm not sure how these things are standardised.
On a requirement they voted for half a year ago for a standard specified 5 years ago. It's sloppy and sloppy is not a property you want in a certificate authority.
Three days is quite a long time to be late, so I'd hope someone over there is getting a reprimand, but yeah, it's also not a disaster. They're response and time to remedy this will be more telling I think.
Three days over a weekend, though. Context matters. Even if it's the most critical incident, you can't force employees to work outside of business hours.
That makes no difference as to when the three days where. I never made any claims as to why it's late or them lying. I merely clarified that the three days were over a period where people don't usually work.
'Lie' is indeed a strong term, informally suggesting an intent to deceive. Personally, I would suspect negligence and incompetence rather than deceit, but negligence is a serious matter here.
Given the general crappiness of the CA industry, my first instinct is to say they willfully said "yeah we support it" without actually doing it first, knowing that it wasn't actually done.
Mozilla is biased (towards open internet, liberalism, etc) so evidently this is an opinion piece--they are asking us to stop something they don't agree with!
You remind me of a friend who, as an excuse for having bought a mobile with shit battery, used to say: "well this way I don't look at it that much!!!". Bollocks.
"that" as in multi-monitor support? Multi-monitor works fine on my Plasma desktop since at least 2012. Can't comment on high-DPI, but from what I've heard it's in the "getting there" stage.
Multi-monitor works fine. Single monitor, high DPI is very tricky, and barely works, never consistently (like, GNOME looks fine, but Firefox looks tiny). Multi-monitor, where every monitor has a different DPI value, has absolutely no support.
I am using my Dell XPS 13 with a resolution of 1920x1080 (scaled from 3200x1800) for the internal display and an external display with native 1920x1080 and cannot confirm this. It works pretty well (GNOME3, Ubuntu 17.04). Firefox is not tiny. I did not change anything in my X config files.
You mean you changed the resolution of your internal screen with xrandr? Or does xrandr still report 3200x1800? If not, then this is not a HiDPI setup. HiDPI is (basically) when applications draw using internal coordinates that are not "1 screen pixel per logical pixel", but more than that.
No, I just changed the "Display settings" (right click on desktop) to 1920x1080.
xrandr reports the following:
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 3840 x 1080, maximum 8192 x 8192
eDP-1 connected 1920x1080+1920+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 294mm x 165mm
These are installed in areas with speed limits at walking speeds. So if you're driving fast enough to damage your car and then seek damages, the best thing will that might happen is that they'll laugh you off. The worst thing is that you'll loose your drivers license. (No tears shed either)
Maybe where you live. In the Seattle area[1], speed bumps are frequently installed on residential streets where the actual limit is 25-30 miles per hour (40-50 kilometers/hour using non-legacy units).
It's typically done in "problems areas" where a small number of people drive 25-50% or more over the limit, but it's extremely frustrating, because it forces drivers to drive way below the actual limit when crossing the speed bumps - especially if they're the bolt-down kind. i.e. the effect is to cause irritation for ~99% of drivers in order to punish a tiny minority.
So if this kind would be installed, then they'd be soft at regulated speed and only solid at speeds significantly exceeding those. I doubt you'd be able to sue the city for breaking your car then - you have been warned. Still, no tear shed.
None, because nobody hates lighting bulbs or metro card readers, while every driver hates speed bumps.
Well, maybe not all drivers, but one driver who hates that damn speed bump that he has to drive over every day is enough to make that baby bleed. :)
I'm just being realistic. I've lived in an impoverished area all of my life and I know how things here work. I'm saying what I honestly believe would happen with these.
What I meant, although I guess it wasn't clear, is that from my own experience a vandal is many times not what you expect him to be. Sometimes, he's some guy with glasses who posts on Hacker News. And sometimes, that vandal is not a he, but a she. I've seen it all. :)
I really appreciate the brutal honesty of your initial comment! Of course there is a vandal in every single one of us and those who say otherwise (or downvote) are in denial.
That may be true of many, but certainly not everyone. I find most vandalism to be pretty morally reprehensible, since it does damage to another person or to society as a whole, for no benefit besides momentary enjoyment. I have significantly more compassion for a thief than a vandal. (Of course, these feelings would be somewhat proportional to the degree of damage caused.)
That's not google reminding you of privacy settings (in fact if you want to change those this menu is highly impractical with a lot of nesting). This is google making you agree with their T&C to go any further.
Isn't that effectively a legal requirement? That users must make some sort of actual confirmation step to acknowledge the terms for them to be legally enforceable?
I mean, look at my submission/comment history, I'm literally the voice of Google criticism on this website. But it's hard to see how this little diversion has to do with pop-up ads. It's not advertising, first and foremost.
