I would like the speed limit on my interstates and highways to go up to 70(they're all straight. 55 is just the only speed limit around here). Driving at 65-70 feels safe in normal conditions. Driving above 70 feels a bit too fast.
Speed limits should be more variable depending upon car size and braking power though. I hate having to fear that I might be pulled over for going a bit above the speed limit when there are so many more threats than just speed. I don't believe speed limits should be anything more than a suggestion with dangerous driving being the focus.
I find this is extremely dependent on car. I've had cars that felt like you were about to die at 55 mph, and I've had cars that you couldn't tell you were going fast until you were really moving. For laughs, as my wife and I were driving home one afternoon earlier this year on a completely empty stretch of I-5 south of Portland, I casually accelerated up to about 110 and left it there for maybe a minute, then eased back down to normal speed as we came up into traffic. She never even looked up, didn't notice. But then again, we were in my brand new Camaro SS and I'm not positive it even got over 2000 RPM for that exercise, so I guess that's not a surprise.
So I guess I'm saying I agree. Speed limits are pretty arbitrary, there are a lot of things drivers do every day that are far more dangerous than merely speeding. Closure rate, unsafe passes, tailgating, cutting people off, etc.
/don't get me started about how people drive around you if you're towing a travel trailer, what the heck is it with people?
On most roads around where I live, if you are driving exactly the speed limit, you are a slow moving obstacle that is probably more of a danger due to the extreme speed differential with the other drivers who are 10-20 MPH over the limit. I’d hope self driving cars were programmed to deal safely within the bounds of reality. If there is nobody else on the road, sure drive the speed limit. If cars are whizzing past you on all sides you’re a hazard even if you’re obeying the law.
I don't want to make the same mistake when doing something. It's more of a service to other people than to Amazon (People probably aren't going to choose a different service based on documentation). It also helps to have different viewpoints from levels of experience to help with wording and such.
This is good, as it seemed Intel was about to buy broadcom after it bought Qualcomm. Considering they're all the main competitors for chipsets and such, this prevents [complete monopolization] of those markets. These companies remaining under different companies at least lets fail and succeed with their own style
Remember that High Sierra update that left a nice privilege elevation bug for like a month? That never happened...
If you never admit to it, it never happened. Apple's security philosophy.
Trucks are safer to ride in than small cars. They have more utility than small cars. Your coworkers may want to have a vehicle that has the ability to do something. Parking is a bit of a hassle but as long as you don't have solid traffic, they're fine to handle. Small cars are more fun to race. Trucks and Jeeps are more fun to run trails.
Not necessarily. Historically (though I couldn't find recent hard data in 60 seconds of searching the nets) cars have been safer [1][2], and in particular, less likely to roll over in an accident. Furthermore, when a SUV or truck collides with a car, it's more dangerous for the occupants of the car than in a car-to-car collision [3].
If you think something is down voted inappropriately, just silently upvote it. If you've got additional substantive material to add, by all means do. It does no good and is against the guidelines to comment on the downvotes.
> "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
If you bought a shield tv, you could have Amazon prime video. They're pretty nice. I'm kind of disappointed in the new model, though. It's nice having a fully functional Android device that can gamestream, use apps that aren't made for tv with the gamepad, and stream video.
Let me tell you why this is very dishonest:
1. The internet was built without trust in mind because it was a simple connection between universities and government. There wasn't much need for security. Now that the internet exists, there is a great need for security.
2. Https is better than http. It's an evolution. It's not impossible to get a certificate. To verify who you are and to protect your users.
3. If you don't care about your users' privacy, perhaps you shouldn't be hosting sites. To be completely honest, Google is a bit slow with this. I know the difficulty it posses, but it's worth it.
We need to stop passing unencrypted data. We need the internet to finally care about security and privacy.
The internet has evolved, ipv4 has been used up (in terms of devices). It's time.
None of these statements convince me that http sites should be default flagged as insecure. Take this site, for instance: http://wilsonminesco.com/6502primer/65tutor_intro.html. It is a great resource, but is not available over https. yeah, it's possible that someone could MITM it to provide me with incorrect info on the 6502, but I don't see the disregard for my privacy. I'm never going to put in any of my own information, even if someone uses MITM to ask for my credit card or something.
Could you explain why browsers should flag sites like this? It's possible that I'm too naive to realize the issue, and I would appreciate some education on it.
It's not just about modifying the data, but also about anyone on your network or between you and the end-host being able to determine that you visited that site, and what pages you visited, and when.
The common refrain is to think about repressive governments and what they can (and do) do with this information, but even here in the States think about your ISPs selling your browsing history to advertisers. Or think about ISPs being required to report to the US Government whenever you visit some informative but http-only page about terrorism / chemistry that happens to also be used in explosives / infosec topics / etc. Consider being put on a watchlist simply for having viewed StackOverflow questions relating to XSS or SQLi vulnerabilities.
If you determine the word "insecure" to mean that security or privacy expectations held by the average user are being violated, then all HTTP-only pages are insecure -- not because you may be viewing modified information or because you may be submitting sensitive information, but because the fact that you visited that page while alone is something that the average user likely suspects is secret and/or private, but isn't. To put it bluntly: would you browse an HTTP-only porn site? I wouldn't.
Saying a site like that is not secure, is like the famous old advertizing campaign where one of two competeing food products claimed, perfectly truthfully, that there bread or milk or whatever it was, didn't contain any bleach. It's a technically true, yet grossly disingenuous statement. No one's milk had any bleach in it, and that site has no obligation to be secure.
I edited my post before your response to change it to "flagged," but failed to call out the change initially. Sorry, it's fixed now.
For a lot of people, a big scary warning page that says that a page is insecure is essentially a block. Yeah, you can still access it, but a lot fewer people will.
> let's be honest, it is not secure.
My original post is asking for an explanation of how it isn't secure. I would totally understand a browser warning if a user tries to submit a form over http, but for a page like the one I linked I don't see how it can adversely affect the user.
I could, in a very tame example, inject a fake donation button which pointed to my own account instead of the author's. In a more extreme and dangerous example, I could inject malicious JavaScript which exploited an unpatched CVE (Meltdown, Spectre) or vulnerabilities in plugins like Flash, if enabled, to gain control of the user's computer.
It's true that these things could also happen over an HTTPS connection, but then the prevention method is "don't go on sketchy websites." It's far more dangerous over HTTP because a user might already trust the site or author themselves.
I still don't see why either of those justify warning the user about the whole page. For the donation button, the browser could easily warn you with a big "insecure!" page when you click on the button. Regarding js exploits, I don't think https fixes that even for non-sketchy websites: I'm thinking of the js malware in ads and the recent cryptocurrency-mining ads on youtube.
> the browser could easily warn you with a big "insecure!" page when you click on the button.
But this implies that whenever you click on any link on a page served via HTTP, the browser should warn you with a big "insecure!" page. I think this is far more obtrusive than a simple "not secure" banner next to the URL.
> I don't think https fixes that even for non-sketchy websites
You're right, if the website served over HTTPS injects random JavaScript/is poorly designed. However, the danger with HTTP is that every single website is vulnerable to this attack, not simply the ones served by malicious or incompetent hosts.
The donation request may not always be in the form of a button. Sometimes it may be a request to make the donation by another means such as by sending bitcoins to a specific address.
