See here for an explanation: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsecurity.googleblog.co...

TL;DR is the entire TLD is on the HSTS preload list.

The problem with the monorail is that it was designed as spectacle, not as transit, yet even as spectacle it fails because it's so out of the way that most people never even stumble across it, and if you do take it, all you see are the backs of hotels. It's even priced as spectacle. $2.75 gets you anywhere in New York City via the subway and bus, but it costs $5 to take the monorail just to go 4 miles along the backs of casinos in Las Vegas.

The monorail should have been built in the middle of the Strip. The Strip is a dystopian nightmare highway bifurcating one of the most walked streets in the United States. It's so dangerous that in many places there aren't even any at-grade pedestrian crossings; you have to go up stairs/escalators set back from the strip, go across a bridge, and then back down, often being forced to detour through one or two casinos in the process. It's the ultimate triumph of automobiles over people for no goddamn reason at all.

The mass transit should have been run right down the middle of the Strip. Instead it was forced to the margins where it remains unused, when it was really the car traffic that should have been forced to the margins. Las Vegas should do a NYC-style "Summer Streets" a few times per year and entirely close down the Strip to car traffic for half a day and let pedestrians use it as they'd like, like Mardi Gras. Then people would realize what they've been missing.

FYI, the HSTS preload list is used by all major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, IE, Edge, Safari, Opera, etc.). This is a good thing, of course; online security shouldn't be enforced conditionally depending on which browser you're using.

The linked article got it wrong. This isn't about Chrome adding TLDs to the HSTS list, it's about the TLDs' owner (which also happens to be Google) adding them to the global HSTS list.

I hate how deficient PC laptop screens are nowadays. They've somehow managed to get worse over time, not better. I'm still using an aging Dell laptop that's six years old because it has a 1920x1200 screen and I cannot even find a replacement that is similarly specced.

The only company that gets it is Apple, but their Retina display laptops start at $1,700, which is an absurd premium, and I'm not interested in running OS X anyway.

Here's what I've learned recently: If I ever discover a major security hole, do not even attempt to release it responsibly. Instead, layer up behind some proxies and Tor and leak it into a blackhat forum or IRC channel. That way the security hole will eventually get fixed, and I can't be prosecuted.

Well, not so much of a joke as an inevitability, but yeah, a lot of the great inventions seem obvious in hindsight. Yet, for some reason, no one figured it out for awhile.

If you've ever used Usenet, and you've used parity files to recover missing segments of data, then you know exactly how this technique works.

Frankly, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to apply it to lossy network environments. It seems obvious in hindsight.

Was the lack of a microwave caused by fears of interference with the aircraft? If microwaves can interfere with WiFi, I imagine they could wreak havoc on an airplane's electronics systems. Just not worth the chance?

> There are probably a fare number of single shot WWI and WWII era rifles we gave them to fight the Russians still floating about as well.

All standard arms of the World War I through World War II period were at least bolt-action, with some militaries issuing semi-automatics as standard (such as the US Armed Forces with the M1 Garand in WWII).

The improvement in rate of fire with a bolt-action rifle that loads from stripper clips is pretty significant over a single shot.

Well darn. I was going off the rather incomplete information as released so far. But we'll know for sure soon enough.

Extraterrestrial origin is, of course, even more significant, but my main point was that even if it is homegrown, it still implies two separate abiogenesis events, which is huge. Note that extraterrestrial origin also implies two separate abiogenesis events, of course.

Taking the speculation in the article at face value, and thus assuming that NASA has found an arsenic-based lifeform in a shadow biosphere on Earth, here's why it's important:

All life on Earth that we know of is related. It all uses the same basic DNA/RNA mechanisms (including the same four base pairs), uses the same specific molecules that prominently feature carbon as the basic assembly blocks of the cell, etc. To use the ever-popular car analogy, cars can look quite different from each other, but they're all still essentially made out of the same things: bolts, gears, copper wiring, etc.

Well this other kind of life is completely different. It's so different that we know it cannot possibly be related to all of the other Earth life that we've known about thus far, as there is nothing in common. That means abiogenesis (the spontaneous generation of life from precursor non-living materials) happened at least TWICE on just this one planet.

So while this isn't extra-terrestrial life, it does have all sorts of potential ramifications on the potential existence of extra-terrestrial life. Before today, it was possible to speculate that one solution to Drake's Equation was simply that spontaneous generation of life was so rare that it only happened once, ever. But if we now found that it's happened multiple times just on this one planet ... then hell, it could be happening everywhere, all the time.

Actually, that's not true. The naive/untrained method is to draw everything from a flat 2D perspective. You can see this both in art by children (or people with no formal art training) as well as in pretty much all art from the Middle Ages and prior. The development of perspective, which is an application of mathematics/geometry to art, is why paintings from the Renaissance Era on simply look so much better and more lifelike than paintings from any earlier era. The rules of perspective (that is, mapping a 3D world to a 2D surface) are not obvious, are not simple, and learning how to draw perspective well is a skill that is hard to master.

So I spent the time to read that overly long article, and the author doesn't even say why he can't play the game with his left hand? I understand he looked through the menus for an option and didn't find one, but what specifically is going on in the game that makes it impossible to play with his left hand? This seems like the central point of the whole story, and yet it is left unexplained.