In what way do they "make light of the [...]ongoing violence"? Their comment doesn't read like a joke. Maybe it's a lie (which seems likely), but regardless of whether it's true or a joke they're in no way talking about the violence - they're only talking about the protest, which is absolutely justified. People have the right to protest; they have the right to revolt.

A few years ago, we had some family friends (a conservative but nice Christian family) over for a movie night. They had a couple of younger girls, I think about 7 and 10 or so, plus ours about the same age. It was October so I suggested Gremlins, as I vaguely remembered enjoying it as a kid - and besides, it's only PG! It's a comedy!

Yeah that was a mistake.

A few months later they came over for dinner and another movie, and this time I was more careful - they wanted a family-friendly action movie, so I suggested Point Break. I honestly don't know what the fuck I was thinking.

Now I no longer trust my own recollections of how "family-friendly" movies are anymore. I guess I just don't really pay attention to that.

For some reason they haven't kept in touch...

It's also worth mentioning that these very poorly secured certificates were intermediate certificates. These are not used directly by websites to assure the end user that the communication with the website is secure - it's even worse than that.

Intermediate certificates are used to sign the website certificates, so that the end user's browser can look up the server certificates that websites give them, to determine if the certificate is genuine (and not, say, a man-in-the-middle that is intercepting the communication and merely pretending to be the real website).

Since anybody can easily just create a certificate, there has to be a way that an end user can be confident that the website they are visiting is actually the one they intend to visit. The way the current system works is that there is a curated list of CA (certificate authority) certificates that have been thoroughly vetted by multiple security organizations. These are used to "sign" server certificates. Every browser has a copy of the corresponding public CA certificate. The private certificates are kept very securely offline. There's no easy way for anyone to create a certificate that "claims" to be (but actually isn't) signed by one of these trusted CA certificates. This way, when a website provides its certificate, the browser can look at the signing key and know with a high degree of certainty that the website is what it says it is.

An intermediate certificate is a "delegate" subsidiary of a CA cert. It can be used as a proxy to its parent CA cert to sign other generated certs. So even if a website (or a man-in-the-middle) provides what appears to be a very secure cert with strong encryption, it may have been signed by a "broken" insecure intermediate cert. The browser, of course, doesn't know - or care - about how insecure the the intermediate cert is - the browser has already implicitly trusted it. There fore, the browser has no way of knowing or alerting the user that their communication with the website has been compromised by someone pretending to be another website.

"The best time to learn ass was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."

Don't worry about it, they'll turn when you slam the dishwasher door hard enough.

after proceedings had started, wasting everyone's time and taxpayer dollars.

That was the point - that is, that's why the cop didn't just walk away. He knew he was wrong, but she embarrassed him. He knew that he could just force the issue right up to the last minute, and there would be no consequences for him. Major hassle and inconvenience for her, but he still gets paid and there's almost certainly no negative repercussions for him.

He was deliberately making life more difficult for her, because his feelings were hurt. It wasn't out of ignorance, it was out of childish malice.

I agree, but for clarification it was a different teen whom he shot, who still had his BB gun.

There were 3 teens, two with BB guns. The first dropped his and was on the ground, straddled by Shooter McFuckhead when the second, still standing, was shot.

Thank god there was a "good guy with a gun" there. Otherwise nobody would have died!

Not glass, but hardened resin. Used to track littoral currents and drift. Has metal so it can be found later with a metal detector.

"Statute"

Really? Does nobody proofread anymore?

You sound like one of my PMs. "Klugerama, your coworker was able to resolve a UI issue in just 3 days, why did it take you over 3 weeks to convert 50k lines of code from C# to Java?"

What? RTFA. 2 boys were charged by the Sheriff's department. They didn't face any punishment from the school, but law enforcement definitely investigated.

fuck this site. immediate redirect to "virus warning" bullshit.

Not necessarily.

You didn't provide any further context, so I will not bother providing further explanation.

Yes, they would have been like philosophers, scientists, or academics.

Also, trivia: the Bible never says there were 3. It just says wise men came (unspecified number) and brought 3 gifts.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you misunderstood who is at fault here.

The senators aren't asking the government to spy on Americans. They're only asking the DNI to make it clear to the public that the US government already might be spying on them.

the date is literally right there in the screenshot

JFC take a breath. You went from 0-100 with absolutely no justification. Nobody is defending them, in any way, nor did anyone even imply that what they did was OK.

What in the fuck are you talking about?

Which is weird because the Daily Beast usually goes way overboard with the clickbait headlines...almost every time Trump tweets a response to criticism he's "melting down" or he's "raging" or it's a "deranged rant".

The videos aren't being released publicly. It's in the article.

Only Christian Ziegler, the police, and presumably the prosecutor(s) have access.

The article mentions felony charges - it could also or instead be that it was too high a bar (pun intended) to indict when it should have been a misdemeanor vandalism charge.