> I am not asserting that something improper has occurred here, but when journalists are asserting unequivocally and in unison that nothing improper has happened, because the US election system is non-exploitable (while providing zero evidence of this),
That's true, but you can also lose your house for completely unrelated debts in the UK (i.e., you could pay your mortgage but if you have a different, unrelated loan that you default on then that creditor could have a court sign off on seizing your house).
This is one area where the US has really good protections. Even most people that file Chapter 7 (liquidation bankruptcy) in the US don't lose any assets. Courts will generally only liquidate investment accounts, vacation homes, high-dollar collectibles, etc. They won't take your primary home, car, typical personal possessions, etc.
This isn't a great analogy. Many anti-sprawl urban planners actually say this is exactly what we should be doing to encourage more efficient (denser, more urban) development.
I get redirected to http after clicking on the first link, just like you did, but when I visit the URL you posted in Chrome (on OS X), I'm able to view the encrypted page without a warning.
I changed the settings in Keychain Access hours ago.
I got the same result. For some reason Chrome trusts intermediate certificate even if the root certificate is marked as untrusted. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/qW6V3.png (Chrome 14.0.835.109 beta)
Lock with the warning icon is here because "Unable to check whether the certificate has been revoked."
Maybe their intermediate is signed by some other root CA?
>While this is an attractive bet, as Google you would have to hope that neither your OS or network got too popular or you could quickly end up in anti-trust territory.
Sadly, this is probably true. Such integration may prove too useful to consumers and too game-changing for Google's competitors. I wouldn't put it past them to use the federal government to makeup for their lack of innovation.
I have seen this claim a few times, but noone ever gives any real reasons as to why.
A monopoly born through a superior product is not the same as a monopoly born through anti-competitive practises. Noone is forcing or coercing anyone to use Google+. Facebook and twitter are only a click away, and both are massively more popular.
Could we say the same if Facebook launched an email service? Or if Twitter launched some sort of search engine?
We're not talking about a mere monopoly, we're talking about exclusive API integrations in, hypothetically, an OS with majority market share. That's not something that has historically been tolerated well by courts.
No, there is Skype for Android (which is available for any carrier), it's just "wifi only" in the U.S., but most people should be able to get their hands on the non-U.S. version if they know how to use google.
The sheer suckiness of US networks never ceases to amaze. For a supposed 'technology' country it's amazing how backward they are, and just how much they have customers by the balls. And the customers don't seem to mind.
Yeah, this in particular has been very weird.