Uh... what the hell is wrong with your laptop? That test is from 2010. I got 50FPS in HTML, 121 in Canvas, and 81 in SVG (rough averages, neither the highs nor the lows). I suppose I could try it in Flash but that would require enabling Flash, so no.
2-year-old Lenovo Thinkpad laptop, 1920x1080 display, Core i7 @ 2.5GHz, Windows 7, IE11. Is your computer from a decade ago or something?MS has put a lot of effort into IE performance, but it's not supposed to be a factor of 12x-16x better than Firefox!
There have also been games which were released with DRM, and later patched to remove it. There have even been games which were released without DRM, some publishers added DRM, and later it was patched out again.
Steamworks looks like DRM and quacks like DRM. In what way is it not DRM? Just because they removed the DRM later doesn't mean it wasn't DRM in the first place. That's what Steam is. I'll even grant that in some cases the developers honestly didn't *intend* it to be DRM, but if they use Steamworks and the game therefore doesn't work unless I'm signed into Steam, that is DRM in every single way that matters.
I notice you also don't even touch things like resale and so on. Steam is DRM. Anybody pretending otherwise is lying to themselves.
Reading comprehension class, apparently. It's not that hard to figure out: they're saying it's technically an open-world RPG, but it has the strong overall plot and rich storyline that is characteristic of (successful) closed-world RPGs.
In fairness, it's nothing new. A lot of games have tried to strike that balance; in fact, it's been a while since I've seen a classic open-world RPG, and I'm OK with that. But, I'm also really glad to *have* that freedom, even though it's not required for the central appeal of the game.
No, that's definitely DRM. A game that needs my "sound card" (lol) can still be played if the same game is on another PC. It certainly isn't going to object if another game that I happened to buy from the same *store* is being played on another PC! It can still be played if I swap out the sound card for another one. It can *probably* even be played just by turning off sound... Steam doesn't allow any of that. If Steam let you just access those features which are needed for game support while simultaneously being logged into your account elsewhere, or let the game run without them, it wouldn't be DRM. But it doesn't!
If you honestly thought that just because they *told* you it was purely for technical reasons it therefore isn't DRM, you are a colossal idiot. One of the proverbial suckers, born every minute. It bears every single earmark of DRM, right down to not being able to (legally, according to Valve) re-sell the game. Only an utter moron or brainless fanboy (but I repeat myself...) would claim it is otherwise.
It's not "dead" at all. That's the point at which the company basically says "your battery is no longer worth as much as it was" or, to put it differently, "what you have now is a lower-value variant of the part we sold you". If you'd wanted a Model S with 80% the range of the one you bought, you'd probably have bought a different variant (and paid less for it). It's something the company can use when advertising how long their battery lasts, and estimating when they'll need replacement. It's something the buyers can use when comparing cost options.
I usually refer to it as an organized crime syndicate, myself. The main difference that comes to mind is that instead of selling psychoactive drugs, they prohibit their people from buying psychoactives - even ones that they desperately need - from anybody.
... Holy crap. There is an actual *feature* in Notepad beyond the bare minimum required for a GUI text editor?
I'm quite honestly astonished. I generally assume Notepad has no meaningful features at all. Tested though, and it worked. You don't even need to use a particular extension (or at least, both.log and.txt work); looks like it just checks that first line.
"Data upload from tracking plane shows first stage landing in Atlantic was good! Flight computers continued transmitting for 8 seconds after reaching the water. Stopped when booster went horizontal. Several boats enroute through heavy seas..." is the latest we've heard. They're calling it a success, though, which is hopeful! I don't know if they were expecting to get more than 8 seconds or not, and whether "booster went horizontal" was expected or not (got hit by a wave, maybe?) - but they know a lot more about what constitutes success than I do.
Pity about the rough conditions, though. Would have been *awesome* to see the first stage re-light and hover after a real launch. Maybe next time...
If you read the LATimes link, SpaceX says they believe the first stage recovery was probably not successful, on account of very rough conditions (25' waves - about 8m - where the rocket tried to come to a hover over the water's surface). They were sending ships out to see, but estimated the odds of success at only 40%.
If anybody has an update on that attempt, please post it!
We already have very advanced containment systems. There's nothing about them that would be unsuitable for oceanic use, aside from requiring a whole lot of floatation. The containment system at Fukushima wasn't even close to modern, yet it did a pretty good job anyhow. Hell, the system at Three Mile Island contained nearly all the radioactive material, and that was 35 years ago.
With even the Mark 1 containment building found at Fukushima (which was 40 years old; the same age as TMI), an incident like Chernobyl (which had *no* containment building) wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Compared to modern containment buildings though, Mark 1 isn't even *last* generation; it's outright obsolete.
Still, it's a reasonable proof-of-concept in many ways. Scaling it up and using a tethered platform instead of a mobile isn't a trivial engineering exercise, but we already know how to produce multi-GW nuclear plants. This gives us a good, safe place to put them. It also means they don't have to go sucking up precious river water for their heat exchangers and cooling towers; the ocean is as big a heat sink as we could hope for on Earth.
If you have a Nokia, it's easy enough to flash the stock (8.0) OS back again using Nokia Care Suite. Probably also true for Samsung WP8 phones, which have a Flashing tool and ROMs have been released at least for some of them. Not sure about HTC or Huawei, but the latter has custom ROMs (so it's almost certainly possible to go back) and the former has *historically* had lots of flashing tools and at least stock ROMs available. Not sure for WP8 though.
Space launches are tricky! SpaceX has an excellent mission success record so far, but a lot of that is because they're really, really careful around things that could cause a failure (distinct from an abort).
It's disappointing for sure, but it beats having a rocket blow up or lose control in orbit or something. That probably will happen eventually, but with any luck there will be a long-established safety record by then.
A good strong PBKDF2 is probably sufficient, but yeah, 2k rounds is pathetic. iPhones were doing better (admittedly, their passphrases tend to be very short) several years ago, and that's on a mobile CPU. Having a limit of 2k rounds doesn't even make sense, it's not like it's harder to code it for more rounds or something. The only real limit should probably be 0xFFFFFFFF rounds (assuming 32-bit ints) because why have a limit at all?
For one other, not everybody is fanatically partisan. I don't like Eich because he wanted to enshrine religiously motivated discrimination into law. I support gay marriage, and will continue to do so until the law gets out of marriage entirely and makes all the benefits which legally married couples receive instead available to everybody. I use Firefox just as much as I used to (it's not my primary browser, but I keep it installed and use it semi-regularly). The Democratic party receives more of my votes than the Republican party but I do not like Obama, Hillary, or the DNC; I voted for a third-party candidate. I will call anybody acting hypocritically a hyprocrite. For example, you took a non-partisan discussion (equality and corporate politics) and tried to imply that it was partisan (specifically, that Microlith is a blind supporter of the Democratic party) when in fact you just revealed your own partisan bias without refuting a single one of Microlith's points.
Flamebait doesn't have to be off-topic. Off-topic stuff is supposed to get modded off-topic, not flamebait. Flamebait is saying things to get people pissed off, like talking about Congress outing and ostracizing religious people, and linking to a news story about the "gay mafia" (about as idiotic a term as I've ever heard).
The other of the post emself admitted it was flamebait.
You distort facts to imply that they mean something other than what they mean, then act like you expect us to believe your "interpretation". For example, I don't really care what the Democratic party claims - I don't vote any party's line (nor do I support Obama generally speaking, except by comparison to some), and I look at voting records instead of claimed positions - but I doubt you'll find many on either side of the aisle who disagree with the claim that they support the constitution. The constitution explicitly gives the Judicial branch the ability to do what it did to Proposition 8 (overturn it on the basis of higher law). This is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a disliked minority group, which is one of the obvious failures of a pure democracy. As for "activist judges", you do realize that 5 of the 9 current justices were Republican presidential nominations, right?
Oh, and lots of people who call themselves "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" members of the religions you listed are fine with gay marriage. *Your* view might be that this is inherently contradictory, but their view is that however unrighteous those people are is a matter between them and God but secular law should be fair to all, or that a God of love would not turn His back on somebody on account of who they love, or any of many other arguments. You will probably find many more such people like that than you will find people who believe that the wrathful or gluttonous are nearly so bad, and that (heterosexual) adulterers deserve death. As such, it is quite obvious that religious folk can go about their daily lives without trying to enforce their religious beliefs on others. If you personally cannot, that is a failure of you personally, not of society or even of religion.
Oh, and the bit about tolerance? You really didn't think that part through, did you... it's about creating a tolerant society, not about personally tolerating everything. You present a false dichotomy: tolerate everything including intolerance, or don't be "about tolerance". Try this thought on for size: "we advocate tolerance towards every individual's nature, but oppose those who choose to be intolerant of the nature of others." It may help some people to think of it as advocating tolerance towards the ways in which God created us, and opposing those who are intolerant of some of God's creations. After all, sin is supposed to be about (making the wrong) choice, right? Are we not innocent and pure, until we choose to be otherwise? Well, religious belief is a choice. Sexual orientation is not.
Finally, there's the fact that you cite Fox News, which is just stupid around here. Even assuming that the story was both accurate and unbiased (having read both sides, Fox's account is generally the first but far from the second), that's just asking for trouble. The stories were widely reported; you can find better sources than that.
For the first story, Emmanuel is, to the best of my knowledge (though IANAL), not allowed to deny or revoke business licenses on the grounds of an implied intention to discriminate; an actual act of discrimination or at least a policy requiring it would be required first.
For the second story, that's straightforward: if you run a business open to the public, you are not permitted to discriminate against certain classes of people and refuse them service. This has probably been law since before you were born, in the case of racial discrimination (incidentally, at least one religion in the US held that black skin was the "mark of Cain" and thus they were justified in refusing to interact with them) and for that matter in the case of religion (which, unlike skin color or sexual orientation, is a matter of choice) or several other classifications. Oregon had simply expanded the list of classes against which a public business may not discriminate to include sexual orientation. If "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" had in fact been a Christian bakery - that is, a religious entity only open to Christians - they would probably have won thei
Normally I might agree, but Firefox doesn't need to market in the same way that other companies do. Their income comes from very non-traditional sources, and their products are free. That's not to say I *like* the idea of marketing running the place, but I think it's better than it sounds. Mozilla's marketing has been about awareness, much more than about trying to sell something.
Oh, please. OS X / Darwin's implementation of the Unix standard is screwier than half the Linux distros I've used. It's the same from Mac to Mac, sure, but that doesn't mean much; the same applies from SLES machine to SLES machine or from Nokia N900 to Nokia N900. Their filesystem layout is weird, they don't use standard files for some things, or do so bizarrely (some years back, I found their fstab manpage to be wrong and the file itself to be basically useless). Their user system is not entirely conventional.
There is no such singular thing as "the real Unix command line" but I could get a (descendent of) Bourne shell on versions of NT earlier than OS X existed.
The cool feature of Pacemaker is that it checks TLS *clients*, actually. There are other tools for server checks (one of which is included with Pacemaker) but it's actually very important to make sure any clients you have are invulnerable to Heartbleed as well. Software that ships with bundled or integrated OpenSSL libraries - and I've seen quite a few - could be vulnerable to this.
If the server (or client, for that matter) was hit with Heartbleed *during* (or shortly after) the session, the symmetric encryption key may have been retrieved and an attacker who had recorded the whole session could then decrypt it. If the session was ongoing and they were in position to do so, they could MitM it.
Similarly, if the attacker used Heartbleed during the key exchange, they might have leaked the private information (from either endpoint) needed to derive the symmetric key, even if for some reason they didn't get they key directly. Same impact as above.
If the attacker had used Heartbleed to steal the authentication private key prior to your session, they could have hit you with a MitM attack (appearing to be the authentic server) and you wouldn't have known.
If the attacker recorded your session but did not MitM it *or* use Heartbleed on the server while the symmetric key was in memory, you're safe (even if they stole the private key beforehand, much less afterward). That's the beauty of PFS.
Internet Options -> Advanced -> Security (scroll near bottom) -> "Check for publisher's certificate revocation" and "Check for server's certificate revocation" are both checked for me. I know at least one of those options dates back to IE6, in fact, although it may have been inactive by default back then. I don't know when those options were made default, but at a guess I'd say IE8 or IE9.
As a side note, if you are running Vista or later but *not* on IE11, you have TLS 1.1 and 1.2 disabled by default. They're easy to turn on (same place as above, just scroll a bit lower).
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... what the hell is wrong with your laptop? That test is from 2010. I got 50FPS in HTML, 121 in Canvas, and 81 in SVG (rough averages, neither the highs nor the lows). I suppose I could try it in Flash but that would require enabling Flash, so no.
2-year-old Lenovo Thinkpad laptop, 1920x1080 display, Core i7 @ 2.5GHz, Windows 7, IE11.
Is your computer from a decade ago or something?MS has put a lot of effort into IE performance, but it's not supposed to be a factor of 12x-16x better than Firefox!
There have also been games which were released with DRM, and later patched to remove it. There have even been games which were released without DRM, some publishers added DRM, and later it was patched out again.
Steamworks looks like DRM and quacks like DRM. In what way is it not DRM? Just because they removed the DRM later doesn't mean it wasn't DRM in the first place. That's what Steam is. I'll even grant that in some cases the developers honestly didn't *intend* it to be DRM, but if they use Steamworks and the game therefore doesn't work unless I'm signed into Steam, that is DRM in every single way that matters.
I notice you also don't even touch things like resale and so on. Steam is DRM. Anybody pretending otherwise is lying to themselves.
Too bad there are no southern Californian companies employing rocket scientists these days... OH WAIT!
(Yes, that was probably the joke.)
I'm from Seattle, you insensitive clod!
Reading comprehension class, apparently. It's not that hard to figure out: they're saying it's technically an open-world RPG, but it has the strong overall plot and rich storyline that is characteristic of (successful) closed-world RPGs.
In fairness, it's nothing new. A lot of games have tried to strike that balance; in fact, it's been a while since I've seen a classic open-world RPG, and I'm OK with that. But, I'm also really glad to *have* that freedom, even though it's not required for the central appeal of the game.
No, that's definitely DRM.
A game that needs my "sound card" (lol) can still be played if the same game is on another PC. It certainly isn't going to object if another game that I happened to buy from the same *store* is being played on another PC! It can still be played if I swap out the sound card for another one. It can *probably* even be played just by turning off sound...
Steam doesn't allow any of that.
If Steam let you just access those features which are needed for game support while simultaneously being logged into your account elsewhere, or let the game run without them, it wouldn't be DRM. But it doesn't!
If you honestly thought that just because they *told* you it was purely for technical reasons it therefore isn't DRM, you are a colossal idiot. One of the proverbial suckers, born every minute. It bears every single earmark of DRM, right down to not being able to (legally, according to Valve) re-sell the game. Only an utter moron or brainless fanboy (but I repeat myself...) would claim it is otherwise.
Wow, you're some *special* kind of stupid, aren't you? Or did you just think we all are?
Directly from the page you linked:
Go die in a fire, DRM-apologist.
It's not "dead" at all. That's the point at which the company basically says "your battery is no longer worth as much as it was" or, to put it differently, "what you have now is a lower-value variant of the part we sold you". If you'd wanted a Model S with 80% the range of the one you bought, you'd probably have bought a different variant (and paid less for it). It's something the company can use when advertising how long their battery lasts, and estimating when they'll need replacement. It's something the buyers can use when comparing cost options.
I usually refer to it as an organized crime syndicate, myself. The main difference that comes to mind is that instead of selling psychoactive drugs, they prohibit their people from buying psychoactives - even ones that they desperately need - from anybody.
... Holy crap. There is an actual *feature* in Notepad beyond the bare minimum required for a GUI text editor?
I'm quite honestly astonished. I generally assume Notepad has no meaningful features at all. Tested though, and it worked. You don't even need to use a particular extension (or at least, both .log and .txt work); looks like it just checks that first line.
Bah, sorry for the self-reply...
"Data upload from tracking plane shows first stage landing in Atlantic was good! Flight computers continued transmitting for 8 seconds after reaching the water. Stopped when booster went horizontal. Several boats enroute through heavy seas..." is the latest we've heard. They're calling it a success, though, which is hopeful! I don't know if they were expecting to get more than 8 seconds or not, and whether "booster went horizontal" was expected or not (got hit by a wave, maybe?) - but they know a lot more about what constitutes success than I do.
Pity about the rough conditions, though. Would have been *awesome* to see the first stage re-light and hover after a real launch. Maybe next time...
If you read the LATimes link, SpaceX says they believe the first stage recovery was probably not successful, on account of very rough conditions (25' waves - about 8m - where the rocket tried to come to a hover over the water's surface). They were sending ships out to see, but estimated the odds of success at only 40%.
If anybody has an update on that attempt, please post it!
We already have very advanced containment systems. There's nothing about them that would be unsuitable for oceanic use, aside from requiring a whole lot of floatation. The containment system at Fukushima wasn't even close to modern, yet it did a pretty good job anyhow. Hell, the system at Three Mile Island contained nearly all the radioactive material, and that was 35 years ago.
With even the Mark 1 containment building found at Fukushima (which was 40 years old; the same age as TMI), an incident like Chernobyl (which had *no* containment building) wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Compared to modern containment buildings though, Mark 1 isn't even *last* generation; it's outright obsolete.
Still, it's a reasonable proof-of-concept in many ways. Scaling it up and using a tethered platform instead of a mobile isn't a trivial engineering exercise, but we already know how to produce multi-GW nuclear plants. This gives us a good, safe place to put them. It also means they don't have to go sucking up precious river water for their heat exchangers and cooling towers; the ocean is as big a heat sink as we could hope for on Earth.
If you have a Nokia, it's easy enough to flash the stock (8.0) OS back again using Nokia Care Suite. Probably also true for Samsung WP8 phones, which have a Flashing tool and ROMs have been released at least for some of them. Not sure about HTC or Huawei, but the latter has custom ROMs (so it's almost certainly possible to go back) and the former has *historically* had lots of flashing tools and at least stock ROMs available. Not sure for WP8 though.
Space launches are tricky! SpaceX has an excellent mission success record so far, but a lot of that is because they're really, really careful around things that could cause a failure (distinct from an abort).
It's disappointing for sure, but it beats having a rocket blow up or lose control in orbit or something. That probably will happen eventually, but with any luck there will be a long-established safety record by then.
A good strong PBKDF2 is probably sufficient, but yeah, 2k rounds is pathetic. iPhones were doing better (admittedly, their passphrases tend to be very short) several years ago, and that's on a mobile CPU. Having a limit of 2k rounds doesn't even make sense, it's not like it's harder to code it for more rounds or something. The only real limit should probably be 0xFFFFFFFF rounds (assuming 32-bit ints) because why have a limit at all?
You are an idiot, several times over.
For one other, not everybody is fanatically partisan. I don't like Eich because he wanted to enshrine religiously motivated discrimination into law. I support gay marriage, and will continue to do so until the law gets out of marriage entirely and makes all the benefits which legally married couples receive instead available to everybody. I use Firefox just as much as I used to (it's not my primary browser, but I keep it installed and use it semi-regularly). The Democratic party receives more of my votes than the Republican party but I do not like Obama, Hillary, or the DNC; I voted for a third-party candidate. I will call anybody acting hypocritically a hyprocrite. For example, you took a non-partisan discussion (equality and corporate politics) and tried to imply that it was partisan (specifically, that Microlith is a blind supporter of the Democratic party) when in fact you just revealed your own partisan bias without refuting a single one of Microlith's points.
Flamebait doesn't have to be off-topic. Off-topic stuff is supposed to get modded off-topic, not flamebait. Flamebait is saying things to get people pissed off, like talking about Congress outing and ostracizing religious people, and linking to a news story about the "gay mafia" (about as idiotic a term as I've ever heard).
The other of the post emself admitted it was flamebait.
You distort facts to imply that they mean something other than what they mean, then act like you expect us to believe your "interpretation". For example, I don't really care what the Democratic party claims - I don't vote any party's line (nor do I support Obama generally speaking, except by comparison to some), and I look at voting records instead of claimed positions - but I doubt you'll find many on either side of the aisle who disagree with the claim that they support the constitution. The constitution explicitly gives the Judicial branch the ability to do what it did to Proposition 8 (overturn it on the basis of higher law). This is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a disliked minority group, which is one of the obvious failures of a pure democracy. As for "activist judges", you do realize that 5 of the 9 current justices were Republican presidential nominations, right?
Oh, and lots of people who call themselves "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" members of the religions you listed are fine with gay marriage. *Your* view might be that this is inherently contradictory, but their view is that however unrighteous those people are is a matter between them and God but secular law should be fair to all, or that a God of love would not turn His back on somebody on account of who they love, or any of many other arguments. You will probably find many more such people like that than you will find people who believe that the wrathful or gluttonous are nearly so bad, and that (heterosexual) adulterers deserve death. As such, it is quite obvious that religious folk can go about their daily lives without trying to enforce their religious beliefs on others. If you personally cannot, that is a failure of you personally, not of society or even of religion.
Oh, and the bit about tolerance? You really didn't think that part through, did you... it's about creating a tolerant society, not about personally tolerating everything. You present a false dichotomy: tolerate everything including intolerance, or don't be "about tolerance". Try this thought on for size: "we advocate tolerance towards every individual's nature, but oppose those who choose to be intolerant of the nature of others." It may help some people to think of it as advocating tolerance towards the ways in which God created us, and opposing those who are intolerant of some of God's creations. After all, sin is supposed to be about (making the wrong) choice, right? Are we not innocent and pure, until we choose to be otherwise? Well, religious belief is a choice. Sexual orientation is not.
Finally, there's the fact that you cite Fox News, which is just stupid around here. Even assuming that the story was both accurate and unbiased (having read both sides, Fox's account is generally the first but far from the second), that's just asking for trouble. The stories were widely reported; you can find better sources than that.
For the first story, Emmanuel is, to the best of my knowledge (though IANAL), not allowed to deny or revoke business licenses on the grounds of an implied intention to discriminate; an actual act of discrimination or at least a policy requiring it would be required first.
For the second story, that's straightforward: if you run a business open to the public, you are not permitted to discriminate against certain classes of people and refuse them service. This has probably been law since before you were born, in the case of racial discrimination (incidentally, at least one religion in the US held that black skin was the "mark of Cain" and thus they were justified in refusing to interact with them) and for that matter in the case of religion (which, unlike skin color or sexual orientation, is a matter of choice) or several other classifications. Oregon had simply expanded the list of classes against which a public business may not discriminate to include sexual orientation. If "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" had in fact been a Christian bakery - that is, a religious entity only open to Christians - they would probably have won thei
Normally I might agree, but Firefox doesn't need to market in the same way that other companies do. Their income comes from very non-traditional sources, and their products are free. That's not to say I *like* the idea of marketing running the place, but I think it's better than it sounds. Mozilla's marketing has been about awareness, much more than about trying to sell something.
Oh, please. OS X / Darwin's implementation of the Unix standard is screwier than half the Linux distros I've used. It's the same from Mac to Mac, sure, but that doesn't mean much; the same applies from SLES machine to SLES machine or from Nokia N900 to Nokia N900. Their filesystem layout is weird, they don't use standard files for some things, or do so bizarrely (some years back, I found their fstab manpage to be wrong and the file itself to be basically useless). Their user system is not entirely conventional.
There is no such singular thing as "the real Unix command line" but I could get a (descendent of) Bourne shell on versions of NT earlier than OS X existed.
The cool feature of Pacemaker is that it checks TLS *clients*, actually. There are other tools for server checks (one of which is included with Pacemaker) but it's actually very important to make sure any clients you have are invulnerable to Heartbleed as well. Software that ships with bundled or integrated OpenSSL libraries - and I've seen quite a few - could be vulnerable to this.
If the server (or client, for that matter) was hit with Heartbleed *during* (or shortly after) the session, the symmetric encryption key may have been retrieved and an attacker who had recorded the whole session could then decrypt it. If the session was ongoing and they were in position to do so, they could MitM it.
Similarly, if the attacker used Heartbleed during the key exchange, they might have leaked the private information (from either endpoint) needed to derive the symmetric key, even if for some reason they didn't get they key directly. Same impact as above.
If the attacker had used Heartbleed to steal the authentication private key prior to your session, they could have hit you with a MitM attack (appearing to be the authentic server) and you wouldn't have known.
If the attacker recorded your session but did not MitM it *or* use Heartbleed on the server while the symmetric key was in memory, you're safe (even if they stole the private key beforehand, much less afterward). That's the beauty of PFS.
So does IE10.
Internet Options -> Advanced -> Security (scroll near bottom) -> "Check for publisher's certificate revocation" and "Check for server's certificate revocation" are both checked for me. I know at least one of those options dates back to IE6, in fact, although it may have been inactive by default back then. I don't know when those options were made default, but at a guess I'd say IE8 or IE9.
As a side note, if you are running Vista or later but *not* on IE11, you have TLS 1.1 and 1.2 disabled by default. They're easy to turn on (same place as above, just scroll a bit lower).