Im a bit rusty on DNSSEC so I went to look it up to see if that were true.
DNSSEC works by digitally signing records for DNS lookup using public-key cryptography. The correct DNSKEY record is authenticated via a chain of trust,
So, no, you can MITM it in the exact same way you can MITM SSL. It uses a chain of trust with a trusted authority installed on each client, just like SSL, and just like SSL, whatever country hosts the root key for a TLD is subject to subpoena and global MITM.
ICANN
Or, whoever hacks ICANN, or whoever demands their keys....
that particular TLD
Good thing there are so few of them, owned by so few countries... oh wait. You think your ".cn" or ".co.hk" results are gonna be unadulterated?
It wouldnt matter if they were served over HTTPS. All you have to do is block CRLs or OCSP responses and the browser will say "Lol, whatever" and continue with the connection.
Plus theres the whole "HTTPS is already broken if you have untrustworthy root CAs in your chain" (which you do).
You misunderstand me. I dont WANT to provoke it, I simply think that conflict is inevitable and the answer to a bully who demands more is confrontation-- not appeasment.
You have to distinguish between what people more-or-less believe and how much they believe it
Thats a pretty good point, and Id note that theres a difference between the sort of christian that would die by lions in the colosseum and those who would offer incense to the emperor. Lots of people are "christian", but the question is how many are Christian; Im operating on enemy turf here so to speak when I link to that poll, because I would somewhat dispute the fact that people accurately report things in such a poll-- there are a great number of people that I know personally who claim a religion despite it having no practical impact on their life or beliefs, which is pretty relevant to GP's claims about religions being passed on to children.
I would agree that tradition passes on to children easily, and in fact when a large number of people say "I am christian / catholic / jewish" what theyre really saying is "these are my traditions"-- not "these are my beliefs". Sadly, polls on THAT are going to be awfully hard to find; but its sort of hard to argue that people are reliable in reporting what they believe when asked about their religion, because theyre not (which we CAN prove with polls-- see gallup polls where "christians" doubted the accuracy of the bible, the divinity of Christ, and the existence of a personal God).
Did Stephen Hawkings say the Universe created itself? It would seem very odd that a physicist would say something about the creation of the Universe.
He did, and it was. I remember doing a report on the man when I was much younger, and recall both how smart he seemed and how he remarked on the necessity of a deity. Fast forward ~20 years, and he made the remark, Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. And, as hasbeen noted, its not only an odd remark, its a circular and nonsensical one. Hawking is a smart man in his domain, but he either misspoke, or was misquoted, or created a massive logic problem.
Actually, that third column is switching EITHER between faiths OR within traditions; it also includes people switching from atheist to agnostic.
Either way, you cannot claim, that only 4% switch from non-christian to Christian; its entirely possible you went from agnostic to christian and would be included in the "between faiths" statistic.
Which puts us right back at the 40% I was talking about.
Turning to christianity in the mid first century meant turning from a disliked-but-tolerated religion (judaism) to one that was universally hated by both Rome AND the Jews. The Romans didnt much like the Jews because they were obstinate about worshiping only their God, but at least they could argue that their religion was (by that point) ancient and that it would create peace.
The christians didnt even have that as a shield, so they bore the brunt of a lot of malice-- for instance, the accusation of arson in Rome around 60AD, or the persecutions under Pliny in Bithyna..
Do you think Stephen Hawkings just pulls that stuff out of his ass? There is a substantial amount of data and calculations which lead to the theory
His statement is circular, no matter how you look at it. Perhaps he grossly misspoke, but it is absurd to imply a causal relationship between the existence of a property of X, and the creation of X itself, much more to imply that that entire line of circular reasoning implies self-creation (another circular relationship).
The only reason it is presented as "Hawkings said so" is because the general public, hell, even most college educated people don't have the foundations at the level of math and physics to approach the subject.
Well, its a direct quote FROM Hawking, and I dont need to understand quantum physics or astronomy to know an invalid argument when I see one; I simply need to understand the rules of logic, which I do. Im not even the only one whose noted the absurdity of his statement.
As I said-- I dont doubt Hawking's credentials, but that doesnt mean he cant make unsound statements or that hes immune to the laws of reason.
At the same time I realize very well who started this conflict, and know that Ukraine will be much better off with Russia.
Russia doesnt get to make that choice. Peaceful international relations rely on a concept called "sovereignty", which Russia has violated. Actions like theirs are how world wars start.
I should have also clarified-- the zone of "vaporize" is much, much smaller, and uses an equation more like Y=0.05x^0.7
Which means your average nuke can "vaporize" ~4 square miles, and all of the nukes in the world could do ~80,000 sq miles (maybe a small country in europe).
Germany didn't have the power to vaporize most of the planet with the push of a button.
Noone has that power.
Just some datapoints:
+ Land area of US: 3.7 million square miles
+ Number of nukes in existence: somewhere south of 20,000
+ Size of your average nuke's "zone of destruction" *: 225 square miles
+ Total area moderately damaged by all nukes in existence: 4.5 million square miles *Based on row 3 on this chart. Plotted with Excel, formula (where X = warhead yield in kt, and Y=land area affected) Y=3.5363 x^0.6686. Assuming x=500.
So if everyone in the world-- including the US-- were to fire upon us, you could probably wipe out most major cities, and most military bases, and do moderate damage to most buildings. You could probably also kill ~3/4 of the population of the US, which comprises ~ 5% of the world population. Of course the fallout would be a problem, but the good news is that the really nasty stuff would decay in short order.
So nukes are bad, and we dont want anyone launching "all the nukes", but thats also unlikely to happen: Targets will be military installations and silos, rather than cities and the countryside, and for that you need a lot fewer than "all the nukes".
In that scenario, the fight is inevitable, and the sooner you accept it and begin making preparations the quicker itll be over with.
If the dude is unhinged you have two options. 1) continue withdrawing forever to keep him happy 2) confront him and reign in his shenanigans.
All you're really saying is that the confrontation will be unpleasant, but when you think of what happened with Mao, Hitler, and Stalin because noone wanted to call the bluff (some several hundred million dead), it makes you realize that some fights ARE worth fighting.
It seems that Slashdot has adopted CNN's recently invented journalism technique guaranteed to at least double traffic:
1) Find a barely-newsworthy story 2) Twist the facts so severely that the resulting summary/headline are factually false 3) Create a story out of someone debunking said nonsense 4) make sure to monetize at each step.
With this technique, we can double the number of postings on slashdot! Monday:"FLYING CAR INVENTED!" Tuesday: "SLASHDOT LIES ABOUT FLYING CAR-- HOW IT HAPPENED"
What incredibly forward-thinking times we live in...
Too true. People believe, because they were taught to believe, from an early age by people they trust. The vast majority of Christians (insert religion of your choice here) are Christian by an accident of birth.
You have a source for that? Anecdotally from my church a large percentage of folks joining came to faith later in life (college, etc). Looking at a poll on this indicates that thats about right-- 40% or so tend to switch from what they were raised with, 60% do not. Im really not sure in what world "60%" forms a vast majority, but whatever.
Its sort of hillarious to hear people talk of ignorance and then bust out anecdotal and unsupported "facts" like this.
If you want a good laugh ask a Christian why they believe in God and Jesus and the Holy spirit, but not in Zeus or Odin or Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. If you get anything other than circular logic or "because" let me know.
Do you mock Stephen Hawkings declaration that the universe self-created itself because "there is such a thing as gravity", for being circular reasoning? Why not?
It's not a question of difficulty, but of convenience. Imagine you could charge at every red light you stop.
Seems to me that if theres a push to "green everything" and several places are having power supply issues, tacking on yet another 25% loss is a pretty piss poor idea.
The only sources disagreeing on whats happening are the Russian government and Russia Today. You'd have to be pretty naieve to take their word on any of this.
This isnt difficult. Ask Kiev if they would like 1000 US troops to assist at a military base near the fighting. What, do you suppose, would happen if Russia then attacked an area where American troops were?
You know how you deal with a playground bully? You stand up to his crap, get people behind you, and call his bluff.
Im not 100% clear why we wouldnt want to get involved here, if ever there were a time to get involved.
Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed. At the same time, having a superpower like Russia going into full imperialism mode is good for noone but Russia. A tepid response like the one theyve been given will only encourage further aggression.
You are aware that there is nothing either illegal, or contrary to the GPL, in repackaging a browser, right? Its expressly in the GPL that you can do so.
And since it isnt illegal, on what grounds would google tamper with the search results? I thought we got up in arms when they do that at the request of celebs and whatnot. Or is it just because this is YOUR google search pet peeve, so its ok to mess with the results?
Slashdot Mirror
Im a bit rusty on DNSSEC so I went to look it up to see if that were true.
DNSSEC works by digitally signing records for DNS lookup using public-key cryptography. The correct DNSKEY record is authenticated via a chain of trust,
So, no, you can MITM it in the exact same way you can MITM SSL. It uses a chain of trust with a trusted authority installed on each client, just like SSL, and just like SSL, whatever country hosts the root key for a TLD is subject to subpoena and global MITM.
ICANN
Or, whoever hacks ICANN, or whoever demands their keys....
that particular TLD
Good thing there are so few of them, owned by so few countries... oh wait. You think your ".cn" or ".co.hk" results are gonna be unadulterated?
It wouldnt matter if they were served over HTTPS. All you have to do is block CRLs or OCSP responses and the browser will say "Lol, whatever" and continue with the connection.
Plus theres the whole "HTTPS is already broken if you have untrustworthy root CAs in your chain" (which you do).
So apparently do the people making the decision, so Im glad that all of the important people here are agreed.
You misunderstand me. I dont WANT to provoke it, I simply think that conflict is inevitable and the answer to a bully who demands more is confrontation-- not appeasment.
You have to distinguish between what people more-or-less believe and how much they believe it
Thats a pretty good point, and Id note that theres a difference between the sort of christian that would die by lions in the colosseum and those who would offer incense to the emperor. Lots of people are "christian", but the question is how many are Christian; Im operating on enemy turf here so to speak when I link to that poll, because I would somewhat dispute the fact that people accurately report things in such a poll-- there are a great number of people that I know personally who claim a religion despite it having no practical impact on their life or beliefs, which is pretty relevant to GP's claims about religions being passed on to children.
I would agree that tradition passes on to children easily, and in fact when a large number of people say "I am christian / catholic / jewish" what theyre really saying is "these are my traditions"-- not "these are my beliefs". Sadly, polls on THAT are going to be awfully hard to find; but its sort of hard to argue that people are reliable in reporting what they believe when asked about their religion, because theyre not (which we CAN prove with polls-- see gallup polls where "christians" doubted the accuracy of the bible, the divinity of Christ, and the existence of a personal God).
Did Stephen Hawkings say the Universe created itself? It would seem very odd that a physicist would say something about the creation of the Universe.
He did, and it was. I remember doing a report on the man when I was much younger, and recall both how smart he seemed and how he remarked on the necessity of a deity. Fast forward ~20 years, and he made the remark,
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
And, as has been noted, its not only an odd remark, its a circular and nonsensical one. Hawking is a smart man in his domain, but he either misspoke, or was misquoted, or created a massive logic problem.
Actually, that third column is switching EITHER between faiths OR within traditions; it also includes people switching from atheist to agnostic.
Either way, you cannot claim, that only 4% switch from non-christian to Christian; its entirely possible you went from agnostic to christian and would be included in the "between faiths" statistic.
Which puts us right back at the 40% I was talking about.
Turning to christianity in the mid first century meant turning from a disliked-but-tolerated religion (judaism) to one that was universally hated by both Rome AND the Jews. The Romans didnt much like the Jews because they were obstinate about worshiping only their God, but at least they could argue that their religion was (by that point) ancient and that it would create peace.
The christians didnt even have that as a shield, so they bore the brunt of a lot of malice-- for instance, the accusation of arson in Rome around 60AD, or the persecutions under Pliny in Bithyna..
Do you think Stephen Hawkings just pulls that stuff out of his ass? There is a substantial amount of data and calculations which lead to the theory
His statement is circular, no matter how you look at it. Perhaps he grossly misspoke, but it is absurd to imply a causal relationship between the existence of a property of X, and the creation of X itself, much more to imply that that entire line of circular reasoning implies self-creation (another circular relationship).
The only reason it is presented as "Hawkings said so" is because the general public, hell, even most college educated people don't have the foundations at the level of math and physics to approach the subject.
Well, its a direct quote FROM Hawking, and I dont need to understand quantum physics or astronomy to know an invalid argument when I see one; I simply need to understand the rules of logic, which I do. Im not even the only one whose noted the absurdity of his statement.
As I said-- I dont doubt Hawking's credentials, but that doesnt mean he cant make unsound statements or that hes immune to the laws of reason.
Id imagine once our country gets its priorities in order and locates its courage and resolve.
Russia has the ability to wipe out all life in a small country, or perhaps one of the larger US states, thats about it.
"US has committed injustices in the past, therefore we should never bat an eye when others do the same."
Great! Lets just round up the Ukrainians and send them to a reservation; the US cant complain because it did something similar 150 years ago.
That is incredible logic.
At the same time I realize very well who started this conflict, and know that Ukraine will be much better off with Russia.
Russia doesnt get to make that choice. Peaceful international relations rely on a concept called "sovereignty", which Russia has violated. Actions like theirs are how world wars start.
I should have also clarified-- the zone of "vaporize" is much, much smaller, and uses an equation more like
Y=0.05x^0.7
Which means your average nuke can "vaporize" ~4 square miles, and all of the nukes in the world could do ~80,000 sq miles (maybe a small country in europe).
Germany didn't have the power to vaporize most of the planet with the push of a button.
Noone has that power.
Just some datapoints:
+ Land area of US: 3.7 million square miles
+ Number of nukes in existence: somewhere south of 20,000
+ Size of your average nuke's "zone of destruction" *: 225 square miles
+ Total area moderately damaged by all nukes in existence: 4.5 million square miles
*Based on row 3 on this chart. Plotted with Excel, formula (where X = warhead yield in kt, and Y=land area affected) Y=3.5363 x^0.6686. Assuming x=500.
So if everyone in the world-- including the US-- were to fire upon us, you could probably wipe out most major cities, and most military bases, and do moderate damage to most buildings. You could probably also kill ~3/4 of the population of the US, which comprises ~ 5% of the world population. Of course the fallout would be a problem, but the good news is that the really nasty stuff would decay in short order.
So nukes are bad, and we dont want anyone launching "all the nukes", but thats also unlikely to happen: Targets will be military installations and silos, rather than cities and the countryside, and for that you need a lot fewer than "all the nukes".
In that scenario, the fight is inevitable, and the sooner you accept it and begin making preparations the quicker itll be over with.
If the dude is unhinged you have two options.
1) continue withdrawing forever to keep him happy
2) confront him and reign in his shenanigans.
All you're really saying is that the confrontation will be unpleasant, but when you think of what happened with Mao, Hitler, and Stalin because noone wanted to call the bluff (some several hundred million dead), it makes you realize that some fights ARE worth fighting.
It seems that Slashdot has adopted CNN's recently invented journalism technique guaranteed to at least double traffic:
1) Find a barely-newsworthy story /headline are factually false
2) Twist the facts so severely that the resulting summary
3) Create a story out of someone debunking said nonsense
4) make sure to monetize at each step.
With this technique, we can double the number of postings on slashdot! Monday:"FLYING CAR INVENTED!" Tuesday: "SLASHDOT LIES ABOUT FLYING CAR-- HOW IT HAPPENED"
What incredibly forward-thinking times we live in...
A dowser is less effective than a geologist and bears
Right but with the dowser, you have a lesser chance of being mauled.
Im sure thats exactly why Christians in Egypt, Syria, and first century Rome turned to Christianity: to reduce their suffering.
Too true. People believe, because they were taught to believe, from an early age by people they trust. The vast majority of Christians (insert religion of your choice here) are Christian by an accident of birth.
You have a source for that? Anecdotally from my church a large percentage of folks joining came to faith later in life (college, etc). Looking at a poll on this indicates that thats about right-- 40% or so tend to switch from what they were raised with, 60% do not. Im really not sure in what world "60%" forms a vast majority, but whatever.
Its sort of hillarious to hear people talk of ignorance and then bust out anecdotal and unsupported "facts" like this.
If you want a good laugh ask a Christian why they believe in God and Jesus and the Holy spirit, but not in Zeus or Odin or Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. If you get anything other than circular logic or "because" let me know.
Do you mock Stephen Hawkings declaration that the universe self-created itself because "there is such a thing as gravity", for being circular reasoning? Why not?
How do you know it was a dowsing rod, and not him looking for the wire by its induced magnetic field, like one of these?
It's not a question of difficulty, but of convenience. Imagine you could charge at every red light you stop.
Seems to me that if theres a push to "green everything" and several places are having power supply issues, tacking on yet another 25% loss is a pretty piss poor idea.
Do you trust your information sources?
The only sources disagreeing on whats happening are the Russian government and Russia Today. You'd have to be pretty naieve to take their word on any of this.
This isnt difficult. Ask Kiev if they would like 1000 US troops to assist at a military base near the fighting. What, do you suppose, would happen if Russia then attacked an area where American troops were?
You know how you deal with a playground bully? You stand up to his crap, get people behind you, and call his bluff.
Im not 100% clear why we wouldnt want to get involved here, if ever there were a time to get involved.
Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed. At the same time, having a superpower like Russia going into full imperialism mode is good for noone but Russia. A tepid response like the one theyve been given will only encourage further aggression.
You are aware that there is nothing either illegal, or contrary to the GPL, in repackaging a browser, right? Its expressly in the GPL that you can do so.
And since it isnt illegal, on what grounds would google tamper with the search results? I thought we got up in arms when they do that at the request of celebs and whatnot. Or is it just because this is YOUR google search pet peeve, so its ok to mess with the results?