Wait, this hasnt gone to trial yet? Maybe they should have just asked you whether the parties are guilty or not, since you seem to have it figured out.
After such nonsense as the Duke Lacrosse trial or the various "hes a rapist oh wait nevermind" cases where someone's life is ruined by a false accusation, you'd think people would learn to wait until AFTER the trial to break out the pitchforks. But then again you cant ever estimate just how knee-jerk internet posters can be.
They might get away with it.
And you've even preemtively broken out the confirmation bias! Bless your heart. If theyre judged guilty, theyre guilty. If theyre judged innocent, theyre doubly guilty. Must be nice to live in a world where you can determine who did what just based on hearing one side of the story as told by a blogger.
Its made them look stupid since the beginning. Whatever minor nitpicks they have with Google, Google stood up to China's demands for outing dissidents. Microsoft has actively engaged with them, assisting in spying (TOM Skype), turning over dissident info, and censoring Bing. Their privacy policy has generally been WORSE than Google's, to boot, and they have a history of being anticompetitive / anti-standards and monopolistic.
If microsoft wants to gloat and feel big because they dont use the same sort of email keyword tagging as gmail, go for it. I just know that when it comes to trusting SkyDrive or Bitlocker when it comes to evading totalitarian governments, youd have to be absolutely out of your mind.
MITMs happen all the time in workplaces. Theyre called proxies. Thing is, if you're not using SSL they can be literally undetectable on your end. With SSL, they have to modify your trusted CA list and make obviously forged certs.
I believe there are firefox addons which detect SSL MITMs immediately.
SSL certs do what theyre supposed to. There can be trust issues, but the whole "fake CA" thing isnt as big a deal as youre saying for a few reasons:
1) Such attacks are INCREDIBLY obvious. You may not notice right away, and I may not notice right away, but SOMEONE is going to notice that the thumbprint, issuing CA, etc for a prolific website all just changed. Gee, the Google SSL cert just change to an issuance date of today, the issuer changed from "Google Internet Authority G2" to "DigiNotar". Golly Gee, I wonder what that means?
2) Once such an attack is noticed, it is pretty easy to eliminate the threat: You untrust the CA. This has a number of great effects-- it removes the bad actors, it provides a good incentive for CAs to have their crap together, and it immediately fixes the threat for you.
3) Its risky because of #1. You have to REALLY need that information to risk the media feeding frenzy that will occur once someone notices the change.
4) Its hard to pull off. Not many attackers are going to have access to a trusted CA's signing certs.
So yes, you can be spied on with SSL, but its a LOT better to have SSL on than off as you have a number of ways of determining whether you are being spied on, there can be big repercussions for those doing the MITM, and it substantially raises the bar for most attackers.
~60 deaths per year (if WHO's estimate comes true)
Theres just about nothing else on earth with a global fatality rate that low, hence my "bull". Right now that fatality rate is sitting at under ~2.5/year globally.
Im not clear why its the government's job to provide benefits just because two people love each other. There are pretty clear reasons (you touched on some of them) why traditional marriage gets the benefits it does which dont tend to apply to homosexual marriage any more than they apply to singles.
I sort of wonder how much luck you'd have trying to activate RHN on Red Hat 8 (or whatever the equivalent would be) these days. I sort of feel like their answer if you complained would be "what are you, stupid? Upgrade to RHEL 5.6."
Just set up the system with Server 2008/2012 and install your guest XP box as a VM. Set the primary disk as transient (assuming HyperV supports that?) and do a reboot once a day. No more permenant threats!
Must be the profits. Thats clearly why Linux 2.4 (released at the same time as XP) was EOL'd several years back. Clearly its why Firefox EOL'd support for Win 98 about 5-6 years ago, and Win 2k a few years back.
Software changes, the internet changes, frameworks change, and new vulnerabilities are discovered. Hardware changes and support for old stuff just ends; thats how it works.
Its my right to request that my boss step down for voting democrat, and then post how wonderful it is that I have free speech; doing so would make me a hypocrite though.
The companies put out EULAs, terms of service, and privacy policies which generally lay out exactly what they want in return for using their product.
If you dont want them in your lives then stop using their products. Have a problem with google analytics? Take it up with the webmaster using it, not google. It sounds like your massive bellyache is because you want to use all of the products paid for by ad revenue but you dont want to be subject to the ads. I sort of want a car without being subject to the bill, but I dont complain about how my dealership is a jerk for foisting a pesky bill off on me.
Quit being lazy (read the privacy policy if you care!), entitled, and spoiled.
There are no more conservatives being fired for their opinions than there are anyone else being fired for their views.
Ive seen slashdotters harp on "equivalence fallacies" so many times when it favors a liberal position to do so, so I dont think I can let that statement just rest.
I have seen a LOT of people go absolutely balistic (ie, call for firing / resignation) when it turns out that a conservative's views partly stem from their religious affiliation. I have NOT seen the same thing when it turns out that a liberal's come from atheism or anything else.
Like thats even remotely a good comparison. Marriage has been pretty statically defined for an incredibly long time across a lot of cultures, and suddenly this guy is practicing apartheid for voting with the majority that that definition shouldnt change?
If they let him go Mozilla will get backlash from the conservatives you mentioned AND from anyone who gives a crap about free speech.
Its not strictly "censorship", but its hard to take a company's commitment to "openness" seriously when they go on a witchhunt because of how someone voted politically.
You can sit there and call him a bigot all day long, that doesnt make it true.
Bigotry requires hatred, and I dont see any evidence of that from him. I DO see it from you, you seem to have a good deal of venom towards him (hes "retarded"? really?).
Not to get into the debate over how much it affects your driving, but theres also the simple fact that if x% of drivers are talking on the phone at any given time, x% of accidents will involve cellphone use. For two-car accidents obviously that rate jumps (should be, 1 - (1-X)^2 , so if x is 25% the rate would be ~44%).
Not sure what "x" would be generally, but at "1 in 4" x would only have to be 13% for this to mean "no increased chance of accident whatsoever".
They are, and I dont think nuclear proponents are generally anti-solar or wind. I just think (and would assume most agree) that wind and solar have almost no chance of providing most of our power.
Ideally nuclear would provide the base, and solar / wind would contribute to that, along with whatever other sources happen to be economical for a particular area.
You're saying that 4000 killed from nuclear pollution from just one single incident somehow proves that nuclear isn't one of the fatally polluting energy generating methods? Logic fail.
Total deaths from Nuclear as a power source over the last 40 years: under 100. Expected to maybe go as high as 4000 in the next 20 years or so. Total deaths from coal mining ALONE (not even counting deaths from pollution in Chinese cities, which is probably pretty alarming): 1000 per year Total deaths from Hydroelectric from a single dam failure ~10 years ago: 100,000+
Yea, Id say ~60 deaths per year (if WHO's estimate comes true) world wide is pretty darn good, all things considered.
Slashdot Mirror
Bringing ethics into it clouds the issue. Its not something we want in society, I think, so its probably easiest to leave it at that.
Obviously, they thought they were above the law.
Yes, thats exactly what they ruled in court.
Wait, this hasnt gone to trial yet? Maybe they should have just asked you whether the parties are guilty or not, since you seem to have it figured out.
After such nonsense as the Duke Lacrosse trial or the various "hes a rapist oh wait nevermind" cases where someone's life is ruined by a false accusation, you'd think people would learn to wait until AFTER the trial to break out the pitchforks. But then again you cant ever estimate just how knee-jerk internet posters can be.
They might get away with it.
And you've even preemtively broken out the confirmation bias! Bless your heart. If theyre judged guilty, theyre guilty. If theyre judged innocent, theyre doubly guilty. Must be nice to live in a world where you can determine who did what just based on hearing one side of the story as told by a blogger.
Its made them look stupid since the beginning. Whatever minor nitpicks they have with Google, Google stood up to China's demands for outing dissidents. Microsoft has actively engaged with them, assisting in spying (TOM Skype), turning over dissident info, and censoring Bing. Their privacy policy has generally been WORSE than Google's, to boot, and they have a history of being anticompetitive / anti-standards and monopolistic.
If microsoft wants to gloat and feel big because they dont use the same sort of email keyword tagging as gmail, go for it. I just know that when it comes to trusting SkyDrive or Bitlocker when it comes to evading totalitarian governments, youd have to be absolutely out of your mind.
One wonders what happened to their Scroogled campaign, I thought that was a centerpiece of it.
Oh well, maybe theyve learned their lesson and theyll stick to just bugging Skype in the future (for those who arent aware: Google "TOM Skype").
Thats THEIR problem, not SSL's problem. SSL works as intended, and notifies you when things arent right.
MITMs happen all the time in workplaces. Theyre called proxies. Thing is, if you're not using SSL they can be literally undetectable on your end. With SSL, they have to modify your trusted CA list and make obviously forged certs.
I believe there are firefox addons which detect SSL MITMs immediately.
Wrong.
SSL certs do what theyre supposed to. There can be trust issues, but the whole "fake CA" thing isnt as big a deal as youre saying for a few reasons:
1) Such attacks are INCREDIBLY obvious. You may not notice right away, and I may not notice right away, but SOMEONE is going to notice that the thumbprint, issuing CA, etc for a prolific website all just changed. Gee, the Google SSL cert just change to an issuance date of today, the issuer changed from "Google Internet Authority G2" to "DigiNotar". Golly Gee, I wonder what that means?
2) Once such an attack is noticed, it is pretty easy to eliminate the threat: You untrust the CA. This has a number of great effects-- it removes the bad actors, it provides a good incentive for CAs to have their crap together, and it immediately fixes the threat for you.
3) Its risky because of #1. You have to REALLY need that information to risk the media feeding frenzy that will occur once someone notices the change.
4) Its hard to pull off. Not many attackers are going to have access to a trusted CA's signing certs.
So yes, you can be spied on with SSL, but its a LOT better to have SSL on than off as you have a number of ways of determining whether you are being spied on, there can be big repercussions for those doing the MITM, and it substantially raises the bar for most attackers.
~60 deaths per year (if WHO's estimate comes true)
Theres just about nothing else on earth with a global fatality rate that low, hence my "bull". Right now that fatality rate is sitting at under ~2.5/year globally.
Its the definition of "statistical noise".
Im not clear why its the government's job to provide benefits just because two people love each other. There are pretty clear reasons (you touched on some of them) why traditional marriage gets the benefits it does which dont tend to apply to homosexual marriage any more than they apply to singles.
I sort of wonder how much luck you'd have trying to activate RHN on Red Hat 8 (or whatever the equivalent would be) these days. I sort of feel like their answer if you complained would be "what are you, stupid? Upgrade to RHEL 5.6."
Just set up the system with Server 2008 /2012 and install your guest XP box as a VM. Set the primary disk as transient (assuming HyperV supports that?) and do a reboot once a day. No more permenant threats!
Must be the profits. Thats clearly why Linux 2.4 (released at the same time as XP) was EOL'd several years back. Clearly its why Firefox EOL'd support for Win 98 about 5-6 years ago, and Win 2k a few years back.
Software changes, the internet changes, frameworks change, and new vulnerabilities are discovered. Hardware changes and support for old stuff just ends; thats how it works.
Its my right to request that my boss step down for voting democrat, and then post how wonderful it is that I have free speech; doing so would make me a hypocrite though.
The companies put out EULAs, terms of service, and privacy policies which generally lay out exactly what they want in return for using their product.
If you dont want them in your lives then stop using their products. Have a problem with google analytics? Take it up with the webmaster using it, not google. It sounds like your massive bellyache is because you want to use all of the products paid for by ad revenue but you dont want to be subject to the ads. I sort of want a car without being subject to the bill, but I dont complain about how my dealership is a jerk for foisting a pesky bill off on me.
Quit being lazy (read the privacy policy if you care!), entitled, and spoiled.
There are no more conservatives being fired for their opinions than there are anyone else being fired for their views.
Ive seen slashdotters harp on "equivalence fallacies" so many times when it favors a liberal position to do so, so I dont think I can let that statement just rest.
I have seen a LOT of people go absolutely balistic (ie, call for firing / resignation) when it turns out that a conservative's views partly stem from their religious affiliation. I have NOT seen the same thing when it turns out that a liberal's come from atheism or anything else.
Like it or not, there IS a difference.
Like thats even remotely a good comparison. Marriage has been pretty statically defined for an incredibly long time across a lot of cultures, and suddenly this guy is practicing apartheid for voting with the majority that that definition shouldnt change?
Wow, slashdotters DO have perspective issues.
If they let him go Mozilla will get backlash from the conservatives you mentioned AND from anyone who gives a crap about free speech.
Its not strictly "censorship", but its hard to take a company's commitment to "openness" seriously when they go on a witchhunt because of how someone voted politically.
You can sit there and call him a bigot all day long, that doesnt make it true.
Bigotry requires hatred, and I dont see any evidence of that from him. I DO see it from you, you seem to have a good deal of venom towards him (hes "retarded"? really?).
University of Potemkin, Class of 2014! WOO!
Not to get into the debate over how much it affects your driving, but theres also the simple fact that if x% of drivers are talking on the phone at any given time, x% of accidents will involve cellphone use. For two-car accidents obviously that rate jumps (should be, 1 - (1-X)^2 , so if x is 25% the rate would be ~44%).
Not sure what "x" would be generally, but at "1 in 4" x would only have to be 13% for this to mean "no increased chance of accident whatsoever".
Yea! Like GNU Hurd!
What version are they on again?
They are, and I dont think nuclear proponents are generally anti-solar or wind. I just think (and would assume most agree) that wind and solar have almost no chance of providing most of our power.
Ideally nuclear would provide the base, and solar / wind would contribute to that, along with whatever other sources happen to be economical for a particular area.
You're saying that 4000 killed from nuclear pollution from just one single incident somehow proves that nuclear isn't one of the fatally polluting energy generating methods? Logic fail.
Total deaths from Nuclear as a power source over the last 40 years: under 100. Expected to maybe go as high as 4000 in the next 20 years or so.
Total deaths from coal mining ALONE (not even counting deaths from pollution in Chinese cities, which is probably pretty alarming): 1000 per year
Total deaths from Hydroelectric from a single dam failure ~10 years ago: 100,000+
Yea, Id say ~60 deaths per year (if WHO's estimate comes true) world wide is pretty darn good, all things considered.
If Microsoft had bought Oculus Rift there would be a good chance of it coming to light. With Facebook, odds are it dies alone.
Im trying to figure out how you could sham stick someone with an acupuncture needle.