> Marriage, strictly speaking, is a binding contract.
Don't worry too much about it. As we enter the age, where women are more and more the main bread winners while their male counterparts sit down-sized at home resenting each minute of it, you will see a dramatic drop in marriages. Women will know better than to put themselves in a position where they might have to support the ex-husband because of their now higher income and the rest of the guys still holding onto their balls will refuse to marry because they have realized it to be a poison pill fluffed in romantic rhetoric that has put men of the current and last two generations into a lose-lose situation...triple that if kids are involved.
> Simple solution - don't have your wife as a friend in the first place.
"PoohBear...can you add me as friend on Facebook?":-)
"Uh...Face...what? Sweetie....your face is indeed like a book to me and I love reading in it about the beautiful princess on my side... C'mon...let's forget about that stupid tech stuff and go to bed for an hour!":-) *blink* *blink*
> under the right conditions any piece of info about you could be sensitive.
That can't be. I only ever read in other discussions, that nobody got anything to hide and that people don't care if other's know stuff about them etc.pp..
> This guy came round and said for 40 bucks he'd enhance the picture quality on my 40" plasma TV, but he hasn't brought it back yet. > I shouldn't have paid him in advance, right?
Dude...Think!!! Next time you need to give him double of the agreed price and when he brings back the TV...and ONLY then...he gets to keep his half. DUH!!
> There is no point in encrypting your communication with [UNKNOWN], because they could be anyone, and even relay your message to [UNKNOWNS]. > You're not encrypting your session from A to B in this case, you're encrypting your session from A to (B) CLOUD.
Thank FSM that's not possible with HTTP...whew!! That's why the browser doesn't give a warning...right?
> Certificates should be issued by the credit card people
Certs should be be issued by real people. As in a CEO GPG-signing the SSL certificate (why are there two different things anyway), in turn having his signing key verified and signed by other's. The goodf ol' Web of Trust. The larger the Organization, the more people could sign the SSL cert with their keys to. Couple that with first-connect browser-popup fingerprints (Banks could print this on their letterheads) and you'd have a situation at least as good as now, given that the majority of SSL-sites do present errors anyway. But minus the Money-In-The-Middle-Men.
> Certificates don't ensure you're talking to anyone in particular, other than someone who has managed to get their hands on the certificate, > which, based on prevalance of rooting and etc., could be quite a range of people.
Worded slightly differently:
CA-signed SSL certificates do not assure, that you are really talking to who you think you are talking to. CA-signed SSL certificates assure only, that you are talking to who the CA's think you are talking to.
> some people just run a password through md5 (most cases the HEX encoded string is what is referred to as 'md5'). 16bits encoded in hex is 32 characters (256bits).
You're still confused. MD5, incl. its output, is 128-bit. It consists of a string of 32 characters, where each character can be one of 16 options (a-f, 0-9). That gives us exactly 4-bits per character * 32 = 128-bit!:-)
> MD5-ing a password/phrase is a way (amongst others) of producing a 256-bit encryption key.
MD5 is 128-bit. You'd need SHA256SUM. And that's assuming, that the hash input...the 'password' you end up hash'ing is also 256-bit since the hash is no more secure than the plain-text being hashed.
> They could require Verisign to hand over keys so they can make their own certs for MitM attacks.
I firmly believe, that that's long been done and that the much-touted SSL is a sick joke played on us.
And the only option of using it securely (self-signed certs with manual fingerprint checks etc.) is being discouraged in the most dramatic fashion by even your favorite browser. Wonder why...
> if you're doing nothing wrong, then why does the Government want to know?
Because the government knows, that knowledge is power. And that even minute details of somebody's life can in an instant be spun and turned against you if so needed by the powers that be. Hence they collect everything because it provides them with a detailed record of their citizen's lives. Besides...the machines doing the collections don't give a damn about moral issues and 'right or wrong'.
> virtually no-one is interested in developing the technologies neccessary to make a secure web a reality
IPv6. It already exists and would/could cover a large chunk of your legitimate concerns. Problem is...the switch-over is taking ages... But it's something you can advocate/implement from your end without waiting on other's.
"Mr. Smith...our records indicate you've been taking breaks despite your BioDynamic Signature not indicating a specific need for such. Our Productivity Fingerprint computer has analyzed your Bio-Data and determined, that in our competitive environment we can not afford unproductive people like yourself. We wish you the best of luck in your next place of employment. Please remember to smile brightly on your way out as otherwise the door-face-scanners will not allow you to depart the premises. Goodbye, Mr. Smith!"
> Ground control operator: "Hey uh.....Steve, while you're in space and all, mind if I go over to your house and sleep with your wife? I'll give you about 19 minutes to say no"
Steve: "Hey uh....Ground Control Operator, sure...go ahead. I killed the biatch just before take-off. I'll give you 8 months to come and get me"
Slashdot Mirror
> Who is Knuth?
Some polar bear in a german zoo. People already go crazy when he doesn't speak, so yeah...imagine the earth-shakiness when he finally does!
> Marriage, strictly speaking, is a binding contract.
Don't worry too much about it. As we enter the age, where women are more and more the main bread winners while their male counterparts sit down-sized at home resenting each minute of it, you will see a dramatic drop in marriages. Women will know better than to put themselves in a position where they might have to support the ex-husband because of their now higher income and the rest of the guys still holding onto their balls will refuse to marry because they have realized it to be a poison pill fluffed in romantic rhetoric that has put men of the current and last two generations into a lose-lose situation...triple that if kids are involved.
> ...attorneys are not interested into people posting on Slashdot. Can you guess why ?!?
Cause they never got Anonymous Coward to pay alimony nor court costs!
> Simple solution - don't have your wife as a friend in the first place.
"PoohBear...can you add me as friend on Facebook?" :-)
"Uh...Face...what? Sweetie....your face is indeed like a book to me and I love reading in it about the beautiful princess on my side... C'mon...let's forget about that stupid tech stuff and go to bed for an hour!" :-) *blink* *blink*
> under the right conditions any piece of info about you could be sensitive.
That can't be. I only ever read in other discussions, that nobody got anything to hide and that people don't care if other's know stuff about them etc.pp..
Personally I can't wait for subpoena'd e-mails to be massively used in divorce cases...since nobody ever got anything to hide 'n all. :-)
> This guy came round and said for 40 bucks he'd enhance the picture quality on my 40" plasma TV, but he hasn't brought it back yet.
> I shouldn't have paid him in advance, right?
Dude...Think!!!
Next time you need to give him double of the agreed price and when he brings back the TV...and ONLY then...he gets to keep his half. DUH!!
> There is no point in encrypting your communication with [UNKNOWN], because they could be anyone, and even relay your message to [UNKNOWNS].
> You're not encrypting your session from A to B in this case, you're encrypting your session from A to (B) CLOUD.
Thank FSM that's not possible with HTTP...whew!! That's why the browser doesn't give a warning...right?
> > "Certs should be issued by the government".
> Certificates should be issued by the credit card people
Certs should be be issued by real people. As in a CEO GPG-signing the SSL certificate (why are there two different things anyway), in turn having his signing key verified and signed by other's. The goodf ol' Web of Trust. The larger the Organization, the more people could sign the SSL cert with their keys to. Couple that with first-connect browser-popup fingerprints (Banks could print this on their letterheads) and you'd have a situation at least as good as now, given that the majority of SSL-sites do present errors anyway. But minus the Money-In-The-Middle-Men.
> Certificates don't ensure you're talking to anyone in particular, other than someone who has managed to get their hands on the certificate,
> which, based on prevalance of rooting and etc., could be quite a range of people.
Worded slightly differently:
CA-signed SSL certificates do not assure, that you are really talking to who you think you are talking to.
CA-signed SSL certificates assure only, that you are talking to who the CA's think you are talking to.
> very annoying Firefox... [due to various SSL idiocies]
So when's a fork of this open-source program coming anyway, that implements this the way a lot of us think it should be done?
> some people just run a password through md5 (most cases the HEX encoded string is what is referred to as 'md5'). 16bits encoded in hex is 32 characters (256bits).
You're still confused. MD5, incl. its output, is 128-bit. It consists of a string of 32 characters, where each character can be one of 16 options (a-f, 0-9). That gives us exactly 4-bits per character * 32 = 128-bit! :-)
> MD5-ing a password/phrase is a way (amongst others) of producing a 256-bit encryption key.
MD5 is 128-bit. You'd need SHA256SUM. And that's assuming, that the hash input...the 'password' you end up hash'ing is also 256-bit since the hash is no more secure than the plain-text being hashed.
When the fox is guarding the hen house, is he really to blame for taking more and more liberties (pun intended)?
Or those who:
a) put the fox in the hen house in the first place
b) leave the fox there even after knowing it ain't no good
c) fail consistently to adequately protect themselves from the fox and his intrusive methods despite having the tools to do so?
> They could require Verisign to hand over keys so they can make their own certs for MitM attacks.
I firmly believe, that that's long been done and that the much-touted SSL is a sick joke played on us.
And the only option of using it securely (self-signed certs with manual fingerprint checks etc.) is being discouraged in the most dramatic fashion by even your favorite browser. Wonder why...
> if you're doing nothing wrong, then why does the Government want to know?
Because the government knows, that knowledge is power. And that even minute details of somebody's life can in an instant be spun and turned against you if so needed by the powers that be. Hence they collect everything because it provides them with a detailed record of their citizen's lives. Besides...the machines doing the collections don't give a damn about moral issues and 'right or wrong'.
> virtually no-one is interested in developing the technologies neccessary to make a secure web a reality
IPv6. It already exists and would/could cover a large chunk of your legitimate concerns. Problem is...the switch-over is taking ages... But it's something you can advocate/implement from your end without waiting on other's.
> Encryption does not hide who emails are sent to / from
It does, if you use a remailer...
What's Microsoft? Something I have to know? o_0
"Mr. Smith...our records indicate you've been taking breaks despite your BioDynamic Signature not indicating a specific need for such. Our Productivity Fingerprint computer has analyzed your Bio-Data and determined, that in our competitive environment we can not afford unproductive people like yourself. We wish you the best of luck in your next place of employment. Please remember to smile brightly on your way out as otherwise the door-face-scanners will not allow you to depart the premises. Goodbye, Mr. Smith!"
> 20 minute delay ... they won't be getting first post then
On Mars they will. All a matter of perspective ;-)
> Ground control operator: "Hey uh.....Steve, while you're in space and all, mind if I go over to your house and sleep with your wife? I'll give you about 19 minutes to say no"
Steve: "Hey uh....Ground Control Operator, sure...go ahead. I killed the biatch just before take-off. I'll give you 8 months to come and get me"
> I need one of those for when I'm visiting the in-laws (or rather, when I am leaving).
No...you need one of those when you are flying with the in-laws. Personally I can't wait to see my mother-in-law's facial expression at Mach 6! >:-)
Development of a anti-pirating, anti-pirating technology, so the watcher's can watch the watcher's.
> > I am willing to bet that eventually they'll start loosing more money than they are now.
> > LOSING. Say it with me now. L-O-S-I-N-G. Loosing is totally different. You may not care but it makes you look like an uneducated moron.
Yeah. You're such a Looser! :-P