If you thought that Greece has problems, just wait until you find out how much debt UK has to other nations and what their trade imbalance is.
It seems nobody is paying attention to HOW things are funded anymore, bankers give out loans to companies and to governments without understanding the first thing about the ability of the debtors to pay this money back.
Imagine what will happen to all of the entitlements once nobody wants to bankroll it any longer.
UK government, like all other governments consists of politicians who want to be reelected, this is a major problem, they give out entitlements like the money comes out of a money well. Money was taken from taxes, from social security, then wars came so it was no longer enough, more and more was borrowed, all while the manufacturing was outsorced, the 'service economy' grew, all of which means that the trade imbalances grew and ability to pay back the debts diminished.
When the big one hits, UK will no longer be able to provide its services, at least not for the money that is paid by the government for these services right now. I expect UK and US to behave in the same way, by printing cash/bonds and eventually to see the value of their money to diminish into nothingness.
What is the point of posting a speed limit at a limit that is already natural to 85% of people on that road? WHY POST IT?
There is no need to set a speed limit at all, unless there is some unnatural thing happening around a zone, like a school zone where the speed limit is not due to the road conditions but is there because some kids are dumb and/or inattentive, while others just don't understand the danger yet due to lack of experience?
There is no need to post a speed limit on a road that has no obstacles of the kind described above.
I am driving in Germany for the past half a year, and there is nothing special about the Autobahn that makes it so much different from most US/Canadian highways, in fact Autobahn is much more narrow than many highways that I normally drive in Canada on.
I drive at my normal speed of 160 to 210 Km/m here on the highway but in the city I am within 10 km of the posted limit. As I am driving the Accura MDX we brought here, many cars zoom by at probably 1.5 times my speed and those are not only BMWs, Mercedes and Audis. People go fast in everything, from VWs to Peugeots and so what?
The system here makes perfect sense and a system that you are proposing is nonsense - limiting people artificially on a road to a speed they already have chosen?
In US 50 years ago a family of 4 could have actual health insurance (covering of up to $50,000 of expenses, which was enough for everything) for a year for $25 dollars (payment for an entire year!) with a $500 deductible.
Multiple attacks on this happened since that time, especially during Nixon administration. Government got into the business of doling out money to medical workers and just like with government giving out loans for education this lead to rising costs for everybody, just like it leads for universities raising their costs.
Basic problem is the government giving out public funding for any sort of endeavor. This leads to very rapid price increases. Before Nixon, a day in a hospital could cost $100, today it could cost up to 100 times that much. Obviously this has nothing to do with inflation. Costs to treat cancer could go as high as up to 20,000 dollars before then, now it could easily reach between 500,000 to a cool million.
Any time a government is involved in giving out money, the costs for any services/products go up because.... because they can go up, because there is a government guarantee that no matter what the costs are to the public coffers they will be covered.
In the infamous words of Nixon himself: "it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay". Then he yapped something about how no new taxes would be used, only existing public money (so as always, this includes your social security money).
AFAIC all government behavior that touches economy leads to pyramid scheme being created.
As long as government gives out money through laws for certain items/services and collects this money through taxes+borrows it+prints it, there is nothing that can stop the prices for the items/services to skyrocket way above what markets can bear.
Government is an anti-competitive, monopoly creating machine that destroys economy by causing massive inflation and kills productivity by regulations and tax laws that kill small business. All of this is obviously done under the guise of doing some form of good.
Get government out of economy, take government's ability to screw with market prices out of the equation, take away government's ability to kill off small business through regulations and various taxes, take away government's ability to create/maintain monopolies through giving out money/special privileges and take away government's ability to cause inflation through printing money/borrowing, take away government's affinity to corrupting everything around it through income taxes, switch to a sales tax + allow people who are poor to file for tax refunds, take government power out of economy and you will see the return of SANE prices on things, sane prices on sane insurance plans.
Of-course there is a matter of shortage of doctors - this is about the collusion that prevents the necessary number of medical professionals to enter the business, this also needs to be addressed, this creates monopolies just as well as free money.
Imagine yourself in that position - having to choose whether to be shot or poisoned to death, what would you choose?
I expect many people to choose a bullet. Hopefully with a 30mm GAU-8 Avenger round that are shot from A10 Warthogs.
I suppose the quickest way to go is with a bomb explosion, though it is definitely not 'dignified', with all the little pieces of meat on the walls, floor and the ceiling.
So you were given explicit requirements, instructions on how to 'win' in this competition, but you decided to go against these requirements and concentrate on something that was not as important to the stake holders instead and now you are complaining that competitive programming does NOT work?
You are the proof that competitive programming DOES work, it's just you failed in that competition.
A child, that is not supervised to do anything that even closely resembles some sort of work on a computer will spend it on whatever this child finds to be the most interesting thing.
There will be many slashdotters here, who will say: "but I grew up with a computer in the house, maybe with more than one computer, and I learned on it."
These people are correct. It is possible to learn with a computer. However their circumstances, like my own, were limited to a small number of things that we could do. I didn't have access to a real computer until about 12, but I was interested in them by reading about them and learning how to do things with them on paper. I made programs and my first programs were some games, I made them on paper and later was able to transfer those into a real machine.
The kids who grew up into/. readers are in their very late twenties to their very late thirties, these had computers in the house in eighties - nineties, we had computers that ran much simpler operating systems and there was not such a clear abundance of actually very user friendly and easy stuff to do, except for pretty good 2D games actually. These kids were obviously from a bit more affluent backgrounds, many saw their parents use computers for work, but this is not necessary.
So these kids, who became interested in the machines, found the most interesting thing to do with their computers was to try and create stuff, to produce things with computer. Sure they plaid games with them, but they also tried writing their own games. They wrote tools, text editors, calculators, drawing programs, they built stuff with computers, added their own extension boards, it was interesting, it was something that could be shown off to the peers, at least to those who cared, so this was also a way to achieve some status among peers.
If at the time the computers were what they are today: very powerful tools with very advanced user interfaces that provided tens of thousands if not millions of different ways to work with the machines plus the ability to socialize in hundreds of ways on line, ability to download music/movies/games within minutes or hours of appearance of new titles, ability to interface with computers through phones and have it all synchronize, if at that time the games looked like they were built by multi-million dollar Hollywood studios, it would have created the perception (maybe partially correct perception) that one person's ability to try and manipulate these complex networked nodes with 3D graphics engines was no longer accessible to a kid.
The operating systems of today go beyond simple DOS so much, that a kid could not do much with those directly because it takes a million of human lives to learn them.
Beside that, there are calculators, wikipedia, sites that offer to do your homework, p2p, where answers can be probably found and downloaded and shared further, there is facebook/myspace/whatever, there are all these tools that can do work for you and there is no TIME for anything between all of the tweets and twats on line. Though we did have chatrooms, BBSs and IRCs.
I think the Ender's game had an idea that made sense, I am sure it's not the only book that had that idea of a network that is created on purpose for education only.
The kids, who have nobody to guide them about how to use the machines they are given for learning at least should be put into position where learning is what they are pushed to through the kind of a computer/network system that they would be allowed to use.
The computers for kids that are expected to learn something, should be different from the 'normal' today's machines, they should be simpler in terms of software/hardware interaction, at least there should be a way to switch between a full crazy modern OS and a simple OS for learning about how the computers work. The network should be designed for learning. There should be things to do in it that would not give out answers but that would pro
Don't worry, my entire family and pretty much everyone around me that I know will vote Conservative. We live in Ontario (I am not in Canada right now, but will vote nevertheless.)
Yes, and my users get their user names/temporary password + certificates when they are signed up for the usage of the app.
What FF does here, it's treating a self-signed certificate (which my users know the correct numbers for) as if it was actually WORSE than plain text login over HTTP.
You don't get any of these insane ERRORS in a browser when you are presented with an HTTP site that asks you for a user name/password combination and for https you get an SSL ERROR FIRST!
So the question is WHY is FireFox then absolutely not warning the user about the fact that on an HTTP connection there is a much bigger freaking chance of getting screwed by someone just looking over the traffic, forget about an MITM attack?
FF made this decision of treating a self-signed cert like it's WORSE than plain text in the most insensible dumb-ass way possible.
my users have a limited number of machines, 2 per store, this business model is about POS machines, so to answer your question directly: no, my users won't have the hashes memorized but they will not be using the app from 1-2 machines outside of the stores.
This thing can easily be fixed and it can lead to many more sites switching to full encryption if encryption methods are simplified and sites don't show up as errors.
The difference is that not all the users will install the CA, but if they don't, they will see something that is not true - SSL Error message, except that there is no error.
You are still missing the point. There is no SSL Error, there only needs to be an SSL Warning: self signed certificate.
The users are given certificate numbers as well as user names / temporary passwords. They are instructed to check that the certificate is correct when the browser makes the connection or to install certificate if they can by themselves.
--
Every single person replying to me has completely ignored this issue:
SSLInsecureRenegotiation on
which is a much more important one - regardless of whether the certificate is signed by CA or not, the MITM is still possible and my business model actually fixes this but not technologically, it fixes it operationally.
Nobody is talking about it here at all, looks like they don't get it. IE and earlier FF versions cannot even make the connection unless this flag is on.
and they do, and they compare the cert number provided to them to the one showing up in the browser. But this is NOT an SSL ERROR, this is a WARNING. It's very poor UI design here.
In my case it is not even true that it is insecure to the SSL specifications, because my app requires that the users are registered by the app's admin, who then sends out the user name/temporary password and the right certificate number to the end user.
The user is instructed to check the certificate number during installation to avoid a possible MITM attack.
I am the original poster and have already replied to the tepples (the poster you are arguing with) there, he does not understand my use case.
I have a site that nobody can login into unless they are set up as users first by the administrator, who will also provide temporary passwords and certificate numbers to the end users.
We do not have access to the end users' computers, so we can't install certificates for them, but we tell them what they are.
An ERROR shown by FF is not the same as a WARNING that a self-signed certificate is used. The end users are instructed to check the certificate number so that there is no MITM attack.
This is an error on part of the browser's team, they think they understand all possible business scenarios and this shows in the dumbass UI choice here.
you are brainwashed into not understanding that an ERROR is not the same as a WARNING.
My business case does not allow just anybody to sign in, they must be known users who are set up by an admin of the site's app. Once they are set as users with temp passwords, they are instructed on what the certificate number is as well.
This is a perfectly legitimate way of using a self-signed certificate and it does not mean that the site is causing an SSL ERROR, only a warning is required here.
You are the idiot - my business model only allows people who are known to the site to log in, because their username/initial password are created by the administrator, then they get their certificate number and instructions to compare the numbers on the first sign on.
You are the idiot with NO amount of imagination.
You are also an anonymous coward replying this way, should I say more?
I only need to send them the certificate number, but at least the site wouldn't show up as an ERROR if FF did this right, but as a warning - self signed certificate.
My business model does not allow unknown users to use the site, so all users must be registered in advance, and they are told what the correct certificate is, so no, Firefox team shoving their idea of what SSL Errors as opposed to Warnings are is just arrogance on their part.
Because of my business case - the site is for users who must be first set up by the site administrator, so nobody can just show up, it's only for known users.
so they will also be notified on what the appropriate certificate is.
Slashdot Mirror
If you thought that Greece has problems, just wait until you find out how much debt UK has to other nations and what their trade imbalance is.
It seems nobody is paying attention to HOW things are funded anymore, bankers give out loans to companies and to governments without understanding the first thing about the ability of the debtors to pay this money back.
Imagine what will happen to all of the entitlements once nobody wants to bankroll it any longer.
UK government, like all other governments consists of politicians who want to be reelected, this is a major problem, they give out entitlements like the money comes out of a money well. Money was taken from taxes, from social security, then wars came so it was no longer enough, more and more was borrowed, all while the manufacturing was outsorced, the 'service economy' grew, all of which means that the trade imbalances grew and ability to pay back the debts diminished.
When the big one hits, UK will no longer be able to provide its services, at least not for the money that is paid by the government for these services right now. I expect UK and US to behave in the same way, by printing cash/bonds and eventually to see the value of their money to diminish into nothingness.
So what is the point of posting it?
What is the point of posting a speed limit at a limit that is already natural to 85% of people on that road? WHY POST IT?
There is no need to set a speed limit at all, unless there is some unnatural thing happening around a zone, like a school zone where the speed limit is not due to the road conditions but is there because some kids are dumb and/or inattentive, while others just don't understand the danger yet due to lack of experience?
There is no need to post a speed limit on a road that has no obstacles of the kind described above.
I am driving in Germany for the past half a year, and there is nothing special about the Autobahn that makes it so much different from most US/Canadian highways, in fact Autobahn is much more narrow than many highways that I normally drive in Canada on.
I drive at my normal speed of 160 to 210 Km/m here on the highway but in the city I am within 10 km of the posted limit. As I am driving the Accura MDX we brought here, many cars zoom by at probably 1.5 times my speed and those are not only BMWs, Mercedes and Audis. People go fast in everything, from VWs to Peugeots and so what?
The system here makes perfect sense and a system that you are proposing is nonsense - limiting people artificially on a road to a speed they already have chosen?
In US 50 years ago a family of 4 could have actual health insurance (covering of up to $50,000 of expenses, which was enough for everything) for a year for $25 dollars (payment for an entire year!) with a $500 deductible.
Multiple attacks on this happened since that time, especially during Nixon administration. Government got into the business of doling out money to medical workers and just like with government giving out loans for education this lead to rising costs for everybody, just like it leads for universities raising their costs.
Basic problem is the government giving out public funding for any sort of endeavor. This leads to very rapid price increases. Before Nixon, a day in a hospital could cost $100, today it could cost up to 100 times that much. Obviously this has nothing to do with inflation. Costs to treat cancer could go as high as up to 20,000 dollars before then, now it could easily reach between 500,000 to a cool million.
Any time a government is involved in giving out money, the costs for any services/products go up because .... because they can go up, because there is a government guarantee that no matter what the costs are to the public coffers they will be covered.
In the infamous words of Nixon himself: "it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay". Then he yapped something about how no new taxes would be used, only existing public money (so as always, this includes your social security money).
AFAIC all government behavior that touches economy leads to pyramid scheme being created.
As long as government gives out money through laws for certain items/services and collects this money through taxes+borrows it+prints it, there is nothing that can stop the prices for the items/services to skyrocket way above what markets can bear.
Government is an anti-competitive, monopoly creating machine that destroys economy by causing massive inflation and kills productivity by regulations and tax laws that kill small business. All of this is obviously done under the guise of doing some form of good.
Get government out of economy, take government's ability to screw with market prices out of the equation, take away government's ability to kill off small business through regulations and various taxes, take away government's ability to create/maintain monopolies through giving out money/special privileges and take away government's ability to cause inflation through printing money/borrowing, take away government's affinity to corrupting everything around it through income taxes, switch to a sales tax + allow people who are poor to file for tax refunds, take government power out of economy and you will see the return of SANE prices on things, sane prices on sane insurance plans.
Of-course there is a matter of shortage of doctors - this is about the collusion that prevents the necessary number of medical professionals to enter the business, this also needs to be addressed, this creates monopolies just as well as free money.
Imagine yourself in that position - having to choose whether to be shot or poisoned to death, what would you choose?
I expect many people to choose a bullet. Hopefully with a 30mm GAU-8 Avenger round that are shot from A10 Warthogs.
I suppose the quickest way to go is with a bomb explosion, though it is definitely not 'dignified', with all the little pieces of meat on the walls, floor and the ceiling.
Dignity is not a privilege. It is an inviolable right of a human being.
- ! :)
Tell that to a guy who died on a crapper from something like a stroke caused by constipation!
So you were given explicit requirements, instructions on how to 'win' in this competition, but you decided to go against these requirements and concentrate on something that was not as important to the stake holders instead and now you are complaining that competitive programming does NOT work?
You are the proof that competitive programming DOES work, it's just you failed in that competition.
Here is the problem.
A child, that is not supervised to do anything that even closely resembles some sort of work on a computer will spend it on whatever this child finds to be the most interesting thing.
There will be many slashdotters here, who will say: "but I grew up with a computer in the house, maybe with more than one computer, and I learned on it."
These people are correct. It is possible to learn with a computer. However their circumstances, like my own, were limited to a small number of things that we could do. I didn't have access to a real computer until about 12, but I was interested in them by reading about them and learning how to do things with them on paper. I made programs and my first programs were some games, I made them on paper and later was able to transfer those into a real machine.
The kids who grew up into /. readers are in their very late twenties to their very late thirties, these had computers in the house in eighties - nineties, we had computers that ran much simpler operating systems and there was not such a clear abundance of actually very user friendly and easy stuff to do, except for pretty good 2D games actually. These kids were obviously from a bit more affluent backgrounds, many saw their parents use computers for work, but this is not necessary.
So these kids, who became interested in the machines, found the most interesting thing to do with their computers was to try and create stuff, to produce things with computer. Sure they plaid games with them, but they also tried writing their own games. They wrote tools, text editors, calculators, drawing programs, they built stuff with computers, added their own extension boards, it was interesting, it was something that could be shown off to the peers, at least to those who cared, so this was also a way to achieve some status among peers.
If at the time the computers were what they are today: very powerful tools with very advanced user interfaces that provided tens of thousands if not millions of different ways to work with the machines plus the ability to socialize in hundreds of ways on line, ability to download music/movies/games within minutes or hours of appearance of new titles, ability to interface with computers through phones and have it all synchronize, if at that time the games looked like they were built by multi-million dollar Hollywood studios, it would have created the perception (maybe partially correct perception) that one person's ability to try and manipulate these complex networked nodes with 3D graphics engines was no longer accessible to a kid.
The operating systems of today go beyond simple DOS so much, that a kid could not do much with those directly because it takes a million of human lives to learn them.
Beside that, there are calculators, wikipedia, sites that offer to do your homework, p2p, where answers can be probably found and downloaded and shared further, there is facebook/myspace/whatever, there are all these tools that can do work for you and there is no TIME for anything between all of the tweets and twats on line. Though we did have chatrooms, BBSs and IRCs.
I think the Ender's game had an idea that made sense, I am sure it's not the only book that had that idea of a network that is created on purpose for education only.
The kids, who have nobody to guide them about how to use the machines they are given for learning at least should be put into position where learning is what they are pushed to through the kind of a computer/network system that they would be allowed to use.
The computers for kids that are expected to learn something, should be different from the 'normal' today's machines, they should be simpler in terms of software/hardware interaction, at least there should be a way to switch between a full crazy modern OS and a simple OS for learning about how the computers work. The network should be designed for learning. There should be things to do in it that would not give out answers but that would pro
Don't worry, my entire family and pretty much everyone around me that I know will vote Conservative. We live in Ontario (I am not in Canada right now, but will vote nevertheless.)
NDP can rot in hell.
Yes, and my users get their user names/temporary password + certificates when they are signed up for the usage of the app.
What FF does here, it's treating a self-signed certificate (which my users know the correct numbers for) as if it was actually WORSE than plain text login over HTTP.
You don't get any of these insane ERRORS in a browser when you are presented with an HTTP site that asks you for a user name/password combination and for https you get an SSL ERROR FIRST!
So the question is WHY is FireFox then absolutely not warning the user about the fact that on an HTTP connection there is a much bigger freaking chance of getting screwed by someone just looking over the traffic, forget about an MITM attack?
FF made this decision of treating a self-signed cert like it's WORSE than plain text in the most insensible dumb-ass way possible.
I don't need to see a guy talk, who never considered my use-case, you dumb-ass.
my users have a limited number of machines, 2 per store, this business model is about POS machines, so to answer your question directly: no, my users won't have the hashes memorized but they will not be using the app from 1-2 machines outside of the stores.
that's a pretty bad point to make.
This thing can easily be fixed and it can lead to many more sites switching to full encryption if encryption methods are simplified and sites don't show up as errors.
You are just wrong on this.
and so what? This is still wrong.
The difference is that not all the users will install the CA, but if they don't, they will see something that is not true - SSL Error message, except that there is no error.
You are still missing the point. There is no SSL Error, there only needs to be an SSL Warning: self signed certificate.
The users are given certificate numbers as well as user names / temporary passwords. They are instructed to check that the certificate is correct when the browser makes the connection or to install certificate if they can by themselves.
--
Every single person replying to me has completely ignored this issue:
SSLInsecureRenegotiation on
which is a much more important one - regardless of whether the certificate is signed by CA or not, the MITM is still possible and my business model actually fixes this but not technologically, it fixes it operationally.
Nobody is talking about it here at all, looks like they don't get it. IE and earlier FF versions cannot even make the connection unless this flag is on.
and they do, and they compare the cert number provided to them to the one showing up in the browser. But this is NOT an SSL ERROR, this is a WARNING. It's very poor UI design here.
and force all of my users to use just one browser I wrote? Very good business idea, thank you, I am sure it will work well, you are a genius.
In my case it is not even true that it is insecure to the SSL specifications, because my app requires that the users are registered by the app's admin, who then sends out the user name/temporary password and the right certificate number to the end user.
The user is instructed to check the certificate number during installation to avoid a possible MITM attack.
This entire thing is frustrating.
I am the original poster and have already replied to the tepples (the poster you are arguing with) there, he does not understand my use case.
I have a site that nobody can login into unless they are set up as users first by the administrator, who will also provide temporary passwords and certificate numbers to the end users.
We do not have access to the end users' computers, so we can't install certificates for them, but we tell them what they are.
An ERROR shown by FF is not the same as a WARNING that a self-signed certificate is used. The end users are instructed to check the certificate number so that there is no MITM attack.
This is an error on part of the browser's team, they think they understand all possible business scenarios and this shows in the dumbass UI choice here.
you are brainwashed into not understanding that an ERROR is not the same as a WARNING.
My business case does not allow just anybody to sign in, they must be known users who are set up by an admin of the site's app. Once they are set as users with temp passwords, they are instructed on what the certificate number is as well.
This is a perfectly legitimate way of using a self-signed certificate and it does not mean that the site is causing an SSL ERROR, only a warning is required here.
You are the idiot - my business model only allows people who are known to the site to log in, because their username/initial password are created by the administrator, then they get their certificate number and instructions to compare the numbers on the first sign on.
You are the idiot with NO amount of imagination.
You are also an anonymous coward replying this way, should I say more?
I only need to send them the certificate number, but at least the site wouldn't show up as an ERROR if FF did this right, but as a warning - self signed certificate.
Not in my case, they couldn't.
My business model does not allow unknown users to use the site, so all users must be registered in advance, and they are told what the correct certificate is, so no, Firefox team shoving their idea of what SSL Errors as opposed to Warnings are is just arrogance on their part.
Because of my business case - the site is for users who must be first set up by the site administrator, so nobody can just show up, it's only for known users.
so they will also be notified on what the appropriate certificate is.