Depends on the type of work. Work from home is a great idea if you work on isolated tasks. Few problems are like that and if they are a regular part of your work I suggest you reskill as you'll be next to be replaced by someone speaking Panjabi.
That's a lot of anger about someone else buying something. I think there's a word for that. Let's see... Pretentious douchebag would be quite fitting to describe you.
Carrying cash is not dangerous, but then neither is paying for things with cards in the grand scheme of things. The replies about carrying cash being unsafe were to the claim that online transactions are unsafe.
Why? The only difference in liability is what a company decides. In many countries you are no more lake for fraud on your debit card than fraud on your credit card.
Think you're safe because in credit you can reuse to pay the bill? Well in the good old US of A your credit rating is far more important than you bank balance.
No, Linux has an ability for the GUI to be screwed up in normal use issue. That's actually not Linux (the kernel's) fault as much as it is 20 years of X patchwork. But in terms of GUI responsiveness... well let's say there's a lot of people very eager to see a new window system written despite Xorg's attempt to gut hundreds of thousands of lines of cruft out of the status quo.
Except those people who insist that network transparency is the only critical feature a GUI must have.
I don't need a third party CA to have an encrypted connection. If my interest is only in ensuring preventing eavesdropping by parties not associated with me or the remote, we can do any number of things; self signed certs being the most obvious.
You'd think so, but some other third party has decided that this is not good enough and made self-signing certs pretty much a non-option unless you intend to only access the other end using a computer where you control the certificate store. Personally I like being able to say access my own cloud or services I host on my computer from *other* people's machine. It's not just a browser warning either. Some programs outright fail if the certificate chain isn't perfect.
That situation is rare. Usually anything conversation that requires privacy also requires authenticity.
Knowing who is in control of the server is one form of authenticity. When you go out to dinner and split a bill do you ask for the other person's phone so you can send him bank details, or do you ask for their name address phone number passport number, drivers license, etc. Not *all* authenticity is absolute which is precisely why there are various validation levels defined in the first place.
If I don't know that site is real though because some horse shit CA like Let'sEncrpt is happy to issue a cert for ExamplAutoparts.com when ExampleAutoparts.com is a major e-tailer, and some asshole can clone the site and host it at ExamplAutoparts.com that sucks.
And why shouldn't they? If the owner of the website proves they actually own examplautoparts.com then why would it be up to a private company to: a) police a trademark dispute b) provide a security certificate based on site content rather than ownership c) become the fraud police. There are legal processes in place for this, and issuing of SSL certificates by private companies is NOT the place to resolve them.
But all of this is completely irrelevant since you're talking about two different processes that are handled differently by a browser. If someone typosquats my bank's website it becomes immediately obvious since on my browser it will display e.g. https://www.nap.com.au/ with a little lock rather than: "National Australia Bank Limited [AU]" If you're relying on the lock for authenticity then you should get out of the 90s and join us in the modern times.
F***K LE and the horse they road in on.
Nope, just learn to educate idiots who don't understand the difference between security and authenticity. I don't want to compromise security or pay a rent seeker just because someone like you thinks a URL and a padlock is some form of authenticity. It's not.
You want to critisize LE? Start with the foundations of SSL and the many iterations of browser changes and security vendor changes that got us to the point where basic encryption wasn't possible to do without cost until LE tore apart the cartel.
No they aren't transmitting to an audience using their own equipment. They are taking over an uplink and knocking a radio station offline in the process. Quite a bit different.
Probably a mix. With DVs being given out for free these days your only market remains EVs. Would you trust an EV issued by a company who major browsers have issues with, and a company that has fucked up repeatedly in the past few years?
Maybe if people trusted them the whole LetsEncrypt giving out DVs wouldn't be so bad.
Its shame because DV certs don't really prove much at all IMHO.
Sure they do. They prove there's an encrypted connection between the client and the server, and that the person presenting themselves on the other hand actually owns the server you're talking to.
Just because they don't give you their full business name doesn't mean it's not miles better than plain texting your way through the ether.
Whether this eats up the EV side of the market too remains to be seen - users don't typically care whether there's a lock icon in the browser bar or what color it is.
This is something being fought by the browser vendors. I don't get just a lock when visiting my bank's site. I get half the browser bar talk about the identify of the site I am visiting. Combine that with hiding URLs (the next logical step) and the user issue will be greatly improved.
TBH a Cert Authority cannot validate 100% of Certs 100% of the time.
No they can't, but in general they don't fail anywhere near as often or as significantly as Symantec did. In general there aren't major problems identified in their processes that other companies are demanding they get fixed. In general they don't cross sign certificates for extended validation from other authorities that haven't been cleared to do so because they lack the processes. In general they don't let several hundred test certificates get out in the wild and if they did they in general they wouldn't use high profile domains to test like www.google.com
This isn't a 100% of cases 100% of the time issue. This is an issue of gross incompetence for a certificate authority.
What's left after selling that off? Mediocre antivirus?
Symantec is huge in enterprise services offering everything from security, redundancy, to exchange mail clients for Android with some major multinationals as primary customers.
They have a long way to go before they reach the Yahoo level.
Since Zuckerberg stopped being ordinary there has been major international shifts in politics, a major housing crisis, a major economic crisis, and one of the most powerful people in the world is... well actually he would have gone from George W Bush to Trump so that won't have been too steep of a change.
Point is if all he does is "remember" then he won't have a clue about what makes current ordinary people tick. Times change and it's important to refresh your view lest you get stuck with strange outdated prejudices.
None of the companies allegedly supporting net neutrality is mentioning this on their home page today.
I have a big grey banner across the top of my Neflix screen right now that proves otherwise. Amazon's major deal of the day was a notice about Net Neutrality. Mark Zuckerberg's post would have been at the top of his 93million follower's feeds. And Google while they didn't put it on their home page for search definitely put it on the top of their blog: https://www.blog.google/topics...
Humans migrate all the time, for reasons other than war. Resources become scarce, humans will war until the demand changes. The rich and powerful will always control the weak and poor, and it doesn't matter what political philosophy you embrace, this is true of all of them.
People migrate in small groups. Humans don't mass migrate without the shit really hitting the fan, and even if they did who would welcome them?
Huh? You brought Linux based RTOS into the conversation. No definitely not n the desktop. Why would I run that on the desktop. Please don't switch contexts.
What is the "occasional stutter" if not "briefly unresponsive"? I guess I see what you mean, farther down. I see Windows become intermittently unresponsive to mouse and kb input under heavy I/O load somewhat regularly, and I find it quite annoying. Not just the mouse stuttering, but clicks getting dropped,windows not gaining focus, that sort of thing.
Speaking of context I'm still talking in terms of the general person here. That "odd" crowd I hang with are the normal people who rarely if ever find their computers even remotely placed under load unless one of their browser tabs is misbehaving or they downloaded some bitcoin mining malware.
I agree for the power user it would be quite irritating, but that makes up only the tiniest portion of the user base.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the type of work. Work from home is a great idea if you work on isolated tasks. Few problems are like that and if they are a regular part of your work I suggest you reskill as you'll be next to be replaced by someone speaking Panjabi.
Send it to their parents. The children aren't legally allowed to enter in these kinds of business transactions anyway.
Never saw crappy on any computer since 20 years anyway, in what strange world do you live?
Why didn't you just sign of your post with "disregard that I'm talking out of my arse"
It's much shorter to write.
That's a lot of anger about someone else buying something. I think there's a word for that. Let's see...
Pretentious douchebag would be quite fitting to describe you.
Carrying cash is not dangerous, but then neither is paying for things with cards in the grand scheme of things. The replies about carrying cash being unsafe were to the claim that online transactions are unsafe.
Context matters.
Why? The only difference in liability is what a company decides. In many countries you are no more lake for fraud on your debit card than fraud on your credit card.
Think you're safe because in credit you can reuse to pay the bill? Well in the good old US of A your credit rating is far more important than you bank balance.
No, Linux has an ability for the GUI to be screwed up in normal use issue. That's actually not Linux (the kernel's) fault as much as it is 20 years of X patchwork. But in terms of GUI responsiveness ... well let's say there's a lot of people very eager to see a new window system written despite Xorg's attempt to gut hundreds of thousands of lines of cruft out of the status quo.
Except those people who insist that network transparency is the only critical feature a GUI must have.
So the people advertising for it say, yet slowdown seems to be a common complaint among users.
Not sure what advertising you're talking about. But I guess benchmarking of actual workloads and OS memory use do count as some form of "advertising".
Oh wow I'm dealing with an actual idiot. Sorry I had no idea.
I don't need a third party CA to have an encrypted connection. If my interest is only in ensuring preventing eavesdropping by parties not associated with me or the remote, we can do any number of things; self signed certs being the most obvious.
You'd think so, but some other third party has decided that this is not good enough and made self-signing certs pretty much a non-option unless you intend to only access the other end using a computer where you control the certificate store. Personally I like being able to say access my own cloud or services I host on my computer from *other* people's machine. It's not just a browser warning either. Some programs outright fail if the certificate chain isn't perfect.
That situation is rare. Usually anything conversation that requires privacy also requires authenticity.
Knowing who is in control of the server is one form of authenticity. When you go out to dinner and split a bill do you ask for the other person's phone so you can send him bank details, or do you ask for their name address phone number passport number, drivers license, etc. Not *all* authenticity is absolute which is precisely why there are various validation levels defined in the first place.
If I don't know that site is real though because some horse shit CA like Let'sEncrpt is happy to issue a cert for ExamplAutoparts.com when ExampleAutoparts.com is a major e-tailer, and some asshole can clone the site and host it at ExamplAutoparts.com that sucks.
And why shouldn't they? If the owner of the website proves they actually own examplautoparts.com then why would it be up to a private company to:
a) police a trademark dispute
b) provide a security certificate based on site content rather than ownership
c) become the fraud police.
There are legal processes in place for this, and issuing of SSL certificates by private companies is NOT the place to resolve them.
But all of this is completely irrelevant since you're talking about two different processes that are handled differently by a browser. If someone typosquats my bank's website it becomes immediately obvious since on my browser it will display e.g. https://www.nap.com.au/ with a little lock rather than: "National Australia Bank Limited [AU]" If you're relying on the lock for authenticity then you should get out of the 90s and join us in the modern times.
F***K LE and the horse they road in on.
Nope, just learn to educate idiots who don't understand the difference between security and authenticity. I don't want to compromise security or pay a rent seeker just because someone like you thinks a URL and a padlock is some form of authenticity. It's not.
You want to critisize LE? Start with the foundations of SSL and the many iterations of browser changes and security vendor changes that got us to the point where basic encryption wasn't possible to do without cost until LE tore apart the cartel.
No they aren't transmitting to an audience using their own equipment. They are taking over an uplink and knocking a radio station offline in the process. Quite a bit different.
What are you talking about you already have. Or did you type this post on a graphics calculator?
Maybe you shouldn't drive a car that's unsafe.
Probably a mix. With DVs being given out for free these days your only market remains EVs. Would you trust an EV issued by a company who major browsers have issues with, and a company that has fucked up repeatedly in the past few years?
Maybe if people trusted them the whole LetsEncrypt giving out DVs wouldn't be so bad.
Its shame because DV certs don't really prove much at all IMHO.
Sure they do. They prove there's an encrypted connection between the client and the server, and that the person presenting themselves on the other hand actually owns the server you're talking to.
Just because they don't give you their full business name doesn't mean it's not miles better than plain texting your way through the ether.
Whether this eats up the EV side of the market too remains to be seen - users don't typically care whether there's a lock icon in the browser bar or what color it is.
This is something being fought by the browser vendors. I don't get just a lock when visiting my bank's site. I get half the browser bar talk about the identify of the site I am visiting. Combine that with hiding URLs (the next logical step) and the user issue will be greatly improved.
TBH a Cert Authority cannot validate 100% of Certs 100% of the time.
No they can't, but in general they don't fail anywhere near as often or as significantly as Symantec did. In general there aren't major problems identified in their processes that other companies are demanding they get fixed. In general they don't cross sign certificates for extended validation from other authorities that haven't been cleared to do so because they lack the processes. In general they don't let several hundred test certificates get out in the wild and if they did they in general they wouldn't use high profile domains to test like www.google.com
This isn't a 100% of cases 100% of the time issue. This is an issue of gross incompetence for a certificate authority.
What's left after selling that off? Mediocre antivirus?
Symantec is huge in enterprise services offering everything from security, redundancy, to exchange mail clients for Android with some major multinationals as primary customers.
They have a long way to go before they reach the Yahoo level.
Since Zuckerberg stopped being ordinary there has been major international shifts in politics, a major housing crisis, a major economic crisis, and one of the most powerful people in the world is ... well actually he would have gone from George W Bush to Trump so that won't have been too steep of a change.
Point is if all he does is "remember" then he won't have a clue about what makes current ordinary people tick. Times change and it's important to refresh your view lest you get stuck with strange outdated prejudices.
It's interesting that they didn't make a doodle about it, but it was at the top of blog https://www.blog.google/topics....
None of the companies allegedly supporting net neutrality is mentioning this on their home page today.
I have a big grey banner across the top of my Neflix screen right now that proves otherwise.
Amazon's major deal of the day was a notice about Net Neutrality.
Mark Zuckerberg's post would have been at the top of his 93million follower's feeds.
And Google while they didn't put it on their home page for search definitely put it on the top of their blog: https://www.blog.google/topics...
You're not sure at what I'm getting at and then provided a perfect example of how immobile we actually are in large groups?
Humans migrate all the time, for reasons other than war. Resources become scarce, humans will war until the demand changes. The rich and powerful will always control the weak and poor, and it doesn't matter what political philosophy you embrace, this is true of all of them.
People migrate in small groups. Humans don't mass migrate without the shit really hitting the fan, and even if they did who would welcome them?
On your personal desktop?
Huh? You brought Linux based RTOS into the conversation. No definitely not n the desktop. Why would I run that on the desktop. Please don't switch contexts.
What is the "occasional stutter" if not "briefly unresponsive"? I guess I see what you mean, farther down. I see Windows become intermittently unresponsive to mouse and kb input under heavy I/O load somewhat regularly, and I find it quite annoying. Not just the mouse stuttering, but clicks getting dropped,windows not gaining focus, that sort of thing.
Speaking of context I'm still talking in terms of the general person here. That "odd" crowd I hang with are the normal people who rarely if ever find their computers even remotely placed under load unless one of their browser tabs is misbehaving or they downloaded some bitcoin mining malware.
I agree for the power user it would be quite irritating, but that makes up only the tiniest portion of the user base.
The difference is that Russia is uniquely willing both to use malicious hacking as a first option and to apply unconventional pressure on its people.
Huh? That's a difference? Are you a time traveler that somehow skipped the past 2 years?