If you think Etisalat is untrustworthy...
keep in mind you too can have your very own privately branded CA
through GeoTrust, Global Trust's Root Signing service, or QuoVadis / RSA's Root Signing Service.
You just have to meet their minimum financial net-worth and insurance requirements, policy requirements, and "compliance" guidelines.
The limiting factor is the cost of these services.
If you are willing to pay enough, you can have your own CA.
The fact of the matter is, trust is not part of the equation.
X.509 CA / SSL Certificate cryptography practices are very broken.
Verizon/GeoTrust has been known to offer these certificates of this nature as a paid service. That is, signing your CA in exchange for money. If you are a business and you want a "CA", you can probably buy this service. This is not something you gotta be particularly trusted to do.
Based on my understanding about it: this is not about trust so much... if you have enough money and you are able to make a deal, abide by the terms, and meet whatever qualifications they had set, you get the CA you want.
Verizon can't cancel a contract just because someone else doesn't like it or has an opinion that the person they sold the service to might not be that trustworthy.
So the EFF puts Verizon in what I would call an 'uncomfortable' situation.
You need proof that Etisalat has conducted a MITM attack, or that Verizon didn't intend to sign them in the first place.
Then a revokation might be able to be done, without Verizon getting sued.
Maybe they would... what we need is proof that they would do it.
We need an independent mechanism in browsers to verify SSL certificates and automatically report anything suspicious.
What would be ideal would be a Firefox plugin to 'cache' known trusted SSL certificates of websites,
and upload them to a central repository viewed by other users of the plugin.
If you go to a website, and the certificate is in the repository (and not expired), and the cert you see is different from the one you saw last time, or the certificate in the repository, then you get a warning.
The assumption behind this is: if a site is popular, the legitimate certificate gets in there first.
And the repository signs the certificate based on the date it was in there, and publishes a new public key every day, destroying yesterday's private key, so the date a certificate was imported can be proved.
If that's the case, we need all the other CAs to add Etisalat's certificate to their CRL.
Anyone who downloads the CRLs will then not trust Etisalat's certificate.
Perhaps they should add Verizon's certificate to the CRL as well; though, things could get messy....
As long as they are patenting a specific machine/mechanism for transforming a gameplay sequence into a story, and not
the general concept of turning a sequence of gameplay into a book.
I can understand that trying to refer to an object that doesn't exist distinctly, as if it did, causes some confusion.
That's just an imaginary / obscure / weird / cute way of writing 1
You could write it as (1/9) * 9 it's exactly the same amount of obfuscation. Since a digit D divided by 9 is what represents a digit repeating in Base 10.
There's really no such number as 0.9999999...., as in there is no rational that expands to "9" repeating, when expanded to a decimal fraction using basic arithmetic.
So it shouldn't come up too frequently in basic arithmetic.
It's pretty obvious that the fraction 9/9 does not yield a repeating decimal, basic arithmetic operations expand that to 1.0, not 0.99999....
The only way you really arrive at a repeating 9, with only basic arithmetic, is if you tried to manipulate another repeating decimal, eg
If you took 0.1111111111....
and tried to apply arithmetic multiplication by 9.
In basic arithmetic, this is invalid, you cannot really expect to get the right answer if you multiply or divide repeating decimals.
You get an object that doesn't exist distinctly in basic arithmetic, because multiplication of a repeating decimal gives you an undefined result.
Much in the way you get an ambiguous result if you try to supply "0" as the right operand to the divide-by operation.
The gist is that Sun very carefully licensed Java under the GPL with an agreement that anyone who implements Java 100%, without supersetting, would get access to the patents.
In other words, everyone who redistributes Sun's GPL release of Java is violating the GPL Sec7. ?
For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Are these colleges whose professors will be sure to include some subjective questions on every test and take a kickback in exchange for subtracting points from a student's grade?
For this 'betting' company to be profitable, the students have to lose most of the time....
Oh right, it's this "betting" thing that makes it gambling. There is skill involved, but like in Poker, there is a huge element of random chance involved as well (what questions get chosen to be asked on the test), and how the student reacts sometimes based on hunch to things that are unknown and things that are known.
The student could be extremely skilled, but too many unfair or 'unbeatable' (despite skill) questions got placed on (possibly rigged) tests.
E.g. Student doesn't know answer to multiple-choice question #23... do they just lose, or do they enter a random answer, and hope for the best?
(Element of chance)
HTH: I don't buy the argument that it's not gambling, and I question whether a judge or other authorities would buy that argument, also.
Then a few weeks from now when someone maybe slanders you, you tell the court "We have identified the John/Jane doe and his/her name is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"...
Also, they're not talking about a single laser, they're talking about colliding two laser beams.
The real trick is the death star collides many laser beams, and then accelerates them into the planet in just the right way, causing a miniature black hole to form.
Then they use the lasers to generate matter, fueling expansion of the black hole in the planet.
He should get multiple 'public' e-mail addresses...
A binspam address published proudly on the website, a less-publicized email addy to give to constituents...
and per-sender (sender-specific) e-mail addresses provided only to constituents and others who establish a meaningful conversation
by sending a verifiably non-nuisance message
A chargeback is not a refund it's the opposite of a refund, a "refund" is given willingly by the merchant, a chargeback is not; it doesn't matter whether a merchant claims something is refundable or not. A chargeback is an unwinding of the transaction which is an automatic result of a dispute, or essentially claiming the transaction was made bad, invalid, the merchant didn't deliver the product, or the product was defective, which does not require the merchant's consent.
Normally the merchant is automatically assumed to be in the wrong unless they can prove otherwise.
In this case the product being 30 days of subscription.
And the reason for the product being defective, is the merchant's server destroyed the good purchased without allowing the buyer to obtain its benefit.
Hm... I wonder then if the player can perform a CC chargeback against the $1200, since the company he paid for the product destroyed the product before it was delivered to him...
It may have been the actions of other players that caused their software to destroy the product, but EVE's software destroyed it.
Right, except no Warmist ever writes in a correction to any popular news site when they post things that say, "2010 has been an exceptoinally warm year, increasing fears and awareness regarding Global Warming."
Is reasonable within a warmists' political agenda, to attempt to dissuade or calm people's fears, or tell them they don't need to worry about this year's increased temperature?
Why would people want to go out of their way to downplay things that make it look to the naive person as if they were right?
It would almost be self-deprecative to the "warmists"
Who said anything about them getting training taxes or healthcare?
They'll be 1 hour a month part-time employees..
resulting in amount of pay that falls below the dollar amounts thresholds so the employer won't be required to perform any witholding.
Yeah... 50% total is also easy for big companies to avoid, by making sure to have plenty of employees performing non-skilled labor that count. They could actually aim to hire minimum-wage non-technical employees in advance in order to reduce the proportion of H1B workers.
It could still be more cost-effective than hiring skilled labor from local applicants.
They ought to require firms applying for H1Bs to report number of workers in various categories or types of work, and if you have 50% or more of your employees performing any particular type of work on H-1HB visa , then the higher app fees apply for workers in that category...
So e.g. if >50% or your secretaries or H1B, or >50% of your support personnel are H1B, if >50% of your accountants/managers are H1B,
or if >50% of your engineers are H1B....
Hm... new fashion: clothing with embedded water-holding cells.
There's gotta be a backlash against all these privacy-compromising technologies at some point.
Part of the whole reason we wear clothes is to protect our privacy and prevent people from seeing what's underneath.
Nobody has any permissible reason to see through our clothing without a search warrant.
We need to fix our clothing so these new technology toys are no longer capable of seamlessly compromising our privacy.
Sharks can still use them, as long as the laser is head mounted and they point it at their above-water target, But I think the sharks would prefer one of these anyways.
less invasive, since they cannot pass through water or metal.
So they won't work, as long as you only go outside days that it's rainy and make sure all your pockets and such are always soaking wet.
Keep extra bags of water to ensure that remains the case.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think Etisalat is untrustworthy... keep in mind you too can have your very own privately branded CA through GeoTrust, Global Trust's Root Signing service, or QuoVadis / RSA's Root Signing Service.
You just have to meet their minimum financial net-worth and insurance requirements, policy requirements, and "compliance" guidelines.
The limiting factor is the cost of these services. If you are willing to pay enough, you can have your own CA.
The fact of the matter is, trust is not part of the equation.
X.509 CA / SSL Certificate cryptography practices are very broken.
Verizon/GeoTrust has been known to offer these certificates of this nature as a paid service. That is, signing your CA in exchange for money. If you are a business and you want a "CA", you can probably buy this service. This is not something you gotta be particularly trusted to do.
Based on my understanding about it: this is not about trust so much... if you have enough money and you are able to make a deal, abide by the terms, and meet whatever qualifications they had set, you get the CA you want.
Verizon can't cancel a contract just because someone else doesn't like it or has an opinion that the person they sold the service to might not be that trustworthy.
So the EFF puts Verizon in what I would call an 'uncomfortable' situation.
You need proof that Etisalat has conducted a MITM attack, or that Verizon didn't intend to sign them in the first place.
Then a revokation might be able to be done, without Verizon getting sued.
Maybe they would... what we need is proof that they would do it.
We need an independent mechanism in browsers to verify SSL certificates and automatically report anything suspicious.
What would be ideal would be a Firefox plugin to 'cache' known trusted SSL certificates of websites, and upload them to a central repository viewed by other users of the plugin.
If you go to a website, and the certificate is in the repository (and not expired), and the cert you see is different from the one you saw last time, or the certificate in the repository, then you get a warning.
The assumption behind this is: if a site is popular, the legitimate certificate gets in there first.
And the repository signs the certificate based on the date it was in there, and publishes a new public key every day, destroying yesterday's private key, so the date a certificate was imported can be proved.
If that's the case, we need all the other CAs to add Etisalat's certificate to their CRL. Anyone who downloads the CRLs will then not trust Etisalat's certificate.
Perhaps they should add Verizon's certificate to the CRL as well; though, things could get messy....
I remember seeing a "preview" for a horror movie about all that.... http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1922223
As long as they are patenting a specific machine/mechanism for transforming a gameplay sequence into a story, and not the general concept of turning a sequence of gameplay into a book.
I can understand that trying to refer to an object that doesn't exist distinctly, as if it did, causes some confusion.
That's just an imaginary / obscure / weird / cute way of writing 1
You could write it as (1/9) * 9 it's exactly the same amount of obfuscation. Since a digit D divided by 9 is what represents a digit repeating in Base 10.
There's really no such number as 0.9999999...., as in there is no rational that expands to "9" repeating, when expanded to a decimal fraction using basic arithmetic.
So it shouldn't come up too frequently in basic arithmetic.
It's pretty obvious that the fraction 9/9 does not yield a repeating decimal, basic arithmetic operations expand that to 1.0, not 0.99999....
The only way you really arrive at a repeating 9, with only basic arithmetic, is if you tried to manipulate another repeating decimal, eg If you took 0.1111111111.... and tried to apply arithmetic multiplication by 9.
In basic arithmetic, this is invalid, you cannot really expect to get the right answer if you multiply or divide repeating decimals. You get an object that doesn't exist distinctly in basic arithmetic, because multiplication of a repeating decimal gives you an undefined result.
Much in the way you get an ambiguous result if you try to supply "0" as the right operand to the divide-by operation.
The gist is that Sun very carefully licensed Java under the GPL with an agreement that anyone who implements Java 100%, without supersetting, would get access to the patents.
In other words, everyone who redistributes Sun's GPL release of Java is violating the GPL Sec7. ?
can I then use it to get the police to stake out my car instead of having to fit a car alarm?
Only if you spend a few hundred billion lobbying the legislature and authorities to allow you to do so.
[j/k]
grades from students at 36 American colleges.
Are these colleges whose professors will be sure to include some subjective questions on every test and take a kickback in exchange for subtracting points from a student's grade?
For this 'betting' company to be profitable, the students have to lose most of the time....
Oh right, it's this "betting" thing that makes it gambling. There is skill involved, but like in Poker, there is a huge element of random chance involved as well (what questions get chosen to be asked on the test), and how the student reacts sometimes based on hunch to things that are unknown and things that are known.
The student could be extremely skilled, but too many unfair or 'unbeatable' (despite skill) questions got placed on (possibly rigged) tests.
E.g. Student doesn't know answer to multiple-choice question #23... do they just lose, or do they enter a random answer, and hope for the best? (Element of chance)
HTH: I don't buy the argument that it's not gambling, and I question whether a judge or other authorities would buy that argument, also.
That's not how it works.
You sue Jane/John Doe for slandering you.
Then a few weeks from now when someone maybe slanders you, you tell the court "We have identified the John/Jane doe and his/her name is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"...
Also, they're not talking about a single laser, they're talking about colliding two laser beams.
The real trick is the death star collides many laser beams, and then accelerates them into the planet in just the right way, causing a miniature black hole to form.
Then they use the lasers to generate matter, fueling expansion of the black hole in the planet.
He should get multiple 'public' e-mail addresses...
A binspam address published proudly on the website, a less-publicized email addy to give to constituents... and per-sender (sender-specific) e-mail addresses provided only to constituents and others who establish a meaningful conversation by sending a verifiably non-nuisance message
A chargeback is not a refund it's the opposite of a refund, a "refund" is given willingly by the merchant, a chargeback is not; it doesn't matter whether a merchant claims something is refundable or not. A chargeback is an unwinding of the transaction which is an automatic result of a dispute, or essentially claiming the transaction was made bad, invalid, the merchant didn't deliver the product, or the product was defective, which does not require the merchant's consent.
Normally the merchant is automatically assumed to be in the wrong unless they can prove otherwise.
In this case the product being 30 days of subscription. And the reason for the product being defective, is the merchant's server destroyed the good purchased without allowing the buyer to obtain its benefit.
Big Government is probably better since there's no profit involved
What? Of course there's profit involved.....
Three groups make a killing the most often:
Lawyers, Government Offices, and Lobbyists who influence the lawmakers to make the rules favor them
Hm... I wonder then if the player can perform a CC chargeback against the $1200, since the company he paid for the product destroyed the product before it was delivered to him...
It may have been the actions of other players that caused their software to destroy the product, but EVE's software destroyed it.
Right, except no Warmist ever writes in a correction to any popular news site when they post things that say, "2010 has been an exceptoinally warm year, increasing fears and awareness regarding Global Warming."
Is reasonable within a warmists' political agenda, to attempt to dissuade or calm people's fears, or tell them they don't need to worry about this year's increased temperature?
Why would people want to go out of their way to downplay things that make it look to the naive person as if they were right?
It would almost be self-deprecative to the "warmists"
taxes, management, training, healthcare,
Who said anything about them getting training taxes or healthcare?
They'll be 1 hour a month part-time employees.. resulting in amount of pay that falls below the dollar amounts thresholds so the employer won't be required to perform any witholding.
It's only a matter of time before other cities start auctioning off their naming rights...........
GoDaddy, Arizona (Formerly Scottsdale)
Microsoft City, Washington. (Formerly Redmond)
GooglePlex, Googlia (Formerly Mountain View, California)
Playboy, Porn-ia (Formerly Chicago, Illinois)
Empire of Obamia (Formerly, the United States of America)
Yeah... 50% total is also easy for big companies to avoid, by making sure to have plenty of employees performing non-skilled labor that count. They could actually aim to hire minimum-wage non-technical employees in advance in order to reduce the proportion of H1B workers. It could still be more cost-effective than hiring skilled labor from local applicants.
They ought to require firms applying for H1Bs to report number of workers in various categories or types of work, and if you have 50% or more of your employees performing any particular type of work on H-1HB visa , then the higher app fees apply for workers in that category...
So e.g. if >50% or your secretaries or H1B, or >50% of your support personnel are H1B, if >50% of your accountants/managers are H1B, or if >50% of your engineers are H1B....
Hm... new fashion: clothing with embedded water-holding cells.
There's gotta be a backlash against all these privacy-compromising technologies at some point.
Part of the whole reason we wear clothes is to protect our privacy and prevent people from seeing what's underneath.
Nobody has any permissible reason to see through our clothing without a search warrant. We need to fix our clothing so these new technology toys are no longer capable of seamlessly compromising our privacy.
Sharks can still use them, as long as the laser is head mounted and they point it at their above-water target, But I think the sharks would prefer one of these anyways.
less invasive, since they cannot pass through water or metal.
So they won't work, as long as you only go outside days that it's rainy and make sure all your pockets and such are always soaking wet. Keep extra bags of water to ensure that remains the case.
They may have grown up with internet existing.... but their parents won't let them touch the computer. Let alone use it as a toy.
On average, they know just enough about the net to know it's dangerous for kids.
Sorry.. the 'net' generation is something that will start 20 years from now, not anytime soon.