There is clearly a nub where a nunchuck could plug in and the extended Wiimote jacket clearly has a hole in the right place to allow access.
Personally I think it should include wireless nunchuck capability. It seems rather suboptimal to have a Wiimote that will track free movement better still tied to a nunchuck.
Ultimately you have to define "reasonable" and that is going to be a judgement call.
Of course you can throw out alternative scenarios but if there is no supporting evidence for them and no credible explanations offered for much of his incriminating behaviour are they enough to instil reasonable doubt?
That's a judgement call and one you have to be on the jury to make.
the hierarchical organisation bit earlier if that's what you meant.
Clearly everyone doesn't automatically assume that to be defining characteristic of folders. "Folders" describes a container type, not the way those containers are themselves organised.
I think people would generally refer to that as a tree, so perhaps a "folder tree" might be what you want.
A lot of immunizations stopped children from dying. Cancer on the other hand tends to effect older people (post reproductive age) more than younger people.
That might cause populations to swell (and age) but it won't cause a population boom.
But everyone in the cancer community (medically) are always very careful never to say that anyone is cured - rather they are in "remission". After all, if word got out that cancer wasn't the death sentence everyone thinks it is, all the money would dry up (and along with it the big budgets and high salaries).
Or just maybe they use that term because there often are ongoing issues and a patient needs be aware of that so as to monitor their own health.
As I understand it the life expectancy of a "successful" cancer patient is significantly reduced, not least because many of the treatments can cause ongoing problems of their own.
But it -is- a real problem today that tiny and small websites don't have any reasonable way to use encryption at all. Self-signed scares people away (and infact gets perceived as MORE dangerous than plain http, due to the warning)
Godaddy sell perfectly usable certs for about $30 a year. It's not free, but it's not particularly expensive either. That said I'd like to see them come down to around their domain prices, there is no more work in their domain only signing process.
What's the difference there between using a general CA?
Other than the fact: -It will cost more for a bank to distribute it's CA cert to all it's customers than to use a general CA. -It's less convenient for customers, it's an extra hoop to jump through and they'd have to retain the CD and reuse it if they get install a new browser or get a new PC. -It'll be an even bigger pain to do banking from their mobile phone etc.
There's no advantage to the bank or the customer, only downsides.
No no, this is Slashdot. Your solution must either work perfectly in all possible situations, or it's useless.;)
How about working better in any situation?
Do you really want to ring up Paypal to verify a certificate? Is the average internet user capable of understanding that process? Does you bank gain anything by saving a few hundred dollars on a certificate and then paying people to answer phone calls about self signed certificates? Is security enhanced by having some minimally paid customer service drones verifying certificates for customers?
I don't disagree with what you say in principal, however I do not think that if self-signed certificates were in widespread use like that people would become conditioned to ignore the warnings completely, which would be a net loss to security.
It's one thing to ask the sort of people using SSH to understand what's going on. It's another for the general populace.
For the web site of a random online store with a merchant account, no. For the web site of a bank or a widely used payment processor such as PayPal, yes.
Do you really think the average person would ring such a phone number or understand what they are doing? They, by and large, would either be turned off by it or ignore it. Therefore it's not a viable solution.
And what's the advantage for a bank/paypal? They avoid paying a few hundred dollars a year for a certificate but have to pay people by the hour to answer the phone (a recorded message could not possibly hope to explain signature verification effectively to the average punter)? That isn't going to be a cost saving and trusting certificate authentication to people being paid minimum wage is hardly going to be a security enhancement.
Individual key verification may work well for ad-hoc individual to individual communications but is inefficient for frequent use. (Which is why PGP allows public keys to be signed and a trust matrix established).
There's no need for a "man in the middle" attack, nor is there any need for you, as the consumer, to do anything differently. You're simply hosed. You may think that you're talking to secure-as-heck.com, but in reality, you're talking to hacker-boy-69, who has pwned secure-as-heck.com, and who is now gleefully collecting your information.
You can't just ignore man in the middle attacks because there are other potential attack vectors (an inside job or a compromised server). No one security measure is going to provide ultimate protection from all attack vectors, thus the need for layers of protection.
Certificates help protect against a certain set of attack vectors and have value because of it.
They are overly expensive, especially from some vendors and for wildcard certs, but ultimately cheaper and easier than other methods of verification (such as manually verifying self signed certs over some other mechanism).
It's a little bit harder for an attacker to make a man-in-the-middle attack if the owner of a self-signed certificate reads you the certificate's fingerprint over the phone, no?
Do you actually imagine that is a viable solution for a "web site"?
ALL sites would be more secure with a self-signed certificate than plain HTTP
How so? Both are susceptible to a man in the middle attack. In the self-signed certificate scenario the man in the middle merely needs to generate their own self-signed certificate.
That's slightly more complicated but not enough to deter anyone if the information is even vaguely snoop-worthy.
I agree however that the certifying authorities are largely rip-off merchants.
This is because literally one second after they are issued, regardless of the level of effort that goes into validating who is doing the buying, someone else can be in control of the certificate, legitimately or otherwise.
What do you mean "control" of the certificate?
The certificate isn't secret information, it's sent publicly at the start of every ssl request.
The private key is the part that means only the proper person can establish an SSL connection certified by that certificate. Incompetence aside there is no reason that should fall in to the hands of someone unauthorised.
If you add an exception for a self-signed certificate then you basically have to trust that the first time you hit a site you aren't being hit by a man in the middle attack.
With a CA-signed certificate then you are basically trusting the CA has done at least some (even if it's only domain control) authentication.
Opera exists to sell product, which is their Achilles' heel. They're trying to charge money ofr something everyone else gives away for free,
Opera's browser has been free on desktop for ages. They also have a free mini browser for phones.
The only place they are "selling" their browser is for phones and devices. Given that that market is the one they are probably having the most success in it's hard to see it as their 'Achilles heel'.
Not to be rude, but maybe you should take the lack of visibility to heard and stay away from the backs and sides of SUVs?
I doubt anyone who drives a smallish vehicle hasn't realised that.
I drive a small car (an MG F) and rarely does a month go past without some cretin in a big 4WD trying to merge into the space I'm occupying and I do drive defensively (ie I spend as little time as possible anywhere near alongside their vehicle, if I'm passing them I only do so when there is space ahead to pass them completely. However there is only so much you can do, if you braked and backed away every time such a vehicle came alongside you I doubt the effect on traffic flow would be one that improved safety).
Oddly I never have such a problem with buses or trucks. Part of it may be that professional drivers are better but I think another part of it is that the mirrors on big 4WDs are simply inadequate. There is perhaps too much pressure for the vehicles to look stylish (and inadequate design standards to enforce a decent level of functionality) which prevents them having big enough mirrors.
I'd just heard that Australia was ramping up in the surveillance and insane copyright departments. Correct me if I'm wrong, though
Perhaps if you had some specifics to offer they could be corrected?
In terms of copyrights there are some changes relating to recent(ish) "free trade" agreement with the US but nothing like the wholesale adoption of the DMCA that some people assume.
Then again Australian's have never had the right to record TV programs for personal use so what the law says doesn't have much relevance to what people actually do.
Such a hoop may encourage a hacker to choose a target that is less troublesome.
Of course they also deter real customers.
Hence "domain validation only" SSL certificates. After wasting days going back and forth getting the relevant documentation for one cert for all subsequent purchases we just went for the easier (and cheaper) option with no real downsides.
Make something too painful for customers and they'll demand a less painful alternative. In the case of the article though the vast majority of people already carry ID and probably won't be terribly put out at producing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at the picture.
There is clearly a nub where a nunchuck could plug in and the extended Wiimote jacket clearly has a hole in the right place to allow access.
Personally I think it should include wireless nunchuck capability. It seems rather suboptimal to have a Wiimote that will track free movement better still tied to a nunchuck.
Ultimately you have to define "reasonable" and that is going to be a judgement call.
Of course you can throw out alternative scenarios but if there is no supporting evidence for them and no credible explanations offered for much of his incriminating behaviour are they enough to instil reasonable doubt?
That's a judgement call and one you have to be on the jury to make.
In your opinion of course.
Who gets to define the "reasonable" part of "reasonable doubt"?
Then he's still retarded for asking Slashdot for medical advice.
I hardly think this is the place to be pitching your new website idea.
the hierarchical organisation bit earlier if that's what you meant.
Clearly everyone doesn't automatically assume that to be defining characteristic of folders. "Folders" describes a container type, not the way those containers are themselves organised.
I think people would generally refer to that as a tree, so perhaps a "folder tree" might be what you want.
A lot of immunizations stopped children from dying.
Cancer on the other hand tends to effect older people (post reproductive age) more than younger people.
That might cause populations to swell (and age) but it won't cause a population boom.
Or just maybe they use that term because there often are ongoing issues and a patient needs be aware of that so as to monitor their own health.
As I understand it the life expectancy of a "successful" cancer patient is significantly reduced, not least because many of the treatments can cause ongoing problems of their own.
Godaddy sell perfectly usable certs for about $30 a year. It's not free, but it's not particularly expensive either. That said I'd like to see them come down to around their domain prices, there is no more work in their domain only signing process.
What's the difference there between using a general CA?
Other than the fact:
-It will cost more for a bank to distribute it's CA cert to all it's customers than to use a general CA.
-It's less convenient for customers, it's an extra hoop to jump through and they'd have to retain the CD and reuse it if they get install a new browser or get a new PC.
-It'll be an even bigger pain to do banking from their mobile phone etc.
There's no advantage to the bank or the customer, only downsides.
How about working better in any situation?
Do you really want to ring up Paypal to verify a certificate? Is the average internet user capable of understanding that process? Does you bank gain anything by saving a few hundred dollars on a certificate and then paying people to answer phone calls about self signed certificates? Is security enhanced by having some minimally paid customer service drones verifying certificates for customers?
In all cases, no.
I don't disagree with what you say in principal, however I do not think that if self-signed certificates were in widespread use like that people would become conditioned to ignore the warnings completely, which would be a net loss to security.
It's one thing to ask the sort of people using SSH to understand what's going on. It's another for the general populace.
Do you really think the average person would ring such a phone number or understand what they are doing? They, by and large, would either be turned off by it or ignore it. Therefore it's not a viable solution.
And what's the advantage for a bank/paypal? They avoid paying a few hundred dollars a year for a certificate but have to pay people by the hour to answer the phone (a recorded message could not possibly hope to explain signature verification effectively to the average punter)? That isn't going to be a cost saving and trusting certificate authentication to people being paid minimum wage is hardly going to be a security enhancement.
Individual key verification may work well for ad-hoc individual to individual communications but is inefficient for frequent use. (Which is why PGP allows public keys to be signed and a trust matrix established).
You can't just ignore man in the middle attacks because there are other potential attack vectors (an inside job or a compromised server). No one security measure is going to provide ultimate protection from all attack vectors, thus the need for layers of protection.
Certificates help protect against a certain set of attack vectors and have value because of it.
They are overly expensive, especially from some vendors and for wildcard certs, but ultimately cheaper and easier than other methods of verification (such as manually verifying self signed certs over some other mechanism).
Do you actually imagine that is a viable solution for a "web site"?
How so? Both are susceptible to a man in the middle attack. In the self-signed certificate scenario the man in the middle merely needs to generate their own self-signed certificate.
That's slightly more complicated but not enough to deter anyone if the information is even vaguely snoop-worthy.
I agree however that the certifying authorities are largely rip-off merchants.
What do you mean "control" of the certificate?
The certificate isn't secret information, it's sent publicly at the start of every ssl request.
The private key is the part that means only the proper person can establish an SSL connection certified by that certificate. Incompetence aside there is no reason that should fall in to the hands of someone unauthorised.
If you add an exception for a self-signed certificate then you basically have to trust that the first time you hit a site you aren't being hit by a man in the middle attack.
With a CA-signed certificate then you are basically trusting the CA has done at least some (even if it's only domain control) authentication.
Create URLs (maybe with dubious sounding names but no actual dubious content) that aren't referred to anywhere else and see if they get a visit.
If it's still making them money (through search partnering and so forth) then it clearly isn't "pointless".
Looking at Opera's penetration in percentage terms may be misleading, a small percentage is still an awfully large number of people.
The quality of their desktop offering is also a good advertisement for their embedded apps and has helped promote standards based design.
Opera's browser has been free on desktop for ages.
They also have a free mini browser for phones.
The only place they are "selling" their browser is for phones and devices. Given that that market is the one they are probably having the most success in it's hard to see it as their 'Achilles heel'.
By "wedding cake" he presumably means "online porn"
I doubt anyone who drives a smallish vehicle hasn't realised that.
I drive a small car (an MG F) and rarely does a month go past without some cretin in a big 4WD trying to merge into the space I'm occupying and I do drive defensively (ie I spend as little time as possible anywhere near alongside their vehicle, if I'm passing them I only do so when there is space ahead to pass them completely. However there is only so much you can do, if you braked and backed away every time such a vehicle came alongside you I doubt the effect on traffic flow would be one that improved safety).
Oddly I never have such a problem with buses or trucks. Part of it may be that professional drivers are better but I think another part of it is that the mirrors on big 4WDs are simply inadequate. There is perhaps too much pressure for the vehicles to look stylish (and inadequate design standards to enforce a decent level of functionality) which prevents them having big enough mirrors.
Perhaps if you had some specifics to offer they could be corrected?
In terms of copyrights there are some changes relating to recent(ish) "free trade" agreement with the US but nothing like the wholesale adoption of the DMCA that some people assume.
Then again Australian's have never had the right to record TV programs for personal use so what the law says doesn't have much relevance to what people actually do.
Such a hoop may encourage a hacker to choose a target that is less troublesome.
Of course they also deter real customers.
Hence "domain validation only" SSL certificates. After wasting days going back and forth getting the relevant documentation for one cert for all subsequent purchases we just went for the easier (and cheaper) option with no real downsides.
Make something too painful for customers and they'll demand a less painful alternative. In the case of the article though the vast majority of people already carry ID and probably won't be terribly put out at producing it.
The DA has long since stopped worrying about "reasonable doubt".