I didn't think that signed emails were safer. That was kind of the point of my comment. Due to the overwhelming percentage of unsigned emails I've received, who have been from the sender, I nearly always believe that an email actually came from the supposed sender. Someone can sign their emails one day, and not on another and it's hardly noticeable. A proper warning system would be one where the clients notice a slight aberration from the norm, not something which relies on humans to notice that signatures have changed.
While I realize this is more of an implementation issue than a conceptual issue, the reason why people aren't signing their emails is how clients make the signed emails stand out. I had a coworker who had digitally signed emails, and Outlook showed a little red ribbon next to the message. I'm sure the idea being that it was letting me know that the message was digitally signed. Did I know for %100 that the email was from this person? No. Perhaps someone had his credentials and was using his system in a malicious way. So having it signed didn't matter. Plus one day emails from him stopped being signed. Did I accept those emails just as readily and I did his signed ones? yes. Why? I didn't care. He had moved clients and hadn't setup signing emails yet. The emails sounded like the emails he sends, so there was no reason to not believe them.
What should have happened was my client should have freaked out that someone who was sending signed emails had stopped sending signed emails (which I suspect is a red flag in the digital signature situation), but it didn't. I trusted that the emails where from my coworker without the signature just as much as I did with the signature.
I think that a much more useful system would be one which detects discrepancy. One example would be the stopping of signed emails. Another would be receiving an email from a person, but the domain is different than the domain they usually get sent from. I did have that happen to me. Someone created an account under my name, with my handle, but on a different domain. Then this person sent a very hurtful email my fiancee. My fiancee was going to break up with me, but I was able to point out to them that I'd never sent them an email from that domain, and that it wasn't my account. I would have really liked it if the system had flagged that email saying "This email looks a lot like it came from someone you usually get emails from, except it's different". If that can be done correctly I imagine my fiancee would have looked at the email and thought "A potentially suspicous email, I will read it, but realize it might not be legit", and after having read it would realize that it wasn't from me.
So a system that flags slight alterations would go a mile further in protecting people than digital signatures that people consider to be more of a bother than a benefit.
Yesterday he said that there should be a Cuban Spring. Now I don't know if he was implying he'd start one, but it'd be interesting to see what would happen should the people of Miami start demanding one from him.
With all of the comments talking about socially awkward men in programming, I can't help but share two experiences.
The first is from my senior year at university, a female classmate started venting to me about some social situations she had recently had. A year earlier we had been on a few dates, but I didn't find us to be a great pair before anything serious really happened, and as a result we were still friends. For some reason she didn't want to come out and say how most of the other CS majors lacked social skills (probably a dead beaten horse at that point), and while she was looking for the right words she was twirling her hair with one finger I suggested the phrase she was looking for was "people with longer hair." She agreed and summed up her frustration with "Many of the other CS majors need learn how to talk to people with longer hair".
A few years earlier in my Introduction to Programming I witnessed, at the end of the class, two extra nerdy/unnatractive guys talking to one of the female TA's. I heard one of the say that since she was a girl she shouldn't be in CS. I really wanted to hit guy, but sadly my physique does not lend itself to those types of activities.
You'll probably have to pay more like you do right now for a professional display. A tunerless TV is sold as a professional display, but the cost more. Why? The professional display makers have to compete on the quality of the display, and there isn't as much a high demand for them.
You can see John Huntsman tip toe around certain questions about the envrionment by saying that he believes that a leader should listen to the experts in the field on the issues.
You want the people who care more about celebrity relationships, despise education, have ADD towards difficult issues, and only get riled up by what MSNBC and Fox News tells them to get riled up about, to vote on every issue? Should we also make it a requirement that they can’t be sober when filling out their internet form?
Okay, so what form of government would you have replace it? What rules would you change after your revolution? What would prevent laws you don't like being passed from happening under your system?
Wachovia did not allow passwords with symbols. No !@#$%^&* allowed.
It's my understanding that websites are afraid of a SQL injection attack through the password box so they limit the characters which can be placed in it.
His opinions are that corporate morals are unnecessary, that we can't and shouldn't seek to blame or look negatively on companies for seeking profit without regard to the social, environmental or other costs
I suggest reading Robert Reich's "Supercapatalism". He was the Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton, and he argues the same thing. As a society we created corporations to create goods, revenue and jobs. Expecting them to do something else is wrong. Corporations and neither good nor evil. They have no morals. All they can do is follow the law. Trying to pressure corporations into being moral is wasted effort, because if you succeed their competitors will overtake them, by doing what you were guilt tripping them into not doing. If you don't like the way things are going, change the law, and make sure there are resources to enforce the law.
I'm not saying that corporations should be set free to do whatever they want, they should be given a framework and boundaries on how to operate in society which will be beneficial to all of us. But the same rules need to apply to all players in the market. Corporations have they morals, they aren't people.
Sounds like an argument for why end users "feel" that iOS apps are more polished. End users tend to loathe updates. As a developer I completly see the value in your statement, but I can also see the point of view of people who don't want updates.
Politicians love to look busy by passing new laws rather than prodding the executive branch into enforcing laws already on the books.
That's because they spent the rest of the time defunding the executive branch to get a balanced budget. If they funded what was on the books they'd get thrown out for introducing pork.
Phizer was able to extend the drug by getting new patents on it. Then for these past few months they paid off the generic drug makers to not create generics for the drug. A scheme known as "pay for delay". Heard about it yesterday on Marketplace and was shocked to hear that a generic drug company has to go to court after the patent has expried to official unexpire it. "This is the government policy, set up in the 1980s, to bring us lower drug prices." http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/lipitor-makes-way-generics
I agree. I had to recently run some ethernet cable around my apartment because I couldn't get a reliable enough connection. I have one neighbor who must have felt like they weren't getting a strong enough signal and must have bought some equipment to boost their signal because I could pick up their signal stronger than mine at any point in my place. Ever since then we've just gotten used to the fact that we can't step on the small bump in the carpet where I didn't have a better place to run the cable, but we haven't had connection issues.
If Microsoft bought Yahoo! would there be a mass exodus of Yahoo! users to Google services? People who just don't want to deal with Microsoft. Plus, hasn't Yahoo! been losing money hand over fist for the last few years. Why spend billions on something which had it's heyday and can't turn a buck?
Perhaps I need to clarify. I'm not talking about direct democracy. I'm proposing using the issues as a weight for the different representatives. So if issue X is on the ballot for voting for a representative, the voters aren't voting to enact/unenact/reenact the issue, they're using it as a way to find their representative. I realize that being a member of the legislature is a full time gig, I'm not taking that away. I'm proposing that we stop voting for representatives, and start voting for what we want our representatives to do.
As for who would pick the 10 - 20 issues? That would probably get delegated to some commitee every election cycle.
My idea to solve the two party issue is to change how we vote. Instead of voting for a person, let's vote on the issues. Each session the jurisdiction comes up with 10 - 20 issues. Say half from the current session and half from issues which will probably arise in the next. The different parties then decide on which ones they'll vote for and pick who their candidate is going to be. All of the parties must have mutually exclusive choices. Then on election day the voters vote for the different issues. The party who's choices align the closest with the peoples wishes win.
I think this would blow open the door for third parties, and better reflect the constituents decision.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't think that signed emails were safer. That was kind of the point of my comment. Due to the overwhelming percentage of unsigned emails I've received, who have been from the sender, I nearly always believe that an email actually came from the supposed sender. Someone can sign their emails one day, and not on another and it's hardly noticeable. A proper warning system would be one where the clients notice a slight aberration from the norm, not something which relies on humans to notice that signatures have changed.
While I realize this is more of an implementation issue than a conceptual issue, the reason why people aren't signing their emails is how clients make the signed emails stand out. I had a coworker who had digitally signed emails, and Outlook showed a little red ribbon next to the message. I'm sure the idea being that it was letting me know that the message was digitally signed. Did I know for %100 that the email was from this person? No. Perhaps someone had his credentials and was using his system in a malicious way. So having it signed didn't matter. Plus one day emails from him stopped being signed. Did I accept those emails just as readily and I did his signed ones? yes. Why? I didn't care. He had moved clients and hadn't setup signing emails yet. The emails sounded like the emails he sends, so there was no reason to not believe them. What should have happened was my client should have freaked out that someone who was sending signed emails had stopped sending signed emails (which I suspect is a red flag in the digital signature situation), but it didn't. I trusted that the emails where from my coworker without the signature just as much as I did with the signature. I think that a much more useful system would be one which detects discrepancy. One example would be the stopping of signed emails. Another would be receiving an email from a person, but the domain is different than the domain they usually get sent from. I did have that happen to me. Someone created an account under my name, with my handle, but on a different domain. Then this person sent a very hurtful email my fiancee. My fiancee was going to break up with me, but I was able to point out to them that I'd never sent them an email from that domain, and that it wasn't my account. I would have really liked it if the system had flagged that email saying "This email looks a lot like it came from someone you usually get emails from, except it's different". If that can be done correctly I imagine my fiancee would have looked at the email and thought "A potentially suspicous email, I will read it, but realize it might not be legit", and after having read it would realize that it wasn't from me. So a system that flags slight alterations would go a mile further in protecting people than digital signatures that people consider to be more of a bother than a benefit.
Yesterday he said that there should be a Cuban Spring. Now I don't know if he was implying he'd start one, but it'd be interesting to see what would happen should the people of Miami start demanding one from him.
With all of the comments talking about socially awkward men in programming, I can't help but share two experiences. The first is from my senior year at university, a female classmate started venting to me about some social situations she had recently had. A year earlier we had been on a few dates, but I didn't find us to be a great pair before anything serious really happened, and as a result we were still friends. For some reason she didn't want to come out and say how most of the other CS majors lacked social skills (probably a dead beaten horse at that point), and while she was looking for the right words she was twirling her hair with one finger I suggested the phrase she was looking for was "people with longer hair." She agreed and summed up her frustration with "Many of the other CS majors need learn how to talk to people with longer hair". A few years earlier in my Introduction to Programming I witnessed, at the end of the class, two extra nerdy/unnatractive guys talking to one of the female TA's. I heard one of the say that since she was a girl she shouldn't be in CS. I really wanted to hit guy, but sadly my physique does not lend itself to those types of activities.
You can love more than one thing at a time. It's like bash is your wife and PowerShell is your mistress.
Gotta love PowerShell!
You'll probably have to pay more like you do right now for a professional display. A tunerless TV is sold as a professional display, but the cost more. Why? The professional display makers have to compete on the quality of the display, and there isn't as much a high demand for them.
Great, now once we remove all of the CO2 out of the air, what will the plants breath?
You can see John Huntsman tip toe around certain questions about the envrionment by saying that he believes that a leader should listen to the experts in the field on the issues.
You want the people who care more about celebrity relationships, despise education, have ADD towards difficult issues, and only get riled up by what MSNBC and Fox News tells them to get riled up about, to vote on every issue? Should we also make it a requirement that they can’t be sober when filling out their internet form?
Okay, so what form of government would you have replace it? What rules would you change after your revolution? What would prevent laws you don't like being passed from happening under your system?
Wachovia did not allow passwords with symbols. No !@#$%^&* allowed.
It's my understanding that websites are afraid of a SQL injection attack through the password box so they limit the characters which can be placed in it.
Guess I won't see you in Battlefield 3.
Battlefield 3 appears to be more of the exception than the rule. I'm glad there's an exception.
can you imagine gaming on a PC that's half a decade old?
Yes I can, because I do. Plus, thus far, all major games have a minimum requirement of DirectX 9 which shipped in 2002.
His opinions are that corporate morals are unnecessary, that we can't and shouldn't seek to blame or look negatively on companies for seeking profit without regard to the social, environmental or other costs
I suggest reading Robert Reich's "Supercapatalism". He was the Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton, and he argues the same thing. As a society we created corporations to create goods, revenue and jobs. Expecting them to do something else is wrong. Corporations and neither good nor evil. They have no morals. All they can do is follow the law. Trying to pressure corporations into being moral is wasted effort, because if you succeed their competitors will overtake them, by doing what you were guilt tripping them into not doing. If you don't like the way things are going, change the law, and make sure there are resources to enforce the law. I'm not saying that corporations should be set free to do whatever they want, they should be given a framework and boundaries on how to operate in society which will be beneficial to all of us. But the same rules need to apply to all players in the market. Corporations have they morals, they aren't people.
Sounds like an argument for why end users "feel" that iOS apps are more polished. End users tend to loathe updates. As a developer I completly see the value in your statement, but I can also see the point of view of people who don't want updates.
Politicians love to look busy by passing new laws rather than prodding the executive branch into enforcing laws already on the books.
That's because they spent the rest of the time defunding the executive branch to get a balanced budget. If they funded what was on the books they'd get thrown out for introducing pork.
I should be able to click on the TV and watch any episode of the original Star Trek (for example) at any time
If you open Windows Media Center and go to "Internet TV" the CBS full episodes channel has both the original Star Trek and the animated series.
Were you running as admin?
Phizer was able to extend the drug by getting new patents on it. Then for these past few months they paid off the generic drug makers to not create generics for the drug. A scheme known as "pay for delay". Heard about it yesterday on Marketplace and was shocked to hear that a generic drug company has to go to court after the patent has expried to official unexpire it. "This is the government policy, set up in the 1980s, to bring us lower drug prices." http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/lipitor-makes-way-generics
I agree. I had to recently run some ethernet cable around my apartment because I couldn't get a reliable enough connection. I have one neighbor who must have felt like they weren't getting a strong enough signal and must have bought some equipment to boost their signal because I could pick up their signal stronger than mine at any point in my place. Ever since then we've just gotten used to the fact that we can't step on the small bump in the carpet where I didn't have a better place to run the cable, but we haven't had connection issues.
If Microsoft bought Yahoo! would there be a mass exodus of Yahoo! users to Google services? People who just don't want to deal with Microsoft. Plus, hasn't Yahoo! been losing money hand over fist for the last few years. Why spend billions on something which had it's heyday and can't turn a buck?
Perhaps I need to clarify. I'm not talking about direct democracy. I'm proposing using the issues as a weight for the different representatives. So if issue X is on the ballot for voting for a representative, the voters aren't voting to enact/unenact/reenact the issue, they're using it as a way to find their representative. I realize that being a member of the legislature is a full time gig, I'm not taking that away. I'm proposing that we stop voting for representatives, and start voting for what we want our representatives to do. As for who would pick the 10 - 20 issues? That would probably get delegated to some commitee every election cycle.
My idea to solve the two party issue is to change how we vote. Instead of voting for a person, let's vote on the issues. Each session the jurisdiction comes up with 10 - 20 issues. Say half from the current session and half from issues which will probably arise in the next. The different parties then decide on which ones they'll vote for and pick who their candidate is going to be. All of the parties must have mutually exclusive choices. Then on election day the voters vote for the different issues. The party who's choices align the closest with the peoples wishes win. I think this would blow open the door for third parties, and better reflect the constituents decision.
I don't know anyone who's ever used OneNote on a Windows tablet to ever stop using it for note taking/organizing ideas.