Are you absolutely certain that a sufficient number of people questioned the legitimacy of the 2000 elections?
I'm not talking about discontent with the popular vs electoral outcomes (which is fine to gripe about if you don't like it, but it isn't 'hinky'), I'm talking about actually thinking that the election was rigged.
I don't like laws that cannot be practically enforced; if the law can't be enforced, it shouldn't be a law.
I suppose it might be cheaper to prosecute and put on probation everyone who tried to participate in a scam (cheaper than just ignoring them), but I wouldn't take it as being true on faith alone (and if it isn't cheaper than ignoring them, I'm not prepared to call it practical).
The middle ground doesn't necessarily make sense. If there were a third protocol, httpp or something (p because the only thing an unauthenticated certificate provides is end-to-end privacy), it would be easier for users to distinguish what was going on, but it would be that much harder for them to understand what was going on.
Without some sort of strong indicator of what is going on, a self signed certificate adds very little for most users. Even with a strong indicator, most of those users aren't going to gain much.
I'm not sure how much it matters, most people don't understand how/why https is different to begin with, but keeping it nice and binary ('https should be secure', 'http isn't secure') means that you can work towards that first statement along technical grounds without changing your public education goals.
It isn't about where you do your banking. It is about where people who haven't thought about it much and don't really understand the issues do their banking.
How much of that is because the models lack granularity?
I'm pretty sure that if I put really, really accurate data for Jan 1st 2008 into a model, it would be wrong by June (or ya know, January 15th). People are worried about the long term trends right, not the yearly variation?
If 7 people sat in a room for 1/2 hour watching a show that was supposed to be funny and none of them laughed, does that say more about the show or more about the people?
You should work out how many millionaires the show made. At least a little remarkable, that.
The standardization is reasonable. The implementations of that standard are not. Mostly Jscript. Webkit and Mozilla are reasonably compatible; at this point, someone looking to compete with them would have less trouble matching their bugs than they would trying to get people to fix their javascript for a new browser.
It wouldn't be that big a deal to calculate every hash of every legal name and build a reverse table (if you assume that there are 1 billion legal names that would be interesting in the U.S., they are roughly comparable to a 30 bit key space).
A lot of residences have 100 amp service. 60 gaming computers on that? 30 computers would probably be a miracle (in that they would have to have an average power draw of 400 Watts. For everything.).
You are misreading (perhaps I was unclear). 20% * (population of China + population of India) > population of U.S.
It doesn't really matter. If there are 100 million extraordinarily productive people in the U.S. (there are not), you only need to educate and elevate 5% of the population of India and China to match them. The point is not that India and China are going to crush the U.S., the point is that there are so many people in those countries that the U.S. can not reasonably expect to out innovate them, especially in terms of the 20th century (where a wide range of factors conspired to make the U.S. a center of economic activity).
Add in that it is usually much easier to transfer knowledge than it is to create it, and the notion of maintaining a lead similar to the one that existed 10 years ago just doesn't hold up.
As an arrogant jackass with a limited degree of self awareness, I am always dismayed by the arrogant jackasses in the news. It boggles the mind that they are more arrogant, bigger jackasses and less self aware than I am.
There is little point in complaining that one European word does not properly describe them, and then insisting that another European word be used instead.
Rather than reading The World is Flat, have someone hit you over the head with it. The experience will be equally revelatory, but in the end, less painful.
(Anybody who thinks that the United States can somehow maintain a lead (in education, ability, know-how, etc) over the top 20% of Indians and Chinese is delusional, that 20% is more people than live in the U.S. The U.S. will compete and succeed just fine, but the idea that it will be the center of enterprise in this century that it was last century is not supported by reality)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you absolutely certain that a sufficient number of people questioned the legitimacy of the 2000 elections?
I'm not talking about discontent with the popular vs electoral outcomes (which is fine to gripe about if you don't like it, but it isn't 'hinky'), I'm talking about actually thinking that the election was rigged.
I don't like laws that cannot be practically enforced; if the law can't be enforced, it shouldn't be a law.
I suppose it might be cheaper to prosecute and put on probation everyone who tried to participate in a scam (cheaper than just ignoring them), but I wouldn't take it as being true on faith alone (and if it isn't cheaper than ignoring them, I'm not prepared to call it practical).
Gravity even works for those who do not believe in it.
There is an option somewhere in the preferences to use the old comment system.
The middle ground doesn't necessarily make sense. If there were a third protocol, httpp or something (p because the only thing an unauthenticated certificate provides is end-to-end privacy), it would be easier for users to distinguish what was going on, but it would be that much harder for them to understand what was going on.
Without some sort of strong indicator of what is going on, a self signed certificate adds very little for most users. Even with a strong indicator, most of those users aren't going to gain much.
I'm not sure how much it matters, most people don't understand how/why https is different to begin with, but keeping it nice and binary ('https should be secure', 'http isn't secure') means that you can work towards that first statement along technical grounds without changing your public education goals.
It isn't about where you do your banking. It is about where people who haven't thought about it much and don't really understand the issues do their banking.
Have you revoked GoDaddy as a CA? Have most users?
If not, the fact that you paid someone else more doesn't matter all that much.
So add the signing certificates your company uses to your firefox install.
Convenient for you (once/if you are able to make it happen) and no need to worry about what firefox/mozilla are doing otherwise.
Are you certain that locking them up is cheaper than ignoring them?
How much of that is because the models lack granularity?
I'm pretty sure that if I put really, really accurate data for Jan 1st 2008 into a model, it would be wrong by June (or ya know, January 15th). People are worried about the long term trends right, not the yearly variation?
Jerry Seinfeld.
If 7 people sat in a room for 1/2 hour watching a show that was supposed to be funny and none of them laughed, does that say more about the show or more about the people?
You should work out how many millionaires the show made. At least a little remarkable, that.
The standardization is reasonable. The implementations of that standard are not. Mostly Jscript. Webkit and Mozilla are reasonably compatible; at this point, someone looking to compete with them would have less trouble matching their bugs than they would trying to get people to fix their javascript for a new browser.
Dude!
It wouldn't be that big a deal to calculate every hash of every legal name and build a reverse table (if you assume that there are 1 billion legal names that would be interesting in the U.S., they are roughly comparable to a 30 bit key space).
Have YOU figured it out. Me speak english good.
Have figured it including the 4-5 hours a week of time?
A lot of residences have 100 amp service. 60 gaming computers on that? 30 computers would probably be a miracle (in that they would have to have an average power draw of 400 Watts. For everything.).
As people arrive, kill them. That way, no one will steal anything.
What is not native about the SVG handling in recent versions of Firefox?
You are misreading (perhaps I was unclear). 20% * (population of China + population of India) > population of U.S.
It doesn't really matter. If there are 100 million extraordinarily productive people in the U.S. (there are not), you only need to educate and elevate 5% of the population of India and China to match them. The point is not that India and China are going to crush the U.S., the point is that there are so many people in those countries that the U.S. can not reasonably expect to out innovate them, especially in terms of the 20th century (where a wide range of factors conspired to make the U.S. a center of economic activity).
Add in that it is usually much easier to transfer knowledge than it is to create it, and the notion of maintaining a lead similar to the one that existed 10 years ago just doesn't hold up.
As an arrogant jackass with a limited degree of self awareness, I am always dismayed by the arrogant jackasses in the news. It boggles the mind that they are more arrogant, bigger jackasses and less self aware than I am.
There is little point in complaining that one European word does not properly describe them, and then insisting that another European word be used instead.
If the pilot can see the ground, then the ground can see the pilot's eyes.
Rather than reading The World is Flat, have someone hit you over the head with it. The experience will be equally revelatory, but in the end, less painful.
(Anybody who thinks that the United States can somehow maintain a lead (in education, ability, know-how, etc) over the top 20% of Indians and Chinese is delusional, that 20% is more people than live in the U.S. The U.S. will compete and succeed just fine, but the idea that it will be the center of enterprise in this century that it was last century is not supported by reality)