"How?" I'd love to see just one example of where the Bible explains "how." I've read the whole thing straight through and can't recall any.
Science addresses "how"; religion addresses "why". Each gets into serious trouble when it strays into the other's territory.
(My standard is that you've told me "how" if I can do it by doing what you said. If your explanation is not enough, then you haven't really told me "how".)
Actually I'm still waiting for some explanation of why people think the days in Gen 1 have any literal connection with the events described. The text doesn't support such an interpretation in any translation I can recall. It never says, "God did X, spending a day doing so." There's no more linkage actually asserted than there is in "my cat upchucked a hairball. And there was an evening and a morning, the first day." Both statements may be true, but what exactly do they have to do with each other?
Assuming that the days *are* literal, I've also been heard to wonder why everything took so *long*. Did it take hours and hours for the stars to get The Word that they were supposed to begin existing, or something? Maybe the firmament had been out partying all night and had trouble waking up.
"Moreover, and more to the point, there is no 'money' behind open source code. Their threats have no teeth, since they are not backed up by lawyers and legal action."
If enough of us care enough, we can pass the hat to fund toothy legal action.
They don't collect SS or income tax, do they? If not, they have no reason to possess that information. It doesn't identify people; it identifies tax accounts.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magtapes hurtling down the highway."
New technology doesn't always entirely displace older technology. I would say that it does so only rarely. Rather, we get more choices, each with its own characteristics which makes it most suitable for a particular style of use.
I'd rather pay $10 for a DVD that I can watch a hundred times than pay $1 each time to watch someone else's copy a hundred times. So for me, DVD beats broadband hands down. Others may disagree...well, they may. Celebrate diversity, okay?
The ruling essentially boils down to the observation that, when you post on the Web, you post everywhere. I don't see recognition per se of this obvious fact as a threat to free speech or the WWW.
The problem seems to be that in some parts of the world it apparently is possible to be sued for reporting the fact that *someone else* has made allegations, the subject of which finds them unwelcome. Your average USian finds that a very strange definition of "libel" and it's not surprising that people at a U.S. newspaper would have difficulty thinking in such terms.
Notice also that this is not the end of the case, but rather a ruling that it may begin. The judge is willing to decide whether libel was actually committed, regardless of the fact that the defendant's offices are in another country. The final dispostion of the case could still be a disaster for the plaintiff. The judge hasn't said how he's going to decide, only that he's willing to listen to the parties' arguments.
If there's a threat to free speech, it was there in the law all along, Internet or no. By this ruling the Post would have been just as liable (or not) if it sells a significant number of physical papers in the province. The threat, if any, applies equally to local news media, since it lies in the local definition of libel. If it really is true that it is illegal in Canada for newspapers to print anything about a citizen that that citizen doesn't like, *that* is what should worry champions of free speech.
"Unscrupulous resellers" abuse Microsoft's T&C, so Microsoft punishes the resellers' victims (and everyone else who chooses a Microsoft OS) for the infraction.
Suing said resellers down to their socks for breach of contract or copyright infringement or whatever just never occurred to the deep thinkers at MS?
MS is one of the few software houses who could turn any rambunctious reseller into a smoking crater anytime they choose. Or any thousand resellers. But, nooooooooooooo! Bad enough that end-users have to put up with activation at all; now we have to play telephone tag with one of the world's busiest companies.
'What do you mean, "just a public key in a digital baggie"? Isn't that what all certs are?'
No. Some cert.s mean that the entity described therein has been investigated to some level of certainty. As I said, Entrust has checked that my employer exists and that it controls the domain I specified, and is currently checking that I am employed by it. The resulting certificate will mean more than, "you can talk securely with someone, but we have no idea who that might be."
The work they are doing costs more than just having a robot collect the money and sign the key, and the result is worth more.
A CA cert. should include a link to the CA's Certification Practice Statement which says what they do when issuing cert.s. The browser could just show that, I suppose. But it would be nice to have as part of the signed data in the non-CA cert. a standardized indicator of just what you can trust about the presenter. I think there is in fact such information, but I don't have the standards in front of me now and can't be sure.
Or there could be a preference dialog, so that you can go through the cert. store in your browser and mark each CA cert. with the level of trust *you* assign.
Well, if they did no work that explains why it was so cheap.:-/
Woah -- InstantSSL is Comodo. I am surprised. What you describe is basically just a public key in a digital baggie. I think that a detailed examination of those cert.s might reveal why others cost more.
BTW the process I described, I am just now going through with Entrust. One of the others I mentioned (don't recall which) lets you pay for various levels of assurance, from "safe connection to who-knows-who" to "verified business identity".
Hmmm. I think that maybe we need for browsers to show more than just key/broken-key. We need to display in some fashion a standardized notion of what a given certificate means, something like the trustlevel in OpenPGP keysignatures.
Huh. It never occurred to me that one could sell cert.s that don't verify identity, since you can use OpenSSL or the Java keytool to make all of those that you want for free. I guess just avoiding the popup is worth a few bucks, but I'd want more than that for my business.
*sigh* Any business that can afford a computer and a T1 but hasn't enough left for a certificate is so undercapitalized that it's going to go foom anyway.
Actually I think that the banks ought to go into the cert. business, at least for their depositors, and demand client cert.s when establishing secure sessions for online banking. They have an interest in establishing identity and keeping things secure.
The hard part is paying independent auditors, and forking over big bux to the browser vendors for inclusion, when you have no income. A wealthy philanthropist might decide to do everybody a good turn with his money, I suppose....
Exactly. You could print up stacks of papers with fancy scrollwork and serial numbers and pictures of dead people, and tell everyone that it's money, but will anyone believe that it is?
I was going to actually RTFA, but TFWS is slashdotted....
What I always wonder about, when free CAs are discussed, is: where does the CA get the myriabucks it costs to get a CA certificate distributed with a popular browser? A cert. signed by no one my browser ever heard of does not inspire a whole lotta confidence. I can go to the CA's site and get its cert., but...a self-signed cert. tells you *nothing*.
Having said that, I should also say that I have my own little CA here on my desktop, and I use it to coin cert.s for internal use. That sort of use makes sense, because anybody who needs to can come ask me about my CA and receive a hand-delivered copy of its cert. if he (wisely) so wishes.
But how does a CA become trusted when most of the world will never find it practical to visit in person? The browser vendors are the primary trusted introducers for the vast majority of users.
You've never bought a certificate, I take it? They do actually check whether you actually control the domain you asserted, contact your admin. contact, verify employment of your technical contact, check out your firm with D&B, etc.
"Since we are connected to the Internet, our network can be used to access child porn or any other information not under our control that anyone, anywhere, chooses to make available. We hereby inform the police that this is the way networks function."
Stole the *oil* is arguable. My point is that I don't recall any Indians doing anything with the oil (other than whatever was found seeping out of the earth) *before* the white-eyes began taking it, so there weren't any *wells*.
Actually, I think that the Earth of 3.5 billion years ago is its "natural" state. All this oxygen and these invasive species (all plants, animals, and basically anything other than anaerobic bacteria) must go!:-)
According to Cary Rockwell, Martian Water is actually a brand of soft drink. Its main use is to get you insulted when you ask for it in tough merchant spacer bars.
Slashdot Mirror
"How?" I'd love to see just one example of where the Bible explains "how." I've read the whole thing straight through and can't recall any.
Science addresses "how"; religion addresses "why". Each gets into serious trouble when it strays into the other's territory.
(My standard is that you've told me "how" if I can do it by doing what you said. If your explanation is not enough, then you haven't really told me "how".)
"I tell you what --- I think the rise in fundies the last few years is temporary."
That one *is* an Asimov story: "Trends".
Actually I'm still waiting for some explanation of why people think the days in Gen 1 have any literal connection with the events described. The text doesn't support such an interpretation in any translation I can recall. It never says, "God did X, spending a day doing so." There's no more linkage actually asserted than there is in "my cat upchucked a hairball. And there was an evening and a morning, the first day." Both statements may be true, but what exactly do they have to do with each other?
Assuming that the days *are* literal, I've also been heard to wonder why everything took so *long*. Did it take hours and hours for the stars to get The Word that they were supposed to begin existing, or something? Maybe the firmament had been out partying all night and had trouble waking up.
"Moreover, and more to the point, there is no 'money' behind open source code. Their threats have no teeth, since they are not backed up by lawyers and legal action."
If enough of us care enough, we can pass the hat to fund toothy legal action.
They don't collect SS or income tax, do they? If not, they have no reason to possess that information. It doesn't identify people; it identifies tax accounts.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of magtapes hurtling down the highway."
New technology doesn't always entirely displace older technology. I would say that it does so only rarely. Rather, we get more choices, each with its own characteristics which makes it most suitable for a particular style of use.
I'd rather pay $10 for a DVD that I can watch a hundred times than pay $1 each time to watch someone else's copy a hundred times. So for me, DVD beats broadband hands down. Others may disagree...well, they may. Celebrate diversity, okay?
The ruling essentially boils down to the observation that, when you post on the Web, you post everywhere. I don't see recognition per se of this obvious fact as a threat to free speech or the WWW.
The problem seems to be that in some parts of the world it apparently is possible to be sued for reporting the fact that *someone else* has made allegations, the subject of which finds them unwelcome. Your average USian finds that a very strange definition of "libel" and it's not surprising that people at a U.S. newspaper would have difficulty thinking in such terms.
Notice also that this is not the end of the case, but rather a ruling that it may begin. The judge is willing to decide whether libel was actually committed, regardless of the fact that the defendant's offices are in another country. The final dispostion of the case could still be a disaster for the plaintiff. The judge hasn't said how he's going to decide, only that he's willing to listen to the parties' arguments.
If there's a threat to free speech, it was there in the law all along, Internet or no. By this ruling the Post would have been just as liable (or not) if it sells a significant number of physical papers in the province. The threat, if any, applies equally to local news media, since it lies in the local definition of libel. If it really is true that it is illegal in Canada for newspapers to print anything about a citizen that that citizen doesn't like, *that* is what should worry champions of free speech.
Doesn't matter now. It would seem that at least one Congressperson is on the list -- why else would we be seeing action on this?
"Unscrupulous resellers" abuse Microsoft's T&C, so Microsoft punishes the resellers' victims (and everyone else who chooses a Microsoft OS) for the infraction.
Suing said resellers down to their socks for breach of contract or copyright infringement or whatever just never occurred to the deep thinkers at MS?
MS is one of the few software houses who could turn any rambunctious reseller into a smoking crater anytime they choose. Or any thousand resellers. But, nooooooooooooo! Bad enough that end-users have to put up with activation at all; now we have to play telephone tag with one of the world's busiest companies.
'What do you mean, "just a public key in a digital baggie"? Isn't that what all certs are?'
No. Some cert.s mean that the entity described therein has been investigated to some level of certainty. As I said, Entrust has checked that my employer exists and that it controls the domain I specified, and is currently checking that I am employed by it. The resulting certificate will mean more than, "you can talk securely with someone, but we have no idea who that might be."
The work they are doing costs more than just having a robot collect the money and sign the key, and the result is worth more.
A CA cert. should include a link to the CA's Certification Practice Statement which says what they do when issuing cert.s. The browser could just show that, I suppose. But it would be nice to have as part of the signed data in the non-CA cert. a standardized indicator of just what you can trust about the presenter. I think there is in fact such information, but I don't have the standards in front of me now and can't be sure.
Or there could be a preference dialog, so that you can go through the cert. store in your browser and mark each CA cert. with the level of trust *you* assign.
Well, if they did no work that explains why it was so cheap. :-/
Woah -- InstantSSL is Comodo. I am surprised. What you describe is basically just a public key in a digital baggie. I think that a detailed examination of those cert.s might reveal why others cost more.
BTW the process I described, I am just now going through with Entrust. One of the others I mentioned (don't recall which) lets you pay for various levels of assurance, from "safe connection to who-knows-who" to "verified business identity".
Hmmm. I think that maybe we need for browsers to show more than just key/broken-key. We need to display in some fashion a standardized notion of what a given certificate means, something like the trustlevel in OpenPGP keysignatures.
Huh. It never occurred to me that one could sell cert.s that don't verify identity, since you can use OpenSSL or the Java keytool to make all of those that you want for free. I guess just avoiding the popup is worth a few bucks, but I'd want more than that for my business.
*sigh* Any business that can afford a computer and a T1 but hasn't enough left for a certificate is so undercapitalized that it's going to go foom anyway.
Actually I think that the banks ought to go into the cert. business, at least for their depositors, and demand client cert.s when establishing secure sessions for online banking. They have an interest in establishing identity and keeping things secure.
Check the cert. store in Mozilla. The USPS *was* a CA from 1995-97. Dunno who they certified, though, and apparently they quit.
Hmmm. 1995 was way after the E*COM fiasco, wasn't it? I wonder what they were up to?
The hard part is paying independent auditors, and forking over big bux to the browser vendors for inclusion, when you have no income. A wealthy philanthropist might decide to do everybody a good turn with his money, I suppose....
Exactly. You could print up stacks of papers with fancy scrollwork and serial numbers and pictures of dead people, and tell everyone that it's money, but will anyone believe that it is?
If you don't like Verisign, they aren't the only game in town. Try Entrust, or Betrusted, or GeoTrust, or....
I was going to actually RTFA, but TFWS is slashdotted....
What I always wonder about, when free CAs are discussed, is: where does the CA get the myriabucks it costs to get a CA certificate distributed with a popular browser? A cert. signed by no one my browser ever heard of does not inspire a whole lotta confidence. I can go to the CA's site and get its cert., but...a self-signed cert. tells you *nothing*.
Having said that, I should also say that I have my own little CA here on my desktop, and I use it to coin cert.s for internal use. That sort of use makes sense, because anybody who needs to can come ask me about my CA and receive a hand-delivered copy of its cert. if he (wisely) so wishes.
But how does a CA become trusted when most of the world will never find it practical to visit in person? The browser vendors are the primary trusted introducers for the vast majority of users.
You've never bought a certificate, I take it? They do actually check whether you actually control the domain you asserted, contact your admin. contact, verify employment of your technical contact, check out your firm with D&B, etc.
You mean, like US-CERT?
"Since we are connected to the Internet, our network can be used to access child porn or any other information not under our control that anyone, anywhere, chooses to make available. We hereby inform the police that this is the way networks function."
Stole the *oil* is arguable. My point is that I don't recall any Indians doing anything with the oil (other than whatever was found seeping out of the earth) *before* the white-eyes began taking it, so there weren't any *wells*.
Ya mean, like those derricks that the Indians had built all over Texas, before the white man stole them?
Actually, I think that the Earth of 3.5 billion years ago is its "natural" state. All this oxygen and these invasive species (all plants, animals, and basically anything other than anaerobic bacteria) must go! :-)
According to Cary Rockwell, Martian Water is actually a brand of soft drink. Its main use is to get you insulted when you ask for it in tough merchant spacer bars.