I think most thought it was more likely than not that he did it. Just that there were reasonable alternative theories (ran away to frame him, insane best friend that claims to have murdered people still alive are 2 that I can think of).
Neither of those were reasonable alternatives. The "ran away to frame him" scenario fails to explain the physical evidence or Reiser's subsequent behavior, and the "killed by insane friend" theory requires Hans to be an accomplice, at least after the fact, to explain it, as well as some plausible motive for Hans to try to protect the insane friend, even after he murdered his wife.
Maybe we'll go back to a million 6502 cores running at 3 Ghz. P...
A9 07 20 ED FD 80 F9
(FB would tighten the loop at the end, but I don't remember if COUT preserves the accumulator... I'm just amazed and a little frightened that I can still remember this shit off the top of my head...)
Really? I don't think Apple fanbois [sic] would know that much about Pentium math errors, judging from their apparent age levels... On a more serious note, I think it's just CPU geeks who make those jokes, not Mac fans.
Yes, GP was simply using this as an excuse to troll with a bit of name-calling. It's what you do when you have neither facts nor logic on your side. Once the name-calling begins, you know you've already won, and your opponent knows it too, they just won't admit it (possibly not even to themselves -- dismissing others as fanbois, cultists, underage, or geeks in their parents' basement allows them to disregard what others say without even having to think about it, thus preventing them from having to engage in any kind of challenging thinking). Unlike most well-adjusted Windows/Linux/whatever users, this particular person probably secretly thinks Macs are better, thus can't simply say "I prefer Windows/Linux/whatever" but must somehow disparage the Mac users in order to justify their own superiority. Gotta love cognitive dissonance.
It should be noted that there are plenty of Mac users that do the same -- indeed they're somewhat infamous for it. As for Windows users, they really are generally jerks and complete knee-biters.;)
So, more evidence supporting general relativity, but we still insist on viewing it as an approximation of a quantum-mechanical system (like how Newtonian physics can be viewed as an approximation of relativity).
Um, no, no one insists that you view it that way.
My understanding is that relativity has been directly observed several times, whereas quantum theory is still just based on the interpretation of a series of controlled laboratory experiments, which mostly amounts to sifting through the wreckage of a high-energy collision and trying to derive the original state from the leftover pieces.
No. Relatively and quantum theory are only directly observed on the pages of scientific journals, since they're theories and that's where you observe theories being printed. If you mean the predicted effects of the theory have been observed, this is true, but the same is equally true of quantum theory, in far more contexts that you mention (just as relativistic effects have been observed in more than just the bending of light during an eclipse).
Isn't it about time to abandon the concept of the graviton and just accept that gravity is not a fundamental force, but is simply the observed effect of the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of matter and energy?
Nope. Impatience does not suit science. Easier problems have taken multiple centuries to get right -- quantum theory is barely a century old, and has been one of the most spectacularly successful theories in the history of science. It has rough edges and will take time to work it all out, to be sure, but if it suggests something is right, it takes a bit more than a short period of time looking with inadequate instruments and incomplete understanding to declare it definitely wrong on the subject.
There's a saying in engineering: When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
Of course it does, to an engineer. Engineers rarely have the patience for actual science. Taking a few centuries to hone a tool isn't practical. But science isn't about practicality.
Are users not supposed to protect themselves in the interests of the website?
This isn't being done to protect users. The pages could be scanned just as easily on actual load. This is being done to prevent the users from having to suffer a small delay on loading the page by preloading it (and every other possibly link on the page since the software doesn't know what link you're going to click).
You're just putting spin on the issue because this is affecting your cost/income ratio.
You're very anti-average Joe. Most of us aren't Amazon. Most of us, in fact, make precisely zero income from our websites. And we don't have the kind of financial resources to deal with this kind of distributed attack on our bandwidth. Amazon, Yahoo, and such won't have any problem dealing with this sort of thing, but if it becomes popular, it'll force the rest of us off the web.
Since the problem of malware sites is not going to go away and since AVG is effective more antivirus software will start using these techniques. Unless you have something better to suggest?
Yes, make the user wait the extra second if the user wants to scan a page.
Frankly, as an end user, I don't give a damn about your costs and stats. I don't care about it for amazon, ebay, myspace, or paypal. I do care that if I follow a link to an unsavory site that I am protected.
If that's true, then you won't mind waiting the extra second to load a page instead of having the browser drag down the bandwidth of every site in your search ahead of time for you.
Here is another question. Do you want a userbase that is populated by malware infected computers? Is that preferable to figuring out a way to work with AVG new technique?
That's a false dilemma. Is it preferable to force everyone other than the big guys off the web so that users don't have to wait an extra second on loading a page?
Dont throw your users under the train. They have a right to their security and peace of mind.
Don't throw the majority of web page publishers under a train, just so you can save a second by preloading a page.
This is Windows. It wouldn't surprise me if you can infect your computer by opening the wrong text file in Notepad...
As for image files, yes, certain versions of certain operating systems have been able to be infected by a maliciously constructed GIF file, and I believe IE allows some interesting funkiness inside CSS vis a vie Javascript, so that's probably possible too.
The main problem with clamwin is that it does not do on-access or real-time scanning. *All* virus scanning is done manually, or via schedules.
The main problem with most anti-virus software is that they do on-access or real-time scanning, thus wasting a vast amount of time scanning things that have no need to be scanned at precisely the most inconvenient time possible.
You can't take a pound and get an exact number of kilograms (especially from a legal perspective). You can go the other way.
Um, that's nonsensical. If 1 pound is exactly 0.45359237 kilograms, then 1 kilogram is exactly 1/0.45359237 pounds. If what you're trying to say is its not as easy to write it using decimal notation, you might have a point, but if you can take a pound that get an exact number of kilograms, it necessarily follows that you can take a kilogram and get an exact number of pounds. It will be a real, rational, and expressible value, although it might be a repeating decimal.
Hehe. Well, it's the job of the Attorney General to enforce the law. When Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the law, it was incumbent upon the state's offices to pursue it. Now that the courts have struck it down, those same people should act accordingly, unless they really feel that it's worth pursuing further. In this case, it really isn't. Good for Lori Swanson for recognizing that and not dragging this through the courts further.
Did the female voice in the cinematic teaser sound like Sylvanas (pre WOW/Undead) to anyone else? Soon enough they will be like Pixar - the fat/less intelligent character is always voiced by the same guy! (Which made for a great set of credits in Cars)
Um, soon enough? This has been typical of Blizzard games since the 1990's. I recognized most of the voices in StarCraft from Diablo II, or the other way around (I don't remember which came first, but I do remember jokingly referring to each major character in the one game by the name from the other -- e.g. I'd refer to the narrator in Diablo [when you read books in the game] as "Judicator Aldaris"). I don't remember any Blizzard game where I didn't instantly recognize the voices of nearly all the characters, save the first.
I really don't want to live forever. If it were possible, I think eventually everything would become mundane....
I think it's quite entirely possible that if we find a cure for aging, we'll eventually discover people don't really want to live forever. But it would still be better to let people live as long as they want to, and choose the time and manner of their own passing, rather than forcing it upon them against their will.
If you're right, we'll just eventually see legalized, rational suicide. Probably simple drugs you can get from your doctor when you decide it's time to move on. People being executors of their own wills before they throw a farewell party and take that fatal drink at the end, surrounded by their still living friends to see them off.
If human lifespans are ever extended to a significant degree, there will be significant repercussions as governments attempt to deal with what would inevitably become a very serious overpopulation crisis....
Ignoring everything you wrote past that point, since it seems to proceed from a highly doubtful premise.
Anyone who's looked seriously at population trends around the world as education and standard of living rises would know that one of the most serious long-term consequences of our present course is the eventual extinction of the human race, simply because as we become education and affluent, our population growth rate trends into the negative.
Given this, it's far from "inevitable" that an end to aging would cause "a very serious overpopulation crisis". In fact, it may ultimately be what saves our species from extinction due to an apparent lack of desire to actually reproduce. We like having sex, yes, but we're apparently not to keen on reproducing, given the option not to, or at best, doing it in small numbers (numbers so small that we fail to even replace ourselves).
With any luck, an end to aging will prevent the population from shrinking to nothing, assuming we still reproduce enough to replace deaths by accident or suicide, which is really impossible to say at this point...
With 6.5 billion people on the planet, and all of the world's major problems (global warming, wars, famines, extinction of animal and plant life, etc etc) being a direct result of human overpopulation, the fight to end aging seems like the most idiotic endeavor of them all.
Not quite as idiotic as citing war and famine as problems caused by overpopulation, despite the fact that there are more people around today than ever before, and both of these are far less frequent than they ever were before.
The other things you mentioned are bogus too, but they don't fly in the face of the evidence so extremely that you'd be idiotic for believing it, in those cases you'd simply be wrong.
It should also be noted that the particular McDonalds in question had its coffee maker set even higher than the corporate standard: about 200 F, and had been warned about the situation on several occasions and not done anything to fix it. It was a pretty clear case of negligence.
Re:Back in the day...
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Welcome to Slashdot.:) There are no shades of grey here. You must think in binary. You either 100% agree something or you 100% oppose it. Quit being a waffler!:p
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.
No no, this is Slashdot. Your solution must either work perfectly in all possible situations, or it's useless.;)
So, the conclusion you're drawn from the fact that a self-signed cert doesn't solve every possible problem is that it's no better than unencrypted HTTP?
You either have an overinflated estimation of the power of signed certs, or you're suffering from an incredibly big double-standard.
Neither solution solves all problems. But what the GP said holds -- a self-signed cert still beats unencrypted HTTP by quite a lot. If you have to whip out a transparent proxy to prove why a solution won't work, when that solution solves the kind of spying any idiot with a network jack can do, you utterly fail at basic security. It's never about preventing all possible attacks -- that's impossible. It's always about balancing realistic security concerns with realistic usability concerns.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen security weakened by people who can't balance these properly and enforce standards too extreme while discarding better solutions because they aren't perfect.
The same argument can be said about any kind of identification method. Any form of ID can be forged, the documents presented to get one can be forged, so I don't really see the point in singling out SSL.
The point is, SSL encryption is often useful, indeed often more useful, and CA authentication. You shouldn't need a certificate just to use an encrypted channel. The current scheme weakens network security overall, because it discourages the use of encryption more than it encourages the use of authentication. Pointing out how poor the authentication really is is just highlighting the irony.
No, if they are trying to reach "example.com" and end up with "exampIe.com" in the address bar, then checking the spelling after the lock appears in the address bar will tell the user something is wrong.
Since you failed to change to a typewriter-style font above, the two quotes strings look completely and totally identical to me. Since they're both absolutely identical in appearance, just what method were you suggesting users use to "check the spelling"?
You really should read and understand more about this before spouting off like some sort of authority.
Encryption by itself is not very useful, as it only operates at the network layer. So some nefarious network user or ISP admin will be unable to read your communications. Big freaking deal.
You really should read and understand more about this before spouting off like some sort of authority.
Among other things, you should understand that different people's security needs differ, depending on the situation. Often that's exactly what is needed, and nothing more is required or useful. It frequently does nothing but cause harm to complicate the issue by throwing in SSL certs meant to solve problems that are complete non-issues in many contexts.
"It would still have such a tiny collision cross-section that it could orbit inside the Earth for a billion years without growing to perceptible size."
Occuring in Earth orbit isn't a problem, even if it lasted and stayed stable for even thousands of years. But for it to occur on Earth, surrounded by so much mass on Earth, it would have a huge amount of mass to rapidly interact with. If such an event occured, there's no way to contain it and no time to learn how to contain it.
No, the quote you quoted and then ignored has is correct, the orbit could orbit "inside the Earth" for a billion of years without causing any problems. If such an event occured, we'd have all the time in the world to learn how to contain it, or more likely, just ignore it, since it'd be mostly harmless.
Note that a black hole is dangerous because of the massive gravity it has, due to its massive, well, mass. A tiny black hole created in a particle accelerator experiement is going to have a tiny mass. Given gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces in nature, it has no chance whatsoever to gobble up atoms from nearby molecules, as those molecules are held together by much more powerful electromagnetic forces. Any gobbling such a tiny black hole would do would have to be due to direct chance collision between it and the nucleus of the atom on question -- it would pass harmlessly through most atoms without difficulty as long as it didn't hit the nucleus. In short, released into the matter-rich environment of the Earth, it would gobble up very little in human-relevant timescales. In a few trillion years it might gobble up enough to be detectable without fancy lab equipment, but Earth isn't going to be around that long anyway...
I don't normally comment on people's sigs, but since you brought it up, his sig is actually kinda stupid.
Suppose I have a friend who constantly harps on how he can fix anything on his own car and how everyone should learn how to perform regular maintenance on their own cars and save themselves money at service stations for things they could do themselves. He does this for years, constantly harping on it. And then one day, we discover he can't even change his own oil. I myself don't change my own oil, so is it ironic that I give him heck over it? Not really. I don't change my own oil, but I never said I did. He was the one always claiming it's what made him better. Nothing wrong with me decrying his dishonesty merely because I myself don't do what he claimed he was doing.
Microsoft constantly harps on its innovation, and resists any attempt to enforce the law of the land upon them as restricting their "freedom to innovate". That opens them up for anyone to criticize them on the fact that, in fact, they don't innovate. There's nothing ironic about people who don't innovate decrying someone else's dishonesty on the subject.
The fact is, both Microsoft and GNU copy ideas they see elsewhere right and left. The difference is, the GNU people are honest about it, as the sig itself acknowledges when it notes that it's their stated goal. Indeed, the GNU people have a philosophy that says this is a good idea -- when someone comes up with a better way of doing things, we should all learn from it and enjoy the benefits of this new idea. The Microsoft people say people shouldn't be allowed to do this. And the irony is, some idiots decry the GNU people for pointing out that Microsoft is doing it anyway, doing exactly what they're doing, all the while claiming to be "innovative" for doing it and criticizing others for doing the same. That's the real irony.
Maybe he changed his mind. It does happen. If people's opinions were immutable, we'd be incapable of learning anything.
In America, if you're capable of learning, you're supposed to hide the fact. Demonstrating the capacity to learn is guaranteed to get to ridiculed for being a "flip-flopper". It's considered a sign of strength and character to never change you mind no matter what you learn or how circumstances change.:p
Slashdot Mirror
I think most thought it was more likely than not that he did it. Just that there were reasonable alternative theories (ran away to frame him, insane best friend that claims to have murdered people still alive are 2 that I can think of).
Neither of those were reasonable alternatives. The "ran away to frame him" scenario fails to explain the physical evidence or Reiser's subsequent behavior, and the "killed by insane friend" theory requires Hans to be an accomplice, at least after the fact, to explain it, as well as some plausible motive for Hans to try to protect the insane friend, even after he murdered his wife.
Maybe we'll go back to a million 6502 cores running at 3 Ghz. P...
A9 07 20 ED FD 80 F9
(FB would tighten the loop at the end, but I don't remember if COUT preserves the accumulator... I'm just amazed and a little frightened that I can still remember this shit off the top of my head...)
Really? I don't think Apple fanbois [sic] would know that much about Pentium math errors, judging from their apparent age levels... On a more serious note, I think it's just CPU geeks who make those jokes, not Mac fans.
Yes, GP was simply using this as an excuse to troll with a bit of name-calling. It's what you do when you have neither facts nor logic on your side. Once the name-calling begins, you know you've already won, and your opponent knows it too, they just won't admit it (possibly not even to themselves -- dismissing others as fanbois, cultists, underage, or geeks in their parents' basement allows them to disregard what others say without even having to think about it, thus preventing them from having to engage in any kind of challenging thinking). Unlike most well-adjusted Windows/Linux/whatever users, this particular person probably secretly thinks Macs are better, thus can't simply say "I prefer Windows/Linux/whatever" but must somehow disparage the Mac users in order to justify their own superiority. Gotta love cognitive dissonance.
It should be noted that there are plenty of Mac users that do the same -- indeed they're somewhat infamous for it. As for Windows users, they really are generally jerks and complete knee-biters. ;)
...the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," is syntactically valid though semantically aberrant.
You empathetic insensitive clods kindly insult us colorless green ideas. :p
So, more evidence supporting general relativity, but we still insist on viewing it as an approximation of a quantum-mechanical system (like how Newtonian physics can be viewed as an approximation of relativity).
Um, no, no one insists that you view it that way.
My understanding is that relativity has been directly observed several times, whereas quantum theory is still just based on the interpretation of a series of controlled laboratory experiments, which mostly amounts to sifting through the wreckage of a high-energy collision and trying to derive the original state from the leftover pieces.
No. Relatively and quantum theory are only directly observed on the pages of scientific journals, since they're theories and that's where you observe theories being printed. If you mean the predicted effects of the theory have been observed, this is true, but the same is equally true of quantum theory, in far more contexts that you mention (just as relativistic effects have been observed in more than just the bending of light during an eclipse).
Isn't it about time to abandon the concept of the graviton and just accept that gravity is not a fundamental force, but is simply the observed effect of the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of matter and energy?
Nope. Impatience does not suit science. Easier problems have taken multiple centuries to get right -- quantum theory is barely a century old, and has been one of the most spectacularly successful theories in the history of science. It has rough edges and will take time to work it all out, to be sure, but if it suggests something is right, it takes a bit more than a short period of time looking with inadequate instruments and incomplete understanding to declare it definitely wrong on the subject.
There's a saying in engineering: When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
Of course it does, to an engineer. Engineers rarely have the patience for actual science. Taking a few centuries to hone a tool isn't practical. But science isn't about practicality.
Are users not supposed to protect themselves in the interests of the website?
This isn't being done to protect users. The pages could be scanned just as easily on actual load. This is being done to prevent the users from having to suffer a small delay on loading the page by preloading it (and every other possibly link on the page since the software doesn't know what link you're going to click).
You're just putting spin on the issue because this is affecting your cost/income ratio.
You're very anti-average Joe. Most of us aren't Amazon. Most of us, in fact, make precisely zero income from our websites. And we don't have the kind of financial resources to deal with this kind of distributed attack on our bandwidth. Amazon, Yahoo, and such won't have any problem dealing with this sort of thing, but if it becomes popular, it'll force the rest of us off the web.
Since the problem of malware sites is not going to go away and since AVG is effective more antivirus software will start using these techniques. Unless you have something better to suggest?
Yes, make the user wait the extra second if the user wants to scan a page.
Frankly, as an end user, I don't give a damn about your costs and stats. I don't care about it for amazon, ebay, myspace, or paypal. I do care that if I follow a link to an unsavory site that I am protected.
If that's true, then you won't mind waiting the extra second to load a page instead of having the browser drag down the bandwidth of every site in your search ahead of time for you.
Here is another question. Do you want a userbase that is populated by malware infected computers? Is that preferable to figuring out a way to work with AVG new technique?
That's a false dilemma. Is it preferable to force everyone other than the big guys off the web so that users don't have to wait an extra second on loading a page?
Dont throw your users under the train. They have a right to their security and peace of mind.
Don't throw the majority of web page publishers under a train, just so you can save a second by preloading a page.
This is Windows. It wouldn't surprise me if you can infect your computer by opening the wrong text file in Notepad...
As for image files, yes, certain versions of certain operating systems have been able to be infected by a maliciously constructed GIF file, and I believe IE allows some interesting funkiness inside CSS vis a vie Javascript, so that's probably possible too.
The main problem with clamwin is that it does not do on-access or real-time scanning. *All* virus scanning is done manually, or via schedules.
The main problem with most anti-virus software is that they do on-access or real-time scanning, thus wasting a vast amount of time scanning things that have no need to be scanned at precisely the most inconvenient time possible.
1 pound is exactly 0.45359237 kilograms.
1 kilogram is approximately 2.20462262185 pounds.
You can't take a pound and get an exact number of kilograms (especially from a legal perspective). You can go the other way.
Um, that's nonsensical. If 1 pound is exactly 0.45359237 kilograms, then 1 kilogram is exactly 1/0.45359237 pounds. If what you're trying to say is its not as easy to write it using decimal notation, you might have a point, but if you can take a pound that get an exact number of kilograms, it necessarily follows that you can take a kilogram and get an exact number of pounds. It will be a real, rational, and expressible value, although it might be a repeating decimal.
Hehe. Well, it's the job of the Attorney General to enforce the law. When Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the law, it was incumbent upon the state's offices to pursue it. Now that the courts have struck it down, those same people should act accordingly, unless they really feel that it's worth pursuing further. In this case, it really isn't. Good for Lori Swanson for recognizing that and not dragging this through the courts further.
Did the female voice in the cinematic teaser sound like Sylvanas (pre WOW/Undead) to anyone else? Soon enough they will be like Pixar - the fat/less intelligent character is always voiced by the same guy! (Which made for a great set of credits in Cars)
Um, soon enough? This has been typical of Blizzard games since the 1990's. I recognized most of the voices in StarCraft from Diablo II, or the other way around (I don't remember which came first, but I do remember jokingly referring to each major character in the one game by the name from the other -- e.g. I'd refer to the narrator in Diablo [when you read books in the game] as "Judicator Aldaris"). I don't remember any Blizzard game where I didn't instantly recognize the voices of nearly all the characters, save the first.
I really don't want to live forever. If it were possible, I think eventually everything would become mundane. ...
I think it's quite entirely possible that if we find a cure for aging, we'll eventually discover people don't really want to live forever. But it would still be better to let people live as long as they want to, and choose the time and manner of their own passing, rather than forcing it upon them against their will.
If you're right, we'll just eventually see legalized, rational suicide. Probably simple drugs you can get from your doctor when you decide it's time to move on. People being executors of their own wills before they throw a farewell party and take that fatal drink at the end, surrounded by their still living friends to see them off.
If human lifespans are ever extended to a significant degree, there will be significant repercussions as governments attempt to deal with what would inevitably become a very serious overpopulation crisis. ...
Ignoring everything you wrote past that point, since it seems to proceed from a highly doubtful premise.
Anyone who's looked seriously at population trends around the world as education and standard of living rises would know that one of the most serious long-term consequences of our present course is the eventual extinction of the human race, simply because as we become education and affluent, our population growth rate trends into the negative.
Given this, it's far from "inevitable" that an end to aging would cause "a very serious overpopulation crisis". In fact, it may ultimately be what saves our species from extinction due to an apparent lack of desire to actually reproduce. We like having sex, yes, but we're apparently not to keen on reproducing, given the option not to, or at best, doing it in small numbers (numbers so small that we fail to even replace ourselves).
With any luck, an end to aging will prevent the population from shrinking to nothing, assuming we still reproduce enough to replace deaths by accident or suicide, which is really impossible to say at this point...
With 6.5 billion people on the planet, and all of the world's major problems (global warming, wars, famines, extinction of animal and plant life, etc etc) being a direct result of human overpopulation, the fight to end aging seems like the most idiotic endeavor of them all.
Not quite as idiotic as citing war and famine as problems caused by overpopulation, despite the fact that there are more people around today than ever before, and both of these are far less frequent than they ever were before.
The other things you mentioned are bogus too, but they don't fly in the face of the evidence so extremely that you'd be idiotic for believing it, in those cases you'd simply be wrong.
It should also be noted that the particular McDonalds in question had its coffee maker set even higher than the corporate standard: about 200 F, and had been warned about the situation on several occasions and not done anything to fix it. It was a pretty clear case of negligence.
Welcome to Slashdot. :) There are no shades of grey here. You must think in binary. You either 100% agree something or you 100% oppose it. Quit being a waffler! :p
No no, this is Slashdot. Your solution must either work perfectly in all possible situations, or it's useless. ;)
So, the conclusion you're drawn from the fact that a self-signed cert doesn't solve every possible problem is that it's no better than unencrypted HTTP?
You either have an overinflated estimation of the power of signed certs, or you're suffering from an incredibly big double-standard.
Neither solution solves all problems. But what the GP said holds -- a self-signed cert still beats unencrypted HTTP by quite a lot. If you have to whip out a transparent proxy to prove why a solution won't work, when that solution solves the kind of spying any idiot with a network jack can do, you utterly fail at basic security. It's never about preventing all possible attacks -- that's impossible. It's always about balancing realistic security concerns with realistic usability concerns.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen security weakened by people who can't balance these properly and enforce standards too extreme while discarding better solutions because they aren't perfect.
The point is, SSL encryption is often useful, indeed often more useful, and CA authentication. You shouldn't need a certificate just to use an encrypted channel. The current scheme weakens network security overall, because it discourages the use of encryption more than it encourages the use of authentication. Pointing out how poor the authentication really is is just highlighting the irony.
No, if they are trying to reach "example.com" and end up with "exampIe.com" in the address bar, then checking the spelling after the lock appears in the address bar will tell the user something is wrong.
Since you failed to change to a typewriter-style font above, the two quotes strings look completely and totally identical to me. Since they're both absolutely identical in appearance, just what method were you suggesting users use to "check the spelling"?
You really should read and understand more about this before spouting off like some sort of authority.
Encryption by itself is not very useful, as it only operates at the network layer. So some nefarious network user or ISP admin will be unable to read your communications. Big freaking deal.
You really should read and understand more about this before spouting off like some sort of authority.
Among other things, you should understand that different people's security needs differ, depending on the situation. Often that's exactly what is needed, and nothing more is required or useful. It frequently does nothing but cause harm to complicate the issue by throwing in SSL certs meant to solve problems that are complete non-issues in many contexts.
Are generic names like that really worth that much? I doubt "search.com" is making CNet as much money as "google.com" is making Google.
"It would still have such a tiny collision cross-section that it could orbit inside the Earth for a billion years without growing to perceptible size."
Occuring in Earth orbit isn't a problem, even if it lasted and stayed stable for even thousands of years. But for it to occur on Earth, surrounded by so much mass on Earth, it would have a huge amount of mass to rapidly interact with. If such an event occured, there's no way to contain it and no time to learn how to contain it.
No, the quote you quoted and then ignored has is correct, the orbit could orbit "inside the Earth" for a billion of years without causing any problems. If such an event occured, we'd have all the time in the world to learn how to contain it, or more likely, just ignore it, since it'd be mostly harmless.
Note that a black hole is dangerous because of the massive gravity it has, due to its massive, well, mass. A tiny black hole created in a particle accelerator experiement is going to have a tiny mass. Given gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces in nature, it has no chance whatsoever to gobble up atoms from nearby molecules, as those molecules are held together by much more powerful electromagnetic forces. Any gobbling such a tiny black hole would do would have to be due to direct chance collision between it and the nucleus of the atom on question -- it would pass harmlessly through most atoms without difficulty as long as it didn't hit the nucleus. In short, released into the matter-rich environment of the Earth, it would gobble up very little in human-relevant timescales. In a few trillion years it might gobble up enough to be detectable without fancy lab equipment, but Earth isn't going to be around that long anyway...
I don't normally comment on people's sigs, but since you brought it up, his sig is actually kinda stupid.
Suppose I have a friend who constantly harps on how he can fix anything on his own car and how everyone should learn how to perform regular maintenance on their own cars and save themselves money at service stations for things they could do themselves. He does this for years, constantly harping on it. And then one day, we discover he can't even change his own oil. I myself don't change my own oil, so is it ironic that I give him heck over it? Not really. I don't change my own oil, but I never said I did. He was the one always claiming it's what made him better. Nothing wrong with me decrying his dishonesty merely because I myself don't do what he claimed he was doing.
Microsoft constantly harps on its innovation, and resists any attempt to enforce the law of the land upon them as restricting their "freedom to innovate". That opens them up for anyone to criticize them on the fact that, in fact, they don't innovate. There's nothing ironic about people who don't innovate decrying someone else's dishonesty on the subject.
The fact is, both Microsoft and GNU copy ideas they see elsewhere right and left. The difference is, the GNU people are honest about it, as the sig itself acknowledges when it notes that it's their stated goal. Indeed, the GNU people have a philosophy that says this is a good idea -- when someone comes up with a better way of doing things, we should all learn from it and enjoy the benefits of this new idea. The Microsoft people say people shouldn't be allowed to do this. And the irony is, some idiots decry the GNU people for pointing out that Microsoft is doing it anyway, doing exactly what they're doing, all the while claiming to be "innovative" for doing it and criticizing others for doing the same. That's the real irony.
In America, if you're capable of learning, you're supposed to hide the fact. Demonstrating the capacity to learn is guaranteed to get to ridiculed for being a "flip-flopper". It's considered a sign of strength and character to never change you mind no matter what you learn or how circumstances change. :p