For example, you use '.dev' for your internal sites. Sure, you control DNS and you can do that. Suddenly, a workstation needs access to something google is hosting on.dev. Suddenly, you have a self-inflicted wound because you didn't stick to private use reserved values, and you don't have a clean way out of reconciling this.
Another common use case is that you as a company might want to present a different view of a site to your employees. Or do things like ensuring that new systems that by default access pool*.ntp.org don't actually go there, but to your own NTP servers.
The #1 reason to use HTTPS everywhere is that it adds a lot of noise, which is non-trivial in relation to thwarting a potential eavesdropper.
The problem is that these days, the eavesdropper sits on the server, and HTTPS does nothing to prevent that. It only provides the eavesdropper on the server with unique session information so they can log who accessed content. It also largely[*] defeats proxy caching so they can easier enforce that it is accessed individually by each user -- all in order to better monitor users.
That is a much bigger problem than eavesdropping. You can (to some degree) choose your ISP, or use VPNs, but you cannot excise greedy marketers who treat you as a product and overreaching three letter agencies who treat you as a criminal from the servers you talk to.
[*]: Average Joe won't be able to set up a proxy server with a local CA and import its CA cert into all clients. And Power Joe won't do it because it hides the endpoint certificate from his view.
HTTP is plain-text, and easy to read in-flight. There are fewer browser restrictions around cross-domain access to HTTP. Tracking HTTP is easy.
HTTPS hides what is sent from middle men. HTTP allows hiding who accesses the endpoint from the endpoint itself.
These days, the endpoints being monitored and users tracked, quite often by Google (and thus by extension TLAs with access to Google), is a hell of a lot bigger problem than man-in-the-middle.
This is part of Google's larger and welcome push for HTTPS to be used everywhere for greater security.
I think you mean "unwelcome" and "for greater tracking accuracy".
There is little reason for HTTPS to be used for much if not most of the content on the internet. There are reasons to use caching and defeat endpoint trackers, though.
Good luck with the library prep in zero G! I'm intrigued to know how well pipetting works in these conditions!
Quite well, I should think. Capillary action, Van der Waal forces and surface tension are incredibly much stronger than gravity. There's no problem preparing a microscope slide upside down, and only mildly problematic sideways (due to a problem they won't have on the ISS).
Heck, even if there was a single pair, that's not exactly a viable population anymore, right?
It could be. Both you and the last dodo are descended from the same first eukaryotic ancestor.
And you don't even need a pair - a single fertilized female can in theory be enough. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Genetic variation is a big plus, but not always required. The cheetah has next to no genetic variation due to an earlier bottleneck. Not to mention the bdelloid rotifers, which are diploid (two sets of chromosomes), but were the males are presumed to be extinct for quite some time now, and all offspring gets only the mother's genes.
Cant call uber? Cant call a taxi? For those extremely hypothetical contingency?
I've taken some long taxi rides before, because of emergencies. A full tank is $40. A two hour taxi ride is more like $400 negotiated, and Uber around $300, but good luck getting one - they'd rather ride local surge pricing than go on long trips with zero return fares.
You're arguing that this is an issue, when 99.999% of people will never have this problem.
Or to put it another way, 99.999% of people may have this problem. It's adding an unnecessary risk that's the issue. One you simply don't have, even with the cheapest gasoline or hybrid vehicle. If you belong to the 0.001% that can plan your life completely and know for certain that you can't enter such a situation, you likely have a very boring life too.
There is always "that guy" who needs to drive 300 miles in a day regularly. 305 miles is at least a five hour drive. Do you do that 20% of the time?
20% of the time would be one trip between two work locations every two weeks (because it also involves a return trip). That's not all that uncommon, depending on your position.
But even 95% or 99% of the time would not be good enough. It's the worst case scenarios that's the problem. Say you come back from a long joyride, your batteries are almost flat, and then have to [go to a hospital because a relative was in an accident | go see an important customer the next state over | whatever else comes up] that's a two hour drive away. You can't do it and have to hope that someone can lend you a real car. It's the uncertainty that's the problem here, because you never know what might come up. But with a regular car, you know that it takes two minutes to fill the tank, and you can do it everywhere, and go everywhere at any time.
The distance between my two work locations is 305 miles. It should cover that then, but it won't. T\he problem is that the EPA mileage takes into account neither sweltering summer heat nor winter temperatures way below freezing. Especially at really low temperatures, the range of electric cars is severely reduced, as in sometimes only getting half the range.
And then it does not take two minutes to fill it, with stations at pretty much every crossroads. Even if you should be lucky enough to find a "rapid" charging station, it's a long wait, and then you don't even get the same range afterwards, because that range is based on slow charging.
Proponents like to point out that most people don't drive that far most of the time. But I don't want a car that I can only use for 80% of the time, and have to go rent a proper car whenever going far.
Sure electric cars is the future, but hybrids is what makes sense for any foreseeable future. Limping along on gas when the batteries are down is far better than being stuck.
I suggest everyone to use the same image of Jesus, just for kicks.
If Facebook were telling the truth, everyone (and all bots) could indeed use the same image, as long as nobody uploaded it anywhere where it could be scanned by Facebook. Because if they immediately delete the image as they claim, they won't know whether it has been used by others. However, in reality...
You're assuming feeling suicidal and committing suicide is the same thing. The difference is as big as between attracted to a woman and jumping her bones.
but you can just look at the number of people dying to understand it will not be unusual to encounter someone at risk
"At risk"? That's presuming that it's something to be avoided. You don't know that beforehand. As you yourself say:
know for certain that not everyone's experience is like your own.
That's exactly my point. One person's risk, another person's chance.
Granular Permissions have been in Android since 6.0.
Given that half of all Android users are at lower versions than 6.0, that isn't ultimately helpful.
Google really needs to start forcing vendors to take responsibility, for example by requiring 3 years of OS upgrades before granting a license. 3 years is not too long a lifespan to expect from a phone; while most of us are reasonably well off and can afford to change more often, a lot of people aren't all that affluent, and need to use their phone for several years. As long as Google allows and encourage companies to release and abandon, this situation with most of the userbase on old and insecure devices just won't improve.
Many years have now passed and there are many times where I feel numb to life but I am glad I am alive for my kids sake and even for my own.
But you did not make the choice to kill yourself, which puts you in a different category from those who did.
Suicide should have a stigma. It is permanent. At the very least, there should be a 5 year pre-registration.
Who gave you a right to decide what's right for others? Of course it is permanent. That's the whole point. Being dead is painless and without remorse. Regrets are for the living; the dead are completely unaffected.
The facts is that nearly 50% of suicides are due to clinical depression.
The fact is that what the fact is is seldom clear. The nearly 50% includes those who have been diagnosed with clinical depression because of their suicidal actions, i.e. a classic example of affirming the consequent. That is a real problem. Also, "due to" is not necessarily correct. There can be cases where someone suffers from clinical depression but chooses suicide for other reasons. There may be a common cause for both the clinical depression and the suicide, or the two may be unrelated. After all, "nearly 50%" implies that for most suicides, there is no such connection.
Can it be related? Absolutely. Is that a problem? Most certainly. But it is not a carte blanche to treat everybody as if it were the case. Assuming, without other evidence, that it is due to mental health issues, and then using that assumption to justify overriding the individual's free choice is abhorrent. Freedom means freedom for people to do things that may be a phobia or religious conviction for others. That right needs protection.
My ipad has the opposite problem: it consistently *fails* to capitalise "I" mid-sentence.
If you are multilingual, and one of your languages has the word "i", it's common for autocorrect systems to leave it lower case. Or you might accidentally have hit the "leave-it-as-is" suggestion displaying "i". If you've done that just once, the word will always be a suggestion until you manually delete it from the list.
But that's not much of a problem compared to the autocorrect on Sony's android devices, which have a strong penchant for replacing anything it's not sure about with the name of obscure English towns. It will never replace mad with Madrid, but it may replace it with Nailsworth, Jarrow or Kingsteington. I can just imagine what went on in Japan, when a Sony employee got sent to the book store to pick up English dictionaries to scan, and one was a booklet with English Towns. It makes it very Hatherleigh to Tiverton at times.
True, but most people who are suicdal do not genuinely want to die as much as they would rather want their living circumstances just to be different from whatever they are
How do you know? I think quite a few people would like a better life than what they have but still would prefer no life, and quite a few others are rationally certain that different living circumstances would in all likelihood be worse than what they have. Especially if they also have to pay huge psychiatric bills, which is the likely outcome of seeking help.
There's also quite a bit of begging the question in modern pseudo-psychology, where people are now conditioned to think that those who try to kill themselves suffer from a mental illness, and they know this because they try to kill themselves.
I think we need to get rid of the suicide stigma, and allow people to do what they want with their own lives, including ending it. Without no interference from well-meaning people who prolong other's suffering or discomfort to feed their own moral beliefs. Let people die with dignity, not shame.
63 years old here. No Facebook. No Twitter. I don't have time for that silly bullshit. Facebook should mind their own business. If someone kills themself, so what. Darwin in action.
"Darwin in action" has no bearing on killing yourself after you are done with procreation; unless you take out your progeny too, it won't affect your genes.
Unfortunately, part of US police scare tactics and abuse is to have you committed to psychiatric evaluation against your will. Even if you're deemed sane, you end up with the bill, which can be quite substantial - five to six figures is to be expected.
Some states had laws making suicide a felony, and some up until the 1990s. If you survived, you could theoretically go to jail for attempted murder of yourself.
I guess that by that logic, the police would be justified in shooting your murderer. You'd die anyhow, but the crime would be prevented.
People who transmit their voice using radio should be educated that they are doing that, not coddled into thinking there is some magic that turns the insecure medium they are using into a secure one. And people who carry devices that they know can be used to track them whereever they go should learn to live with the natural result of their decision, not have artificial legal protections put in place to allow them their convenience while avoiding the results of their decisions.
And people who radiate heat should know that it could be used to track them even through curtains and walls?
I don't think so. There's something known as "a reasonable expectation of privacy". When lawmakers in the 19th century talked about "a walk in the woods" having an expectation of privacy, I'm fairly certain that they didn't mean that you should be free to track their location. Unless you deliberately broadcast where you are, you should have the expectation that no-one is triangulating traffic the average user may not even knows exists.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, you use '.dev' for your internal sites. Sure, you control DNS and you can do that. Suddenly, a workstation needs access to something google is hosting on .dev. Suddenly, you have a self-inflicted wound because you didn't stick to private use reserved values, and you don't have a clean way out of reconciling this.
Another common use case is that you as a company might want to present a different view of a site to your employees. Or do things like ensuring that new systems that by default access pool*.ntp.org don't actually go there, but to your own NTP servers.
This isn't Google forcing you to be secure. Don't use a domain name you don't own.
On your own private network, you do own any domain name you want.
The name resolution protocols specifically allow this, and for good reasons.
You don't own the .dev tld!
On a private network, yes, you do.
You don't own it on the Internet, but on your own network, you own every domain and TLD.
The #1 reason to use HTTPS everywhere is that it adds a lot of noise, which is non-trivial in relation to thwarting a potential eavesdropper.
The problem is that these days, the eavesdropper sits on the server, and HTTPS does nothing to prevent that. It only provides the eavesdropper on the server with unique session information so they can log who accessed content.
It also largely[*] defeats proxy caching so they can easier enforce that it is accessed individually by each user -- all in order to better monitor users.
That is a much bigger problem than eavesdropping. You can (to some degree) choose your ISP, or use VPNs, but you cannot excise greedy marketers who treat you as a product and overreaching three letter agencies who treat you as a criminal from the servers you talk to.
[*]: Average Joe won't be able to set up a proxy server with a local CA and import its CA cert into all clients. And Power Joe won't do it because it hides the endpoint certificate from his view.
HTTP is plain-text, and easy to read in-flight. There are fewer browser restrictions around cross-domain access to HTTP. Tracking HTTP is easy.
HTTPS hides what is sent from middle men.
HTTP allows hiding who accesses the endpoint from the endpoint itself.
These days, the endpoints being monitored and users tracked, quite often by Google (and thus by extension TLAs with access to Google), is a hell of a lot bigger problem than man-in-the-middle.
This is part of Google's larger and welcome push for HTTPS to be used everywhere for greater security.
I think you mean "unwelcome" and "for greater tracking accuracy".
There is little reason for HTTPS to be used for much if not most of the content on the internet. There are reasons to use caching and defeat endpoint trackers, though.
Cats aren't dumb. They just don't give a shit.
Oh, they do. Like in a visitor's shoes.
Our cat doesn't appear to be very bright but it's very lovable.
So is my teddy bear.
Good luck with the library prep in zero G! I'm intrigued to know how well pipetting works in these conditions!
Quite well, I should think. Capillary action, Van der Waal forces and surface tension are incredibly much stronger than gravity. There's no problem preparing a microscope slide upside down, and only mildly problematic sideways (due to a problem they won't have on the ISS).
Heck, even if there was a single pair, that's not exactly a viable population anymore, right?
It could be. Both you and the last dodo are descended from the same first eukaryotic ancestor.
And you don't even need a pair - a single fertilized female can in theory be enough. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Genetic variation is a big plus, but not always required. The cheetah has next to no genetic variation due to an earlier bottleneck. Not to mention the bdelloid rotifers, which are diploid (two sets of chromosomes), but were the males are presumed to be extinct for quite some time now, and all offspring gets only the mother's genes.
Cant call uber? Cant call a taxi? For those extremely hypothetical contingency?
I've taken some long taxi rides before, because of emergencies.
A full tank is $40. A two hour taxi ride is more like $400 negotiated, and Uber around $300, but good luck getting one - they'd rather ride local surge pricing than go on long trips with zero return fares.
You're arguing that this is an issue, when 99.999% of people will never have this problem.
Or to put it another way, 99.999% of people may have this problem. It's adding an unnecessary risk that's the issue. One you simply don't have, even with the cheapest gasoline or hybrid vehicle.
If you belong to the 0.001% that can plan your life completely and know for certain that you can't enter such a situation, you likely have a very boring life too.
There is always "that guy" who needs to drive 300 miles in a day regularly. 305 miles is at least a five hour drive. Do you do that 20% of the time?
20% of the time would be one trip between two work locations every two weeks (because it also involves a return trip). That's not all that uncommon, depending on your position.
But even 95% or 99% of the time would not be good enough. It's the worst case scenarios that's the problem. Say you come back from a long joyride, your batteries are almost flat, and then have to [go to a hospital because a relative was in an accident | go see an important customer the next state over | whatever else comes up] that's a two hour drive away. You can't do it and have to hope that someone can lend you a real car.
It's the uncertainty that's the problem here, because you never know what might come up. But with a regular car, you know that it takes two minutes to fill the tank, and you can do it everywhere, and go everywhere at any time.
The distance between my two work locations is 305 miles.
It should cover that then, but it won't. T\he problem is that the EPA mileage takes into account neither sweltering summer heat nor winter temperatures way below freezing. Especially at really low temperatures, the range of electric cars is severely reduced, as in sometimes only getting half the range.
And then it does not take two minutes to fill it, with stations at pretty much every crossroads. Even if you should be lucky enough to find a "rapid" charging station, it's a long wait, and then you don't even get the same range afterwards, because that range is based on slow charging.
Proponents like to point out that most people don't drive that far most of the time. But I don't want a car that I can only use for 80% of the time, and have to go rent a proper car whenever going far.
Sure electric cars is the future, but hybrids is what makes sense for any foreseeable future. Limping along on gas when the batteries are down is far better than being stuck.
I suggest everyone to use the same image of Jesus, just for kicks.
If Facebook were telling the truth, everyone (and all bots) could indeed use the same image, as long as nobody uploaded it anywhere where it could be scanned by Facebook. Because if they immediately delete the image as they claim, they won't know whether it has been used by others.
However, in reality...
By having felt suicidal, dumbass.
You're assuming feeling suicidal and committing suicide is the same thing. The difference is as big as between attracted to a woman and jumping her bones.
but you can just look at the number of people dying to understand it will not be unusual to encounter someone at risk
"At risk"? That's presuming that it's something to be avoided. You don't know that beforehand. As you yourself say:
know for certain that not everyone's experience is like your own.
That's exactly my point. One person's risk, another person's chance.
Granular Permissions have been in Android since 6.0.
Given that half of all Android users are at lower versions than 6.0, that isn't ultimately helpful.
Google really needs to start forcing vendors to take responsibility, for example by requiring 3 years of OS upgrades before granting a license.
3 years is not too long a lifespan to expect from a phone; while most of us are reasonably well off and can afford to change more often, a lot of people aren't all that affluent, and need to use their phone for several years.
As long as Google allows and encourage companies to release and abandon, this situation with most of the userbase on old and insecure devices just won't improve.
Many years have now passed and there are many times where I feel numb to life but I am glad I am alive for my kids sake and even for my own.
But you did not make the choice to kill yourself, which puts you in a different category from those who did.
Suicide should have a stigma. It is permanent. At the very least, there should be a 5 year pre-registration.
Who gave you a right to decide what's right for others?
Of course it is permanent. That's the whole point.
Being dead is painless and without remorse. Regrets are for the living; the dead are completely unaffected.
The facts is that nearly 50% of suicides are due to clinical depression.
The fact is that what the fact is is seldom clear.
The nearly 50% includes those who have been diagnosed with clinical depression because of their suicidal actions, i.e. a classic example of affirming the consequent. That is a real problem.
Also, "due to" is not necessarily correct. There can be cases where someone suffers from clinical depression but chooses suicide for other reasons. There may be a common cause for both the clinical depression and the suicide, or the two may be unrelated. After all, "nearly 50%" implies that for most suicides, there is no such connection.
Can it be related? Absolutely. Is that a problem? Most certainly.
But it is not a carte blanche to treat everybody as if it were the case. Assuming, without other evidence, that it is due to mental health issues, and then using that assumption to justify overriding the individual's free choice is abhorrent. Freedom means freedom for people to do things that may be a phobia or religious conviction for others. That right needs protection.
My ipad has the opposite problem: it consistently *fails* to capitalise "I" mid-sentence.
If you are multilingual, and one of your languages has the word "i", it's common for autocorrect systems to leave it lower case.
Or you might accidentally have hit the "leave-it-as-is" suggestion displaying "i". If you've done that just once, the word will always be a suggestion until you manually delete it from the list.
But that's not much of a problem compared to the autocorrect on Sony's android devices, which have a strong penchant for replacing anything it's not sure about with the name of obscure English towns. It will never replace mad with Madrid, but it may replace it with Nailsworth, Jarrow or Kingsteington. I can just imagine what went on in Japan, when a Sony employee got sent to the book store to pick up English dictionaries to scan, and one was a booklet with English Towns. It makes it very Hatherleigh to Tiverton at times.
True, but most people who are suicdal do not genuinely want to die as much as they would rather want their living circumstances just to be different from whatever they are
How do you know? I think quite a few people would like a better life than what they have but still would prefer no life, and quite a few others are rationally certain that different living circumstances would in all likelihood be worse than what they have. Especially if they also have to pay huge psychiatric bills, which is the likely outcome of seeking help.
There's also quite a bit of begging the question in modern pseudo-psychology, where people are now conditioned to think that those who try to kill themselves suffer from a mental illness, and they know this because they try to kill themselves.
I think we need to get rid of the suicide stigma, and allow people to do what they want with their own lives, including ending it. Without no interference from well-meaning people who prolong other's suffering or discomfort to feed their own moral beliefs. Let people die with dignity, not shame.
63 years old here. No Facebook. No Twitter. I don't have time for that silly bullshit. Facebook should mind their own business. If someone kills themself, so what. Darwin in action.
"Darwin in action" has no bearing on killing yourself after you are done with procreation; unless you take out your progeny too, it won't affect your genes.
Unfortunately, part of US police scare tactics and abuse is to have you committed to psychiatric evaluation against your will. Even if you're deemed sane, you end up with the bill, which can be quite substantial - five to six figures is to be expected.
Some states had laws making suicide a felony, and some up until the 1990s. If you survived, you could theoretically go to jail for attempted murder of yourself.
I guess that by that logic, the police would be justified in shooting your murderer. You'd die anyhow, but the crime would be prevented.
People who transmit their voice using radio should be educated that they are doing that, not coddled into thinking there is some magic that turns the insecure medium they are using into a secure one. And people who carry devices that they know can be used to track them whereever they go should learn to live with the natural result of their decision, not have artificial legal protections put in place to allow them their convenience while avoiding the results of their decisions.
And people who radiate heat should know that it could be used to track them even through curtains and walls?
I don't think so. There's something known as "a reasonable expectation of privacy". When lawmakers in the 19th century talked about "a walk in the woods" having an expectation of privacy, I'm fairly certain that they didn't mean that you should be free to track their location.
Unless you deliberately broadcast where you are, you should have the expectation that no-one is triangulating traffic the average user may not even knows exists.