You should also try to read the treaty [un.org]. It's not a defence pact.
Sorry, it's not a treaty either. It's an agreement that doesn't obligate the parties to much of anything at all.
It's actually correct to call it a treaty. The link points to a memo, which supplement Ukraine's accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. To read the treaty would also cover reading the memos supplementing it. To link to a memo whose sole purpose is to supplement a treaty and use that particular word as the link's text content seems only logical to me.
But yes, it's just a collection of nice words that whole memo/treaty/agreement.
How hard would it be for those releasing the information to make a few changes here and there to support their political ideology?
Extremely hard. Like AHuxley there pointed out, the emails are signed by domain keys and you and me, and everybody else, can validate the authenticity and integrity of every email that has the DKIM. To say that they would have forged an email in a way that still validates through a DKIM validator, WikiLeaks (or some other party) would've had to have stolen Google's and other domains' private DKIM keys. Mind you that these keys are *extremely* well protected, especially on Google's services.
That being said, to say that Podesta's emails have been forged, you would have to simultaneously argue that *every* email sent from e.g. Google's email servers are potentially forged or subject to forgery right now. If Google, for example, believed this to be true, they'd be changing their keys right now.
Indeed. He seems to have sent "illicit messages" to a 15-year-old girl. The FBI has reportedly confiscated both Abedin's and Weiner's phones and this is how they came to know about more possible evidence in the Hillary Clinton email case.
Here in Europe companies, especially major ones, generally stay out of politics. They endorse certain policies, but stop short of endorsing politicians or parties. It's a good approach that keeps employees and customers happy, since they represent a wide range of ideologies and backgrounds. Having the media and corporations so strongly divided into opposing camps only degrades the quality politics and surrounding conversations.
Now there's a rotten story that never stops smelling. I suppose they are/were both "strong personas" that had a temper tantrum and the other one ragequit. Assange has his personality problems too, but deleting the information they possibly had was a loss for everyone.
Whenever I see this, I have to say: conspiracy theories are theories only as long as they're not proven to be true. Granted, the OP's assumption that the "media is trying to hide serious corruption" is too wide to be ever really proven to be true, but if it was narrowed down to for example, "some of the major media outlets have been conspiring with...", then it could be shown to be true.
We know, after all, that Mrs. Clinton did receive debate questions beforehand, which alone would satisfy this. However, there have been media outlets that have reported it, which means that in the form OP mentioned it, the "conspiracy" would not be true. The latter would.
It's not just a few CAs, it's the whole system. The CA system is built on trust and there has been no trust left in the system in years. The whole idea of encrypted communications between web browsers and web servers needs to be reworked and somehow decentralized so that rogue CAs will eventually die out.
There's also ecosystem vs. ecosystem, and Android-based phone manufacturers obviously differentiate their products' Android installations and thus provide differing user experiences.
When you serve a web page, the HTML markup and JavaScript is only part of the output the server generates. This output, including the markup and actual text/image content, is served to the people visiting a website, not the code that generates the output.
By having to license the output, everyone visiting a web page would have full commercial rights to the web page's content. Imagine your web page contained a novel text: anyone visiting that page could grab that novel and sell it under a GPL license. This was the issue I was replying to, and said it was not so; the output of a program licensed under GPL is not automatically licensed under GPL also.
So if I completely misunderstood your joke, please correct me. But it makes no sense to me as it is because the source code of a website and the output of that code are two completely different things.
If you share your website's full backend source on every download, you're doing something terribly wrong.
So those with something "truly intelligent to say" do not deserve to be paid for their time?
They don't deserve anything. They can make their own success, however, by selling books, coffee mugs and whatnot. Or sell nothing, go to work and still do it.
I'm probably not the most objective voice around this topic because I have great negative feelings toward advertisers in general.
That would be akin to saying that every web page served from a server using GPLv2 licensed Linux kernel would automatically be licensed under the same license. Or that every program compiled using a GPL licensed compilers would automatically be licensed under GPL, too. The makers of many popular GPL-licensed programs also alleviate "license scaremongering" by the use of additional permissions.
Your comment was an obvious joke, but it's not to say that many people *do*, erroneously, think like that.
I don't like the whole idea of monetizing your "important messages to the public". If you have something truly intelligent and important to say, you'll find a way to say it without sucking the teats of ad companies trying to sell garbage to idiots. I agree that too much power is being consolidated under the Google umbrella, but that's a whole different story.
I've used a lot of Android devices, and still use them with my current Galaxy S5 running CM13. It's obvious that despite all Apple's shortcomings in its walled garden approach, their ecosystem is a lot more unified and provides a consistent user experience compared to Android-based phone manufacturers. Among Android devices, I have to say Samsung's blend of Android is definitely one of the worst. The UI is broken, inconsistent garbage and it takes a very long time to turn off all the on-by-default annoyances that the phone keeps reminding of all the time. Simple things like connecting to a wifi hotspot is a pain in the ass if you have a "recognized" network in the range, too.
No, in the end, security is a pain in someone's ass.
That's how every CSO/CISO seems to feel, too. They get paid for dealing with IT/infosec issues and yet have this insane hostility when you tell them there's a security issue. And they get even more hostile when you tell them the vulnerability you reported to them a year ago just got exploited.:-)
What made you think I was thinking about "European-English" news only?
Because that's the only way your argument would have made even some sense to me. I can hardly relate to what you said otherwise. When I read Swedish news and compare them to just about any news outlet in the US, the difference in standpoints in reporting is extremely visible. Even the most liberal ones in the US seem like right-wing publications when you compare them to left-leaning Swedish counterparts.
There is not much difference between the European angle and the American angle.
You're only thinking about European-English news now. There's plenty of difference in the general European and American angle. I read Swedish, Finnish, German and British news quite often and the contrast with American news is yuuge.
The news sites you mentioned give other angles, yes, but the OP mentioned not getting European news from American sources, hence the vice versa reference.
It's not that. I want to open up my code base and let people use it, even commercially. I just want them to release any changes they make to the code I've worked on, not any other code that's unrelated to the code I've worked on. How this works with web servers is far from clear when it comes to using GPLv2 and GPLv3.
You know, people can't really go and grab someone's code and use it without caring for how it's licensed. I want to provide all of my code under a proper license so that people can freely use it, but choosing the right license is a difficult.
How does GPLv2 fit the web server world? Imagine you have a JS library licensed under GPLv2; what will be the implications of using such for the rest of the site's code? I imagine I could use my own GPLv2'd code without much concern, but if anyone else used it, they'd, in principle, have to open up their whole code base after that.
Or that might not be the case. But then again that *is* the problem as nobody really knows how it works in normal circumstances. Going with BSD is simple because it's a very, very easy license to understand. You just slap it on your code and it can be used in pretty much any way anybody wants without giving it too much thought. Just mention the original author(s) somewhere in your application and everything's fine.
Slashdot Mirror
You should also try to read the treaty [un.org]. It's not a defence pact.
Sorry, it's not a treaty either. It's an agreement that doesn't obligate the parties to much of anything at all.
It's actually correct to call it a treaty. The link points to a memo, which supplement Ukraine's accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. To read the treaty would also cover reading the memos supplementing it. To link to a memo whose sole purpose is to supplement a treaty and use that particular word as the link's text content seems only logical to me.
But yes, it's just a collection of nice words that whole memo/treaty/agreement.
I first read they're "going to fuel rockets with people abroad".
How hard would it be for those releasing the information to make a few changes here and there to support their political ideology?
Extremely hard. Like AHuxley there pointed out, the emails are signed by domain keys and you and me, and everybody else, can validate the authenticity and integrity of every email that has the DKIM. To say that they would have forged an email in a way that still validates through a DKIM validator, WikiLeaks (or some other party) would've had to have stolen Google's and other domains' private DKIM keys. Mind you that these keys are *extremely* well protected, especially on Google's services.
That being said, to say that Podesta's emails have been forged, you would have to simultaneously argue that *every* email sent from e.g. Google's email servers are potentially forged or subject to forgery right now. If Google, for example, believed this to be true, they'd be changing their keys right now.
I manage a network of 150 Ubuntu desktops.
Out of curiosity, what are you using for centralized management?
Of course, and that's what warrants FBI's involvement.
Indeed. He seems to have sent "illicit messages" to a 15-year-old girl. The FBI has reportedly confiscated both Abedin's and Weiner's phones and this is how they came to know about more possible evidence in the Hillary Clinton email case.
Here in Europe companies, especially major ones, generally stay out of politics. They endorse certain policies, but stop short of endorsing politicians or parties. It's a good approach that keeps employees and customers happy, since they represent a wide range of ideologies and backgrounds. Having the media and corporations so strongly divided into opposing camps only degrades the quality politics and surrounding conversations.
Now there's a rotten story that never stops smelling. I suppose they are/were both "strong personas" that had a temper tantrum and the other one ragequit. Assange has his personality problems too, but deleting the information they possibly had was a loss for everyone.
Conspiracy theory clap trap.
Whenever I see this, I have to say: conspiracy theories are theories only as long as they're not proven to be true. Granted, the OP's assumption that the "media is trying to hide serious corruption" is too wide to be ever really proven to be true, but if it was narrowed down to for example, "some of the major media outlets have been conspiring with...", then it could be shown to be true.
We know, after all, that Mrs. Clinton did receive debate questions beforehand, which alone would satisfy this. However, there have been media outlets that have reported it, which means that in the form OP mentioned it, the "conspiracy" would not be true. The latter would.
You can start measuring them in cubic inches now. :-)
It's not just a few CAs, it's the whole system. The CA system is built on trust and there has been no trust left in the system in years. The whole idea of encrypted communications between web browsers and web servers needs to be reworked and somehow decentralized so that rogue CAs will eventually die out.
There's also ecosystem vs. ecosystem, and Android-based phone manufacturers obviously differentiate their products' Android installations and thus provide differing user experiences.
When you serve a web page, the HTML markup and JavaScript is only part of the output the server generates. This output, including the markup and actual text/image content, is served to the people visiting a website, not the code that generates the output.
By having to license the output, everyone visiting a web page would have full commercial rights to the web page's content. Imagine your web page contained a novel text: anyone visiting that page could grab that novel and sell it under a GPL license. This was the issue I was replying to, and said it was not so; the output of a program licensed under GPL is not automatically licensed under GPL also.
So if I completely misunderstood your joke, please correct me. But it makes no sense to me as it is because the source code of a website and the output of that code are two completely different things.
If you share your website's full backend source on every download, you're doing something terribly wrong.
So those with something "truly intelligent to say" do not deserve to be paid for their time?
They don't deserve anything. They can make their own success, however, by selling books, coffee mugs and whatnot. Or sell nothing, go to work and still do it.
I'm probably not the most objective voice around this topic because I have great negative feelings toward advertisers in general.
That would be akin to saying that every web page served from a server using GPLv2 licensed Linux kernel would automatically be licensed under the same license. Or that every program compiled using a GPL licensed compilers would automatically be licensed under GPL, too. The makers of many popular GPL-licensed programs also alleviate "license scaremongering" by the use of additional permissions.
Your comment was an obvious joke, but it's not to say that many people *do*, erroneously, think like that.
I don't like the whole idea of monetizing your "important messages to the public". If you have something truly intelligent and important to say, you'll find a way to say it without sucking the teats of ad companies trying to sell garbage to idiots. I agree that too much power is being consolidated under the Google umbrella, but that's a whole different story.
I've used a lot of Android devices, and still use them with my current Galaxy S5 running CM13. It's obvious that despite all Apple's shortcomings in its walled garden approach, their ecosystem is a lot more unified and provides a consistent user experience compared to Android-based phone manufacturers. Among Android devices, I have to say Samsung's blend of Android is definitely one of the worst. The UI is broken, inconsistent garbage and it takes a very long time to turn off all the on-by-default annoyances that the phone keeps reminding of all the time. Simple things like connecting to a wifi hotspot is a pain in the ass if you have a "recognized" network in the range, too.
No, in the end, security is a pain in someone's ass.
That's how every CSO/CISO seems to feel, too. They get paid for dealing with IT/infosec issues and yet have this insane hostility when you tell them there's a security issue. And they get even more hostile when you tell them the vulnerability you reported to them a year ago just got exploited. :-)
What made you think I was thinking about "European-English" news only?
Because that's the only way your argument would have made even some sense to me. I can hardly relate to what you said otherwise. When I read Swedish news and compare them to just about any news outlet in the US, the difference in standpoints in reporting is extremely visible. Even the most liberal ones in the US seem like right-wing publications when you compare them to left-leaning Swedish counterparts.
There is not much difference between the European angle and the American angle.
You're only thinking about European-English news now. There's plenty of difference in the general European and American angle. I read Swedish, Finnish, German and British news quite often and the contrast with American news is yuuge.
The news sites you mentioned give other angles, yes, but the OP mentioned not getting European news from American sources, hence the vice versa reference.
And from European news you don't usually get the American angle. It's good to read both to understand both sides of the coin.
This was very informative, I'll have to read up on it.
It's not that. I want to open up my code base and let people use it, even commercially. I just want them to release any changes they make to the code I've worked on, not any other code that's unrelated to the code I've worked on. How this works with web servers is far from clear when it comes to using GPLv2 and GPLv3.
You know, people can't really go and grab someone's code and use it without caring for how it's licensed. I want to provide all of my code under a proper license so that people can freely use it, but choosing the right license is a difficult.
How does GPLv2 fit the web server world? Imagine you have a JS library licensed under GPLv2; what will be the implications of using such for the rest of the site's code? I imagine I could use my own GPLv2'd code without much concern, but if anyone else used it, they'd, in principle, have to open up their whole code base after that.
Or that might not be the case. But then again that *is* the problem as nobody really knows how it works in normal circumstances. Going with BSD is simple because it's a very, very easy license to understand. You just slap it on your code and it can be used in pretty much any way anybody wants without giving it too much thought. Just mention the original author(s) somewhere in your application and everything's fine.
How will this affect bcrypt? Will the algo need to be redesigned?