It doesn't eat holes. Contrary to popular belief, capsacin is not an acid or something that damages tissue at all. It stimulates your pain receptors directly and causes a kind of simulated pain. Personally, as an addicted person, I can tell you that you need your food just a little hotter each time to keep getting the endorphine rush, which is why people get to the point of eating jolokia peppers, imo.
I believe the hotness in black pepper is different, but it's not a pepper at all. Nearly all other food hotness (unless you count horse radish) is going to be solanaceae, and therefore capsaicin.
There are projects looking for changes in the constants, cosmologically speaking. It's not something they haven't thought about, it's just really hard to detect. Nobody knows if this is the case and it's surely not ruled out, nor assumed to be constant everywhere, but it surely seems to be everywhere local to us.
Choosing to use and trust Spamhaus is a completely voluntary activity by companies that don't wish to receive spam. It is usually only one of many strategies people use to try to block spam. Most use it simply as advice for scoring, some us it to block smtp from hosts completely. Whatever.
If spamhaus gets it wrong too often (and they do make mistakes) then people will stop using it. There's little any authority can do about it though. Spamhaus publishes its opinion and others choose to follow it. Are they going to make laws against publishing opinions? The only way really to fight this would be to show that spamhaus is failing somehow in its mission. Personally, I suspect that if spamhaus says it's a spam haven, that it very probably is. If it is not, they'll eventually get delisted. End of story. My ISP has been listed before. It was not a mistake on their end, but on mine. It was a simple matter to fix the problems and get delisted. At the end of the processes I was thankful for the free opinion publishing service they provide.
(Didn't really finish my thought: So if the OEM adds its own notary, you don't really lose anything as long as there's a couple others on the list too.)
Right now there's only one notary... er, two... But later, if this catches on at all, there'd be like 30 or a thousand... and your client would probably pick randomly the first time. And if one failed, you'd just skip that one and use another (depending on your settings of course). I can imagine a hundred ways around the scalability problems (in your browser anyway).
Actually, Moxie talks about what happens if some of your notaries are untrusted. Since the FBI or the credit card thief will never know which notaries you're using, even the sinister answers from evil notaries are still helpful -- they won't agree with the good guy notaries, nor even with the other evil notaries.
You're probably right. I have no idea how OSCP actually works, just nebulous ideas about how it probably functions. I don't think it changes much with respect to my (er, moxie's) arguments though. Who really has this turned on anyway? How does it solve the trust problems inherent with the CA-SSL model?
Local caching is a personal decision and it's a setting even in the prototype. You can choose to cache, or not. You can choose your notaries, or use the defaults. You can also choose between simple majority and any member failure and some other things. The entire point is that the trust is in YOUR hands, not in some organization you've never heard of, or heard of but don't wish to 100% trust, forever (eg verisign, dhs, comodo).
There are problems with this approach, but they're no worse than the CA-SSL model. In fact, they're quite a bit more survivable. And anyway, the idea is young. It will get better.
Regarding revocations. Do you really (honestly) subscribe to any revocation lists now? I've done this in the past, but I haven't done it for years and I care about this topic very much. The problem is the same with CA-SSL vs Convergence-SSL only with convergence you can sometimes detect the problem and with CA-SSL, you'll almost never spot it. Really, if someone gets a fake cert from a CA, there's nothing you can do to detect it under CA-SSL. If they steal a cert from your favorite website, and the owners happen to notice, they'll make a new cert, issue a revocation that *NOBODY* checks and then there you go, you won't notice. Convergence will ask the notaries about it when it doesn't match the cache.
In the rather extreme case where all your connections are owned byThe Man, they happen to have a fake cert (stolen or legit, like from DHS), and they happen to know you have it in your cache (for the stolen case); then the two approaches come out sorta the same: there's really no way for you to detect it.
But I think in most situations convergence will do a better job. Firstly, the man won't know what notories you're using (well, today there's only two that I know of) and second, they won't know what you have cached. If we moved to DNSSEC, The Man only needs to provide for you some fake dns responses, signed completely legitimately by '.',.org. or whomever they've (theoretically) strong armed into cooperating.
I used to be in favor of patching things with DNSSEC, until I thought about it. I didn't really think about it until I saw moxie's blackhat talk. I happened to see it live, but not at blackhat. It's great. I think it's also a bulletproof argument against the CAs and DNSSEC. The protocol itself can be fixed (the security attack), but the current CA system pretty much can't be in a way that would satisfy me after seeing the talk.
Unless the scanner didn't know the virus yet. I think you'll find that they don't know about anything from the last month or so. If you check virus total with the various binaries you collect on a mail server, you'll find that literally *most* of them don't get caught in any consistent way by any majority of the virus scanners listed there. It's not just that virus scanners suck, it's that the don't work for anything but the oldest stuff. So I hope UAC can do the job and it isn't a userspace malware setup.
There may be a way around that with the PKI aspects I was talking about. It may be possible to choose to lose verifiability if you're in an inimitable situation. I'm not saying there aren't problems with this, but they're no worse than what we have now and what we have now doesn't work at all in a digital age. May as well not bother with voting and just have some kind of realtime polls on cnn.
Laws can be changed. I think the possibility of vote buying is worth it when compared to the feeling that my vote was never counted at all and no way to check it.
It seems to me that if each voter had a few bits of crypto they could roll in to the vote then they could later verify that their vote was counted correctly. You could aggregate the vote up as you go, so it's not like you'd need to roll the 500 million sigs into the national vote. Verify that you were included in your district, compare the fingerprint to the one included at the national level. There's tons of details I haven't thought of, obviously, but I think this could be made to work. Most people would not check to make sure their vote was counted correctly, but many would and that would be enough.
In short: leave the trust in the hands of the people and make the vote workers simply stewards of the crypto pile.
Make fake facebook user with 0 friends, 0 info, 0 statuses, and 0 pictures. Use a fake name too if it suits you. John Bimblethorpenheimer. Problem solved. They can't invade your privacy if they don't know anything about you.
I have the family everything data plan. There is no 3g cap, except for tethering and for their usb dongles, which is ridiculously low. Your plan may differ, but I have never had a cap on 3g or 2g or any other g. I have called to confirm this every year or so, and even did so barely a month ago. There is no cap. And the new caps only apply to the hotspot feature, which is so overpriced no reasonable person would get it anyway. It's meant to milk cash off wealthy travelers, near as I can tell.
It's getting popular with educated people as an ironic word to use. It's also, most definitely a word, it's just an uneducated one. I expect this use was the ironic one, not the uneducated one.
It may surprise you to learn that many of the words we think of as totally acceptable were once like irregardless. Turns out, a few decades of ironic use (or even incorrect use) make it into a new word. I expect decimate will mean devastate shortly, if it doesn't already. I also expect FDA to be an acronym, if it isn't already. Those are the two that really bug me personally, but you pretty much have to let it go. The English you're accustomed to is also in use all over the world. I'm starting to hear some Indian idioms creep into US English from time to time. They make little sense to me sometimes. "Please do the needful." I'm hopeful it's some time before we're using that here in Michigan. WTF is that?
Slashdot Mirror
If you have an allergy to nightshades (pretty dang common), you're probably getting mucous production in the small intestines.
It doesn't eat holes. Contrary to popular belief, capsacin is not an acid or something that damages tissue at all. It stimulates your pain receptors directly and causes a kind of simulated pain. Personally, as an addicted person, I can tell you that you need your food just a little hotter each time to keep getting the endorphine rush, which is why people get to the point of eating jolokia peppers, imo.
I believe the hotness in black pepper is different, but it's not a pepper at all. Nearly all other food hotness (unless you count horse radish) is going to be solanaceae, and therefore capsaicin.
There are projects looking for changes in the constants, cosmologically speaking. It's not something they haven't thought about, it's just really hard to detect. Nobody knows if this is the case and it's surely not ruled out, nor assumed to be constant everywhere, but it surely seems to be everywhere local to us.
If spamhaus honestly believed it, I doubt they have a case.
Choosing to use and trust Spamhaus is a completely voluntary activity by companies that don't wish to receive spam. It is usually only one of many strategies people use to try to block spam. Most use it simply as advice for scoring, some us it to block smtp from hosts completely. Whatever.
If spamhaus gets it wrong too often (and they do make mistakes) then people will stop using it. There's little any authority can do about it though. Spamhaus publishes its opinion and others choose to follow it. Are they going to make laws against publishing opinions? The only way really to fight this would be to show that spamhaus is failing somehow in its mission. Personally, I suspect that if spamhaus says it's a spam haven, that it very probably is. If it is not, they'll eventually get delisted. End of story. My ISP has been listed before. It was not a mistake on their end, but on mine. It was a simple matter to fix the problems and get delisted. At the end of the processes I was thankful for the free opinion publishing service they provide.
(Didn't really finish my thought: So if the OEM adds its own notary, you don't really lose anything as long as there's a couple others on the list too.)
Right now there's only one notary... er, two ... But later, if this catches on at all, there'd be like 30 or a thousand... and your client would probably pick randomly the first time. And if one failed, you'd just skip that one and use another (depending on your settings of course). I can imagine a hundred ways around the scalability problems (in your browser anyway).
Actually, Moxie talks about what happens if some of your notaries are untrusted. Since the FBI or the credit card thief will never know which notaries you're using, even the sinister answers from evil notaries are still helpful -- they won't agree with the good guy notaries, nor even with the other evil notaries.
You're probably right. I have no idea how OSCP actually works, just nebulous ideas about how it probably functions. I don't think it changes much with respect to my (er, moxie's) arguments though. Who really has this turned on anyway? How does it solve the trust problems inherent with the CA-SSL model?
Local caching is a personal decision and it's a setting even in the prototype. You can choose to cache, or not. You can choose your notaries, or use the defaults. You can also choose between simple majority and any member failure and some other things. The entire point is that the trust is in YOUR hands, not in some organization you've never heard of, or heard of but don't wish to 100% trust, forever (eg verisign, dhs, comodo).
There are problems with this approach, but they're no worse than the CA-SSL model. In fact, they're quite a bit more survivable. And anyway, the idea is young. It will get better.
Regarding revocations. Do you really (honestly) subscribe to any revocation lists now? I've done this in the past, but I haven't done it for years and I care about this topic very much. The problem is the same with CA-SSL vs Convergence-SSL only with convergence you can sometimes detect the problem and with CA-SSL, you'll almost never spot it. Really, if someone gets a fake cert from a CA, there's nothing you can do to detect it under CA-SSL. If they steal a cert from your favorite website, and the owners happen to notice, they'll make a new cert, issue a revocation that *NOBODY* checks and then there you go, you won't notice. Convergence will ask the notaries about it when it doesn't match the cache.
In the rather extreme case where all your connections are owned byThe Man, they happen to have a fake cert (stolen or legit, like from DHS), and they happen to know you have it in your cache (for the stolen case); then the two approaches come out sorta the same: there's really no way for you to detect it.
But I think in most situations convergence will do a better job. Firstly, the man won't know what notories you're using (well, today there's only two that I know of) and second, they won't know what you have cached. If we moved to DNSSEC, The Man only needs to provide for you some fake dns responses, signed completely legitimately by '.', .org. or whomever they've (theoretically) strong armed into cooperating.
I used to be in favor of patching things with DNSSEC, until I thought about it. I didn't really think about it until I saw moxie's blackhat talk. I happened to see it live, but not at blackhat. It's great. I think it's also a bulletproof argument against the CAs and DNSSEC. The protocol itself can be fixed (the security attack), but the current CA system pretty much can't be in a way that would satisfy me after seeing the talk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA
http://convergence.io/ (this is only a prototype, it could be rolled into openssl or whatever, with caveats, some day)
Unless the scanner didn't know the virus yet. I think you'll find that they don't know about anything from the last month or so. If you check virus total with the various binaries you collect on a mail server, you'll find that literally *most* of them don't get caught in any consistent way by any majority of the virus scanners listed there. It's not just that virus scanners suck, it's that the don't work for anything but the oldest stuff. So I hope UAC can do the job and it isn't a userspace malware setup.
Dunno much about islam, but the bible sends kindof a mixed message on violence.
It's legal but actionable. You can sue for "malicious prosecution." personally, I think they have a case... but I wouldn't' know.
I meant intimidatable, which isn't a word, so it became an incorrect word use. Please excuse me.
There may be a way around that with the PKI aspects I was talking about. It may be possible to choose to lose verifiability if you're in an inimitable situation. I'm not saying there aren't problems with this, but they're no worse than what we have now and what we have now doesn't work at all in a digital age. May as well not bother with voting and just have some kind of realtime polls on cnn.
Laws can be changed. I think the possibility of vote buying is worth it when compared to the feeling that my vote was never counted at all and no way to check it.
In short: leave the trust in the hands of the people and make the vote workers simply stewards of the crypto pile.
Nevertheless, I have little doubt that this sort of thing would not stand up to a supreme court challenge even under this corporate friendly nine.
Pretty sure you don't need a permit to protest. Pretty sure that's constitutionally protected.
Make fake facebook user with 0 friends, 0 info, 0 statuses, and 0 pictures. Use a fake name too if it suits you. John Bimblethorpenheimer. Problem solved. They can't invade your privacy if they don't know anything about you.
I have the family everything data plan. There is no 3g cap, except for tethering and for their usb dongles, which is ridiculously low. Your plan may differ, but I have never had a cap on 3g or 2g or any other g. I have called to confirm this every year or so, and even did so barely a month ago. There is no cap. And the new caps only apply to the hotspot feature, which is so overpriced no reasonable person would get it anyway. It's meant to milk cash off wealthy travelers, near as I can tell.
The regular phone usage is still unlimited ... this is only the tethering that they're talking about.
I'm particularly fond of "completely decimated" as if that were possible.
It's getting popular with educated people as an ironic word to use. It's also, most definitely a word, it's just an uneducated one. I expect this use was the ironic one, not the uneducated one.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/irregardless
It may surprise you to learn that many of the words we think of as totally acceptable were once like irregardless. Turns out, a few decades of ironic use (or even incorrect use) make it into a new word. I expect decimate will mean devastate shortly, if it doesn't already. I also expect FDA to be an acronym, if it isn't already. Those are the two that really bug me personally, but you pretty much have to let it go. The English you're accustomed to is also in use all over the world. I'm starting to hear some Indian idioms creep into US English from time to time. They make little sense to me sometimes. "Please do the needful." I'm hopeful it's some time before we're using that here in Michigan. WTF is that?