BCC recipients are not shown to anybody. However, BCC recipients will see the other (non BCC) recipients. So yes, the above scenarios could happen (... unless the boss' e-mail client is smart enough to put up a warning when replying to a Bcc'ed mail...)
Your mom doesn't cause your server to broadcast your ssh password to the world. It's still safe for you to use ssh, even if your mom doesn't
However, the "facebook mindset" causes Bcc'ed people not to notice that they are bcc'ed, and so they may goof up where they shouldn't. Which makes Bcc a dangerous feature to use if you don't know for 150% percent sure whether the Bcc'ed guy is still a true geek, or has fallen into the "facebook mindset".
I don't trust Verisign neither, that doesn't mean i remove it's root certificate,
Surprise: as long as you keep trusting Verisign's root certificate, they are in a position to facilitate man-in-the-middle attacks on you communicating with any SSL website, even those that were signed with a different CA to begin with.
a valid certificate is not sign to blindly trust the other end of the connection.
... and that's not the point of a certificate.
The point of a certificate is that you can trust the connection (i.e. that no third party listens in), it has zilch to do about trusting the other end of the connection (i.e. that the website isn't trying to rip you off).
owning a legit certificate is no guarantee that the business holden the certificate is legit.
And it was never supposed to be. Just like a tamper-proof phone line is no guarantee that everybody with whom you speak over that line is trustworthy.
Certificates only makes sure that no unauthorized third party listens in on your communication with the certificate-protected website. It doesn't say nothing (and really nothing) about the trustworthiness of the website itself.
I don't trust locks, they can be picked. I just leave all my doors unlocked because they're pointless anyway.
Actually, with shoddy locks, only those things that they lock can be compromised.
If you've got a shoddy lock on your luggage, it doesn't compromise the security of your front door and vice-versa.
With CA's, it's worse: if you're trusting one bad CA in your browser, this not only compromises communications with sites signed by that CA, but communication with any SSL site.
Indeed, if your bank is signed by Geotrust, a man-in-the-middle could just bribe (or trick) Verisign to give him a certificate for your bank (signed by Verisign), and your browser would accept it (unless you've got the certpatrol addon, which warns you if certificates change issuer for no good reason).
How do you know that no known priors even lives in the US? Maybe he is posting that from the safety of Europe, and never intends to travel to the US? And moreover, Slashdot respects its users' privacy, and will never hand over details to the SS. The only entity that they ever hand details over to are the clams
Yes, that's right: you get into more trouble saying that a galactic despot named Xenu decided 75 million years ago to kill a bunch of people by chaining them to volcanoes and dropping nuclear bombs on them, than saying that you will kill Obama using some poisoned feijoada during his visit to Brazil in March.
They either pay another contract to have this looked at or get this work looked at for free by the licensing board.
In many places of the world, they would just go back to the first contractor (the one who did the plan without traffic lights), and would ask him "is there any value in this proposal by a group of concerned citizens, and is it better or worse than your own proposal", and the first contractor would of course reply that its own proposal is the best.
And that even if the concerned citizen was actually a PE (albeit a retired one). But you can always label him and his supporters as fascists, the sheeple will buy it...
It's a pass the buck move.. IF a PE recommends they do something and they do it and it turns out to get someone killed then the blame falls back on the PE
but if they have to actually do their job of evaluating the data instead of just passing the buck and they do it based on his data - he isn't a PE but they are.. so the blame falls with them.
But in any case, he was acting in his quality of "concerned citizen", not in his quality of PE (even if he was one).
If I as a PE make an offhanded remark about a public transport project to a member of parliament in a pub, and the project is indeed amended, I hope I cannot be held responsible if an accident happens during construction... that would be rather chilling, wouldn't it?
The PE should only be responsible if he officially "signs off" on the project, not if he just happened to contribute one part to it.
my habit of kneeling (to spare my back) when looking over the shoulder of someone to his desktop screen
Wow, you must be a pretty tall guy then...
Or did you just mipsel when looking between the legs of someone to his desktop screen... in which case I might understand (if you did it to everybody except to your boss, so he might have felt left out...)
in the end I was not out any legal fees and I agreed to remove the review and never mention the author, or publisher, in writing, again.
You agreed to not mention author, publisher etc. However, your students may. Or your hairdresser, to which you mentioned it casually before that agreement may. Or your wife, or...
And many of these people might plausibly share your IP (your students if the school has one big NAT, your wife if you share the same computer)...
And, as far as I know, Slashdot accepts hotmail and yahoo addresses to create accounts. Or your student (or wife) might just post as an anonymous coward.
Actually, in this case here, the Streisand effect might actually help the "victim". People become curious, and want to see with their own eyes (and taste with their own palate) how bad it really is. Ok, so those won't be repeat customers, but it's still money in the cash drawer...
Slashdot Mirror
It is CC that should be killed off.
CC is useful in situation where you actually want reply-all to work. Such as, a group of friends discussing what to do on the weekend.
BCC recipients are not shown to anybody. However, BCC recipients will see the other (non BCC) recipients. So yes, the above scenarios could happen (... unless the boss' e-mail client is smart enough to put up a warning when replying to a Bcc'ed mail...)
However, the "facebook mindset" causes Bcc'ed people not to notice that they are bcc'ed, and so they may goof up where they shouldn't. Which makes Bcc a dangerous feature to use if you don't know for 150% percent sure whether the Bcc'ed guy is still a true geek, or has fallen into the "facebook mindset".
Tiny as compared to the size of my dick, that is.
There;s a difference between trusting them to give out certificates and trusting them with your personal data
Not if you connect via SSL to a site that manages your personal data.
I don't trust Verisign neither, that doesn't mean i remove it's root certificate,
Surprise: as long as you keep trusting Verisign's root certificate, they are in a position to facilitate man-in-the-middle attacks on you communicating with any SSL website, even those that were signed with a different CA to begin with.
a valid certificate is not sign to blindly trust the other end of the connection.
... and that's not the point of a certificate.
The point of a certificate is that you can trust the connection (i.e. that no third party listens in), it has zilch to do about trusting the other end of the connection (i.e. that the website isn't trying to rip you off).
owning a legit certificate is no guarantee that the business holden the certificate is legit.
And it was never supposed to be. Just like a tamper-proof phone line is no guarantee that everybody with whom you speak over that line is trustworthy.
Certificates only makes sure that no unauthorized third party listens in on your communication with the certificate-protected website. It doesn't say nothing (and really nothing) about the trustworthiness of the website itself.
I don't trust locks, they can be picked. I just leave all my doors unlocked because they're pointless anyway.
Actually, with shoddy locks, only those things that they lock can be compromised.
If you've got a shoddy lock on your luggage, it doesn't compromise the security of your front door and vice-versa.
With CA's, it's worse: if you're trusting one bad CA in your browser, this not only compromises communications with sites signed by that CA, but communication with any SSL site.
Indeed, if your bank is signed by Geotrust, a man-in-the-middle could just bribe (or trick) Verisign to give him a certificate for your bank (signed by Verisign), and your browser would accept it (unless you've got the certpatrol addon, which warns you if certificates change issuer for no good reason).
So basically organizations that do business with consumers would be allowed to scan the consumer PC. Great idea...
Clean virtual machines.
Now, how will the moon react against this blatant trademark infringment?
Farts... now available also where the sun does shine...
A solar fart.
... a much more interesting occurrence than the far more usual lunar farts.
Of course its bad!
Sure it is. Indeed, farting should only be done by the moon!
Enjoy the SS visit.
How do you know that no known priors even lives in the US? Maybe he is posting that from the safety of Europe, and never intends to travel to the US? And moreover, Slashdot respects its users' privacy, and will never hand over details to the SS. The only entity that they ever hand details over to are the clams
Yes, that's right: you get into more trouble saying that a galactic despot named Xenu decided 75 million years ago to kill a bunch of people by chaining them to volcanoes and dropping nuclear bombs on them, than saying that you will kill Obama using some poisoned feijoada during his visit to Brazil in March.
Small donation of 2k would and it would be done by the end of the month.
Except that the construction firm already gave 200k, and your 2k are peanuts in comparison...
And normally there is a small orange blinking light with a pedestrian on it to warn cars of this.
They either pay another contract to have this looked at or get this work looked at for free by the licensing board.
In many places of the world, they would just go back to the first contractor (the one who did the plan without traffic lights), and would ask him "is there any value in this proposal by a group of concerned citizens, and is it better or worse than your own proposal", and the first contractor would of course reply that its own proposal is the best.
And that even if the concerned citizen was actually a PE (albeit a retired one). But you can always label him and his supporters as fascists, the sheeple will buy it...
It's a pass the buck move.. IF a PE recommends they do something and they do it and it turns out to get someone killed then the blame falls back on the PE
but if they have to actually do their job of evaluating the data instead of just passing the buck and they do it based on his data - he isn't a PE but they are.. so the blame falls with them.
But in any case, he was acting in his quality of "concerned citizen", not in his quality of PE (even if he was one).
If I as a PE make an offhanded remark about a public transport project to a member of parliament in a pub, and the project is indeed amended, I hope I cannot be held responsible if an accident happens during construction... that would be rather chilling, wouldn't it?
The PE should only be responsible if he officially "signs off" on the project, not if he just happened to contribute one part to it.
You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs
Or, more appropriately: You can't make an omelet without cooking a few eggs
my habit of kneeling (to spare my back) when looking over the shoulder of someone to his desktop screen
Wow, you must be a pretty tall guy then...
Or did you just mipsel when looking between the legs of someone to his desktop screen... in which case I might understand (if you did it to everybody except to your boss, so he might have felt left out...)
in the end I was not out any legal fees and I agreed to remove the review and never mention the author, or publisher, in writing, again.
You agreed to not mention author, publisher etc. However, your students may. Or your hairdresser, to which you mentioned it casually before that agreement may. Or your wife, or...
And many of these people might plausibly share your IP (your students if the school has one big NAT, your wife if you share the same computer)...
And, as far as I know, Slashdot accepts hotmail and yahoo addresses to create accounts. Or your student (or wife) might just post as an anonymous coward.
If I think your corned beef tastes like corned crap
Doesn't it always?
Color Benihana Streisand.
Hehe, would have been funnier if it was undercooked duck , rather than chicken.
few of us live in Kuwait so a boycott might be less effective.
It's a worldwide franchise. So, boycott it where you live (if you have one in town), and then send the corporate office a letter why you are doing so.
He said it was becuase it was undercooked raw,
Couldn't he just have handed it back to the chef, so that he puts it back on the grill for a couple more minutes?
he's accused Benihana of trying to poison/kill people
well, it's not as if they had tried to serve him German chicken ... would have been far too expensive to haul it all the way from Germany to Kuwait.
Actually, in this case here, the Streisand effect might actually help the "victim". People become curious, and want to see with their own eyes (and taste with their own palate) how bad it really is. Ok, so those won't be repeat customers, but it's still money in the cash drawer...