It used to be noticeably slower to access a site via https than by http, even accessing the same page.
However, now we have server processors which operate in the GHz, and which run in multiples. Heck, we have that even for tiny home PCs and now phones. Servers are apt to be instances on clusters or clouds these days. So I don' think there is a major penalty for using https.
If your traffic is huge enough that you will notice the hit: then you really should be using https anyway. If you're serving that kind of audience, perhaps you owe it to them to provide a bit of protection.
There is one simple little reason: Americans appear to be willing to pay for it.
Most US cell phones are free or almost free. The fact that you're getting a free phone in exchange for paying thousands of dollars over two years for service seems to be lost on most consumers here.
Americans also regularly pay over $100 per month for cable TV... and there are ads on almost every channel (often taking up a full third of every hour of programming!), not to mention pay-per-view channels.
Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff while people in other nations seem to be able to get better deals? Are we really just that dumb?
The threat isn't what they are going to do with your data; it is the potential that it presents.
Sure, there is no reason why they are going to one day say, "Hey! Let's look at So-and-so's record and see what we can do to him as a result."
However, what can happen is that one day you become a "person of interest" to someone somewhere for some reason (quite possibly entirely by mistake). Then you can expect that that entity is going to buy all the data they can on you and sift through every detail of it.
And don't forget that once this data exists, it pretty much never goes away. Terabytes are incredibly cheap these days, and data companies most likely invest in lots of backup and redundancy.
P.S. For kicks, also think about what may happen if such a company gets hacked. Enjoy.
You must be deaf then. From Thai, Singapore air, Cathay Pacific, QANTAS, Air Asia and Malaysian Airlines (they all seem to follow the same script)
Nope. In the past couple of years, I've flown US Air, Delta, Air France, AirTran, and Spirit. And some others I think. They all said wildly different things, even on the same airline but different flights.
Most said to turn off electronics during takeoff and to keep phones off for the duration. None ever mentioned transmitters or any words like that.
So if I open up my laptop and start using it, it starts seeking wifi signals. Is this enough to interfere with the plane?
'cause I don't ever hear flight attendants telling people to disable their wifi (or bluetooth, etc.). Just to "turn off" cell phones. Which itself is weird, 'cause I can leave mine on and put it in airplane mode, right?
I am pretty sure that at least in some cases drug companies (not exactly the least greedy companies around) charge less for things like AIDS medications in developing countries than they do in the US.
Perhaps software developers could consider something like that...?
In other news: Facebook is linked to 50% of parties. Facebook is linked to 80% of weddings. Facebook is linked to 100% of political. Facebook is linked to 65% of friendships. Facebook is linked to 90% of people liking stuff.
Parties, weddings, politics, friendships, and people liking stuff are... all linked to divorce.
It also helps if you have the sort of government where you can just summarily execute anyone suspected of spamming. Everybody can get on board with that, right?
Could it be possible that a company is evil even though they say they aren't?? I'm not sure I've ever heard of a company doing or being something other than exactly what their marketing department says...
And here's the part that people seem to continuously forget: even if by some miracle Google actually is consistently non-evil, there is absolutely no guarantee that they will stay that way.
At the moment, Google is riding a high wave. It is imaginable that some day they may fall on harder times. What if they get bought out? Will they only sell to a buyer who promises to be non-evil?
I can just imagine all those sharks circling around the fantastic treasure trove of information Google has been collecting on all the people who have bought into them.
If you buy in all the way, Google knows what you do search for, what you click on and look at, what you e-mail, what you post, what you photograph, what you film, what you buy, what you map, what you invest in, what you write, and... a heck of a lot more. However, I am sure that their "no evil" slogan completely protects your privacy and will do so for all eternity.
Reportedly, she was heard muttering, "And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire..."
Slashdot Mirror
It used to be noticeably slower to access a site via https than by http, even accessing the same page.
However, now we have server processors which operate in the GHz, and which run in multiples. Heck, we have that even for tiny home PCs and now phones. Servers are apt to be instances on clusters or clouds these days. So I don' think there is a major penalty for using https.
If your traffic is huge enough that you will notice the hit: then you really should be using https anyway. If you're serving that kind of audience, perhaps you owe it to them to provide a bit of protection.
There is one simple little reason: Americans appear to be willing to pay for it.
Most US cell phones are free or almost free. The fact that you're getting a free phone in exchange for paying thousands of dollars over two years for service seems to be lost on most consumers here.
Americans also regularly pay over $100 per month for cable TV... and there are ads on almost every channel (often taking up a full third of every hour of programming!), not to mention pay-per-view channels.
Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff while people in other nations seem to be able to get better deals? Are we really just that dumb?
From the article:
But don't expect to see this any time soon. We'll need a quantum internet first.
Hm. I'll get right on that.
The threat isn't what they are going to do with your data; it is the potential that it presents.
Sure, there is no reason why they are going to one day say, "Hey! Let's look at So-and-so's record and see what we can do to him as a result."
However, what can happen is that one day you become a "person of interest" to someone somewhere for some reason (quite possibly entirely by mistake). Then you can expect that that entity is going to buy all the data they can on you and sift through every detail of it.
And don't forget that once this data exists, it pretty much never goes away. Terabytes are incredibly cheap these days, and data companies most likely invest in lots of backup and redundancy.
P.S. For kicks, also think about what may happen if such a company gets hacked. Enjoy.
You must be deaf then. From Thai, Singapore air, Cathay Pacific, QANTAS, Air Asia and Malaysian Airlines (they all seem to follow the same script)
Nope. In the past couple of years, I've flown US Air, Delta, Air France, AirTran, and Spirit. And some others I think. They all said wildly different things, even on the same airline but different flights.
Most said to turn off electronics during takeoff and to keep phones off for the duration. None ever mentioned transmitters or any words like that.
So if I open up my laptop and start using it, it starts seeking wifi signals. Is this enough to interfere with the plane?
'cause I don't ever hear flight attendants telling people to disable their wifi (or bluetooth, etc.). Just to "turn off" cell phones. Which itself is weird, 'cause I can leave mine on and put it in airplane mode, right?
The three layer model used by Creative Commons is a great method of making licenses effective but unintimidating.
Have a look at this relatively burdensome lawyer-readable version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode
and then have a look at the "human-readable" version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Then concurrent with both of those, there is the machine-readable version, so automation is facilitated.
I understand that more-closed licenses have more particulars, but one would think there could be ways to adopt this general form.
Funny to read a scientist referring to sittin' on the couch vegging on TV as, basically, the good ol' days.
I am pretty sure that at least in some cases drug companies (not exactly the least greedy companies around) charge less for things like AIDS medications in developing countries than they do in the US.
Perhaps software developers could consider something like that...?
I have a strange suspicion this DARPA robot isn't going to have Asimov's laws integrated into it...
I don't know why, but for some reason, this just makes me think of the robotic greeting card sitting on Bender's shoulder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Futurama_219_-_Mother's_Day.jpg
P.S. Just looked at Bing Travel, and it seems like a cheap knockoff of Kayak, which is much more robust: http://www.kayak.com/
I think the article is strictly about internet search.
Otherwise, you could count in Google maps and Gmail and so on... that would get rather messy.
Which is more surprising? That 4.37% can land a #2 spot, or that anyone uses Bing?
Both are rather startling, imho.
In other news:
Facebook is linked to 50% of parties. Facebook is linked to 80% of weddings. Facebook is linked to 100% of political. Facebook is linked to 65% of friendships. Facebook is linked to 90% of people liking stuff.
Parties, weddings, politics, friendships, and people liking stuff are... all linked to divorce.
It also helps if you have the sort of government where you can just summarily execute anyone suspected of spamming.
Everybody can get on board with that, right?
Could it be possible that a company is evil even though they say they aren't?? I'm not sure I've ever heard of a company doing or being something other than exactly what their marketing department says...
And here's the part that people seem to continuously forget: even if by some miracle Google actually is consistently non-evil, there is absolutely no guarantee that they will stay that way.
At the moment, Google is riding a high wave. It is imaginable that some day they may fall on harder times. What if they get bought out? Will they only sell to a buyer who promises to be non-evil?
I can just imagine all those sharks circling around the fantastic treasure trove of information Google has been collecting on all the people who have bought into them.
If you buy in all the way, Google knows what you do search for, what you click on and look at, what you e-mail, what you post, what you photograph, what you film, what you buy, what you map, what you invest in, what you write, and... a heck of a lot more. However, I am sure that their "no evil" slogan completely protects your privacy and will do so for all eternity.
but is it my responsibility to suggest they change the password?
It was your responsibility to disable your password or arrange for its termination while you were still employed there.
The fact that it is not disabled appears to be a failure on your part to enforce good IT policy while you were on the job.
No, no, no. It's like paying for insurance...
I only buy insurance policies the day before I intend to get in an accident, decide to get robbed, elect to have my house destroyed by a tornado, etc.
It is much more cost-effective that way.
Just as (IIRC) Microsoft completely owns all video or audio you send out over their network using Kinect.
I think their motto is something like, "Do every evil," right? :/
Reportedly, she was heard muttering, "And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire..."
How many "likes" did his Facebook posts get?
Is this an obscure reference, or does everyone know this one?
Gritty Kitty ain't so pretty, but it's really thick
It fits my cat box oh, so snug, it always does the trick
I love to pour it on my toe, and squish, and squish, and squish
It ne'er offends my tender nose like a smelly fish
Its texture is a joy to me, it's just as smooth as silk
It makes my little whiskers twitch; it stays crunchy, even in milk
I may not be the President, I may not be the Pope
But as long as I have Gritty Kitty, I shall never mope.
That's where you're wrong. It's more likely some sort of gingerbread house made out of honeycomb cereal.
Sheeze. Don't you know anything about technology?
In slightly related news, Apple is rumored to be working on both larger and smaller iPhones, thus blurring the line between iPhone and iPad.