You can get SSL certificates for free, but they're WAY more difficult to use than they need to be. I've installed certificates before, and it's a bunch of tedious, boring, repetitive work. What are computers for but to automate tedious, boring, repetitive work!? The computer should handle all work for me, and all I should have to do is click a button, for chrissake! That's what Let's Encrypt does.
There isn't such an extension already? If there isn't, someone should write one or alter an existing one to add that functionality, at least as an option. Then people should try it and let us know how painful it actually is to use. My guess would be: extremely painful for most users for the next several years, so painful that hardly anyone would use it willingly. Maybe some businesses could force it on their employees.
The problem with HTTP is that a middleman can see and alter content. If a browser doesn't warn when it encounters a self-signed certificate, then HTTPS would be no more secure than HTTP -- all the middleman has to do is use a self-signed certificate to decrypt/encrypt packets as needed. So browsers do prefer HTTPS, when the certificate can be verified. If you're using HTTPS and the certificate can't be verified, it's no more secure than HTTP unless the user is warned, and in fact it's a way of detecting that a middleman may be present. That's the whole reason for the death warning!
The other cost of the S is the difficulty in obtaining and using certificates that are recognized by browsers without bothering the user. That's why the Let's Encrypt project is trying to make it free and easy.
Have you ever seen a neutron or muon? Experienced time dilation? Put a particle into a superposition of states? I suppose you can call most of modern science religion if you doubt what you can't perceive with your own senses. That's actually what a significant percentage of the population is starting to do, unfortunately...
It's pretty easy to verify what speech on Wikipedia is accurate. All information should be verifiable by checking a reliable source. If you find information in Wikipedia where no source is given and you think it may be incorrect, put in a [citation needed] tag. If no one adds a citation, anyone is free to remove the information.
Of course, many people who bitch about Wikipedia and how it doesn't work complain that their edits were undone, often because they added information without a reliable source for verification. You can't please everyone. Either you set a bar to clear to get your edits in and people complain that their edits are undone, or you let everyone add anything and people complain that too much information is inaccurate.
I've used the Speakeasy Speed Test in the past. I'm currently on a T1 connection and just got a reading of 1.5 Mbps upload and download speed, which is right on the money.
Yes, people breathing creates carbon dioxide and plants use it. But you know digging up fossil fuels and burning them creates GREENHOUSE GASSES that cause WARMING, don't you?
Nice strawman. It's not about "the world ending" or "higher taxes" or "world government" at all. I don't know how you people twist a bit of warming into crap like that. We're burning fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and it's causing warmer temperatures. Those warmer temperatures will cause economic losses, so to cut our losses we should cut carbon dioxide emissions by generating electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.
I think he converted 40 square meters to 47 square yards, which is fairly reasonable. But then he really goofed and called it 47 yards square, which is something completely different altogether -- something that is a square with 47 yards per side!
Isn't that a problem with all energy sources? Speaking more realistically, fossil fuels will run out in hundreds of years and solar will last billions. Which would you bet the future on?
There's a limit to the fossil fuels we can burn, and they're only going to get more expensive. There is far more energy available from alternative sources, and switching to them could be economically beneficial soon. If you want energy starvation and poverty, just keep burning fossil fuels.
Nope. Antarctic ice is melting, at an accelerating rate no less. You are referring to the temporary sea ice that forms each winter. The ice melting off the land makes the ocean less salty, and fresher water freezes at a higher temperature than saltier water. But even though there is a bit more sea ice in the winter, the overall effect is that the ice is melting at an accelerating rate. Yeah, those pesky facts, huh?
No warming for 18 years? Then how could we have just had the warmest summer ever recorded with continued melting of ice worldwide and rising sea levels? I think this was all predicted by the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, and is now being observed. If we see the warming stop, and the melting and sea level rise slow significantly, then we can talk about rethinking the hypothesis. Let me know when that happens.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get SSL certificates for free, but they're WAY more difficult to use than they need to be. I've installed certificates before, and it's a bunch of tedious, boring, repetitive work. What are computers for but to automate tedious, boring, repetitive work!? The computer should handle all work for me, and all I should have to do is click a button, for chrissake! That's what Let's Encrypt does.
There isn't such an extension already? If there isn't, someone should write one or alter an existing one to add that functionality, at least as an option. Then people should try it and let us know how painful it actually is to use. My guess would be: extremely painful for most users for the next several years, so painful that hardly anyone would use it willingly. Maybe some businesses could force it on their employees.
The problem with HTTP is that a middleman can see and alter content. If a browser doesn't warn when it encounters a self-signed certificate, then HTTPS would be no more secure than HTTP -- all the middleman has to do is use a self-signed certificate to decrypt/encrypt packets as needed. So browsers do prefer HTTPS, when the certificate can be verified. If you're using HTTPS and the certificate can't be verified, it's no more secure than HTTP unless the user is warned, and in fact it's a way of detecting that a middleman may be present. That's the whole reason for the death warning!
The other cost of the S is the difficulty in obtaining and using certificates that are recognized by browsers without bothering the user. That's why the Let's Encrypt project is trying to make it free and easy.
Uh, well how do you incrementally add 1 to "thousands" and wind up at "tens of thousands" at some point? Randomly?
Or did you mean count up to 2 billion, at which point you report billions and billions served and stop incrementing?
Have you ever seen a neutron or muon? Experienced time dilation? Put a particle into a superposition of states? I suppose you can call most of modern science religion if you doubt what you can't perceive with your own senses. That's actually what a significant percentage of the population is starting to do, unfortunately...
Intelligent design, duh!
Mostly harmless!?
Well, all those jail cells aren't just going to fill themselves up, are they?
It's pretty easy to verify what speech on Wikipedia is accurate. All information should be verifiable by checking a reliable source. If you find information in Wikipedia where no source is given and you think it may be incorrect, put in a [citation needed] tag. If no one adds a citation, anyone is free to remove the information.
Of course, many people who bitch about Wikipedia and how it doesn't work complain that their edits were undone, often because they added information without a reliable source for verification. You can't please everyone. Either you set a bar to clear to get your edits in and people complain that their edits are undone, or you let everyone add anything and people complain that too much information is inaccurate.
So CO2 doesn't acidify the oceans?
You had one job!
I've used the Speakeasy Speed Test in the past. I'm currently on a T1 connection and just got a reading of 1.5 Mbps upload and download speed, which is right on the money.
I don't know about you, but when I boil water, I bring it to a boil, to nearly 100 degrees Celsius. I don't let it all evaporate away!
Yes, people breathing creates carbon dioxide and plants use it. But you know digging up fossil fuels and burning them creates GREENHOUSE GASSES that cause WARMING, don't you?
Nice strawman. It's not about "the world ending" or "higher taxes" or "world government" at all. I don't know how you people twist a bit of warming into crap like that. We're burning fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and it's causing warmer temperatures. Those warmer temperatures will cause economic losses, so to cut our losses we should cut carbon dioxide emissions by generating electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.
I shall have you know, sir, that there is no such unit as a cubic story. The proper term is cubic story squared! Good day, sir!
I think he converted 40 square meters to 47 square yards, which is fairly reasonable. But then he really goofed and called it 47 yards square, which is something completely different altogether -- something that is a square with 47 yards per side!
3 editors, but they spend only 12 editor-seconds per story.
Increasing food production increases the girth of the people in the middle. FTFY
Isn't that a problem with all energy sources? Speaking more realistically, fossil fuels will run out in hundreds of years and solar will last billions. Which would you bet the future on?
There's a limit to the fossil fuels we can burn, and they're only going to get more expensive. There is far more energy available from alternative sources, and switching to them could be economically beneficial soon. If you want energy starvation and poverty, just keep burning fossil fuels.
So you perform the experiment and do not observe whether or not you get the predicted results?
Nope. Antarctic ice is melting, at an accelerating rate no less. You are referring to the temporary sea ice that forms each winter. The ice melting off the land makes the ocean less salty, and fresher water freezes at a higher temperature than saltier water. But even though there is a bit more sea ice in the winter, the overall effect is that the ice is melting at an accelerating rate. Yeah, those pesky facts, huh?
No warming for 18 years? Then how could we have just had the warmest summer ever recorded with continued melting of ice worldwide and rising sea levels? I think this was all predicted by the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, and is now being observed. If we see the warming stop, and the melting and sea level rise slow significantly, then we can talk about rethinking the hypothesis. Let me know when that happens.