Legally, in English common law jurisdictions at least (which includes the US) the signature itself is irrelevant: what matters is the intent. All you need to do is signify (note the etymology) that you have consented to whatever you have "signed". An X is more than acceptable. So are signature stamps and autopens ( by the way, can anyone enumerate the difference between this and an autopen?). Even a physical mark is not strictly necessary: contracts, after all, can be verbal and effected with nothing more permanent than a handshake.
Indeedily. I wonder at this stage if the best approach isn't for EFF or someone to launch a private prosecution against Google under similar grounds and get some clear legal water between what is and isn't going to fly in the courts.
What happens is that the EU comes up with "Directives", whcih are not laws, but rather binding instructions which each country must implement as their own law. This eliminates translation issues, and off-loads the burden of integrating it with each legal system onto that country. Of course, it does have the flip-side that tedious and burdensome directives are often ignored (France is a champion at ignoring directives it doesn't like). I have no idea if this particular directive is Sewdish law, yet, or whether they can get away with it as written.
Hi. I'm sorry, but your subtle use of language has me rather confused. Do you think you could get off the fence and tell us how you actually feel about this issue? You seem a bit undecided.
At the time, the United State's road network was so poor that it was hugely welcome. However, as it was as much a military project as a public works, public opinion wasn't of much consequence.
That's kind of what they did in Britain - when we nationalised British Rail, we created several private train companies and a company to own and maintain the tracks, which has now been effectively renationalised. It's been a pathetic failure; everyone blames everyone else and nothing gets done. Better to sell chunks of track and trains to run on them and let them sink or swim. The most useful thing legislators could do is frame legislation to make it easier to build track.
One thing I've never understood is why bus systems are always monopolies. As long as they meet vehicle and driver standards, why not let them do what they like? Let the good operators win and let the crap ones go under. Where I live in Edinburgh, we have a pretty good bus network, but if I didn't like it, I'm SOL. Mind you, Edinburgh is small enough to hoof it anyway.
We're not exactly a pro-Microsoft crowd here, you may have noticed. Try Fox if ya want fair & balanced;) Also, inflammatory stories (Obama executes Linux developers with rusty knives!) generate page views and ad impressions.
What if your ISP is big enough to control a top-level certificate issuing authority? Or even easier, what if they supply your browser and add their own top-level certificate? If you work in a large institution such as a bank, this is exactly what happens. Right now, at my desk, if I connect to my bank's website, my employer can read my traffic. I'm the last person to descend into tinfoil hattery, but when it comes to encryption, there really are too many ways for it to go wrong for it to be a magic bullet for *anything*. Lastly, bear in mind that most users are *utterly clueless* about their encryption, and therefore won't think twice about clicking through certificate errors for any domain. People have MITMed in the wild using this technique - never mind the people that have reversed engineered MD5 hashed certificates.
Hi. You appear to be under the impression that SSL is a magic bullet. I have bad news for you. If someone really wants to read your https traffic, they most likely already are: it's not that hard. And if you're an ISP, it's not exactly difficult to get hold of a legitimate certificate to do your MITM with.
I think a better approach would be to make damn sure that everyone involved in commercial activity understands that they should keep the fuck away from my data, encrypted or not.
Or would it be too much to ask that if you only read slashdot once in a blue moon and have no idea about a topic you've never heard of that you at last try one Google search before accusing slashdot of being lazy?
This is exactly what humans do. If you look at the numbers, you can see that historically, about 80% of women reproduce and only about 40% of men reproduce. So men have to be much more innovative in finding ways to reproduce. This corresponds with the fact that in almost any statistic, men are more widely distributed than women - income, height, number of partners, drugtaking, etc. Incremental evolution is certainly part of us, but we are also natural innovators, which is probably one part of what makes humans so succesful.
Certainly. Top level certificates are simply the certificates that come installed in your browser by default - I encourage you to have a look and throw out any you think shouldn't be in there.
You have it backwards. If they have a top level certificate, this means that your browser trusts it *by default*. This in turn means that they can transparently decrypt and encrypt your messages to an external server without your knowledge. Check out your list of trusted browser certificates sometime. You may be surprised who you "trust".
As for your other comment, you are correct, third parties are an essential part of the process. However, the incentives are wrong. Think for a moment: who would suffer financially if a top-level certificate on your browser was compromised? It's long been my opinion that users should pay an annual subscription to a top level certificate of their choice. This would encourage market forces to align themselves with best security practices.
You need the sort code, account number, card number and PIN. The first three can be got by photographing the card, or swiping it through your personal data collector. PINs are trickier, but as anyone who has worked a cash desk for a while will tell you, it's quite often fairly easy to read people's PINs from their hand movements. Once you've got that, you need a mag-stripe programmer for a few hundred quid and you're good to go. Most ATMs do not require a chip, as chips have a ~1% failure rate annually, so the mag-stripe is used as the backup.
If you work in a high traffic environment you could clone several hundred cards a day. The trickier part is using them effectively, but there are ways round that, too.
Completely crazy, until you realise that while the money is in their possession for a couple of days they can lend it out on overnight rates. Lucrative business, trading on other people's money.
If the company fucks up, yes, sure, they'd better bend over backwards to accommodate me. But if paid for service is continually under-utilised by a known margin, then I don't see any problem in overbooking/overselling to use that capacity; it simply means more efficiency for the company and (hopefully) better prices for moi.
Agreed with this. BT tried selling me net service, and I told them outright that they would never be considered again due to Phorm. The guy didn't sound surprised.
The sad fact is, companies that build to last go out of business. It turns out that, despite protestations to the contrary, consumers want built in obsolescence.
Exodus 34, 11-14. Leviticus 26, 7-9. Deuteronomy 2, 21-24. Deuteronomy 2, 26-25. Deuteronomy 7, 1-2. Joshua 6, 21. Joshua 10, 40-41. Most of Joshua, in fact. 1 Samuel 27, 8-9.
Let's turn now to the pillars of Islam. The Sunni define five pillars of Islam: faith, prayer, alms-giving, fasting, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. I notice very little in the way of genocide in there. Also, in light of any controlling authority over Islam as a whole, I would point out that interpretations of both the meaning of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam vary widely - but I will note that generally speaking most Muslims are of the opinion that anywhere a Muslim can live freely and follow his faith is part of Dar al-Islam.
Lastly, once again, can you provide a citation from any vaguely organised group of Muslims who wish to reconquer Spain, please? Or would that puncture your rather one-sided view?
A real citation, please. I am asking for the etymology of the word, since the OP seems to think it relevant. And yes, I do take issue. I seriously find it hard to believe that there are substantial numbers of Muslims out there foaming at the mouth about the issue of Spain's governance. So again, I ask, who is "they"?
Slashdot Mirror
Legally, in English common law jurisdictions at least (which includes the US) the signature itself is irrelevant: what matters is the intent. All you need to do is signify (note the etymology) that you have consented to whatever you have "signed". An X is more than acceptable. So are signature stamps and autopens ( by the way, can anyone enumerate the difference between this and an autopen?). Even a physical mark is not strictly necessary: contracts, after all, can be verbal and effected with nothing more permanent than a handshake.
Indeedily. I wonder at this stage if the best approach isn't for EFF or someone to launch a private prosecution against Google under similar grounds and get some clear legal water between what is and isn't going to fly in the courts.
What happens is that the EU comes up with "Directives", whcih are not laws, but rather binding instructions which each country must implement as their own law. This eliminates translation issues, and off-loads the burden of integrating it with each legal system onto that country. Of course, it does have the flip-side that tedious and burdensome directives are often ignored (France is a champion at ignoring directives it doesn't like). I have no idea if this particular directive is Sewdish law, yet, or whether they can get away with it as written.
Hi. I'm sorry, but your subtle use of language has me rather confused. Do you think you could get off the fence and tell us how you actually feel about this issue? You seem a bit undecided.
At the time, the United State's road network was so poor that it was hugely welcome. However, as it was as much a military project as a public works, public opinion wasn't of much consequence.
An awful lot of people saying that in this thread. What about China? Whatever else you might like to say about them, it sure ain't a small country.
That's kind of what they did in Britain - when we nationalised British Rail, we created several private train companies and a company to own and maintain the tracks, which has now been effectively renationalised. It's been a pathetic failure; everyone blames everyone else and nothing gets done. Better to sell chunks of track and trains to run on them and let them sink or swim. The most useful thing legislators could do is frame legislation to make it easier to build track.
One thing I've never understood is why bus systems are always monopolies. As long as they meet vehicle and driver standards, why not let them do what they like? Let the good operators win and let the crap ones go under. Where I live in Edinburgh, we have a pretty good bus network, but if I didn't like it, I'm SOL. Mind you, Edinburgh is small enough to hoof it anyway.
We're not exactly a pro-Microsoft crowd here, you may have noticed. Try Fox if ya want fair & balanced ;) Also, inflammatory stories (Obama executes Linux developers with rusty knives!) generate page views and ad impressions.
What if your ISP is big enough to control a top-level certificate issuing authority? Or even easier, what if they supply your browser and add their own top-level certificate? If you work in a large institution such as a bank, this is exactly what happens. Right now, at my desk, if I connect to my bank's website, my employer can read my traffic. I'm the last person to descend into tinfoil hattery, but when it comes to encryption, there really are too many ways for it to go wrong for it to be a magic bullet for *anything*. Lastly, bear in mind that most users are *utterly clueless* about their encryption, and therefore won't think twice about clicking through certificate errors for any domain. People have MITMed in the wild using this technique - never mind the people that have reversed engineered MD5 hashed certificates.
I think a better approach would be to make damn sure that everyone involved in commercial activity understands that they should keep the fuck away from my data, encrypted or not.
Or would it be too much to ask that if you only read slashdot once in a blue moon and have no idea about a topic you've never heard of that you at last try one Google search before accusing slashdot of being lazy?
This is exactly what humans do. If you look at the numbers, you can see that historically, about 80% of women reproduce and only about 40% of men reproduce. So men have to be much more innovative in finding ways to reproduce. This corresponds with the fact that in almost any statistic, men are more widely distributed than women - income, height, number of partners, drugtaking, etc. Incremental evolution is certainly part of us, but we are also natural innovators, which is probably one part of what makes humans so succesful.
Pls not to feed teh trolls. Kthxbai.
Certainly. Top level certificates are simply the certificates that come installed in your browser by default - I encourage you to have a look and throw out any you think shouldn't be in there.
As for your other comment, you are correct, third parties are an essential part of the process. However, the incentives are wrong. Think for a moment: who would suffer financially if a top-level certificate on your browser was compromised? It's long been my opinion that users should pay an annual subscription to a top level certificate of their choice. This would encourage market forces to align themselves with best security practices.
If you work in a high traffic environment you could clone several hundred cards a day. The trickier part is using them effectively, but there are ways round that, too.
Completely crazy, until you realise that while the money is in their possession for a couple of days they can lend it out on overnight rates. Lucrative business, trading on other people's money.
Except BT has a top level cert. They can MITM you till the cows come home and you'd never know. This is one more reason browser security is flawed.
If the company fucks up, yes, sure, they'd better bend over backwards to accommodate me. But if paid for service is continually under-utilised by a known margin, then I don't see any problem in overbooking/overselling to use that capacity; it simply means more efficiency for the company and (hopefully) better prices for moi.
Really, I know this is hilarious and all, but I would like to think humanity has got past its need to lock people in chambers and gas them.
Agreed with this. BT tried selling me net service, and I told them outright that they would never be considered again due to Phorm. The guy didn't sound surprised.
The sad fact is, companies that build to last go out of business. It turns out that, despite protestations to the contrary, consumers want built in obsolescence.
Let's turn now to the pillars of Islam. The Sunni define five pillars of Islam: faith, prayer, alms-giving, fasting, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. I notice very little in the way of genocide in there. Also, in light of any controlling authority over Islam as a whole, I would point out that interpretations of both the meaning of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam vary widely - but I will note that generally speaking most Muslims are of the opinion that anywhere a Muslim can live freely and follow his faith is part of Dar al-Islam.
Lastly, once again, can you provide a citation from any vaguely organised group of Muslims who wish to reconquer Spain, please? Or would that puncture your rather one-sided view?
A real citation, please. I am asking for the etymology of the word, since the OP seems to think it relevant. And yes, I do take issue. I seriously find it hard to believe that there are substantial numbers of Muslims out there foaming at the mouth about the issue of Spain's governance. So again, I ask, who is "they"?