"So, yeah, case 'C' is quite valid assuming the people involved don't get the wrong idea about accepting certs (e.g. that accepting one from a blog being OK makes accepting one from a bank OK too)."
That's why the user shouldn't explicitly accept any cert. The browser should do that transparently, and present the page like if it wasn't ecrypted (except for a small menu entry, for expert users to see the details of the cert) and only annoy the user if the cert someday fails to validate.
That way, you have added security without misleading any kind of user.
Case 'C' happens all the time. Let's say somebody out there creates a site where people goes to read articles and post comments. Now, those comments can be signed, but you'll need a login and a password. Also, you don't want to let somebody else gather your password, so he could impersonate you. That is case 'C'.
The user interface gives you a false sense of security. Or, better yet, the unimaginative developers can't invent an interface that doesn't give the user a false sense of security. Don't mind that those same developers have complete control on the interface and can access quite well how secure the page is, and thus, they could tell the user exactly how much security he has.
On this case, a self signed page is exacly as secure as an unencrypted one. So what is stopping Firefox to present both situations on the same way?
As far as I know, popularity-contest doesn't say what goes on bare-bones, you'd need an essential piece of software that depends on Python for including it there. Popularity-contest says what goes on each CD, and I think Python is already at the first one.
Also, really, why do you want to include Python at bare-bones? If you like cluter, use the Desktop install.
"You are missing the much more important other side.... if parents think it is good to limit performance while kids are driving, what if your government thinks it is a good idea to limit performance for all drivers?"
I trust it to work better than the old paper one, but the eletronic system is getting less trustworth on every election. The first version of it used a small embbebed system, with no OS, then it changed to a closed OS, then it changed to Linux (ok, better than the closed OS). It's system was entirely (hardware and softwre) verified by several specialists choosed by a transparent process, then comes the closed OS, that can't be verified, and suddenly the transparent process changes to the government just choosing someone from ABIN (brazilian inteligence agency - a known problematic body).
And just to add to the process, when the government finaly agreed to make printers pluggable to the voting machine, and plug some printers randomly, several of them were destroyed and the governemnt refused to count some votes.
"Ideally the votes should be counted both ways to ensure that they line up."
They won't line up. Both methods will err (computers shouldn't, but will) and each one will give you a different result. Idealy, we should have one, secure, way. There are secure algorithms for voting, the only problem is getting the public to grasp them.
That is because those come with Windows, and you can't uninstall them (Oh, yes, the EU justice can uninstall WMP. Nut most users are not as powerfull as the EU.) while most Linux distros don't come with MySQL and Apache running by default.
What I understanded is that they plan to create a thermal machine to help powering the chip, thus reducing power consuption and heat.
And, yes, the writter seems to have no idea of what a brownian ratchet is. I guess that "non-equilibrium brownian ratchet" is some kind of thermal machine that is somewhat similar to the brownian ratchet, and the researcher talked about it while explaining his research, what made the writter quite confused.
"Of course Linux is not a magical shield. But having a diverse eco-system is known to protect against many attacks."
Would you be surprized to know that almost all OSes (from Windows to, obviously, BSD) use the BSD implementation of the IP stack? The only widely used exception is Windows Vista, that doesn't need a DoS attack anyway...
As a Brazilian citizen I can say:
1. Yes, we are burning florests, that is very bad (altough, 5 times less bad than the US burning fossil fuels).
2. We don't need your crop technologies, thank you. We have ours, and they seem to be working quite well.
Most of the boot time of Debian is cause by their obsession for portability, that is more important than any optimization. The remaining is mainly due to badly written init scripts.
Of course being obsessed for portability may turn out to be a good thing, I'm really not complaining here, just stating my observations. (Signed: happy Debian user)
And you can always give them sudo permissions for executing synapic... This way they'll have all the tools they need, and no chance of getting caught at a BSA audit or installing a virus.
Answers:
1. No. But read the fine print and you'll discover that you are giving more than 700 bilion.
2. Nothing, it is being wiped out by stock invertors' ineptitude. (Or are you asking how much was lost by financing idiotic CEO's? That is a toughter question.)
3. With a bailout, near US$800 bilion. Without it, they'll be out of the job by the year's end.
No, they'll get those customers anyway. That will work the same way as non-guaranteed software gets all enterprize customers because it has "support", while supported software does not.
And when the clould fails to meet the requirements, people will just say that everybody else fails, so there is no better way of doing things.
I'd like to congratulate you, americans, for putting your country away from a path that would lead to the 3rd world and demonstrating that there is still some democracy in there.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why the user shouldn't explicitly accept any cert. The browser should do that transparently, and present the page like if it wasn't ecrypted (except for a small menu entry, for expert users to see the details of the cert) and only annoy the user if the cert someday fails to validate.
That way, you have added security without misleading any kind of user.
Case 'C' happens all the time. Let's say somebody out there creates a site where people goes to read articles and post comments. Now, those comments can be signed, but you'll need a login and a password. Also, you don't want to let somebody else gather your password, so he could impersonate you. That is case 'C'.
The user interface gives you a false sense of security. Or, better yet, the unimaginative developers can't invent an interface that doesn't give the user a false sense of security. Don't mind that those same developers have complete control on the interface and can access quite well how secure the page is, and thus, they could tell the user exactly how much security he has.
On this case, a self signed page is exacly as secure as an unencrypted one. So what is stopping Firefox to present both situations on the same way?
As far as I know, popularity-contest doesn't say what goes on bare-bones, you'd need an essential piece of software that depends on Python for including it there. Popularity-contest says what goes on each CD, and I think Python is already at the first one.
Also, really, why do you want to include Python at bare-bones? If you like cluter, use the Desktop install.
Did somebody define "terrorism" already? Last time I saw, the UN was over it, creating several hard arguments.
It'd only be legitimate if they weren't the ones working to keep artits in obscurity.
Humm, no. They are "o", "@" can e and #o them without any problem.
Sounds great.
It uses a numeric code because some people can't read. It was made easier to use than the paper ballot.
All the IP is owned by the Brazilian Government. Diebold is just the assembler with the lowest price.
Not that it makes the machine secure, it is just slightly better than the US situation.
I trust it to work better than the old paper one, but the eletronic system is getting less trustworth on every election. The first version of it used a small embbebed system, with no OS, then it changed to a closed OS, then it changed to Linux (ok, better than the closed OS). It's system was entirely (hardware and softwre) verified by several specialists choosed by a transparent process, then comes the closed OS, that can't be verified, and suddenly the transparent process changes to the government just choosing someone from ABIN (brazilian inteligence agency - a known problematic body).
And just to add to the process, when the government finaly agreed to make printers pluggable to the voting machine, and plug some printers randomly, several of them were destroyed and the governemnt refused to count some votes.
That is the problem, piracy has reduced the industry to a small fraction of its potential<\sarcasm>
Not at all, that is just some evidence for Chomskian media theory...
They won't line up. Both methods will err (computers shouldn't, but will) and each one will give you a different result. Idealy, we should have one, secure, way. There are secure algorithms for voting, the only problem is getting the public to grasp them.
Nothing against strong force coupling, as long as direct observation of it is not possible.
Yes, I'd agree that a flaw of Firefox shlod be counted as a flaw of Linux, as should a flaw of Openoffice.
That is because those come with Windows, and you can't uninstall them (Oh, yes, the EU justice can uninstall WMP. Nut most users are not as powerfull as the EU.) while most Linux distros don't come with MySQL and Apache running by default.
What I understanded is that they plan to create a thermal machine to help powering the chip, thus reducing power consuption and heat.
And, yes, the writter seems to have no idea of what a brownian ratchet is. I guess that "non-equilibrium brownian ratchet" is some kind of thermal machine that is somewhat similar to the brownian ratchet, and the researcher talked about it while explaining his research, what made the writter quite confused.
Would you be surprized to know that almost all OSes (from Windows to, obviously, BSD) use the BSD implementation of the IP stack? The only widely used exception is Windows Vista, that doesn't need a DoS attack anyway...
As a Brazilian citizen I can say:
1. Yes, we are burning florests, that is very bad (altough, 5 times less bad than the US burning fossil fuels).
2. We don't need your crop technologies, thank you. We have ours, and they seem to be working quite well.
Most of the boot time of Debian is cause by their obsession for portability, that is more important than any optimization. The remaining is mainly due to badly written init scripts.
Of course being obsessed for portability may turn out to be a good thing, I'm really not complaining here, just stating my observations. (Signed: happy Debian user)
And you can always give them sudo permissions for executing synapic... This way they'll have all the tools they need, and no chance of getting caught at a BSA audit or installing a virus.
Answers:
1. No. But read the fine print and you'll discover that you are giving more than 700 bilion.
2. Nothing, it is being wiped out by stock invertors' ineptitude. (Or are you asking how much was lost by financing idiotic CEO's? That is a toughter question.)
3. With a bailout, near US$800 bilion. Without it, they'll be out of the job by the year's end.
No, they'll get those customers anyway. That will work the same way as non-guaranteed software gets all enterprize customers because it has "support", while supported software does not.
And when the clould fails to meet the requirements, people will just say that everybody else fails, so there is no better way of doing things.
I'd like to congratulate you, americans, for putting your country away from a path that would lead to the 3rd world and demonstrating that there is still some democracy in there.
Well done!!!