Not really, you can easily buy 'legitimate' certs certifying you are a company you have nothing to do with.
Certs don't verify you are talking to who you think you are in reality. Certs should verify you are talking to the DOMAIN you think you are. But a self-signed cert is better than no cert so there certainly shouldn't be more stringent notifications than there are for completely unencrypted pages. Further, open and free ca like https://www.openca.org/ should be in the root trust of the browser, since they verify domain ownership.
No the author has a grip. If you haven't added the root for OpenCA go to www.openca.org with your firefox 3 and look at what you are presented with.
If you try to go forward it presents you with a HELP GET ME OUT OF HERE button an option to add an exception, then on that exception adding window it blatantly says that no legitimate website would require you to do this. In other words, it blatantly accuses all self-signed sites of being a scam.
I agree, domain verification is useful and should not be done away with entirely.
I don't agree with the current policy though. A simple notification saying the connection is encrypted but the domain identity isn't verified by a 3rd party with a box to not show this again would be fine. Currently the popup goes as far as to say that the site is not legitimate!
Also, this CA 'https://www.openca.org/' does verify you have control of the domain. Why is it still not included in the browser by default?
That doesn't fit here. The self-signed certs provide an encrypted connection. This is like having locks locked on the windows and doors (encryption) but no monitored alarm system (additional identity verification).
Currently, the browser makes it appear as if having locked doors is less secure than having unlocked doors. You can check yourself, go to an unencrypted site and note the lack of any warning suggesting wrongdoing on the site owners part, now go to a self signed one which will result in prompts that all but tell you to cancel your CC and call 911.
Agreed. And there is an open CA that the major browsers don't include in their root list either.
It verifies DNS control. That is more than some of the cert whores and really all I need a CA to verify since it prevents man in the middle attacks.
Even a self-signed cert is dramatically better than an unencrypted connection. Security is not an all or none affair, encrypted is better than unencrypted, and encrypted and trusted is better than merely encrypted. The current prompts make it appear as if unencrypted connections are safer than encrypted!
'This ignores the value of simple encryption. Snooping a connection (i.e. on a wireless link) is much easier than any of the impersonation attacks that SSL authentication prevents.'
He is right. Since when is security an all or none affair? Security is about making it more difficult to attack with the understanding there are always attacks you can't protect against. An alert saying that 'a secure connection is established but the identity of this website has not been verified by a central authority' (and an option to add to a domain whitelist) would even be ok to make the distinction but not the current prompts which more or less say the site is a scam.
The bigger problem is that there is an open CA that verifies ownership of the domain and firefox does not include them. Verifying domain ownership is all numerous commercial CAs do including godaddy and frankly, is all most of us expect a cert to be good for in the trust department.
'This ignores the value of simple encryption. Snooping a connection (i.e. on a wireless link) is much easier than any of the impersonation attacks that SSL authentication prevents.'
You are acting as if security is an all or nothing affair. There is no such thing as totally secure. Every step just raises the bar.
Also, there is an open CA that Mozilla doesn't include either. It performs the same domain verification that godaddy and others perform, checking that you have control of the DNS for the domain.
Re:no encryption that YOU didn't write is safe
on
Is Hushmail Still Safe?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
If the brilliant minds missed it, how is it you know about it?
First of all FutureMark is not 3DMark so this is about platform and not game performance. Second, using an optimization based on cpuid would be one thing, but if that is the case it should REDUCE performance if you tricked the benchmark into using it on the wrong CPU. Otherwise, the optimization should not only be applied to the other CPU in the first place.
This was demonstrated with a via, that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen if you did the same thing with an AMD either.
'$unknownInternetDude. He probably knows a thing or two, but then, so do the people who wrote this software, so that isn't really a factor.'
Except the vendor has an innate bias, unknowninternetdude does not. Further, unknowninternetdude will be corroborated by multiple other unknowninternetdudes who also have no relation to the first and have no bias. In fact, the first unknowninternetdude publishing will almost surely result in some of these other unknowninternetdudes checking his work.
Its how published scientific journals work as well and while not perfect, it is clearly a superior system to the closed door policy.
Neither can Ubuntu or any other distro but Ubuntu refers you to safe, massive, and well maintained repos that can be added just by checking a couple boxes or uncommenting the appropriate lines.
That solves the problem of the ignorant not knowing which repositories to use.
I would never go back to the insanity of Fedora. Especially not for a desktop. I don't especially care which UI I am using, that is true.
I'm the kind of guy who likes having the knowledge and capability to tweak anything he feels the urge to but who doesn't actually want to have to tweak everything for it to be functional. Installing packages isn't exactly a chore on Ubuntu, so it really doesn't matter if one or 50 need installed, it still only takes 5mins. But the defaults and configuration of almost any package is far simpler on Ubuntu.
I like having configuration stored in text and the ability to adjust advanced parameters if I need to. I like not having to dig through a 200 line text file to read and alter basic options as well. Fedora doesn't have anything even resembling a functional GUI, leaving you forced to manually configure the system the way we used to 5 years ago. In Ubuntu it is rare for me to need to manually configure anything on the system in the first place and all the auto-configuration is the sort that doesn't break when I go in and alter something the old fashioned way.
yes, particularly everyone using linux as a desktop will need those same 3rd party repos.
All of those things are included in the standard Ubuntu repos, either in restricted or the universe, multiverse, and partner repos. I have never seen a conflict using them. Seriously, if you are stuck in RPM land, come over to the other side.
Really though, I don't think it has anything to do with RPM so much as excellent repo and packaging work.
True enough, the repositories are the real difference, not the package formats themselves. That said, the vendor repositories for any RPM based distro are not extensive enough for most purposes and while there are extensive third party repositories they are not nearly as well maintained.
This simply is not true with Ubuntu or Debian. The repositories are extensive enough that in the rare instance you encounter something that is not in one of the standard repositories you are probably better off choosing an alternative that is. I have never had a conflict using the main, restricted, universe, multiverse, and partner repositories on Ubuntu. Only once have I encountered a good reason for adding a source manually (other than internal repos).
I never said for profit organizations were evil, I said they exist to make a profit. Your organization doesn't qualify in this discussion for a number of reasons.
First you provide a luxury service, not an essential need that is a requirement for survival in the modern world. Another significance difference between you and the for profit organizations we are discussing is that you are an individual. Your personal ideals can guide the company in a manner that is contrary to corporate goals. This changes in a large corporate structure with millions of stockholders. An officer of this sort of company is committing a crime if they act in a manner that deprives investors of profit.
Lastly, you may think your privacy terms are a good thing but they are just another way of furthering your profit margins. Your charity functions are a great tax break and most such organizations use very little bandwidth. The fact of the matter is that if you were not making a profit you would not continue to operate.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having a for profit venture, we've all got to eat and buy the wife her new drapes. I'm saying that fundamental human needs should not have their prices inflated to allow investors to make profits and should only be inflated enough to pay fair wages to the people actually performing essential labor to supply the facilities.
I have the odd opinion that not one person should freeze to death so that an investor can enjoy a dividend. I am also of the opinion that the same is true of starvation, clothing, medical care, water, and shelter. I have the idea that having those things is a base level that nobody in our society should have to fear living without. No matter how lazy, stupid, decrepid, or unlucky they are.
Some people complain about the expense but the truth is that almost all of the wealth in this nation is controlled by individuals who only experience increases and decreases in wealth as figures on paper.
My reasoning is simple. For profit organization have only one motivator and one objective. Profit. By definition profit must come from somewhere and at someones expense. History and common sense tells us that any morals, values, ethics, or concerns are only expressed or adhered to if the for profit organization finds doing so to be the path of greatest profit and any position will change as long as that is no longer true.
In an economy based upon capitalism value is set based upon what someone is willing to pay. Supply and demand. The problem with necessities like power is that they are necessary. Someone is willing to pay whatever it takes. In the case of power generation the costs of generating it with any sort of efficiency and the infrastructure required do not allow for real competition. Further the medical industry in the United States has proven that even with competition capitalism does not work when there is no constraint on price because the service is a fundamental necessity.
While having it included would be nice, you are pretending that bus powered hubs are the only usb hubs there aren't. USB hubs with an outside power source aren't even more expensive than the bus powered hubs and can run pretty much any usb device without the complications that arise from using passive hubs.
I would start with web programming. Most agree that html is not a programming language but it contains many of the same elements.
There are lots of 'languages' to learn in the web world and they all work together. Hit HTML first, your child will be producing results that can be seen within 5 minutes. Next would come CSS, then maybe javascript. After that you could throw in PHP or Perl.
Web browsers represent a great graphical interface for cross platform compatibility. Every language I just mentioned is cross-platform compatible. More importantly, they are all technologies that teach programming principles and fundementals and yet provide quick rewards that keep you coming back. Of course during this time have him use something like Ubuntu.
Only then would I bring him back to system level programming. By then he will have a love of building and designing things and will appreciate the classic architecture used by those who built *nix. Time to learn C and C++. After mastering the basics of those languages I would recommend something like Linux From Scratch to give a solid system level understanding. Let him code on *nix type stuff for awhile before throwing him to the wolves with assembly.
That, or you could give him the idiots guide to vb.net.
Some of us really don't care about money laundering. Punish people for the crime or don't, money laundering is just one of a million charges they either get to pile on top, or slap on anyone didn't feel it was any of their concern how someone makes their money.
I am far more concerned about having a service for my finances that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any government
His initial investment was $40,000, he started with an annual electric cost of $4000. Even if it were free it would take 10 years to recoup the cost. Instead there is a monthly bill. But the big whammy is a significant chunk of that 40gs is for the batteries which have to be replaced periodically.
Yup, and that would be fine if we pretend that once solar is installed it is free to maintain. The most commonly ignored fact I see in the cost of solar installations is the fact that your second highest cost is the battery bank which will have to be replaced several times before he recoups his initial investment.
Eventually he will probably go in the green (no pun intended) with a bill that large initially. Whether his actual costs ever drop below what they would have been if he had simply taken the power conservation measures and new appliances that generally go with a solar installation is another matter.
The reason to go solar is NOT reduced cost. Solar is breakeven at best. The reason to go solar is independence from the grid, you'll have power in a disaster, and we are all going to die if we don't come up with a solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, you can easily buy 'legitimate' certs certifying you are a company you have nothing to do with.
Certs don't verify you are talking to who you think you are in reality. Certs should verify you are talking to the DOMAIN you think you are. But a self-signed cert is better than no cert so there certainly shouldn't be more stringent notifications than there are for completely unencrypted pages. Further, open and free ca like https://www.openca.org/ should be in the root trust of the browser, since they verify domain ownership.
No the author has a grip. If you haven't added the root for OpenCA go to www.openca.org with your firefox 3 and look at what you are presented with.
If you try to go forward it presents you with a HELP GET ME OUT OF HERE button an option to add an exception, then on that exception adding window it blatantly says that no legitimate website would require you to do this. In other words, it blatantly accuses all self-signed sites of being a scam.
I agree, domain verification is useful and should not be done away with entirely.
I don't agree with the current policy though. A simple notification saying the connection is encrypted but the domain identity isn't verified by a 3rd party with a box to not show this again would be fine. Currently the popup goes as far as to say that the site is not legitimate!
Also, this CA 'https://www.openca.org/' does verify you have control of the domain. Why is it still not included in the browser by default?
That doesn't fit here. The self-signed certs provide an encrypted connection. This is like having locks locked on the windows and doors (encryption) but no monitored alarm system (additional identity verification).
Currently, the browser makes it appear as if having locked doors is less secure than having unlocked doors. You can check yourself, go to an unencrypted site and note the lack of any warning suggesting wrongdoing on the site owners part, now go to a self signed one which will result in prompts that all but tell you to cancel your CC and call 911.
Agreed. And there is an open CA that the major browsers don't include in their root list either.
It verifies DNS control. That is more than some of the cert whores and really all I need a CA to verify since it prevents man in the middle attacks.
Even a self-signed cert is dramatically better than an unencrypted connection. Security is not an all or none affair, encrypted is better than unencrypted, and encrypted and trusted is better than merely encrypted. The current prompts make it appear as if unencrypted connections are safer than encrypted!
From TFA:
'This ignores the value of simple encryption. Snooping a connection (i.e. on a wireless link) is much easier than any of the impersonation attacks that SSL authentication prevents.'
He is right. Since when is security an all or none affair? Security is about making it more difficult to attack with the understanding there are always attacks you can't protect against. An alert saying that 'a secure connection is established but the identity of this website has not been verified by a central authority' (and an option to add to a domain whitelist) would even be ok to make the distinction but not the current prompts which more or less say the site is a scam.
The bigger problem is that there is an open CA that verifies ownership of the domain and firefox does not include them. Verifying domain ownership is all numerous commercial CAs do including godaddy and frankly, is all most of us expect a cert to be good for in the trust department.
From the article:
'This ignores the value of simple encryption. Snooping a connection (i.e. on a wireless link) is much easier than any of the impersonation attacks that SSL authentication prevents.'
You are acting as if security is an all or nothing affair. There is no such thing as totally secure. Every step just raises the bar.
Also, there is an open CA that Mozilla doesn't include either. It performs the same domain verification that godaddy and others perform, checking that you have control of the DNS for the domain.
If the brilliant minds missed it, how is it you know about it?
First of all FutureMark is not 3DMark so this is about platform and not game performance. Second, using an optimization based on cpuid would be one thing, but if that is the case it should REDUCE performance if you tricked the benchmark into using it on the wrong CPU. Otherwise, the optimization should not only be applied to the other CPU in the first place.
This was demonstrated with a via, that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen if you did the same thing with an AMD either.
'$unknownInternetDude. He probably knows a thing or two, but then, so do the people who wrote this software, so that isn't really a factor.'
Except the vendor has an innate bias, unknowninternetdude does not. Further, unknowninternetdude will be corroborated by multiple other unknowninternetdudes who also have no relation to the first and have no bias. In fact, the first unknowninternetdude publishing will almost surely result in some of these other unknowninternetdudes checking his work.
Its how published scientific journals work as well and while not perfect, it is clearly a superior system to the closed door policy.
This site is nothing more than a list of recommended list of books with a pointer to them on amazon using his affiliate link!
I can't believe slashdot posted this. I like robots,
Neither can Ubuntu or any other distro but Ubuntu refers you to safe, massive, and well maintained repos that can be added just by checking a couple boxes or uncommenting the appropriate lines.
That solves the problem of the ignorant not knowing which repositories to use.
I would never go back to the insanity of Fedora. Especially not for a desktop. I don't especially care which UI I am using, that is true.
I'm the kind of guy who likes having the knowledge and capability to tweak anything he feels the urge to but who doesn't actually want to have to tweak everything for it to be functional. Installing packages isn't exactly a chore on Ubuntu, so it really doesn't matter if one or 50 need installed, it still only takes 5mins. But the defaults and configuration of almost any package is far simpler on Ubuntu.
I like having configuration stored in text and the ability to adjust advanced parameters if I need to. I like not having to dig through a 200 line text file to read and alter basic options as well. Fedora doesn't have anything even resembling a functional GUI, leaving you forced to manually configure the system the way we used to 5 years ago. In Ubuntu it is rare for me to need to manually configure anything on the system in the first place and all the auto-configuration is the sort that doesn't break when I go in and alter something the old fashioned way.
We are talking about desktop usage here. Proprietary codecs, drivers, and legally restricted multimedia are par for the course.
yes, particularly everyone using linux as a desktop will need those same 3rd party repos.
All of those things are included in the standard Ubuntu repos, either in restricted or the universe, multiverse, and partner repos. I have never seen a conflict using them. Seriously, if you are stuck in RPM land, come over to the other side.
Really though, I don't think it has anything to do with RPM so much as excellent repo and packaging work.
True enough, the repositories are the real difference, not the package formats themselves. That said, the vendor repositories for any RPM based distro are not extensive enough for most purposes and while there are extensive third party repositories they are not nearly as well maintained.
This simply is not true with Ubuntu or Debian. The repositories are extensive enough that in the rare instance you encounter something that is not in one of the standard repositories you are probably better off choosing an alternative that is. I have never had a conflict using the main, restricted, universe, multiverse, and partner repositories on Ubuntu. Only once have I encountered a good reason for adding a source manually (other than internal repos).
I never said for profit organizations were evil, I said they exist to make a profit. Your organization doesn't qualify in this discussion for a number of reasons.
First you provide a luxury service, not an essential need that is a requirement for survival in the modern world. Another significance difference between you and the for profit organizations we are discussing is that you are an individual. Your personal ideals can guide the company in a manner that is contrary to corporate goals. This changes in a large corporate structure with millions of stockholders. An officer of this sort of company is committing a crime if they act in a manner that deprives investors of profit.
Lastly, you may think your privacy terms are a good thing but they are just another way of furthering your profit margins. Your charity functions are a great tax break and most such organizations use very little bandwidth. The fact of the matter is that if you were not making a profit you would not continue to operate.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having a for profit venture, we've all got to eat and buy the wife her new drapes. I'm saying that fundamental human needs should not have their prices inflated to allow investors to make profits and should only be inflated enough to pay fair wages to the people actually performing essential labor to supply the facilities.
I have the odd opinion that not one person should freeze to death so that an investor can enjoy a dividend. I am also of the opinion that the same is true of starvation, clothing, medical care, water, and shelter. I have the idea that having those things is a base level that nobody in our society should have to fear living without. No matter how lazy, stupid, decrepid, or unlucky they are.
Some people complain about the expense but the truth is that almost all of the wealth in this nation is controlled by individuals who only experience increases and decreases in wealth as figures on paper.
My reasoning is simple. For profit organization have only one motivator and one objective. Profit. By definition profit must come from somewhere and at someones expense. History and common sense tells us that any morals, values, ethics, or concerns are only expressed or adhered to if the for profit organization finds doing so to be the path of greatest profit and any position will change as long as that is no longer true.
In an economy based upon capitalism value is set based upon what someone is willing to pay. Supply and demand. The problem with necessities like power is that they are necessary. Someone is willing to pay whatever it takes. In the case of power generation the costs of generating it with any sort of efficiency and the infrastructure required do not allow for real competition. Further the medical industry in the United States has proven that even with competition capitalism does not work when there is no constraint on price because the service is a fundamental necessity.
Money laundering is victimless. And no, you don't get to count the victims of the original crimes twice.
I fail to see any reason that government should be entitled to hold people accountable or have a followable paper trail.
I'm of the opinion that privacy trumps eliminating crime. I'd rather have criminals and privacy than no criminals and examination under a microscope.
While having it included would be nice, you are pretending that bus powered hubs are the only usb hubs there aren't. USB hubs with an outside power source aren't even more expensive than the bus powered hubs and can run pretty much any usb device without the complications that arise from using passive hubs.
The gOS PC is a nightmare. Stop promoting it. It is underpowered, and the support is basically non-existent.
I would start with web programming. Most agree that html is not a programming language but it contains many of the same elements.
There are lots of 'languages' to learn in the web world and they all work together. Hit HTML first, your child will be producing results that can be seen within 5 minutes. Next would come CSS, then maybe javascript. After that you could throw in PHP or Perl.
Web browsers represent a great graphical interface for cross platform compatibility. Every language I just mentioned is cross-platform compatible. More importantly, they are all technologies that teach programming principles and fundementals and yet provide quick rewards that keep you coming back. Of course during this time have him use something like Ubuntu.
Only then would I bring him back to system level programming. By then he will have a love of building and designing things and will appreciate the classic architecture used by those who built *nix. Time to learn C and C++. After mastering the basics of those languages I would recommend something like Linux From Scratch to give a solid system level understanding. Let him code on *nix type stuff for awhile before throwing him to the wolves with assembly.
That, or you could give him the idiots guide to vb.net.
Some of us really don't care about money laundering. Punish people for the crime or don't, money laundering is just one of a million charges they either get to pile on top, or slap on anyone didn't feel it was any of their concern how someone makes their money.
I am far more concerned about having a service for my finances that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any government
His initial investment was $40,000, he started with an annual electric cost of $4000. Even if it were free it would take 10 years to recoup the cost. Instead there is a monthly bill. But the big whammy is a significant chunk of that 40gs is for the batteries which have to be replaced periodically.
Yup, and that would be fine if we pretend that once solar is installed it is free to maintain. The most commonly ignored fact I see in the cost of solar installations is the fact that your second highest cost is the battery bank which will have to be replaced several times before he recoups his initial investment.
Eventually he will probably go in the green (no pun intended) with a bill that large initially. Whether his actual costs ever drop below what they would have been if he had simply taken the power conservation measures and new appliances that generally go with a solar installation is another matter.
The reason to go solar is NOT reduced cost. Solar is breakeven at best. The reason to go solar is independence from the grid, you'll have power in a disaster, and we are all going to die if we don't come up with a solution.