No, you've drawn the opposite of the correct conclusion. This demonstrates that no matter how much money you plough into a campaign, it's the votes that really matter.
What we've learned is that not all HTTPS are created equal. There could be insecure ciphers, mixed content, insecure signatures, vulnerabilities, what have you. Just looking for the "s" isn't enough. It's a very good thing that the browsers, which can look at all the factors, are giving better hints about whether a connection is trustworthy.
All these issues have been with the "consumer"-grade cheap laptops which have always been garbage, right? I don't think any of them have happened on Thinkpads.
Sovereign debt denominated in a country's own fiat currency (the US situation) is VERY different from sovereign debt denominated in some other currency (the Greek situation).
Slashdot Mirror
You can use less than and greater than signs if you HTML-escape them, eg: "<" (<) and ">" (>).
If piratebay.se was seized, then how is it redirecting to piratebay.org?
No, you've drawn the opposite of the correct conclusion. This demonstrates that no matter how much money you plough into a campaign, it's the votes that really matter.
Do you mean Natchitoches?
I'm not disagreeing with you. But posting the key in the content would make people look there instead of at the real key.
A real solution is probably something automatic like Perspectives.
Of course, there's also key-pinning, which can help a lot.
Posting the key would be extremely counterproductive, then. They should get the key from their browser.
How exactly is verifying a site's identity by relying on the site itself, via the same channel, any better than zero authentication at all?
When connecting to Slashdot, I'm now cryptographically guaranteed to be talking to (drumroll please) Dice Holdings, Inc!
So... are we being MitM'd by Dice, trying to get their old property back?
HTTPS doesn't fall apart with a man in the middle. It's end-to-end. It's specifically designed to detect that kind of tampering.
Nope. Opera was its own thing.
What we've learned is that not all HTTPS are created equal. There could be insecure ciphers, mixed content, insecure signatures, vulnerabilities, what have you. Just looking for the "s" isn't enough. It's a very good thing that the browsers, which can look at all the factors, are giving better hints about whether a connection is trustworthy.
DNSSEC doesn't provide any encryption. It's not for secrecy; it's for authenticating DNS information.
The solution is full-disk encryption.
If the rulebook says "When we plug in our testing machine, your car needs to be emitting X, Y and Z", then they were totally within the rules.
http://interdictor.livejournal...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Gross. :-(
All these issues have been with the "consumer"-grade cheap laptops which have always been garbage, right? I don't think any of them have happened on Thinkpads.
It's not Haselton. He would have written about 10 times as much, with the word "I" being by far the most common.
Just buy the unlocked international version of the phone you want.
I would say that "only" definitely applies to "in tech".
Does 1.0.1e-2+deb7u16 qualify?
Would you prefer they pretend such devices aren't broken? It's not like they're waving a wand and making them all disappear anyway.
You mean, people accidentally mashing both pedals at the same time?
Can they make Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS illegal retroactively, and take back much of the PC revolution?
Sovereign debt denominated in a country's own fiat currency (the US situation) is VERY different from sovereign debt denominated in some other currency (the Greek situation).