Other interesting questions would be if he accepts the same tone when he made a mistake, and how he would have reated if the other guy would have accepted his fault...
When I search for solutions to some daily problems (on Bing or Google), most non-english replies I find are in French, Spanish or German. Just search for typical problems in your domain and see which language proposes the most solutions, that's probably the language most relevant to you:-)
Yes, as you suggested, by signing it myself. Which makes it per definition a self signed certificate, no matter if I double-sign, cross-sign or ink-sign it. If I don't trust anyone but me, I need to sign it myself, and in that case I will get additional security.
In theory that's nice. In practice I need at least two independant domain name servers if I want to take responsibility for my domain, and with my server at home with changing IP addresses every now and then there is no chance I will get it changed in anyones official DNS server (I'd need to set the vaildity time low enough so the old assigned IP will expire soon enough after my server gets a new one; most DNS-admins don't like that as it increases traffic to their servers.)
For the dyndns-solution: First of all, IIRC I need an admin email address for the domain I register. If I understand correctly, this means I need to set an MX address for my dyndns address. Next problem: The DynDNS provider would be in an ideal position to launch a MITM attack against me.
Just imagine, how many starving people could be fed with all the money!!!111!1eleven1
(Of course they wouldn't actually be rescued, the money would go to lobby organisations, military spendings etc. instead, but since that was always the case that does not have to be questioned.)
Possible, yes, but in that case the advantage of using a CA is gone and I get at least the same level of security due to self-signing and verifying. Also since you suggest to sign it myselft to gain this security, you agree that this self-signing adds to safety (although you disguise your consent by rephrasing it from "self-signing" to "double-signing yourself")
Anyone who argues that a self-signed certificate can be more secure is an idiot. In some circumstances it can be as secure, for example a point to point connection where the client knows the individual certificate (public key stored locally) and verifies it. Obviously google is not going to collect everyone's public certificate and load it into a key store, so in this case it is much less secure and sibject to a MITM attack.
If I rely on CAs and an attacker gets a certificate signed for my domain, couldn't he use it for a MITM-attack? How could he do that if I have my self signed certificate and do not give any credibility to CAs?
How does a MITM attack work when the user uploaded his private CA cert via SSL connection and Google verifies it? (That's what I do with my WP device to get a secure, encrypted connection: I install the certificate manually. If the server certificate does not match my privately installed one anymore, I will get a warning.)
Presumably if you trust self-signed certificates, anyone can launch a MITM attack against your server with a self-signed certificate.
Only if I didn't install the certificate separately on my device. But how do I use a CA signed certificate when my pop3-mail server has a dynamic IP? Get a certificate for a dyndns subdomain?
Why not offer two "phone gateways" for your support? One for customers with existing support contract, and another for those without.
My first thought to this was to implement some community building - collect the numbers of previous freeloaders, especially the yelling ones, and implement call forwarding of new freeloaders to any of the previous ones. They can discuss their problems and provide free support to each others, even without registering to a forum...
For those who take this serious: Sorry, slashdot ate my irony tags:-(
In sum, there doesn't seem to be difference between Android and WP8 in this regard.
There remains the difference that only one ActiveSync account is supported in Android (At least it was when I last searched on this topic)
- which is a problem for me. I have my own ActiveSync server at home and the company server configured.
Can you also link contacts in Android? In PeopleHub you can mark different contacts from different accounts as linked, so only one combined account will appear in your contact list, summarizing all information from both accounts. However, the information is not merged to any of the accounts.
This is the point: You synchronize contacts from multiple accounts, they either end up being synchronized to one account or they are only local contacts on your phone which are lost when you reboot, right? When you add a new contact, it will be automatically assigned to your main account, you can not chose to which phonebook it should belong, correct? In WP, you can have your live account, as many ActiveSync accounts as you like, Facebook, whatever. And when you add a contact it will ask you for which account it is. When you delete an account from WP8 settings, your phonebook is not cluttered with all the obsolete contacts from that account any more. If someone enters data (birthday, personal notes, whatever) to his Facebook account, it will show in your WP people hub, but not be merged to your Outlook phonebook, even if you have the same person there.
I might be wrong since I don't have an Android device, only some other smartphones.
DVD-RW? Probably not. 500GB HD? Quad-Core x86 for development? Probably not. But then you probably still have a "real" machine somewhere doing the actual work.
Oh, by the way: The Android users are quite known for *not* buying too many apps. Looking at the figures from Apple Marketplace and Google Play, developers earn much better from Apple. (According to http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/09/apple-ios-vs-android-developers-whos-making-more-money/, Android developer earn around 7% of what Apple developers earn. Considering that WP8 is equally closed as Apple, 7% of Apples market share for WP might already be sufficient to give the developers there equal financial incentive.)
And if you want to compare on that base, you would have to compare the PC Software market volume with the Android Apps market volume. I didn't find the figures in a hurry, but I'd estimate that the market for Windows Desktop software is much, *much* bigger still.
Android devices are selling better for now in total, but this might change. Loyalty for Android is not that high, developers seem to prefer closed ecosystems, and Windows Phone 8 gets really good reviews. Besides from allegedly being "open", I don't see any advantage of Android over WP8 any more - this was different with WP7. WP8 will not conquer Android on mobile phones any time soon, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't reach double-digit market share during 2013, and for tablets I could well imagine them to supersede Android. And to beat the overall dominance in sold devices, they don't need to win in mobile phones, it's enough to win just a part of that cake. Also please note that Android has big margins on very low-cost devices which are not really fit for extended app-usage, so it would be especially interesting to see the market share in the top 30% of smartphones.
Personally, I hope Linux will win a part on the desktop, WP8 will win a part of the smartphone market, and customers will win some choice in all segments.
2012 is already the year of Linux on the desktop. And the desktop is in your pocket.
No, it's not. My desktop is on top of my desk, I usually use it when writing EMails, discussing more extensively on websites like e.g. slashdot, programming, writing longer articles, etc. Because it has a good keyboard, a much bigger screen, can use my printer and is far better for productive use.
This is also the reason I'm using Linux there. While in my pocket I have a Windows Phone 8 device, because it does everything it is supposed to do and does it well.
Slashdot Mirror
Next: Researchers develop context sensitive spell checker :-)
Other interesting questions would be if he accepts the same tone when he made a mistake, and how he would have reated if the other guy would have accepted his fault...
When I search for solutions to some daily problems (on Bing or Google), most non-english replies I find are in French, Spanish or German. Just search for typical problems in your domain and see which language proposes the most solutions, that's probably the language most relevant to you :-)
Yes, as you suggested, by signing it myself. Which makes it per definition a self signed certificate, no matter if I double-sign, cross-sign or ink-sign it. If I don't trust anyone but me, I need to sign it myself, and in that case I will get additional security.
For the dyndns-solution: First of all, IIRC I need an admin email address for the domain I register. If I understand correctly, this means I need to set an MX address for my dyndns address. Next problem: The DynDNS provider would be in an ideal position to launch a MITM attack against me.
(Of course they wouldn't actually be rescued, the money would go to lobby organisations, military spendings etc. instead, but since that was always the case that does not have to be questioned.)
Come on, how is this informative?!? Either Troll or Funny, I don't care, but this smells of a moderator trolling or trying to be funny!
Possible, yes, but in that case the advantage of using a CA is gone and I get at least the same level of security due to self-signing and verifying. Also since you suggest to sign it myselft to gain this security, you agree that this self-signing adds to safety (although you disguise your consent by rephrasing it from "self-signing" to "double-signing yourself")
Anyone who argues that a self-signed certificate can be more secure is an idiot. In some circumstances it can be as secure, for example a point to point connection where the client knows the individual certificate (public key stored locally) and verifies it. Obviously google is not going to collect everyone's public certificate and load it into a key store, so in this case it is much less secure and sibject to a MITM attack.
If I rely on CAs and an attacker gets a certificate signed for my domain, couldn't he use it for a MITM-attack? How could he do that if I have my self signed certificate and do not give any credibility to CAs?
How does a MITM attack work when the user uploaded his private CA cert via SSL connection and Google verifies it? (That's what I do with my WP device to get a secure, encrypted connection: I install the certificate manually. If the server certificate does not match my privately installed one anymore, I will get a warning.)
Also, DIE, evil auto-playing video advertisment!
Instead of whining to us about your failure to block ads, how about you just go ahead and fucking block them?
Maybe he's afraid to miss some "fucking" ads?
Presumably if you trust self-signed certificates, anyone can launch a MITM attack against your server with a self-signed certificate.
Only if I didn't install the certificate separately on my device. But how do I use a CA signed certificate when my pop3-mail server has a dynamic IP? Get a certificate for a dyndns subdomain?
get all riled up when you cant even read the summary?
I thought this is expected behaviour here?
I prefer to use the term "Negotiation Tool" rather than "AK47"...
(*) Drugs on the Job?
(**) Fabce-Book-Investigators?
"Don't drink and rite", I assume...
Why would I want to sort my xterm-Icon?
if the women obeyed the traffic laws, there would be no way to blackmail them into sex.
So, lets just abandon the justice system. If anyone makes a mistake we will let the witnesses decide the appropriate action?
Why not offer two "phone gateways" for your support? One for customers with existing support contract, and another for those without.
My first thought to this was to implement some community building - collect the numbers of previous freeloaders, especially the yelling ones, and implement call forwarding of new freeloaders to any of the previous ones. They can discuss their problems and provide free support to each others, even without registering to a forum...
For those who take this serious: Sorry, slashdot ate my irony tags :-(
Hmm. Maybe it's time for me to get at least an Android in emulator to compare it a bit better.
In sum, there doesn't seem to be difference between Android and WP8 in this regard.
There remains the difference that only one ActiveSync account is supported in Android (At least it was when I last searched on this topic) - which is a problem for me. I have my own ActiveSync server at home and the company server configured. Can you also link contacts in Android? In PeopleHub you can mark different contacts from different accounts as linked, so only one combined account will appear in your contact list, summarizing all information from both accounts. However, the information is not merged to any of the accounts.
This is the point: You synchronize contacts from multiple accounts, they either end up being synchronized to one account or they are only local contacts on your phone which are lost when you reboot, right? When you add a new contact, it will be automatically assigned to your main account, you can not chose to which phonebook it should belong, correct? In WP, you can have your live account, as many ActiveSync accounts as you like, Facebook, whatever. And when you add a contact it will ask you for which account it is. When you delete an account from WP8 settings, your phonebook is not cluttered with all the obsolete contacts from that account any more. If someone enters data (birthday, personal notes, whatever) to his Facebook account, it will show in your WP people hub, but not be merged to your Outlook phonebook, even if you have the same person there. I might be wrong since I don't have an Android device, only some other smartphones.
DVD-RW? Probably not. 500GB HD? Quad-Core x86 for development? Probably not. But then you probably still have a "real" machine somewhere doing the actual work.
And if you want to compare on that base, you would have to compare the PC Software market volume with the Android Apps market volume. I didn't find the figures in a hurry, but I'd estimate that the market for Windows Desktop software is much, *much* bigger still.
Android devices are selling better for now in total, but this might change. Loyalty for Android is not that high, developers seem to prefer closed ecosystems, and Windows Phone 8 gets really good reviews. Besides from allegedly being "open", I don't see any advantage of Android over WP8 any more - this was different with WP7. WP8 will not conquer Android on mobile phones any time soon, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't reach double-digit market share during 2013, and for tablets I could well imagine them to supersede Android. And to beat the overall dominance in sold devices, they don't need to win in mobile phones, it's enough to win just a part of that cake. Also please note that Android has big margins on very low-cost devices which are not really fit for extended app-usage, so it would be especially interesting to see the market share in the top 30% of smartphones.
Personally, I hope Linux will win a part on the desktop, WP8 will win a part of the smartphone market, and customers will win some choice in all segments.
2012 is already the year of Linux on the desktop. And the desktop is in your pocket.
No, it's not. My desktop is on top of my desk, I usually use it when writing EMails, discussing more extensively on websites like e.g. slashdot, programming, writing longer articles, etc. Because it has a good keyboard, a much bigger screen, can use my printer and is far better for productive use.
This is also the reason I'm using Linux there. While in my pocket I have a Windows Phone 8 device, because it does everything it is supposed to do and does it well.