That's not what the post said. It said that if you insist on using masculine pronouns to the point of rejecting pull requests which contain non-masculine pronouns, you are not being a very nice person.
Unless there wasn't crap comedy on TV during those days, and the IT Crowd is the only comedy to have come from the UK recently, you are spouting demonstrable nonsense.
So you disagree with me, then right at the end agree with me. Nice. By the way, that does not break the whole security model of SSL, if you trust that the CDN is not a malicious actor.
Of course they're "spying" - they're wearing white hats and are looking for intrusions, vulnerabilities, and so on. Just look at what happened to Sony - I doubt you'd say that's fair enough, that Sony (or anyone else) shouldn't do anything to try and stop things like that. I guess the security guards at work are spying, too, as they're patrolling around looking for burglars...
It pains me to say, but if that's your field of expertise, and you don't understand why sniffing, DPI, and MITM proxying are important in a security context, you are not very good at your job:)
You put a lot of traffic through a VPN from your cable modem, and occasionally it drops, and you think Comcast are personally attacking you? You sound incredibly paranoid:)
It IS impossible, unless the MITM has a valid certificate for the site in question signed by a CA in the user's trusted store. If that's not the case, the padlock in the user's browser will complain about an untrusted certificate. Yes, the SSL session can be used, but the browser will flag that it is untrustworthy. So no, again, it's impossible to have a MITM attack using SSL which is either not signed by an already-trusted CA cert or without a big red padlock.
The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact quite the opposite: People are interested because the information leaked can be used for identity theft, precisely because current methods of verifying identity are pathetic.
No. A 'Nazi' was a member of the Nazi Party. That's it. Some joined because they had to, some joined because they wanted to. Some organisations required membership (Gestapo & SS, as you pointed out), and many others favoured members over non-members. Trying to paint it as black and white is not really helping.
It most certainly is caching - it's a method called "push caching". The servers act just as caches, but the content is pushed to them from Netflix rather than stored when a client first accesses it.
It's impossible, thanks to HTTPS's encryption method. The MITM can't decrypt packets encrypted with the real server's key, so in order for the MITM to have an encrypted session with the client, it has to use its own certificate. So I think you're mistaken:) I'd love to be proved wrong, however scary the implications.
You can just look at the statistics. The US doesn't fare well in pretty much any class. Substandard service, exorbitant prices, poor coverage, and so on.
The companies profit because of the stable economies and societies countries create through spending the tax the countries have collected. Why shouldn't governments try to recoup some of this? Google can choose to not do business in the affected countries if they want.
AdBlockers can remove spammy posts such as yours, which is something hosts files can not do.
Seeing the world in such black and white terms doesn't speak too highly of your mental stability. I know, I know, now you'll go find all my posts and pretend to be different people comparing me to a monkey or something else. I really don't care - it's rather obvious it's you, as your stream-of-consciousness-barely-sane writing "style" quickly points out.
Hosts files have their use, and so do things like AdBlocker and other browser plugins/extensions. Sane people see that, why can't you? Oh, right... I get it now.
If you could replace "period the end" with an actual source, you'd have more credibility. As you didn't bother, no-one should really pay much attention.
Documentation is awesome! In many languages you just write comments, and your document toolkit thing of choice compiles them into user-friendly code. Of course the users of the stuff I write are other developers, so it's much easier than having to document something from the end user's perspective.
I used a third-party API client for a project we have, and I noticed it wasn't supporting a certain feature. I forked their project, committed the functionality, and then sent a pull request. It took minutes, and it was my first time (be gentle!). Now anyone can have that fix if they want it.
Think about it this way - you use the code, so if you write improvements to it that you need, make them available to the original project. The time difference is measured in seconds, and you've given back to the community which sustains us. The time it takes really is negligible, and it fosters a good reputation in OSS-land.
In any given digital channel, if a publisher has a choice between releasing their licensed material with protection, or not releasing it, they will choose to (or, sometimes, have to) not release it. Without DRM there would be fewer distribution channels. No Netflix, no Hulu, no BBC iPlayer, etc. In the vast majority of cases they have to use DRM to honour licenses they have with the content they are offering. Sometimes licenses can be renegotiated, and we end up with things like iTunes etc. which can deliver DRM-free media, only because the legal hurdles have been removed. Without DRM we'd not have iTunes, as its weight caused a massive shift in how people think about draconian content protection.
DRM has a place, and serves a purpose. It sometimes gets in the way, but if that is indeed unjust, it doesn't get in the way for long.
Intelligence tests aren't really accurate, so using them in this context is pointless.
There has been enough work on this to show decisively that one's racial heritage or gender has at most a tiny effect (if any) on intelligence, and one's upbringing has a far greater effect.
Watson might have been technically correct, but he blurred the lines between correlation and causation, which is a really disappointing thing on its own.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what the post said. It said that if you insist on using masculine pronouns to the point of rejecting pull requests which contain non-masculine pronouns, you are not being a very nice person.
So mentally disabled people are less-than-human, too? Serious question.
Unless there wasn't crap comedy on TV during those days, and the IT Crowd is the only comedy to have come from the UK recently, you are spouting demonstrable nonsense.
So you disagree with me, then right at the end agree with me. Nice. By the way, that does not break the whole security model of SSL, if you trust that the CDN is not a malicious actor.
Of course they're "spying" - they're wearing white hats and are looking for intrusions, vulnerabilities, and so on. Just look at what happened to Sony - I doubt you'd say that's fair enough, that Sony (or anyone else) shouldn't do anything to try and stop things like that. I guess the security guards at work are spying, too, as they're patrolling around looking for burglars...
It pains me to say, but if that's your field of expertise, and you don't understand why sniffing, DPI, and MITM proxying are important in a security context, you are not very good at your job :)
You put a lot of traffic through a VPN from your cable modem, and occasionally it drops, and you think Comcast are personally attacking you? You sound incredibly paranoid :)
It IS impossible, unless the MITM has a valid certificate for the site in question signed by a CA in the user's trusted store. If that's not the case, the padlock in the user's browser will complain about an untrusted certificate. Yes, the SSL session can be used, but the browser will flag that it is untrustworthy. So no, again, it's impossible to have a MITM attack using SSL which is either not signed by an already-trusted CA cert or without a big red padlock.
The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact quite the opposite: People are interested because the information leaked can be used for identity theft, precisely because current methods of verifying identity are pathetic.
They're hardly platitudes, and have been discussed to death. Feigning ignorance isn't really helping your position.
Not even close.
No. A 'Nazi' was a member of the Nazi Party. That's it. Some joined because they had to, some joined because they wanted to. Some organisations required membership (Gestapo & SS, as you pointed out), and many others favoured members over non-members. Trying to paint it as black and white is not really helping.
It most certainly is caching - it's a method called "push caching". The servers act just as caches, but the content is pushed to them from Netflix rather than stored when a client first accesses it.
There's absolutely no reason why it has to be, if it is indeed done that way.
It's impossible, thanks to HTTPS's encryption method. The MITM can't decrypt packets encrypted with the real server's key, so in order for the MITM to have an encrypted session with the client, it has to use its own certificate. So I think you're mistaken :) I'd love to be proved wrong, however scary the implications.
You can just look at the statistics. The US doesn't fare well in pretty much any class. Substandard service, exorbitant prices, poor coverage, and so on.
That's HEDLEY!
Google for 'define:action', and read the results. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not in widespread use.
The companies profit because of the stable economies and societies countries create through spending the tax the countries have collected. Why shouldn't governments try to recoup some of this? Google can choose to not do business in the affected countries if they want.
AdBlockers can remove spammy posts such as yours, which is something hosts files can not do.
Seeing the world in such black and white terms doesn't speak too highly of your mental stability. I know, I know, now you'll go find all my posts and pretend to be different people comparing me to a monkey or something else. I really don't care - it's rather obvious it's you, as your stream-of-consciousness-barely-sane writing "style" quickly points out.
Hosts files have their use, and so do things like AdBlocker and other browser plugins/extensions. Sane people see that, why can't you? Oh, right... I get it now.
If you could replace "period the end" with an actual source, you'd have more credibility. As you didn't bother, no-one should really pay much attention.
Your entire posting history makes sense now. Thanks for removing any doubt.
The word is "foment".
Documentation is awesome! In many languages you just write comments, and your document toolkit thing of choice compiles them into user-friendly code. Of course the users of the stuff I write are other developers, so it's much easier than having to document something from the end user's perspective.
I used a third-party API client for a project we have, and I noticed it wasn't supporting a certain feature. I forked their project, committed the functionality, and then sent a pull request. It took minutes, and it was my first time (be gentle!). Now anyone can have that fix if they want it.
Think about it this way - you use the code, so if you write improvements to it that you need, make them available to the original project. The time difference is measured in seconds, and you've given back to the community which sustains us. The time it takes really is negligible, and it fosters a good reputation in OSS-land.
Nope. It's called Digital Rights Management.
In any given digital channel, if a publisher has a choice between releasing their licensed material with protection, or not releasing it, they will choose to (or, sometimes, have to) not release it. Without DRM there would be fewer distribution channels. No Netflix, no Hulu, no BBC iPlayer, etc. In the vast majority of cases they have to use DRM to honour licenses they have with the content they are offering. Sometimes licenses can be renegotiated, and we end up with things like iTunes etc. which can deliver DRM-free media, only because the legal hurdles have been removed. Without DRM we'd not have iTunes, as its weight caused a massive shift in how people think about draconian content protection.
DRM has a place, and serves a purpose. It sometimes gets in the way, but if that is indeed unjust, it doesn't get in the way for long.
Intelligence tests aren't really accurate, so using them in this context is pointless.
There has been enough work on this to show decisively that one's racial heritage or gender has at most a tiny effect (if any) on intelligence, and one's upbringing has a far greater effect.
Watson might have been technically correct, but he blurred the lines between correlation and causation, which is a really disappointing thing on its own.