That's the whole point if the DNS is poisoned and www.somebank.com is actually taking me to some 3rd party
the 3rd party only has three options:
Present the bank's certificate
Present a certificate with a different URL than the bank (e.g. hackerbank.ru)
Present a certificate with the correct URL
If it's 1, since the SSL session is started by encrypting the session secret with the Bank's public key, man-in-the middle is prevented. (The attacker cannot decrypt things encrypted with the bank's public key).
If it's 2, the browser will issue a warning that the certificate doesn't match the URL
If it's 3, we're in big trouble, the 3rd party can snoop on the traffic, which is exactly why Mozilla is careful about not
trusting just any CA, and why "trusted" CA's can charge what they do.
What I'm saying is that the states are activly discouraging investment
from companies, because that might force those companies' customer's
to pay state sales tax. (E.g. there was talk back when Amazon never
charged any sales tax except CA that if they built a new data center in state
X, that residents of X would have to start paying tax on their Amazon
purchases, which discouraged Amazon from brining that investment in)
1) All tax is a money grab by the states
2) Everyone wants lower taxes, but the current setup clearly
creats a loophole where I'm encouraged to buy out of state
because I can get it "tax free".
Right now if I buy a $100 widget in NY I'll pay $7 to the state for
that right, or if I buy a $100 widget in TX, I'll probably pay
(I don't know) $6 for that right. But if I buy it from woot.com
with $5 shipping, I can get it from TX to NY for $105, saving me $2.
Does that mean I'm "getting" NY? No, they'll make up their $7 loss
with a raise in the Income, Gas, Sales, Luxury, etc. etc. tax, or a
decrease in subsidies for farmers, or lowering of state employee raises
or whatever.
Who wins? I either pay the same amount in total tax burden, or get less
services from my state, so it's a wash (remember, I only made $2, NY lost $7)
or worse for me. Woot.com got the
sale over NYBasedStore Inc, and FedEx / UPS got the $5 shipping.
Remember, TNSTAAFL
My Dad is working on Streamlined Sales Tax Committee It's an initiative that's being run by the states, but the big push is from big online realators like Amazon and E-bay because they don't want to face 50 sets of rules of tax for all of the 50 states.
The current system is stupid on the face of it, since now most states only tax commerce for corperations which have a actual physical presence in that state, it encourages companies to not setup any investment in states where they do a high volume of sales.
It's been going on for *years* and I don't know that they're making much progress, too many cooks.
The implication is that Wal*Mart could do something to prevent the hammers etc. it sells from being used for violence, and that somehow by selling hammers it is responsible for the misuse. Both of which are clearly innane.
Not to mention the futher conclusion that they would be able to do all that but for the fact that all their manpower is scanning over these prints.
Yeah, it's called a government. Most people have one, but maybe you live in Antartica.
They take things away from people all the time, through taxes, eminant domain, war, etc. Unless you actually live in anarchy, your govenment will, almost by definition, take from you to support the common good, it's just if they're a Republican they won't tell you in so many words, or they'll frame it as a human-life issue.
While I agree that that government should not be choosing what games we can and cannot play, I think it should be pointed out that that doesn't mean they cannot be critized from a moral perspective.
My stomach turns when I watch my friends playing GTA at the top of buildings shooting old ladies.
What if there was a game where you played a Klan member or a child pornographer?
"It's just a game" doesn't mean that it cannot be critized for the moral value of the content, even publically scorned. It just means that the government shouldn't be the one to make you stop producing it.
First, I consider myself pretty good at math, my girlfriend and I met in a Honors Calc III class and we buy lottery tickets together.
Yes, we understand that our odds of winning are terrible and that $1 invested in a ROTH-IRA could one day grow into $10, but, see, we don't care.
Just because a $10 watch and a $1000 watch keep time the same, doesn't mean that the person buying the $1000 watch is wasting $990. You presuppose that people are risk-neutral, while some people are risk-philic. Sure, it's worth betting $1 with my expected return is $.1, that other $0.9 is going toward the purchase of risk.
Furthermore, I don't think that the wikipedia needs to start forcing "good decisions" on people. Will we find that the "Hummer" entry just says "Buy a prius" or the "Steak" entry advocates vegitarianism?
"Many people look at solar as if its some sort of panacea, but the amount of energy that goes into making a tile is far more than you'll ever get out of it"
I too once spouted this myth
But after some serious googling one day I could only find sites which disagree
Of course most of these sites have a vested interest in the future of solar energy, but I didn't find a single site which backed up the claim about pollution, and given the stakes in the energy game, I assume that Big Oil(tm) or Big Windmill(tm) would have made it easily available.
Sam
I think you're missing a few key points:
1) Robots need energy. Humans are very, very efficient at converting solar energy into mechanical energy (via plants). At some point with increased energy demand for all these new robot farmers, and lower cost of food (because they're so efficient) the cost of living will go down (food is a lot of the cost) so it will be cheaper to hire humans for certain tasks.
2) People have a way of inventing jobs. When coopers (barrel makers) were displaced during the industrial revolution, it signaled a loss of the livilyhood of 1,000's of blue collar workers, but they didn't simply stop working and become a burden to society, they found other things to do. It is a misconception that (in the long run)economic improvements lead to unemployment. It certainly shifts employment, but in the long run it provides a greater benefit to all.
Slashdot Mirror
the 3rd party only has three options:
If it's 1, since the SSL session is started by encrypting the session secret with the Bank's public key, man-in-the middle is prevented. (The attacker cannot decrypt things encrypted with the bank's public key).
If it's 2, the browser will issue a warning that the certificate doesn't match the URL
If it's 3, we're in big trouble, the 3rd party can snoop on the traffic, which is exactly why Mozilla is careful about not
trusting just any CA, and why "trusted" CA's can charge what they do.
What I'm saying is that the states are activly discouraging investment from companies, because that might force those companies' customer's to pay state sales tax. (E.g. there was talk back when Amazon never charged any sales tax except CA that if they built a new data center in state X, that residents of X would have to start paying tax on their Amazon purchases, which discouraged Amazon from brining that investment in)
1) All tax is a money grab by the states
2) Everyone wants lower taxes, but the current setup clearly creats a loophole where I'm encouraged to buy out of state because I can get it "tax free".
Right now if I buy a $100 widget in NY I'll pay $7 to the state for that right, or if I buy a $100 widget in TX, I'll probably pay (I don't know) $6 for that right. But if I buy it from woot.com with $5 shipping, I can get it from TX to NY for $105, saving me $2. Does that mean I'm "getting" NY? No, they'll make up their $7 loss with a raise in the Income, Gas, Sales, Luxury, etc. etc. tax, or a decrease in subsidies for farmers, or lowering of state employee raises or whatever. Who wins? I either pay the same amount in total tax burden, or get less services from my state, so it's a wash (remember, I only made $2, NY lost $7) or worse for me. Woot.com got the sale over NYBasedStore Inc, and FedEx / UPS got the $5 shipping. Remember, TNSTAAFL
Something I actually know about!
My Dad is working on Streamlined Sales Tax Committee
It's an initiative that's being run by the states, but
the big push is from big online realators like Amazon and
E-bay because they don't want to face 50 sets of rules of
tax for all of the 50 states.
The current system is stupid on the face of it, since now
most states only tax commerce for corperations which have
a actual physical presence in that state, it encourages
companies to not setup any investment in states where they
do a high volume of sales.
It's been going on for *years* and I don't know that they're
making much progress, too many cooks.
Hey! What are the odds, I'm using Weka right now! Thanks!
The most well thought-out comment I've read so far on /.!
The old saying is:
Cement is to concrete as flour is to fruitcake.
You wouldn't consider fruitcake very homogenous, would you?
4. Stop fingering my wife
It is unbeliveable that this got modded up.
The implication is that Wal*Mart could do something to prevent the hammers etc. it sells from being used for violence, and that somehow by selling hammers it is responsible for the misuse. Both of which are clearly innane.
Not to mention the futher conclusion that they would be able to do all that but for the fact that all their manpower is scanning over these prints.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, it's called a government. Most people have one, but maybe you live in Antartica. They take things away from people all the time, through taxes, eminant domain, war, etc. Unless you actually live in anarchy, your govenment will, almost by definition, take from you to support the common good, it's just if they're a Republican they won't tell you in so many words, or they'll frame it as a human-life issue.
While I agree that that government should not be choosing what games we can and cannot play, I think it should be pointed out that that doesn't mean they cannot be critized from a moral perspective. My stomach turns when I watch my friends playing GTA at the top of buildings shooting old ladies. What if there was a game where you played a Klan member or a child pornographer? "It's just a game" doesn't mean that it cannot be critized for the moral value of the content, even publically scorned. It just means that the government shouldn't be the one to make you stop producing it.
I have to disagree with your overall logic.
First, I consider myself pretty good at math, my girlfriend and I met in a Honors Calc III class and we buy lottery tickets together.
Yes, we understand that our odds of winning are terrible and that $1 invested in a ROTH-IRA could one day grow into $10, but, see, we don't care.
Just because a $10 watch and a $1000 watch keep time the same, doesn't mean that the person buying the $1000 watch is wasting $990. You presuppose that people are risk-neutral, while some people are risk-philic. Sure, it's worth betting $1 with my expected return is $.1, that other $0.9 is going toward the purchase of risk.
Furthermore, I don't think that the wikipedia needs to start forcing "good decisions" on people. Will we find that the "Hummer" entry just says "Buy a prius" or the "Steak" entry advocates vegitarianism?
"Many people look at solar as if its some sort of panacea, but the amount of energy that goes into making a tile is far more than you'll ever get out of it"
I too once spouted this myth
But after some serious googling one day I could only find sites which disagree
Of course most of these sites have a vested interest in the future of solar energy, but I didn't find a single site which backed up the claim about pollution, and given the stakes in the energy game, I assume that Big Oil(tm) or Big Windmill(tm) would have made it easily available.
Sam
I think you're missing a few key points: 1) Robots need energy. Humans are very, very efficient at converting solar energy into mechanical energy (via plants). At some point with increased energy demand for all these new robot farmers, and lower cost of food (because they're so efficient) the cost of living will go down (food is a lot of the cost) so it will be cheaper to hire humans for certain tasks. 2) People have a way of inventing jobs. When coopers (barrel makers) were displaced during the industrial revolution, it signaled a loss of the livilyhood of 1,000's of blue collar workers, but they didn't simply stop working and become a burden to society, they found other things to do. It is a misconception that (in the long run)economic improvements lead to unemployment. It certainly shifts employment, but in the long run it provides a greater benefit to all.