The commercial deals are just to co-locate content. You too can co-locate content with your ISP as part of a commercial deal. How can this bode anything for net neutrality anyway?
Likewise, if Apple's app protection was optional, the people who opted out of it would more likely than not end up with iPhones full of botnet malware sending spam to everyone else, including those with iPhones that didn't opt out of the protection scheme.
Bullshit. This isn't an issue with all the Windows Mobile and Symbian phones out there, and those don't enforce "kill switches" on applications... in fact I've never seen a Windows Mobile or Symbian virus. I have seen Antivirus utilities for them though, completely optionally.
Just because Lord Apple claims something, doesn't make it true.
It's limited in scope to the government by very nature of what it is - constitutions are binding on the entity (government) not the constituents (people). It's the same with company constitutions.
I'm impressed at your ability to read only half a sentence while quoting the whole sentence. There's my point attached to the ceiling over there, you might try getting it.
Nope, it was last year or so, and NOT an EV certificate. Verisign is ridiculously harsh on their validation procedures (which you'd bloody expect for $800/yr!)
I did. OpenCA neither has a CA issuing certificates, nor a root certificate I can download. I was able, however, to get a warning about the certificate on their pages, but you can't solve that because they don't let you get their root.
What are you talking about? OpenCA doesn't issue certificates at all! Look around their site- their "Demo CA" is a 404 Not Found page, and the rest of the site is quite clear that OpenCA is a software package.
If you mean CACert, they aren't included yet because they're still being audited. And according to their blog, they failed their last audit.
Uh, the certificate wont work without the corresponding CSR and private key anyway... only the CA and you have the CSR, and only you have the private key. Rewriting them is quite frankly impossible, and eavesdropping is pointless since they don't have all the parts.
Obviously you've never got an SSL certificate from Verisign. The one occasion I had to experience that, they required us to provide them a valid business incorporation number, a Dunn & Bradstreet number, physical address, contact name, phone bill, phone number (which they then ignored - their verification policy is that they will only call a number either printed on your phone bill or found in the white pages) and the whole thing took a week. I found it a similar experience getting a Code Signing certificate from them - except they skipped the D&B number.
you are not aware of low end (which happen to be constituting a BIG majority of the websites on the net) hosting market do you ?
for, $100 a month people do not need to afford a server farm, they just wont be able to buy a cert for their amateur websites, scuttling whatever foray to the web they are doing.
If you're paying less than that, you're probably on shared hosting which is incompatible with SSL anyway. No need for a cert, because you can't use it
for small businesses and small entrepreneurs, costs are equally prohibitive. you can rent a decent webserver and host 300 average websites on it for $200 a month, but if you, god forbid, try to remedy the horrible error ff3 is gonna show when they try to connect to their site control panels through ssl, you need to shell out major bucks for a wildcard ssl. same goes for a vps, shared accounts.
Uh, actually that situation is impossible too. Wildcard SSL certificates REQUIRE a domain name (so *.yourdomain.com) and if you're going to do that, just send everyone to panel.yourdomain.com instead.
Presenting them as less secure than an unencrypted site, with huge warning messages to click past, though, is just idiotic. There's no possible way they're less secure, which means, at worst, the site should just be presented as if it's unencrypted.
Except that it is less secure than an unencrypted site. The reality is, if a user goes to a fraudulent copy of their bank's site, and it has an SSL certificate which is self signed, it SHOULD tell the user that the site may not be passing itself off as what it claims to be. Face it - SSL is used for both encryption AND authentication. Doing anything which involves removing one from the other reduces security for users which, let's face it, are generally morons.
Gmail will use SSL for the actual email IF (and only if) you get to it by typing https://www.gmail.com/ rather than http://www.gmail.com/ (this gives you a certificate error though, you really need to use https://mail.google.com/ - it will stay on whatever protocol you initially access it with.
Exchange is, in fact, not notorious for either of the issues the parent post would have you believe. I have five years of Exchange data which has never been corrupted. The company I currently work for has over 10 years with no issues. In fact, I've never met anyone who has ever had an issue with "database corruption" or "storage failures".
Yo can also find quite a few very good plug-ins for Exchange which will allow individual message storage and the application of external message management systems to ease backup, recovery, and organization of the material by the users, which is a bit of a plus.
Anyone actually USING retention policies in Exchange is also using Rights Management on the emails - so forwarding would be forbidden. Sending through Gmail would be impossible (firewalls, you know. Any company worth it's salt doesn't have POP3, SMTP, SMTPS or IMAP open on the firewall) and in gross violation of company policy.
Why? He's not going on an anti-Microsoft campaign. Until he does that or uses more than one of his accounts in the same thread, his opinion should be treated much like anyone else's. Though I wouldn't mod him up either.
You can keep Dollar bills under the mattress if you really want to.
I expect you like the idea of the bank keeping the money safe for you, and paying you for the privilige as well. I certainly do.
Fixed exchange rate systems all have one thing in common. They fail as soon as things get bad in the economy, and they make the economic downturn even worse than it could have been otherwise.
Actually, the bank doesn't keep your money safe. They're almost reckless with it even. Do you know where the money they give you comes from? It's a percentage of the interest on your money that they loaned to some guy who quite possibly can't afford to repay it. Or it's a percentage of the profit they made by investing your money in stocks which have a pretty good chance to dropping to nothing in value. No, trust me on this, the safest place for your money isn't a bank. The only thing banks have going for them is government insurance if they go bankrupt.
Here's a suggestion. Organise every single customer of a given bank to go there and attempt to withdraw all their money at once. I guarantee you the bank doesn't have enough money to return it, even though it's not their money.
Interesting. And I just noticed they've given Brood War free to every Starcraft owner (their system detects a Starcraft key as a Starcraft Anthology key).
Actually, the game Direct2Drive sells is quite functional, unless you apply the optional patch that Ubisoft offers. Which you shouldn't do, because Direct2Drive is quite clear that you should never apply retail patches, because they break the TryMedia version sold by D2D.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, AFAIK stands for "As Far As I Know" - it's an assertion of something you believe you know. So if you don't know, don't use that acronym.
It's the same logic you guys use when talking about Windows, so why can't someone else misuse a clearly fallacious twist of logic?
The commercial deals are just to co-locate content. You too can co-locate content with your ISP as part of a commercial deal. How can this bode anything for net neutrality anyway?
Likewise, if Apple's app protection was optional, the people who opted out of it would more likely than not end up with iPhones full of botnet malware sending spam to everyone else, including those with iPhones that didn't opt out of the protection scheme.
Bullshit. This isn't an issue with all the Windows Mobile and Symbian phones out there, and those don't enforce "kill switches" on applications... in fact I've never seen a Windows Mobile or Symbian virus. I have seen Antivirus utilities for them though, completely optionally.
Just because Lord Apple claims something, doesn't make it true.
He plays Gunz, so it's quite likely he's a 12 year old.
It's limited in scope to the government by very nature of what it is - constitutions are binding on the entity (government) not the constituents (people). It's the same with company constitutions.
I'm impressed at your ability to read only half a sentence while quoting the whole sentence. There's my point attached to the ceiling over there, you might try getting it.
Nope, it was last year or so, and NOT an EV certificate. Verisign is ridiculously harsh on their validation procedures (which you'd bloody expect for $800/yr!)
For the 10 bajiollionth time, OpenCA doesn't issue certificates.
I did. OpenCA neither has a CA issuing certificates, nor a root certificate I can download. I was able, however, to get a warning about the certificate on their pages, but you can't solve that because they don't let you get their root.
What are you talking about? OpenCA doesn't issue certificates at all! Look around their site- their "Demo CA" is a 404 Not Found page, and the rest of the site is quite clear that OpenCA is a software package.
If you mean CACert, they aren't included yet because they're still being audited. And according to their blog, they failed their last audit.
Uh, the certificate wont work without the corresponding CSR and private key anyway... only the CA and you have the CSR, and only you have the private key. Rewriting them is quite frankly impossible, and eavesdropping is pointless since they don't have all the parts.
Obviously you've never got an SSL certificate from Verisign. The one occasion I had to experience that, they required us to provide them a valid business incorporation number, a Dunn & Bradstreet number, physical address, contact name, phone bill, phone number (which they then ignored - their verification policy is that they will only call a number either printed on your phone bill or found in the white pages) and the whole thing took a week. I found it a similar experience getting a Code Signing certificate from them - except they skipped the D&B number.
you are not aware of low end (which happen to be constituting a BIG majority of the websites on the net) hosting market do you ?
for, $100 a month people do not need to afford a server farm, they just wont be able to buy a cert for their amateur websites, scuttling whatever foray to the web they are doing.
If you're paying less than that, you're probably on shared hosting which is incompatible with SSL anyway. No need for a cert, because you can't use it
for small businesses and small entrepreneurs, costs are equally prohibitive. you can rent a decent webserver and host 300 average websites on it for $200 a month, but if you, god forbid, try to remedy the horrible error ff3 is gonna show when they try to connect to their site control panels through ssl, you need to shell out major bucks for a wildcard ssl. same goes for a vps, shared accounts.
Uh, actually that situation is impossible too. Wildcard SSL certificates REQUIRE a domain name (so *.yourdomain.com) and if you're going to do that, just send everyone to panel.yourdomain.com instead.
Presenting them as less secure than an unencrypted site, with huge warning messages to click past, though, is just idiotic. There's no possible way they're less secure, which means, at worst, the site should just be presented as if it's unencrypted.
Except that it is less secure than an unencrypted site. The reality is, if a user goes to a fraudulent copy of their bank's site, and it has an SSL certificate which is self signed, it SHOULD tell the user that the site may not be passing itself off as what it claims to be. Face it - SSL is used for both encryption AND authentication. Doing anything which involves removing one from the other reduces security for users which, let's face it, are generally morons.
Or Apple HQ?
Gmail will use SSL for the actual email IF (and only if) you get to it by typing https://www.gmail.com/ rather than http://www.gmail.com/ (this gives you a certificate error though, you really need to use https://mail.google.com/ - it will stay on whatever protocol you initially access it with.
No, you misunderstand - retention policies are necessary because of crappy email users!
Exchange is, in fact, not notorious for either of the issues the parent post would have you believe. I have five years of Exchange data which has never been corrupted. The company I currently work for has over 10 years with no issues. In fact, I've never met anyone who has ever had an issue with "database corruption" or "storage failures".
Yo can also find quite a few very good plug-ins for Exchange which will allow individual message storage and the application of external message management systems to ease backup, recovery, and organization of the material by the users, which is a bit of a plus.
Anyone actually USING retention policies in Exchange is also using Rights Management on the emails - so forwarding would be forbidden. Sending through Gmail would be impossible (firewalls, you know. Any company worth it's salt doesn't have POP3, SMTP, SMTPS or IMAP open on the firewall) and in gross violation of company policy.
Oh sorry, I didn't notice that part. Shows how much attention I pay to Twitter posts huh?
Why? He's not going on an anti-Microsoft campaign. Until he does that or uses more than one of his accounts in the same thread, his opinion should be treated much like anyone else's. Though I wouldn't mod him up either.
You can keep Dollar bills under the mattress if you really want to.
I expect you like the idea of the bank keeping the money safe for you, and paying you for the privilige as well. I certainly do.
Fixed exchange rate systems all have one thing in common. They fail as soon as things get bad in the economy, and they make the economic downturn even worse than it could have been otherwise.
Actually, the bank doesn't keep your money safe. They're almost reckless with it even. Do you know where the money they give you comes from? It's a percentage of the interest on your money that they loaned to some guy who quite possibly can't afford to repay it. Or it's a percentage of the profit they made by investing your money in stocks which have a pretty good chance to dropping to nothing in value. No, trust me on this, the safest place for your money isn't a bank. The only thing banks have going for them is government insurance if they go bankrupt.
Here's a suggestion. Organise every single customer of a given bank to go there and attempt to withdraw all their money at once. I guarantee you the bank doesn't have enough money to return it, even though it's not their money.
Interesting. And I just noticed they've given Brood War free to every Starcraft owner (their system detects a Starcraft key as a Starcraft Anthology key).
Thanks for the tip!
Actually, the game Direct2Drive sells is quite functional, unless you apply the optional patch that Ubisoft offers. Which you shouldn't do, because Direct2Drive is quite clear that you should never apply retail patches, because they break the TryMedia version sold by D2D.
There's no potential for a lawsuit whatsoever.