Of course, the name does enormous things for your placement in google
Yes, exactly. This, and regular updates, is how I got to number one on google for my search term.
However: Do you think "google.com" would be more sucessful or less sucessful if they'd bought the domain "search.com" instead? I don't think it would matter one little bit. Why aren't "microsoft.com" called "software.com", shouldn't amazon.com have called themselves "books.com"?
My point is that for small search-targetted things, domain names are important. If you're a guy sitting in your underpants trying to get a web shop or a blog going, then buying zibble.com is probably not a better choice than techblogger.com or flowers2yourdoor.com
But for actual medium-to-large companies with a marketing budget, you could pretty much call your site something totally ridiculous like "bing" or "yahoo" or "slashdot" and you'd still get the traffic.
get it? Scotty, being a Scot, from Scotland. Welshy, being Welsh, from Wales. I'm amazed you still found that part of WNFHGB funny, given that it evidently swooped over your head.
It's hardly a "mere" warning; it's a gigantic stop sign.
If a little yellow bar like the "remember password" bar came down and said "this site is encrypted, but its identity cannot be authenticated. Be aware that, like any normal (http) website, this one may not be from who it says it's from" then it would be completely different. Instead they interrupt the browsing experience with a very unfriendly message that non-tech people will not have a chance of understanding.
This is bad because, as the article says, some sites will end up having to buy certificates when in fact they don't need one, and others will end up not using encryption when in fact they should be.
Bear in mind the three levels of security: 1) no-ssl: offers neither encryption nor authenication 2) SSL(self-signed): offers encryption 3) SSL(3rd party signed): offers both
why is that that no.2, which is a significant improvement on no.1, generates such a severe warning message?
I just get annoyed by the attitude that a quote from wiki settles all. Put it this way, would you trust a quote from someone's angelfire page? Or their myspace? Why is this different from wikipedia? "Peer review" you say - ok, so what if it had been copied onto hundreds of myspace pages? Wiki's great for casual (read: unimportant) research, but I don't like the way it is percieved to be authoritative, whether it directly claims to be or not.
anyway, I was out of order snapping at you like that so I apologise.
you do realise that wiki can by definition be edited by anyone and thus that any citation involving wikies is comparable to saying "some guy at the bar said this...". Right?
My first response to the headline was "thank god" - I post copies of my essays online, and I hate having cheat sites advertised next to my hard-written essays. Not only is (was) it insulting to students who work for their degrees, but it also cheapened my site by aligning it with those types of services.
"Physical security is always the weakest link in any implementation...they should back to the drawing board again.."
they would, but how can they be sure the drawing board is secure? They need to design some kind of non-physical drawing board on which to design internet2 - that's how!
yeah, I had that idea a while ago. I'm sure google's smart enough to realise that your fake site is newer and condemn that site instead of the original. but, maybe not; if the target is updating content rapidly, then your site will mirror the changes to the target and google won't be able to tell which came first.
you could even run a fake google sitemap to pretend your site was updated before the other one. There's definate scope.
firstly, I think this is the first time I've seen a slashdot article refute itself in the summary " Possible Clue On Saturn's Hexagon?... A UT Austin researcher is quoted as saying it's unlikely this process is behind the Saturn mystery".
secondly, are we even sure there is a hexagon? The face on mars was just a freak of low-resolution photography, couldn't the same sort of human error be responsible here?
actually, orwell either spoke of "doublethink" or "newspeak", but not "double speak". I can't see how either is related to this, though. Suggest you read 1984 before crying Orwell.
Slashdot Mirror
>I'm wondering what they can do if given some extra bytes.
In a few weeks you'll find out at js1337.com ;0)
I'm stunned this is still exploitable. This bug is YEARS old.
Of course, the name does enormous things for your placement in google
Yes, exactly. This, and regular updates, is how I got to number one on google for my search term.
However: Do you think "google.com" would be more sucessful or less sucessful if they'd bought the domain "search.com" instead? I don't think it would matter one little bit. Why aren't "microsoft.com" called "software.com", shouldn't amazon.com have called themselves "books.com"?
My point is that for small search-targetted things, domain names are important. If you're a guy sitting in your underpants trying to get a web shop or a blog going, then buying zibble.com is probably not a better choice than techblogger.com or flowers2yourdoor.com
But for actual medium-to-large companies with a marketing budget, you could pretty much call your site something totally ridiculous like "bing" or "yahoo" or "slashdot" and you'd still get the traffic.
I believe "Welshy" would be the correct spelling.
get it? Scotty, being a Scot, from Scotland. Welshy, being Welsh, from Wales. I'm amazed you still found that part of WNFHGB funny, given that it evidently swooped over your head.
exactly.
It is totally ridiculous that FF makes it easier for users to type in their credit card number on http than self-signed https.
It's hardly a "mere" warning; it's a gigantic stop sign.
If a little yellow bar like the "remember password" bar came down and said "this site is encrypted, but its identity cannot be authenticated. Be aware that, like any normal (http) website, this one may not be from who it says it's from" then it would be completely different. Instead they interrupt the browsing experience with a very unfriendly message that non-tech people will not have a chance of understanding.
This is bad because, as the article says, some sites will end up having to buy certificates when in fact they don't need one, and others will end up not using encryption when in fact they should be.
Bear in mind the three levels of security:
1) no-ssl: offers neither encryption nor authenication
2) SSL(self-signed): offers encryption
3) SSL(3rd party signed): offers both
why is that that no.2, which is a significant improvement on no.1, generates such a severe warning message?
"The UK is far from the worst country for piling petty tyrannies onto its citizens"
perhaps, but it's among the worst for surveillance:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597
found it!
http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~mu/cgi-bin/shortpath.cgi?from=Tacoma+Narrows+Bridge&to=Wet+T-shirt+contest
4 clicks needed B)
yeah, but: http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~mu/cgi-bin/shortpath.cgi?from=Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge&to=Wet_T-shirt_contest
unless I'm doing it wrong...?
wow, no-one got the "Saint" reference.
You don't really believe all this cold fusion mumbo jumbo now do you?
rot13 is useless these days. You need double-rot13.
I really think this belongs in a museum.
that is true.
I just get annoyed by the attitude that a quote from wiki settles all.
Put it this way, would you trust a quote from someone's angelfire page? Or their myspace? Why is this different from wikipedia? "Peer review" you say - ok, so what if it had been copied onto hundreds of myspace pages? Wiki's great for casual (read: unimportant) research, but I don't like the way it is percieved to be authoritative, whether it directly claims to be or not.
anyway, I was out of order snapping at you like that so I apologise.
you do realise that wiki can by definition be edited by anyone and thus that any citation involving wikies is comparable to saying "some guy at the bar said this...". Right?
actually I use and like both, for different purposes.
"Hell, you can find enough people on UseNet and Slashdot who will argue with you just for free."
no you can't.
Load applications quickly without loading windows?
Isn't this called Linux?
well we all know what happened when people got hired in Nazi Germany. Do we want that happening to wikipedia? huh? HUH?
My first response to the headline was "thank god" - I post copies of my essays online, and I hate having cheat sites advertised next to my hard-written essays. Not only is (was) it insulting to students who work for their degrees, but it also cheapened my site by aligning it with those types of services.
"Physical security is always the weakest link in any implementation...they should back to the drawing board again.."
they would, but how can they be sure the drawing board is secure?
They need to design some kind of non-physical drawing board on which to design internet2 - that's how!
Now, how to design that drawing board?
Maybe some kind of non-physical... drawing...
ah.
yeah, I had that idea a while ago. I'm sure google's smart enough to realise that your fake site is newer and condemn that site instead of the original. but, maybe not; if the target is updating content rapidly, then your site will mirror the changes to the target and google won't be able to tell which came first.
you could even run a fake google sitemap to pretend your site was updated before the other one. There's definate scope.
firstly, I think this is the first time I've seen a slashdot article refute itself in the summary " Possible Clue On Saturn's Hexagon? ... A UT Austin researcher is quoted as saying it's unlikely this process is behind the Saturn mystery".
secondly, are we even sure there is a hexagon? The face on mars was just a freak of low-resolution photography, couldn't the same sort of human error be responsible here?
actually, orwell either spoke of "doublethink" or "newspeak", but not "double speak".
I can't see how either is related to this, though. Suggest you read 1984 before crying Orwell.
if any parent has ever deserved modding up, it's this one.