I think a lot of people look at the "https" to determine whether the site is secure or not. Handling self-signed certs in this manner would inconvenience many of these people at best and confuse them at worst.
However, I agree with OP that how browsers currently handle self-sign certs is bad. They treat self-sign certs as indicative of a MITM attack with the giant stop screen. And it does discourage small sites from using SSL, even when it's advantageous for one or both parties to use it.
What they should do is remove the secure lock symbol, and bring up a small warning by the URL, like when Firefox blocks a pop-up automatically. Actually, I think there should be a pop-up stating the issuing authority for all SSL connections. Even if an authority is on my trusted list, I'd rather not have some government (or untrustworthy corporate) authority weasel onto the trusted list and thereby be able to eavesdrop on my connection at their convenience.
Yeah, they didn't even put the playable Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man logo up on their SSL search page!
All sarcasm aside, all I have to say is that it's about time. I can understand that SSL connections may result in a great increase in the use of their computing resources, but they have so much computing resources, I'm surprised it's taken them this long to offer SSL, especially as only a small number of users will actually take advantage of it.
And, I can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the China debacle. In addition to the competition, now oppressive governments can't monitor your searches either.
Everybody who goes to Australia should preload their laptops with the freakiest stuff. Like the 2 girls 1 cup video. Then, they should declare it when they go through.
Then it's just a matter of waiting to see how long before the border guards stop checking for porn altogether.
You can't compare the Vatican to Mecca. The Catholic church doesn't follow the rules by the book. They're far more open to interpreting the Bible than some of the Evangelists and other sects in southern US.
Now, if you went to a backwater town in Texas or Mississippi or Tennessee instead of the Vatican and did the same, you'd be shot. You'd be stoned to death if those people had their way, but shooting is so much more convenient.
Sure, I know all about those things. And when in the hands of reasonable, educated, and principled people, those are effective in keeping the government from being too confident in its own power over the populace, just as if those same type of people are running a corporation (publicly traded companies aside).
But I've also seen the government willing to throw one or several of them away or sweep them aside when convenient. Yes, eventually, things will go back to normal, and you will have your day. But that's eventually. Until then, you're going to be locked away in jail for an indeterminate amount of time while reasonable, educated, principled people may or may not succeed in righting your injustice. And worse, if there's the death penalty at play, well, you're pretty screwed if you can't get that appeal through or conviction overturned.
Whereas a corporation can deny you a few material luxuries by bankrupting you and ruining your credit score, the government can deny you your humanity. Government abuse of power is several orders of magnitude more destructive than anything a corporation can do to you.
Besides which, you should be wary of your government, because your government is no longer is afraid of you.
I'd like to see them release some of those experimental UI as alternate themes, if just as a way to measure popularity and usability. I'm not sure how deep theme changes can get, but if the UI is completely XUL, it can't be that hard to slap a completely new skin on top.
I'm not too worried about my privacy when it comes to corporations. Partly, it's because they already have a lot of data on me. Partly, it's because if they abuse it, I have at least a possible method of recourse.
What I am worried about is the government getting their hands on such data. Now that's a danger that far exceeds what a corporation can do. And, you have no method of recourse against the government.
Look at it this way: The worst a corporation could do is deny me a loan, because I buy a lot of junk online, and that means (by whatever twisted logic corporations employ) I'd be more likely to default on it.
The worst a government can do is pull me over for a traffic violation, and throw me into prison without a trial because the routine check brought up the fact that I frequent sites that advocate extreme or even locally unpopular views.
Which all leads to why I try to keep as anonymous as practically possible. Corporations don't have adequate data retention (or deletion) policy for my needs. And they cave easily to the government. Google is only slightly better in that they explicitly state how long they'll keep the data. But until every corporation adopts far more restrictive data retention policies whether by government regulation or by public outcry, I'm going to keep data on me from leaking out as much as possible.
And before anybody points out the obvious contradiction above, I'm just going to say that entities can work for you sometimes, and against you sometimes, neither of which precludes them from doing the complete opposite at the same time.
If you're doing one of those moving art pieces that involve a massive orgy inside a theater.
Or if you just dumped the full contents of your 32oz cup of soda onto your lap when tryin to reach for your spilt popcorn because you had put it on the floor and accidentally kicked it during a suspenseful moment.
I'm not sure it's so simple. The world moves on, but certain things don't.
You can't change the laws of physics.
You can't change the dynamics of human-to-human and human-to-world interaction.
In the same sense that a small sensor will be noisy in low light conditions, people yearn for freedom to do as they please, especially with their material possessions. They don't always know that's what they want, and sometimes, they'll get emotional and want the exact opposite. But at the end of the day, they want to be able to do what they want, not what somebody tells them they can do. These two things may be in line right now, but the limitations artificially imposed upon the iPad will eventually start to prevent people from doing what they want.
The only relevant question is, how long it will be before people run into this wall, and when they do, will the iPad be able to account for this.
There's a bit of revisionism in your words. The iPod didn't really take off until the third generation, after Apple lifted all of your aforementioned limitations due to those limitations well, limiting the device.
That having been said, Jobs is brilliant, or he wouldn't be where he is right now. The thing about brilliance that very few people know is that it doesn't always work. Brilliant people have a lot of ideas and if they're resourceful, can materialize all of them, but only a few of those ideas will ever get anywhere. But when one of those ideas goes anywhere, it'll get really damn far. The Mac is a success; the Apple III not so much. The iPod is an immeasurable success; the Apple TV not quite. It'll be very interesting to see where the iPad goes, especially in two or three years when color e-readers start coming to market.
Money? You can't even use the damn thing without connecting it to an actual computing device first.
If you were somehow stranded on a remote island with a brand new iPad and a power source (a solar powered battery charger or whatnot), you'd basically have a small kickboard that doesn't float.
On the other hand, if you instead had a phone, a netbook, or even a wireless router, you could at least broadcast a signal out and hope that passing rescue craft would be able to detect it. With an iPad, you've got nothing.
Granted, getting you off a remote island isn't exactly the advertised use case, but it goes to show exactly how narrow the iPad's use actually is. In particular, it's a rather expensive supplement to a real machine, rather than a real machine in and of itself.
Yeah, I'd rather skip the Mickey D's and Burger King altogether, and cook my own damn meal. But given the number of obese people in the US, the money's going to fast food anyway.
I think our lifestyles, especially our eating habits, reflect our other preferences. Linux will never gain prominence on the desktop, because most people prefer to eat out rather than cook their own meal. It's pretty much as simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a lot of people look at the "https" to determine whether the site is secure or not. Handling self-signed certs in this manner would inconvenience many of these people at best and confuse them at worst.
However, I agree with OP that how browsers currently handle self-sign certs is bad. They treat self-sign certs as indicative of a MITM attack with the giant stop screen. And it does discourage small sites from using SSL, even when it's advantageous for one or both parties to use it.
What they should do is remove the secure lock symbol, and bring up a small warning by the URL, like when Firefox blocks a pop-up automatically. Actually, I think there should be a pop-up stating the issuing authority for all SSL connections. Even if an authority is on my trusted list, I'd rather not have some government (or untrustworthy corporate) authority weasel onto the trusted list and thereby be able to eavesdrop on my connection at their convenience.
How do you know Scroogle isn't a front run by the CIA?
When online, trust no one, or trust everyone. There's not much room for what's in between.
Yeah, they didn't even put the playable Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man logo up on their SSL search page!
All sarcasm aside, all I have to say is that it's about time. I can understand that SSL connections may result in a great increase in the use of their computing resources, but they have so much computing resources, I'm surprised it's taken them this long to offer SSL, especially as only a small number of users will actually take advantage of it.
And, I can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the China debacle. In addition to the competition, now oppressive governments can't monitor your searches either.
While we're at it, can we add lawyers to the mix?
The line from TFA actually says:
Another aster impact structure in Siberia is 100 km in size.
The "oid" in "asteroid" appears to be cut off for me.
The reason you can't come up with any examples of natural monopolies is that there aren't any.
You need to read up on your history.
Microsoft. AT&T. Standard Oil. US Steel.
All natural monopolies, each more "natural" than the previous one. All busted by the government for their anti-competitive practices.
FOrget their profits. Go for the revenue.
free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone
I sense a contradiction in there. Oh, right, you can't have free speech if it's by definition limited.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
Depends on who is doing the poking.
And how sharp the stick is.
Everybody who goes to Australia should preload their laptops with the freakiest stuff. Like the 2 girls 1 cup video. Then, they should declare it when they go through.
Then it's just a matter of waiting to see how long before the border guards stop checking for porn altogether.
You can't compare the Vatican to Mecca. The Catholic church doesn't follow the rules by the book. They're far more open to interpreting the Bible than some of the Evangelists and other sects in southern US.
Now, if you went to a backwater town in Texas or Mississippi or Tennessee instead of the Vatican and did the same, you'd be shot. You'd be stoned to death if those people had their way, but shooting is so much more convenient.
Or connect it to the internet, in which case, the computer will start crashing on its own without you having ever touched it.
Chuck Norris uses a Model M.
'nuff said.
Microsoft and Apple are Mordor and Orthanc respectively.
Now we're just waiting on the Numenoreans of the White City and the riders of Rohan to respond.
Sure, I know all about those things. And when in the hands of reasonable, educated, and principled people, those are effective in keeping the government from being too confident in its own power over the populace, just as if those same type of people are running a corporation (publicly traded companies aside).
But I've also seen the government willing to throw one or several of them away or sweep them aside when convenient. Yes, eventually, things will go back to normal, and you will have your day. But that's eventually. Until then, you're going to be locked away in jail for an indeterminate amount of time while reasonable, educated, principled people may or may not succeed in righting your injustice. And worse, if there's the death penalty at play, well, you're pretty screwed if you can't get that appeal through or conviction overturned.
Whereas a corporation can deny you a few material luxuries by bankrupting you and ruining your credit score, the government can deny you your humanity. Government abuse of power is several orders of magnitude more destructive than anything a corporation can do to you.
Besides which, you should be wary of your government, because your government is no longer is afraid of you.
the UI refresh should be released now.
I'd like to see them release some of those experimental UI as alternate themes, if just as a way to measure popularity and usability. I'm not sure how deep theme changes can get, but if the UI is completely XUL, it can't be that hard to slap a completely new skin on top.
I'm not too worried about my privacy when it comes to corporations. Partly, it's because they already have a lot of data on me. Partly, it's because if they abuse it, I have at least a possible method of recourse.
What I am worried about is the government getting their hands on such data. Now that's a danger that far exceeds what a corporation can do. And, you have no method of recourse against the government.
Look at it this way: The worst a corporation could do is deny me a loan, because I buy a lot of junk online, and that means (by whatever twisted logic corporations employ) I'd be more likely to default on it.
The worst a government can do is pull me over for a traffic violation, and throw me into prison without a trial because the routine check brought up the fact that I frequent sites that advocate extreme or even locally unpopular views.
Which all leads to why I try to keep as anonymous as practically possible. Corporations don't have adequate data retention (or deletion) policy for my needs. And they cave easily to the government. Google is only slightly better in that they explicitly state how long they'll keep the data. But until every corporation adopts far more restrictive data retention policies whether by government regulation or by public outcry, I'm going to keep data on me from leaking out as much as possible.
And before anybody points out the obvious contradiction above, I'm just going to say that entities can work for you sometimes, and against you sometimes, neither of which precludes them from doing the complete opposite at the same time.
Lends credence to the idea that the matter we see probably isn't all there is.
I think GP means using magnetic storage, not necessarily that storage technology would stop advancing.
If you're doing one of those moving art pieces that involve a massive orgy inside a theater.
Or if you just dumped the full contents of your 32oz cup of soda onto your lap when tryin to reach for your spilt popcorn because you had put it on the floor and accidentally kicked it during a suspenseful moment.
I'm not sure it's so simple. The world moves on, but certain things don't.
You can't change the laws of physics.
You can't change the dynamics of human-to-human and human-to-world interaction.
In the same sense that a small sensor will be noisy in low light conditions, people yearn for freedom to do as they please, especially with their material possessions. They don't always know that's what they want, and sometimes, they'll get emotional and want the exact opposite. But at the end of the day, they want to be able to do what they want, not what somebody tells them they can do. These two things may be in line right now, but the limitations artificially imposed upon the iPad will eventually start to prevent people from doing what they want.
The only relevant question is, how long it will be before people run into this wall, and when they do, will the iPad be able to account for this.
Look at the original iPod.
There's a bit of revisionism in your words. The iPod didn't really take off until the third generation, after Apple lifted all of your aforementioned limitations due to those limitations well, limiting the device.
That having been said, Jobs is brilliant, or he wouldn't be where he is right now. The thing about brilliance that very few people know is that it doesn't always work. Brilliant people have a lot of ideas and if they're resourceful, can materialize all of them, but only a few of those ideas will ever get anywhere. But when one of those ideas goes anywhere, it'll get really damn far. The Mac is a success; the Apple III not so much. The iPod is an immeasurable success; the Apple TV not quite. It'll be very interesting to see where the iPad goes, especially in two or three years when color e-readers start coming to market.
Money? You can't even use the damn thing without connecting it to an actual computing device first.
If you were somehow stranded on a remote island with a brand new iPad and a power source (a solar powered battery charger or whatnot), you'd basically have a small kickboard that doesn't float.
On the other hand, if you instead had a phone, a netbook, or even a wireless router, you could at least broadcast a signal out and hope that passing rescue craft would be able to detect it. With an iPad, you've got nothing.
Granted, getting you off a remote island isn't exactly the advertised use case, but it goes to show exactly how narrow the iPad's use actually is. In particular, it's a rather expensive supplement to a real machine, rather than a real machine in and of itself.
You may be forgetting the whole "windowing system" thing.
Which was invented by Xerox's PARC. As is the mouse and most other aspects of the GUI. Way to be drinking the kool-aid.
Yeah, I'd rather skip the Mickey D's and Burger King altogether, and cook my own damn meal. But given the number of obese people in the US, the money's going to fast food anyway.
I think our lifestyles, especially our eating habits, reflect our other preferences. Linux will never gain prominence on the desktop, because most people prefer to eat out rather than cook their own meal. It's pretty much as simple as that.