There is. There was a legislation n Poland that tried to end time saving time, and someone pointed out that EU requires all countries to be consistent. So it has to be all-or-nothing from what I know.
This is a relatively new concept. Previously it was usually 3 generations of suffereing for sins of your predecesors. Confucianism from the start said that your entire family is responsible for your actions.
You say "electric" and "battery" as if that electricity came from air. It does not, in most countries it comes from burning coal.
So first we burn coal to generate electricity (with loses), then we transmit electricity (up to 40% of losses on power lines), then we charge the batteries (again some small loses), then we transform electricity into motion (again with loses).
How about we burn fuel and we transform it directly into motion? (with loses of course, but much smaller).
EV cars are "green" only if you generate electricity from truly "green" sources (eg. hydrogeological or sun), and even then you have to ignore the insane amount of damage creation of batteries and solar panels does to environment.
I'm definitely against the electronic voting though. Especially in light of the fact that lots of those are closed source solutions, and many of them were shown to be hackable.
The fact in the matter is - once you have paper voting, performing fraud is so much harder then changing some numbers.
When I make a vote on a paper with a ball pen, it's nearly impossible to change it without a mark without replacing whole box. If someone gives me a tablet or a computer. How do I know that when I click my vote was marked correctly? Without me personally inspecting the code, then inspecting the hardware, I can never be sure.
Some sources: http://thehill.com/policy/cybe... It took hackers _minutes_ to hack into several different voting machines, and once it's modified there's really no way to prove the vote was different.
It's really nice that you completely ignore the original post. Then call me a evil heartless scum for trying to give her a set of simple guidelines to follow.
So you ignore all the arguments I make, you ignore my posts, you go for ad hominem attacks. If someone is a scum in this exchange. it's not me.
Words have meaning. If browser says it's Secure noone is going to think twice.
You know that we used to have a self-signed-certs for this very reeason. So you can have an encryption without CA verifying your identity.
That's what Certificate Chaning was designed for. That's why there are signing parties for PGP.
This discussion has been had already. No. Secured was never ment to mean 'Encryypted', it was ment 'encrypted and you're talking to who you think you are'
I'm quite sure you don't know either. The reason we have Certificate Authorities, is because it was assumed that CA has an Authority to verify that this website is who it claims it is.
We also used to have a thing called self signed certificates. So if you had a need for encryption, you know you could encrypt. Except. Amount of abuse self sign certs created caused all major browsers to display huge warnigns, somtimes makign you do 3 steps to accept those certificates. And now LetsEncrypt is basically a self-signed-cert, except it is labeled 'Secured' in browser, instead of 'Someone is p[ossibly trying to scam you'
Oh. and don't get me wrong. I'm all for Encrypted web. I use let's encrypt myself. Except don't fucking lie to people that website is 'Secutre' If it's not.
Go to the regular CA and try to tregister AIIiorbank.pl, I dare you. I double dare you, and bet 100$ that you won't be able to. With let's encrypt? Sure no probs. Here's a green Bar for you.
and I'd maybe even agree with you if not for the fact that that it says 'Secured' Right there when I click that green lock. Not 'Encrypted', 'Secured'.
I informed her alright. There's Https that stands for 'Secure' NBow I have to explain to her that 'S does not stand for Secure, it stands For Encryypted. and when she tells me not to be silly because there's no 'S' in Encrypted. I'll have to explain to her that I thought so to, but some imbeciles at Mozilla parently decided otherwiser.
Ugh. Dude. Because S in HTTPS always stood for Encryption right?
The fact that the CAs dropepd the ball, does not make the fact that Browsers pushed hard to make it so you can trust a green bar.
I've spent better part of a day to explain to My Mom how to distinguish a safe website from unsafe one. You look at the Green Bar / Lock. Is it green? you are good to give them your name and CC details.
Now I'm going to her and have to explain, that no, things have changed, if you see a green padlock, it no longer means someone at least had to fax some registration papers and pay few bucks so he's traceable. I can already see conversation going:
- So you're saying that the green bar no longer means website is ok?
- Yes. Now it has to be a green padlock and a name of the organization, and you have to check it with magnifying glass because it's very easy to mistake l with I. see Mom, there's difference between AlliorBank and AIIiorBank. Do you see it? Do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the safety regulations in EU make it basically impossible to certify the self-made engine for the road.
in their new election?
Biggest problem with Titanium is it doesn't melt in atmosphere - it'll oxidize (burn). So welding has to be done in a neutral gas. Huge PITA.
There is. There was a legislation n Poland that tried to end time saving time, and someone pointed out that EU requires all countries to be consistent. So it has to be all-or-nothing from what I know.
Lots of people thought Solar Freakin Roadways will revolutionize the word. they were wrong!
Wasn't that the fund that put shittons of money into a Juicero?
This is a relatively new concept. Previously it was usually 3 generations of suffereing for sins of your predecesors. Confucianism from the start said that your entire family is responsible for your actions.
Isn't it how Uber works?
You say "electric" and "battery" as if that electricity came from air. It does not, in most countries it comes from burning coal.
So first we burn coal to generate electricity (with loses), then we transmit electricity (up to 40% of losses on power lines), then we charge the batteries (again some small loses), then we transform electricity into motion (again with loses).
How about we burn fuel and we transform it directly into motion? (with loses of course, but much smaller).
EV cars are "green" only if you generate electricity from truly "green" sources (eg. hydrogeological or sun), and even then you have to ignore the insane amount of damage creation of batteries and solar panels does to environment.
I'm definitely against the electronic voting though. Especially in light of the fact that lots of those are closed source solutions, and many of them were shown to be hackable.
The fact in the matter is - once you have paper voting, performing fraud is so much harder then changing some numbers.
When I make a vote on a paper with a ball pen, it's nearly impossible to change it without a mark without replacing whole box. If someone gives me a tablet or a computer. How do I know that when I click my vote was marked correctly? Without me personally inspecting the code, then inspecting the hardware, I can never be sure.
Some sources: http://thehill.com/policy/cybe... It took hackers _minutes_ to hack into several different voting machines, and once it's modified there's really no way to prove the vote was different.
This is what you get when you privatize prison system.
and in case you haven't heard yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well. I suspect it'll looks something like this: https://youtu.be/0N17tEW_WEU?t...
You are right. In some countries (like USA) you can waive your rights. In most civilised countries however you cannot be forced to waive your rights.
20th century called. They want their computer back.
It's really nice that you completely ignore the original post. Then call me a evil heartless scum for trying to give her a set of simple guidelines to follow.
So you ignore all the arguments I make, you ignore my posts, you go for ad hominem attacks. If someone is a scum in this exchange. it's not me.
You're a horrible human beeing.
Words have meaning. If browser says it's Secure noone is going to think twice. You know that we used to have a self-signed-certs for this very reeason. So you can have an encryption without CA verifying your identity.
That's what Certificate Chaning was designed for. That's why there are signing parties for PGP.
This discussion has been had already. No. Secured was never ment to mean 'Encryypted', it was ment 'encrypted and you're talking to who you think you are'
I'm quite sure you don't know either. The reason we have Certificate Authorities, is because it was assumed that CA has an Authority to verify that this website is who it claims it is. We also used to have a thing called self signed certificates. So if you had a need for encryption, you know you could encrypt. Except. Amount of abuse self sign certs created caused all major browsers to display huge warnigns, somtimes makign you do 3 steps to accept those certificates. And now LetsEncrypt is basically a self-signed-cert, except it is labeled 'Secured' in browser, instead of 'Someone is p[ossibly trying to scam you'
Oh. But I already own AIIiorBank.pl, you see it's absaolutelly dfifferent from AlliorBank.pl. But I see how you could be mistaken.
Oh. and don't get me wrong. I'm all for Encrypted web. I use let's encrypt myself. Except don't fucking lie to people that website is 'Secutre' If it's not.
Go to the regular CA and try to tregister AIIiorbank.pl, I dare you. I double dare you, and bet 100$ that you won't be able to. With let's encrypt? Sure no probs. Here's a green Bar for you.
and I'd maybe even agree with you if not for the fact that that it says 'Secured' Right there when I click that green lock. Not 'Encrypted', 'Secured'.
I informed her alright. There's Https that stands for 'Secure' NBow I have to explain to her that 'S does not stand for Secure, it stands For Encryypted. and when she tells me not to be silly because there's no 'S' in Encrypted. I'll have to explain to her that I thought so to, but some imbeciles at Mozilla parently decided otherwiser.
Ugh. Dude. Because S in HTTPS always stood for Encryption right? The fact that the CAs dropepd the ball, does not make the fact that Browsers pushed hard to make it so you can trust a green bar.
I've spent better part of a day to explain to My Mom how to distinguish a safe website from unsafe one. You look at the Green Bar / Lock. Is it green? you are good to give them your name and CC details.
Now I'm going to her and have to explain, that no, things have changed, if you see a green padlock, it no longer means someone at least had to fax some registration papers and pay few bucks so he's traceable. I can already see conversation going: - So you're saying that the green bar no longer means website is ok?
- Yes. Now it has to be a green padlock and a name of the organization, and you have to check it with magnifying glass because it's very easy to mistake l with I. see Mom, there's difference between AlliorBank and AIIiorBank. Do you see it? Do you?
Dude. Spoilers!