I noticed recently that facebook changed its certs a couple of times. Aside from that, it still has the same problem that all other certs have... yes they are valid certs, signed by some "valid CA" (according to the built in CA list)... yes, I know now...and I can be "curious" or "concerned' but there is little else I can do.
If it were my friend or colleague's server, I could call him up to verify... um... but to do that for most sites is hard... facebook?
> It is quite amoral to sell these to normal people.
Hmmm and who exactly is a normal person now? I dare say, I have never met one in my entire life.
I would say that it is immoral to sell to someone who has stated an intention to do harm, but aside from that, I think you are right, its amoral...as in there is no special morality or immorality going on. It just is what it is. Who exactly should be able to say who is responsible and who isn't? Why should I, or anyone, trust that person so much?
Actually, no. I am, in no way, saying that having computers or being an IT company should exempt anyone from anything.
I am saying that the regulations and what we expect of people should not be stupid and put undue requirements on people. It is the police and regulators job to enforce their laws....just as I take full responsibility for policing any rules that i make up.
So, lets forget that this is google for a second. Lets say I have a building and plan to let someone advertise on the side of my building.
Are you saying that it is actually reasonable that I, a person in the real estate industry (in this case) should, upon being approached by a pharmacy, now become an expert in the legalities of pharmacies, before I accept their money and put up their ad? I should now do this for any and every company that approaches me, looking to put up an ad?
I, personally, find that to be an unreasonable expectation....and regulations requiring it to be brain dead, lazy, and nothing that I support. Then again, that describes an awful lot of "the law". (or as I like to call it....the silly rules made up by a bunch of ridiculous old men, whose constitution I neither signed nor feel bound by)
So essentially what you are saying is....not only does his vote not count, nobodies does....because both sides are essentially the same, meaning there really....is no vote
Whats all this we stuff? You don't speak for me. There is no "we".
> -if you want to change society, you do live in a democracy and are supposed to change it by voting
Um thats nice. I never signed the constitution. Why do I need to recognize your so called "democracy" and weak ass - totally owned - voting system, as "legitimate". I say they ARE the crime.
I openly applaud these efforts to attack the criminals who steal our money for their petty wars on whatever they dislike in the society around them, from immigration, to drugs....what you call law, is the crime.
We have the same issue. In fact, improper access to medical records is the NUMBER ONE reason that people get fired at our affiliated institutions. You think they take it seriously? No way...we take it seriously.
They wait for a report, and then look into it...how do we do it?
You look up records for someone at the same address, red flag. You look up records with the same last name, red flag. Hell I think even looking up someone who lives on your street gets a red flag. We scrape the logs on a regular basis and will soon be doing the auditing live. We don't wait for someone to claim that there is a problem, we find problems before the victim does.... because it is our system and our responsibility.
There are, though, its not really what most people are into...they are...another extreme. Though, they can be quite a good party.
>He doesn't really need any more people, he just needs to be responsible himself, because no matter how > widespread the problem is, you're pretty much able to avoid contracting the disease simply by being responsible.
Well.... yes but, thats totally missing the point of what he is talking about. The whole point is that a change in social dynamics (less monogamy, more responsible promiscuity) can lead to counterintuitive outcomes. That is...an increase in overall levels of promiscuity leading to a decrease in disease transmission rates. Relatedly, some of the models that disease researchers use, predict the same effect.
In fact, the whole "counterintuitive effects" angle is pretty much the thesis of his entire book, of which this essay is the title bearing chapter. It is not an attack on monogamy as a personal lifestyle choice, it is an attack on the idea that monogamy as an overall social dynamic has positive effects in stopping the OVERALL transmission of disease. Why is that not worthy of investigation and discussion?
> Responsible is unrelated to monogamous. Someone who is responsible is unlikely to contract the disease, whether > they're monogamous or not. Claiming that monogamy is to blame for irresponsibility is unfounded.
Now here you have a very valid objection. Monogamous does not, actually, mean responsible. It is a total red herring, tossed in to be a bit sensational and raise eyebrows. I figured that was pretty obvious. Down towards the end he drops the monogamy social dynamic and talks a bit about how to give incentive to the responsible, without giving it to the irresponsible.... subsidize condoms.
Lets say that Alice is infected, and she can choose bob or chris for a sexual partner. If she chooses Bob, he will insist on condoms, and get tested, and has few sexual partners. If he finds himself positive (which is less likely), he will probably die with it, and infect nobody else due to his being responsible.
If she chooses chris, he will not insist on condoms, and has many sexual partners, doesn't get tested. If he gets infected, he may never know, and will likely spread it to multiple other people.
Now, lets add Dianne into the mix. Diane, is like chris.
So if Alice chooses Bob, he may get infected, and that is bad for him, and potentially the handful of people he sleeps with.
If she chooses chris, then its just as bad for him as it is for Bob, but... its worst for everyone else that he sleeps with, since he has a higher likelyhood of spreading it...and to more people. The worst case situation here is easy to see.... if chris is connected to Diane!
Adding a lot more people like Bob to the pool dillutes the pool, decreasing the rate at which people like chris and dianne meet eachother.
He isn't suggesting that people be irresponsible and fuck everyone they meet, he is saying.... we need a lot more people who are responsible and take on the occasional new lover, in a responsible manner.
Clearly this isn't monogamy, but, monogamy is just.... one extreme.
Almost certainly? Rotfl are you even paying attention? Almost certainly get them herpes maybe... but that is them and around 1/3 of the population in general (over 80% for oral infections... with the oral strain also accounting for a large percentage of genital infections...) but HIV? Highly unlikely.
And your analogy is terrible. Its more like.... if people more people who were in the habbit of washing their hands started cooking food. The larger number of responsible people (washing hands, using condoms, getting tested) would dillute the population of irresponsible people who don't wash their hands, use condoms, get tested, whatever being responsible means in the context.
Also, monogamy is an amusing concept....its the mostly widely practiced thing that isn't widely practiced. If it means "never" having sex with anyone else, then I defy you to show that it is widely practiced with the numbers on infidelity.
Sure, monogamy is a very nice, neat answer.... except, that the same answer has been given for so long now, yet, we have never seen it practiced on a wide scale. The numbers on infidelity make any talk of monogamy laughable.
It is the simple and elegant solution that would work great if only you could just get everybody to buy in, completely, for their entire lives. Good luck with that, its never happened, never will.
While it is true, penetrative anal sex, while the most transmissible sexual route, is still not all that likely. The highest studies put it at 1.7%, for unprotected receptive anal exposures. So, even if you are in that demographic, it is still pretty slim when you figure the transmission rate and the number of infected people.
Of course, as we all know, AIDS is natures punishment for our toleration of unnatural sexual practices...specifically...monogamy
However.... while they say familiarity breeds contempt, I think it is hardly the case. Familiarity breeds acceptance.
If your city has been ravaged by plague before, maybe you have seen it...maybe your parents just told you the horrors of when it last happened. We got "ring around the rosies" from it... if it seems common, people come to accept it.
It has been noted, for example, that the drop in child mortality rates seems to have also sensitized people to it. Now, if your child dies early and sudden, you may be the only person you know that this has happened to, maybe, one of the very unlucky few, at best. With rarity, we have more alarm.
Who questions that crime is "bad these days"? Few seem to. I hear people make comments about how crime is "these days" as if, it is somehow worst than in the past, but, by all objective measures, its been on the downswing (here in the US) since the 1980s...and a huge downswing too. The less of it there is, the more news it becomes, the less familiar the reality of it becomes... the more scared people get.
Taking it back to the plague.... I think people are so afraid for a few reasons. First is the gambler's fallacy. It hasn't happened for a while, therefore we are "due". Like this...
The most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino in the summer of 1913, when the ball fell in black 26 times in a row, an extremely uncommon occurrence (but no more or less common than any of the other 67,108,863 sequences of 26 balls, neglecting the 0 or 00 spots on the wheel), and gamblers lost millions of francs betting against black after the black streak happened. Gamblers reasoned incorrectly that the streak was causing an "imbalance" in the randomness of the wheel, and that it had to be followed by a long streak of red.[1]
Millions of francs lost because.... people were fooled by this sort of thinking.
I am pretty happy to see this. Why? Because, come on, who didn't know this would be a problem eventually?
This is the biggest Achilles' heel in all of PKI... the need to trust the CA! Yet, there are WAY too many of them, all trusted by default. We have known the Department of Homeland Stupidity has had their own trusted CA, should we be surprised that any national government is capable of shopping around for one that will give them the certs they claim to need and should have for some reason?
The ONLY answer is.... burn the default trusted CA list. Give users more and better tools for accepting certificates. It has to be more explicit and open, less closed and controlled. Personally, I would like to never trust this CA again....there is no tool to help me with that. I can pull it from my system CA lists, but then I have to do that everywhere... and i have to remember to keep it up, and remember any others that I don't trust.
I would much rather a personal trust list that I can work with....shit... maybe even sync though a service like firefox sync or UbuntuOne or some such... it needs to be easy to use, transparent etc. Even better would be to see this handled at a system level, and let all apps get their trust list from there.
This would even allow smaller CAs like CACert to be on more equal footing....if nobody is just "allowed by default" then nobody is inherently harder to use.
There is also just being interested and wondering if you can do it. There is also the possibility of doing it because someone large like a major national government's thugs (china, US, etc) want your data, or the data of the people you are developing the procedures to help.
of course, if thats the case, then.... this is perhaps not over the horizon at all, they are, in fact, inadequate protections.
Course, nothing will protect you from the "$5 wrench" scenario (not that any government would ever pay that little for a wrench).
It is a theoretical possibility and has been shown to be possible.
Lets be honest though.... it is just not that likely of an attack. Lets not forget you can't encrypt your initrd... Unless you store your boot partition on a USB key and carry it with you, then it can be modified by an attacker. All he has to do it reboot the machine, install a key logger in the initrd, and get the passphrase the next time you type it in.
That or install one between the keyboard and machine. Hell, can probably do everything he needs from the USB bus. Did they ever fix that USB bus problem where a USB device could get full DMA without any OS help required? Hell the USB device could even be installed inside the laptop so its active and invisible while you use it.
Thats before we even talk about things like, installing a pinhole camera to record your keystrokes....oh or using audio, as its been demonstrated that you can reliably recover typed information from recordings of the typing.
Without physical security there is no security. You can't prevent your hardware from being booby trapped... and there are people out there with entire labs devoted to producing this sort of clandestine equipment. Hell, the FBI is known in some instances to have put a tarp in front of a whole house at night, with a print of the original house on it...just so they could work undetected.
Its all a matter of who wants your data and what they are willing to get it.
Um.... extensions other than Subject Alternative Name? Because, that has worked fine for a few years now (in browsers, and a few other places anyway).
With a SAN the certificate just simply lists ALL vhosts that it supports. So, while an eavesdropper can see what site you are going to, he can only see it as one of the several sites that you might possibly be going to.
Of course, Verisign makes sure to ass rape you solidly if you want SANs, but that is almost redundant since, they always try to provide that service.
Actually, back when I was doing it a lot (am in an open marriage so I still date but.... much less often, because it matters a lot less to me now)... I actually found that one of the most successful things was to, in fact, directly address how I do not meet their states requirements, and why I felt I should message them anyway. (I have done this with jobs too, but you have to be careful with that...though... I have never held a job that didn't claim to require a degree, which I have never claimed to have)
Usually things like "I see that I am a year or two outside your preferred age range but,...." or "I know it isn't your stated preference" etc. Those seem to get replies, and have even gotten me some dates.
I can't claim to have done as rigorous a study as OK has done with their data, but, it always seemed that messages where I made comments like that seemed to get replies more often than others.
I don't see how other forms of media are relevant. Radio and TV are not really the most natural advertising markets for a primarily web business. I don't mean to sound like an ad for google, but if I was going to advertise anything, I would probably look to the web first unless I have VERY deep pockets and was looking at true mass distribution.
I guess you could blame the advertisers here, and say they need to clean up but...why?
The police and politicians may feel it is their job to work for the big pharma who really hates the competition but, I don't see why it should be Google's job. If someone is advertising something illegal, they should charge the person doing it, not shoot the messenger. In any case, they will just find new ways to advertise, maybe more spam.
That said... Controlling people is silly and stupid. I don't recommend wasting the time trying. It is entirely a problem that was created by enacting laws that never had any hope of working, so now they have a law that lets them make advertisers do their job for them
Though... there are other factors. What if that only averages 6 more months of good health? 3 extra years worth it, if you spend 2.5 of it in pain or in a hospital bed?
Not saying I expect to find that, but depending on your choice of exercice and other factors...who knows. What about increased risk of injury? Your chooice of exercise may increase the odds of getting an injury that may have other complications.
encouraging but...yes we do need more than just "you get to be even older"
Yes but murder for hire is clearly illegal. What if you advertised for pest extermination (insect murder for hire), which is legal.. should google know that your area requires such businesses to have special licenses? Should they be experts on the requirements in every state (US and foreign) and its requirements for the business at hand? Should they be in charge of policing whether YOU may legally perform a task vs anyone else? In how many industries is it feasible or should it be required, for them to retain experts in to make these determinations?
However, operating a pharmacy and advertising it are not illegal. I could see that argument if the ad was "Come buy cocaine to help soothe your toothe ache". However, its not.... if I put up an ad saying "Apartment for rent" but... the apartment is an illegal basement or has no fire escape.... would they be liable for advertising something illegal?
Why is the onus on an IT company to perform the job of a licensing board? They are not even in the healthcare industry! What part of their business, which is very very broad, is supposed to make them experts in the legalities of every industry that they interact with?
I figured as much. Far less likely that they got the epicenter wrong than the extent was specified in a brain dead way. I mean... really? It was felt in VA? Who would have thought that you would actually feel it...where it is happening. Heh.
I am unaware of anything stopping you from registering an account "straightguy" or "nohomogirl"
It isn't so much a matter of "getting to", whats stopping you from doing it? I flaunt mine all the time, whenever my wife and I walk down the street, I hold her hand. I have been known to wear a shirt that says "I may not be Mr Right, but I will fuck you until he gets here".... I guess that could be orientation (if not sex) neutral.
As to why its done, I think its an identity thing. Straight is "normal", there is way more of us. So if I call myself "straight steve" well.... my name "Steve" does more to identify me as a unique individual in most crowds than "straight". Whereas gay people make up only about 10% of the population, so its a much stronger identifier. As such, I think gay people are more likely to identify with it...whereas I am more likely to be set apart by some other aspect of my interests.
Also, it means that, with the 1 in 10 odds working against them, broadcasting makes it easier to find others who are similar, which is important for a number of reasons, including dating. When 9 out of 10 of the people that interest you are unavailable to you, before you even start to factor in who is or isn't in a relationship already.... it makes a lot more sense to want to raise up a flag, so to speak.
Now, there is a darker side to this. Let us not forget that, just a generation ago we had a strong "coming out" movement, which was a reaction to social problems.
But by all means, identify publicly as straight if you feel you feel that will help you in some way.
If it was felt from "VA to MA" wouldn't that put the epicenter around NYC? I would expect you to find reports from somewhere more like GA or such to MA....or was this a unidirectional quake that only sent waves north?
oh and yes.... was definitely felt in Boston. Actually, I think this is the first quake that I ever noticed and was able to attribute to being as such. If I have ever felt any others, it was indistinguishable from the washing machine being loaded slightly badly.
Of course, in the real world, there are other concerns. This is only looking at taking short breaks on the web vs not taking short breaks or taking short breaks to check email. It is not comparing effectiveness of any other area of the workplace. People learn what is expected of them to do their job.
Perhaps management has created a perverse incentive to not work very hard? I have seen places where management behavior has pretty much convinced many people that their best course of action is to just slide by and do as little as possible, because even doing good work and being a team player brings just headaches and even reprimands... but slacking goes unnoticed.
Like the old Dilbert strip "Floggings will continue until morale improves"
> Marijuana is at CI because Marinol (a CIV medication) is far more medically effective as an anti-emetic and analgesic.
And roman horse carts had the width that they did, because it is the same width that modern train tracks use. Makes sense right?
Aside from that, makes sense but it is a bit like the old hemp thing. Before some French companies had used breeding to produce a low-thc strain, there was no need to define "hemp" as different. Then, while there is no legitimate hemp industry, and thus nobody cares, it was easy to push for international legislation setting a ridiculously low THC threshold for "hemp".
Marijuna was CI long before there was a "Marinol".
Marinol is not CI because a company with deep pockets and a patent on its production/use pushed for it to be scheduled separately. Any properties of the plant vs marinol are completely orthogonal to the real reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
I run it too...
I noticed recently that facebook changed its certs a couple of times. Aside from that, it still has the same problem that all other certs have... yes they are valid certs, signed by some "valid CA" (according to the built in CA list)... yes, I know now...and I can be "curious" or "concerned' but there is little else I can do.
If it were my friend or colleague's server, I could call him up to verify... um... but to do that for most sites is hard... facebook?
> It is quite amoral to sell these to normal people.
Hmmm and who exactly is a normal person now? I dare say, I have never met one in my entire life.
I would say that it is immoral to sell to someone who has stated an intention to do harm, but aside from that, I think you are right, its amoral...as in there is no special morality or immorality going on. It just is what it is. Who exactly should be able to say who is responsible and who isn't? Why should I, or anyone, trust that person so much?
Actually, no. I am, in no way, saying that having computers or being an IT company should exempt anyone from anything.
I am saying that the regulations and what we expect of people should not be stupid and put undue requirements on people. It is the police and regulators job to enforce their laws....just as I take full responsibility for policing any rules that i make up.
So, lets forget that this is google for a second. Lets say I have a building and plan to let someone advertise on the side of my building.
Are you saying that it is actually reasonable that I, a person in the real estate industry (in this case) should, upon being approached by a pharmacy, now become an expert in the legalities of pharmacies, before I accept their money and put up their ad? I should now do this for any and every company that approaches me, looking to put up an ad?
I, personally, find that to be an unreasonable expectation....and regulations requiring it to be brain dead, lazy, and nothing that I support. Then again, that describes an awful lot of "the law". (or as I like to call it....the silly rules made up by a bunch of ridiculous old men, whose constitution I neither signed nor feel bound by)
So essentially what you are saying is....not only does his vote not count, nobodies does....because both sides are essentially the same, meaning there really....is no vote
Whats all this we stuff? You don't speak for me. There is no "we".
> -if you want to change society, you do live in a democracy and are supposed to change it by voting
Um thats nice. I never signed the constitution. Why do I need to recognize your so called "democracy" and weak ass - totally owned - voting system, as "legitimate". I say they ARE the crime.
I openly applaud these efforts to attack the criminals who steal our money for their petty wars on whatever they dislike in the society around them, from immigration, to drugs....what you call law, is the crime.
Putting on my "health care IT" hat....
We have the same issue. In fact, improper access to medical records is the NUMBER ONE reason that people get fired at our affiliated institutions. You think they take it seriously? No way...we take it seriously.
They wait for a report, and then look into it...how do we do it?
You look up records for someone at the same address, red flag. You look up records with the same last name, red flag. Hell I think even looking up someone who lives on your street gets a red flag. We scrape the logs on a regular basis and will soon be doing the auditing live. We don't wait for someone to claim that there is a problem, we find problems before the victim does.... because it is our system and our responsibility.
That is taking it seriously.
> There are clubs for that sort of thing, I hear.
There are, though, its not really what most people are into...they are...another extreme. Though, they can be quite a good party.
>He doesn't really need any more people, he just needs to be responsible himself, because no matter how
> widespread the problem is, you're pretty much able to avoid contracting the disease simply by being responsible.
Well.... yes but, thats totally missing the point of what he is talking about. The whole point is that a change in social dynamics (less monogamy, more responsible promiscuity) can lead to counterintuitive outcomes. That is...an increase in overall levels of promiscuity leading to a decrease in disease transmission rates. Relatedly, some of the models that disease researchers use, predict the same effect.
In fact, the whole "counterintuitive effects" angle is pretty much the thesis of his entire book, of which this essay is the title bearing chapter. It is not an attack on monogamy as a personal lifestyle choice, it is an attack on the idea that monogamy as an overall social dynamic has positive effects in stopping the OVERALL transmission of disease. Why is that not worthy of investigation and discussion?
> Responsible is unrelated to monogamous. Someone who is responsible is unlikely to contract the disease, whether
> they're monogamous or not. Claiming that monogamy is to blame for irresponsibility is unfounded.
Now here you have a very valid objection. Monogamous does not, actually, mean responsible. It is a total red herring, tossed in to be a bit sensational and raise eyebrows. I figured that was pretty obvious. Down towards the end he drops the monogamy social dynamic and talks a bit about how to give incentive to the responsible, without giving it to the irresponsible.... subsidize condoms.
Lets say that Alice is infected, and she can choose bob or chris for a sexual partner. If she chooses Bob, he will insist on condoms, and get tested, and has few sexual partners. If he finds himself positive (which is less likely), he will probably die with it, and infect nobody else due to his being responsible.
If she chooses chris, he will not insist on condoms, and has many sexual partners, doesn't get tested. If he gets infected, he may never know, and will likely spread it to multiple other people.
Now, lets add Dianne into the mix. Diane, is like chris.
So if Alice chooses Bob, he may get infected, and that is bad for him, and potentially the handful of people he sleeps with.
If she chooses chris, then its just as bad for him as it is for Bob, but... its worst for everyone else that he sleeps with, since he has a higher likelyhood of spreading it...and to more people. The worst case situation here is easy to see.... if chris is connected to Diane!
Adding a lot more people like Bob to the pool dillutes the pool, decreasing the rate at which people like chris and dianne meet eachother.
He isn't suggesting that people be irresponsible and fuck everyone they meet, he is saying.... we need a lot more people who are responsible and take on the occasional new lover, in a responsible manner.
Clearly this isn't monogamy, but, monogamy is just.... one extreme.
Almost certainly? Rotfl are you even paying attention? Almost certainly get them herpes maybe... but that is them and around 1/3 of the population in general (over 80% for oral infections... with the oral strain also accounting for a large percentage of genital infections...) but HIV? Highly unlikely.
And your analogy is terrible. Its more like.... if people more people who were in the habbit of washing their hands started cooking food. The larger number of responsible people (washing hands, using condoms, getting tested) would dillute the population of irresponsible people who don't wash their hands, use condoms, get tested, whatever being responsible means in the context.
Also, monogamy is an amusing concept....its the mostly widely practiced thing that isn't widely practiced. If it means "never" having sex with anyone else, then I defy you to show that it is widely practiced with the numbers on infidelity.
Sure, monogamy is a very nice, neat answer.... except, that the same answer has been given for so long now, yet, we have never seen it practiced on a wide scale. The numbers on infidelity make any talk of monogamy laughable.
It is the simple and elegant solution that would work great if only you could just get everybody to buy in, completely, for their entire lives. Good luck with that, its never happened, never will.
While it is true, penetrative anal sex, while the most transmissible sexual route, is still not all that likely. The highest studies put it at 1.7%, for unprotected receptive anal exposures. So, even if you are in that demographic, it is still pretty slim when you figure the transmission rate and the number of infected people.
Of course, as we all know, AIDS is natures punishment for our toleration of unnatural sexual practices...specifically...monogamy
However.... while they say familiarity breeds contempt, I think it is hardly the case. Familiarity breeds acceptance.
If your city has been ravaged by plague before, maybe you have seen it...maybe your parents just told you the horrors of when it last happened. We got "ring around the rosies" from it... if it seems common, people come to accept it.
It has been noted, for example, that the drop in child mortality rates seems to have also sensitized people to it. Now, if your child dies early and sudden, you may be the only person you know that this has happened to, maybe, one of the very unlucky few, at best. With rarity, we have more alarm.
Who questions that crime is "bad these days"? Few seem to. I hear people make comments about how crime is "these days" as if, it is somehow worst than in the past, but, by all objective measures, its been on the downswing (here in the US) since the 1980s...and a huge downswing too. The less of it there is, the more news it becomes, the less familiar the reality of it becomes... the more scared people get.
Taking it back to the plague.... I think people are so afraid for a few reasons. First is the gambler's fallacy. It hasn't happened for a while, therefore we are "due". Like this...
Millions of francs lost because.... people were fooled by this sort of thinking.
I am pretty happy to see this. Why? Because, come on, who didn't know this would be a problem eventually?
This is the biggest Achilles' heel in all of PKI... the need to trust the CA! Yet, there are WAY too many of them, all trusted by default. We have known the Department of Homeland Stupidity has had their own trusted CA, should we be surprised that any national government is capable of shopping around for one that will give them the certs they claim to need and should have for some reason?
The ONLY answer is.... burn the default trusted CA list. Give users more and better tools for accepting certificates. It has to be more explicit and open, less closed and controlled. Personally, I would like to never trust this CA again....there is no tool to help me with that. I can pull it from my system CA lists, but then I have to do that everywhere... and i have to remember to keep it up, and remember any others that I don't trust.
I would much rather a personal trust list that I can work with....shit... maybe even sync though a service like firefox sync or UbuntuOne or some such... it needs to be easy to use, transparent etc. Even better would be to see this handled at a system level, and let all apps get their trust list from there.
This would even allow smaller CAs like CACert to be on more equal footing....if nobody is just "allowed by default" then nobody is inherently harder to use.
-Steve
There is also just being interested and wondering if you can do it. There is also the possibility of doing it because someone large like a major national government's thugs (china, US, etc) want your data, or the data of the people you are developing the procedures to help.
of course, if thats the case, then.... this is perhaps not over the horizon at all, they are, in fact, inadequate protections.
Course, nothing will protect you from the "$5 wrench" scenario (not that any government would ever pay that little for a wrench).
It is a theoretical possibility and has been shown to be possible.
Lets be honest though.... it is just not that likely of an attack. Lets not forget you can't encrypt your initrd... Unless you store your boot partition on a USB key and carry it with you, then it can be modified by an attacker. All he has to do it reboot the machine, install a key logger in the initrd, and get the passphrase the next time you type it in.
That or install one between the keyboard and machine. Hell, can probably do everything he needs from the USB bus. Did they ever fix that USB bus problem where a USB device could get full DMA without any OS help required? Hell the USB device could even be installed inside the laptop so its active and invisible while you use it.
Thats before we even talk about things like, installing a pinhole camera to record your keystrokes....oh or using audio, as its been demonstrated that you can reliably recover typed information from recordings of the typing.
Without physical security there is no security. You can't prevent your hardware from being booby trapped... and there are people out there with entire labs devoted to producing this sort of clandestine equipment. Hell, the FBI is known in some instances to have put a tarp in front of a whole house at night, with a print of the original house on it...just so they could work undetected.
Its all a matter of who wants your data and what they are willing to get it.
-Steve
Um.... extensions other than Subject Alternative Name? Because, that has worked fine for a few years now (in browsers, and a few other places anyway).
With a SAN the certificate just simply lists ALL vhosts that it supports. So, while an eavesdropper can see what site you are going to, he can only see it as one of the several sites that you might possibly be going to.
Of course, Verisign makes sure to ass rape you solidly if you want SANs, but that is almost redundant since, they always try to provide that service.
-Steve
Actually, back when I was doing it a lot (am in an open marriage so I still date but.... much less often, because it matters a lot less to me now)... I actually found that one of the most successful things was to, in fact, directly address how I do not meet their states requirements, and why I felt I should message them anyway. (I have done this with jobs too, but you have to be careful with that...though... I have never held a job that didn't claim to require a degree, which I have never claimed to have)
Usually things like "I see that I am a year or two outside your preferred age range but,...." or "I know it isn't your stated preference" etc. Those seem to get replies, and have even gotten me some dates.
I can't claim to have done as rigorous a study as OK has done with their data, but, it always seemed that messages where I made comments like that seemed to get replies more often than others.
I don't see how other forms of media are relevant. Radio and TV are not really the most natural advertising markets for a primarily web business. I don't mean to sound like an ad for google, but if I was going to advertise anything, I would probably look to the web first unless I have VERY deep pockets and was looking at true mass distribution.
I guess you could blame the advertisers here, and say they need to clean up but...why?
The police and politicians may feel it is their job to work for the big pharma who really hates the competition but, I don't see why it should be Google's job. If someone is advertising something illegal, they should charge the person doing it, not shoot the messenger. In any case, they will just find new ways to advertise, maybe more spam.
That said... Controlling people is silly and stupid. I don't recommend wasting the time trying. It is entirely a problem that was created by enacting laws that never had any hope of working, so now they have a law that lets them make advertisers do their job for them
Though... there are other factors. What if that only averages 6 more months of good health? 3 extra years worth it, if you spend 2.5 of it in pain or in a hospital bed?
Not saying I expect to find that, but depending on your choice of exercice and other factors...who knows. What about increased risk of injury? Your chooice of exercise may increase the odds of getting an injury that may have other complications.
encouraging but...yes we do need more than just "you get to be even older"
Yes but murder for hire is clearly illegal. What if you advertised for pest extermination (insect murder for hire), which is legal.. should google know that your area requires such businesses to have special licenses? Should they be experts on the requirements in every state (US and foreign) and its requirements for the business at hand? Should they be in charge of policing whether YOU may legally perform a task vs anyone else? In how many industries is it feasible or should it be required, for them to retain experts in to make these determinations?
However, operating a pharmacy and advertising it are not illegal. I could see that argument if the ad was "Come buy cocaine to help soothe your toothe ache". However, its not.... if I put up an ad saying "Apartment for rent" but... the apartment is an illegal basement or has no fire escape.... would they be liable for advertising something illegal?
Why is the onus on an IT company to perform the job of a licensing board? They are not even in the healthcare industry! What part of their business, which is very very broad, is supposed to make them experts in the legalities of every industry that they interact with?
I think this is a ridiculously high standard.
I figured as much. Far less likely that they got the epicenter wrong than the extent was specified in a brain dead way. I mean... really? It was felt in VA? Who would have thought that you would actually feel it...where it is happening. Heh.
I am unaware of anything stopping you from registering an account "straightguy" or "nohomogirl"
It isn't so much a matter of "getting to", whats stopping you from doing it? I flaunt mine all the time, whenever my wife and I walk down the street, I hold her hand. I have been known to wear a shirt that says "I may not be Mr Right, but I will fuck you until he gets here".... I guess that could be orientation (if not sex) neutral.
As to why its done, I think its an identity thing. Straight is "normal", there is way more of us. So if I call myself "straight steve" well.... my name "Steve" does more to identify me as a unique individual in most crowds than "straight". Whereas gay people make up only about 10% of the population, so its a much stronger identifier. As such, I think gay people are more likely to identify with it...whereas I am more likely to be set apart by some other aspect of my interests.
Also, it means that, with the 1 in 10 odds working against them, broadcasting makes it easier to find others who are similar, which is important for a number of reasons, including dating. When 9 out of 10 of the people that interest you are unavailable to you, before you even start to factor in who is or isn't in a relationship already.... it makes a lot more sense to want to raise up a flag, so to speak.
Now, there is a darker side to this. Let us not forget that, just a generation ago we had a strong "coming out" movement, which was a reaction to social problems.
But by all means, identify publicly as straight if you feel you feel that will help you in some way.
If it was felt from "VA to MA" wouldn't that put the epicenter around NYC? I would expect you to find reports from somewhere more like GA or such to MA....or was this a unidirectional quake that only sent waves north?
oh and yes.... was definitely felt in Boston. Actually, I think this is the first quake that I ever noticed and was able to attribute to being as such. If I have ever felt any others, it was indistinguishable from the washing machine being loaded slightly badly.
Of course, in the real world, there are other concerns. This is only looking at taking short breaks on the web vs not taking short breaks or taking short breaks to check email. It is not comparing effectiveness of any other area of the workplace. People learn what is expected of them to do their job.
Perhaps management has created a perverse incentive to not work very hard? I have seen places where management behavior has pretty much convinced many people that their best course of action is to just slide by and do as little as possible, because even doing good work and being a team player brings just headaches and even reprimands... but slacking goes unnoticed.
Like the old Dilbert strip "Floggings will continue until morale improves"
> Marijuana is at CI because Marinol (a CIV medication) is far more medically effective as an anti-emetic and analgesic.
And roman horse carts had the width that they did, because it is the same width that modern train tracks use. Makes sense right?
Aside from that, makes sense but it is a bit like the old hemp thing. Before some French companies had used breeding to produce a low-thc strain, there was no need to define "hemp" as different. Then, while there is no legitimate hemp industry, and thus nobody cares, it was easy to push for international legislation setting a ridiculously low THC threshold for "hemp".
Marijuna was CI long before there was a "Marinol".
Marinol is not CI because a company with deep pockets and a patent on its production/use pushed for it to be scheduled separately. Any properties of the plant vs marinol are completely orthogonal to the real reasons.