Well, as I said, with OpenID the providers knows exactly what sites you logged in to, while with Persona they just sign a certificate your browser gives them, vouching for your identity, without getting the site.

In terms of UI, Persona uses email addresses instead of URLs, which are easier for non-techies to grasp as an authentication identifier.

Problem is, a single growing quarter doesn't mean we've hit rock bottom. So, yes, technically this recession may be over, but that doesn't mean we won't have a new one half a year from now.

Sure, but what I was replying to was "Any sites you enable JS for will load Google's JS, even if NoScript prevents them from executing", which is simply not true.

Uh, none of those are scripts, which is what NoScript blocks. Whether images are loaded has nothing to do with "Google's JS" being loaded despite NoScript, as it was claimed.

No, it's not the same thing, because 1) you don't have to use Google to use Persona, and 2) with Persona, Google doesn't know where you're logging in to.

Persona only needs a "middle man" if the domain you use doesn't support it natively. It's a fallback, not a requirement.

If you used a provider that supported Persona natively, not only you wouldn't need Mozilla as the middle man, as (unlike with OpenID), that same provider wouldn't know where you were logging in to.

Uh, you haven't actually used it, have you? You can enable scripts for the main domain, while keeping Google services blocked.

1) This is not part of Firefox

2) The first bridge was for Yahoo, not Google, and it's part of an authentication system (Persona) that is actually completely unbiased towards any provider.

That makes no sense, because "meat" has no common taste or texture. A fillet of salmon and a pork steak are nothing alike, neither in taste nor texture.

Yes, but that would need Adobe to implement such a feature, and why would they?

And how does that client know the key hasn't been replaced by someone else's? Yes, the message can be signed. But if you don't have the key, you can't verify the signature either, so that can be faked too.

TLS is fine until you reach the MTA. Then you have no guarantee that the message won't be passed as plain text. And even if TLS is used on each hop (unlikely), you still don't have a real end-to-end secure connection, just a chain of many connections, with middle men who can see all the emails.

The problem with Bitcoin (and blockchain based currencies) is that they don't really deal well with microtransactions. Since each transaction has to be sent and confirmed by a bunch of nodes, they impose a lot of strain on the miners. Eventually we should see rising transaction fees, which will probably kill such systems.

The unemployment rate in my country for my age bracket is 38%. The idea I can "just" move to a new a company is not realistic.

Oh, please. They are there because the taxi drivers lobbied for it, going as far as rioting in the streets, beating the other drivers senseless and cutting off traffic in the financial districts, because during the great depression everyone who had a car was competing with them.

Here's an article from 1934: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17056337/