No, not this plan! Since the modified tag is only transmitted from Verizon to advertising sites, Verizon could very easily just strip out all X-UIDH headers coming from you before adding their own.
Then you may like this... http://www.qubes-os.org/
Any idea why they do this? Of all the sites to not to https...
CPU load. SSL/TLS greatly increases CPU demands on the server(s). For a high-traffic site that costs real money.
This is 2014 not 2004; Most servers have CPU's with built-in AES acceleration. Unless the site gets lots of very short-term use from many different users, the impact of server load should be negligible because most of the crypto will be AES and not the initial public key stuff.
The only thing that really works is verifying PGP signatures. SSL is broken and the Tor node may well have legitimate certificates at its disposal.
Actually, its HTTPS and its use of PKI (many unaccountable CAs) that is broken.
Who's to say that your friendly ISP or government agency isn't doing the same? Or even better yet, how about for OS updates.
Your OS should already check binaries before installation; This is done with digital signatures (i.e. GPG and such) so HTTPS isn't required for protection.
The threat TFA is about is when the user/admin uses an installation method that circumvents or ignores the signature check.
In the Linux realm most popular distros are reasonably secure, but I noticed that Fedora's signature regime is incomplete and so is open to a MITM attack where any number of packages can be selectively prevented from receiving security updates.
OSX and Windows give the appearance to doing proper signature checks, including when you double-click an installer from the desktop. But they use a PKI model that leaves me wondering just who is vouching for the signatures.
I intend to use a proxy in addition to HTTPS-E.
Then clearly there are problems.
You say that in jest. But Gates did help invent the high-consumption culture we have today, or at least he brought it to computing. For much of his reign at Microsoft, the average lifespan of a PC was 3 years.
Bitcoin appears to have its own 'consumerist innovation' built-in, in that it takes escalating amounts of computing power (and therefore, resources) to 'mine' the currency and validate its transactions (which aren't even anonymous or proof against establishment meddling as many have claimed).
Indeed. Believing this garbage is a real black mark on
The incandescent bulb is a balancing act between efficiency (from high temperature) and longevity. By standardizing on one temperature, they ensured not only that their bulbs wouldn't produce odd color casts, but also no surprises on the electric bill, or surprise blown fuses, or surprise house/workshop fires while trying to get enough lumens for good illumination.
'Techies' have a very tenuous grasp of physics these days.
Of course, it won't work.
OTOH, Skype and Bittorrent had successful models for scaling up: People were configured by default to add their bandwidth to the pool. In bittorrent's case, your throughput suffered if you were stingy about contributing.
I2P is probably the closest networking layer there is to combining the goals of Tor with the methods of Skype and bittorrent. It is both highly decentralized and onion-like, and has been steadily improving for well over a decade now. If you happen to have a TAILS disc, its included. However, its not designed to access the regular Internet so much as replace it.
The committment to stable programming interfaces is one of Microsoft's strengths; They don't all get the 14-year treatment, but at least *some* do.
Here is a 2006 article about the IGT Taxibus concept. It definitely wasn't conceived in Northern California air, but in the UK (circa 2001 IIRC).
The problem was they approached municipalities with the idea and no large cities climbed on board. So now the cities have to face the likes of Uber and Lyft who, I predict, will not collectively reach the scale needed to apreciably reduce traffic congestion (one of the aims of IGT). Combine that with no regulation and a consumer protection model that amounts to Yelp.com, and I'll guess that Uber and Lyft will in 7 years be less of a joke and more of a way to elict negative reactions from people (assuming you momentarily lack the gas to fart).
That's not even a carbon tax. There has been a debate amoung environmentalists whether to support cap-and-trade or a tax, with those favoring the latter pointing out the same dysfunction you have.
However, another poster pointed out that cap-and-trade can be made to work. Overall, I think it depends on both the magnitude of the proposal, and the level of corruption in the political economy
"The government argues the carbon pricing scheme has been ineffective, but national emissions have actually fallen by 0.8% in the first calendar year of its operation, the largest fall in 24 years of records."
Good thing you're not solving real problems. What. A. Fucking. Waste.
It just proves that a carbon tax cannot come soon enough.
Then the criminals will figure out how to falsify the signature with the bad firmware anyway.
Not if the user/admin gets to sign the devices (e.g. when they are initially purchased). Or... why not design the devices to carry multiple signatures (including but not limited to the manufacturer)??
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand
