1. AC said SSL is magic, implying that they believe it is a hoax. I am simply pointing out they are an idiot who understands nothing about cryptography.
2. Saying that someone has identified a potential weakness in a cryptography algorithm doesn't change the fact that it is deterministic and well understood among cryptography experts. There is still nothing magic about it.
3. Your rebuttal implies that I was trying to claim that the NSA was innocent in some way or defend them. Obviously you have the worst reading comprehension in the history of mankind because no where in the two sentences do I make any such claim.
4. There are documents that indicate NSA was looking for potential weaknesses in various security protocols and possibly tampering with devices, but there is no evidence that they influenced the SSL standard itself to introduce weaknesses. Tampering with a device to break its implementation of SSL is seperate concept from the SSL standard itself. Could they have influenced the standard? They could be powering their headquarters with goat fetuses for all we know. It's all wild speculation in the absence of evidence. All evidence points to them pouring large amounts of manpower and computing power into breaking SSL. If they did indeed influence the standard, then whatever influence that had had no negligible effect based on what we know of the kind of efforts they've had to throw at SSL. Evidence of their efforts doesn't show any significant success. Their only successes in any relation to SSL have been more traditional techniques that involve circumventing SSL, such as compromising a server so they can capture data before it is encrypted, since SSL is such a tough nut to crack. More evidence that they haven't cracked SSL. Besides, influencing the standard in that way would have required more foresight than most governments are capable of.

Only one point is needed to show you're an idiot. The evidence is overwhelming.

Your response doesn't invalidate how cryptography works. It's solid math and there's no magic about it.

This appears to be for the posting, not for the submission of applicant/resume. But essentially the same concept. I build my resume using a GUI, it generates XML submission as needed, employer parses what information they are interested in or throws feedback indicating missing required info.

A good car has down force and sticks to the road. A good plane does the opposite. I was at a flight museum that had a flying car on display and it was described as something like a "Mediocre car, and mediocre plane" Not that it's impossible, but the most basic attributes of a plane and car are contradictory.

The reentering of resume information is ridiculous.

What if there was a common XML format that represented your resume? You created this using a desktop GUI and just upload the resume.xml to potential employees.

No longer is it Photoshopped, but instead we say it's been Carnegie Melloned.

Apparently writing itself is hard, much less writing propet software.

I think the challenge is identifying bad edits. Once you identify a bad edit, you can bulk undo everything from that source. With google maps, a phone number change might not be apparently a bad edit until you call it, and even then if it was setup with the sole purpose of misrepresenting a business, then it will be difficult to verify. With wikipedia, identifying a bad edit is usually simple as "hey this link goes to this third party place it shouldn't" or it's clear bias or vandalism.

Indeed, no matter what language you allow people to use, from C++ to English, it comes down to communicating intent clearly and unambiguously. In just about every programming language, you have bugs resulting from a gap in what someone actually wrote, versus what they intended to write. If you don't think analytically and logically, then you are going to make this mistake alot.

On the other hand, I certainly agree that sometimes learning curves and programming hassles are steeper and more common than necessary. Poor documentation, and lack of cookbooks/guides for common scenarios, poorly communicated errors, shoddy development tooling, unintuitive tooling, etc. I hate getting pulled off onto a tangent because something isn't working as it should and having to delve into something I shouldn't have to.

One word: pinball wizard. Wait that's two words, or is it three?

You are taking the hardline "murica fuh yuh" FREEDOM stance. You need to start thinking about what freedoms you are protecting. It's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. Don't children have a right to be free from being sexual assaulted, raped, and abused? When did your right to use Tor to download torrents exceed their right to be treated with some humanity?

No that is not the logic being applied. You are ignoring certain factors in the sake of making a very silly argument. A car manufacturer is not an accomplice because someone used one of their cars to commit a crime, because the design and typical use of a car is for legitimate purposes. If however, the car manufacturer provided features designed specifically to aid criminals, or features which happenstance had more common criminal uses than legitimate, then they would be an accomplice be cause the knowingly continued to provide these features without taking corrective action. It seems wrong that I am a criminal because I provide some product/service, and happenstance without my foresight it is used for criminal purposes. One would be expected to take responsible action to make amends to the product/service to eliminate or track this usage. For example, ISPs providing a physical link are capable of identifying the source of criminal activity.

So the distinction is when you provide a product/service that is known to have primary illegal usages. You can make arguments for Tor on a non-legal basis such as freedom, right to anonymity, anti regime, anti oppressive government arguments. However, from the standpoint of law, there is a certain distinction on what makes someone an accomplice.

Agreed. There are some very noble uses of Tor, but when you operate an exit node you are basically allowing any scum to use your connection to hide their activities, and some are really sick. I wish there were a good solution to allow an exit node to be operated, but prevent some of the more nefarious uses. In the absence of that, it is pretty irresponsible to contribute such a powerful component(the exit node) without discretion for what it will be used for. At least an ISP providing a physical link has the capability to identify households, whereas the Tor exit node prevents that, and exit node operators know this. So I think in that respect the ISP is not an accomplice, as they know and are willing to help catch criminals(although there is an argument to be made in oppressive regimes abusing this power). Where as an exit node operator should be knowledgeable that they are preventing the prosecution of criminals, some of which are towards the extreme of being really disgusting, and thus are knowingly acting as an accomplice.

There was a FreeNET that basically was an encrypted distributed WWW that hosted parts on different people's machines. It was encrypted to absolve hosts from responsibility, but it was used quite a bit for child pornography.

Of course even without Tor, when you identify a household sourcing criminal activities, you still have the grey area of things like unsecured Wifi. Is someone an accomplice because they left their Wifi open for anyone to connect to? It is a slippery slope and the tech illiteracy of judges contributes to some bad rulings in cases like this.

Was it wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent?

C# has optional parameters now. Long story short, they resisted adding them because they have the potential to introduce breaking changes across library versions as they are bound at he callsite.

If you looked at job listings C# is by far the majority. I reallize that doesn't prove anything, but I think it's a strong indicator that C# is the more prevalent of the .NET languages.