Comment Do they support tor? (Score 2) 67
SSL is already a great step, but they should also try to find ways to work over tor:
SSL is already a great step, but they should also try to find ways to work over tor:
Even with the current tor TBB software you don't run a node by default. And, it would be even bad for the tor network to have tons of lots of low-bandwidth nodes.
To put it short in a GNU manner: Tor Is Not Bittorrent.
Yes, I know about that, even more: See http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
Still the comment is Insightful for me as it adds information TFA missed. (Maybe informative is better).
And a bit a troll as it compares them with thugs.
But +1 overall.
That tiny part has financed most of englands colonisation efforts. It has helped building a world empire. However, nowadays its weird to see such a relic in a country that calls itself democratic. Having a queen who stays out of politics isn't a big deal. An institution where companies can vote based on the number of their employees, thats in the press and uses titles like "police" is however. I don't object to companies to publish their opinions, but they shouldn't use titles that sound like they were part of the state. This clearly shows their position towards democracy.
I know other companies fuck democracy, too, but to some extent that can't be avoided as the line between "legitimate participation in public discussion" and "lobby government" is thin. Companies should just clearly state its them.
Where is the (+1; Insightful Troll) mod?
no one can hear you explode.
And, thanks to the internet, threats can travel with light speed.
NSA and resourceful criminals can use 0days, and CA system helps against small criminals. Current protection meets the need, it seems. Not that I think its broken.
goto_fail is just a bug like every else. Its a major bug, yes, but its "only" a bug. There are more systemic issues.
PKI is broken. Diginotar was just one indident we know of. CAs can secretly give everybody any cert they want. We need a system where the CAs need have to publish their certs, and which itself can't forge. Certificate transparency only centralises this "tree of trust". We still need to give the tree a ground to stand on. This can be achieved by gossip protocols. With all these measures, we don't need CAs anymore. CA is a multi-million dollar industry, they won't like being obsolete.
Third point: Microsoft. They haven't added usable perfect forward secrecy until april 2014.
Fourth point: the users. They don't care, or other things are more important to them (stability, etc): Most of them don't update their browsers regularly. I don't critizise clicking away security warnings.
They log on on one site, and use that login to log in to all other sites.
Does it at least attempt
OK, I see. Google has different versions of the "define" functionality running. The version with "a person who is trained to travel in a spacecraft" doesn't rely on wikipedia.
Webdefinitions are one of the things I hate on google: People think it is google, while in fact it is Wikipedia. Instead of proper attribution (naming the author, the license, and so on), they just add a link to the site, and call it "web definition". And people who don't read the link think the information comes from google.
Yeah, don't store the stuff locally because that needs power and then stream the content over the air instead, because that doesn't need power.
Its only to drive people to use cloud services and buy the expensive model for more capacity. Apple would be stupid to satisfy its users.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
