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.
Fast, cheap, good: pick two.