Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I blame racism (Score 1) 4

by Marxist Hacker 42 (#48470605) Attached to: Ferguson 2

except Natalie, of Natalie's Cakes N More bakery, is African American.

I notice that a bunch of rich white conservatives though got together to support her:
http://www.gofundme.com/NataliesCakesnMore

The only thing faster than the rioting, is this GoFundMe account, in which she's not only got back the $20,000 needed to rebuild her bakery, but a good year's salary in the bank besides.

Comment: Killer features? (Score 2) 85

by IamTheRealMike (#48460087) Attached to: Revisiting Open Source Social Networking Alternatives

Here's the tricky thing about privacy and social networks: Facebook's privacy support is actually pretty good. Whilst people might tell you in the abstract that they want more privacy from Facebook, figuring out what they would change in concrete terms is very hard. For example, they might say "I don't want to see ads" - but given the choice, they don't want to pay for anything either. So this feedback ends up being pretty useless, equivalent to hearing "I want everything and a pony". It's not a basis for a product.

Google learned this one the hard way with Google+. The original way Google+ tried to differentiate itself from Facebook was with circles. The idea is, Facebooks relatively singular notion of "friend" doesn't reflect the way real people work, this means it doesn't respect people's privacy and so people use the product less .... therefore by giving them better tools, they'd win a lot of users. Facebook responded that they'd tried the same thing, it turns out people don't like making lists of friends and controlling their sharing at a fine grained level, so it wouldn't work. And guess what? Facebook were right. Sure, you interview people in focus groups and they say one thing. In reality they might do something else.

So - decentralised open source social networks. Not gonna work. People might sound enthusiastic when you pitch it to them in the abstract, but actually Facebook works fine for them, and the kind of privacy that matters to them (can people see who views their profile?! Can my parents see my drunken party pics?) is already well supported and tuned.

Ultimately what will do off Facebook, eventually, is a change in how people use social networking that for whatever reason they cannot replicate in their main product.

Comment: Re:And this is why... (Score 1) 178

by IamTheRealMike (#48459979) Attached to: Cameron Accuses Internet Companies Of Giving Terrorists Safe Haven

I think you know this but sometimes it's a bit hard to read tone on the internet.

HSBC processed transactions for Iran in Europe, at a time when the USA had not successfully forced Iranian sanctions onto the EU and thus they were entirely legal.

The USA did not like this one bit, because Congress had a 'fuck Iran at any cost' mentality that extended to trying to make US sanctions global. And one way they did that is by prosecuting or threatening to prosecute American employees of international banks for transactions entirely legal in both the source and destination locations. It's just empire, nothing more.

Comment: Re:It's not only SSL/TLS (Score 1) 88

by IamTheRealMike (#48456455) Attached to: Book Review: Bulletproof SSL and TLS

That's not "lack of diligence", that's a fundamental bootstrapping problem. CA's are meant to verify identities. If the identity you are trying to verify is not itself cryptographically verifiable, then the attempt to verify can be tampered with, but the only way to solve that is to use harder to verify identities. Which is what EV certs do, and my own experience of getting one was pretty smooth.

Comment: Re:It's an encryption layer (Score 1) 88

by IamTheRealMike (#48456447) Attached to: Book Review: Bulletproof SSL and TLS

You might think I'm exaggerating, but even major corporations fuck this up all of the time. There is no "just choose sensible defaults and give me a secure socket" call, because if there were someone would complain that it's not secure and shouldn't be used.

Sure there is. Perhaps not in C but what did you expect? Here we go in Java:


HttpsUrlConnection conn = (HttpsUrlConnection) new URL("https://www.google.com/").openConnection();
Certificate[] certs = conn.getServerCertificates();
InputStream stream = conn.getInputStream(); // read stream here ....

That'll do the right thing by default.

SSL is imperfect, but that's because crypto is hard, not because of some fundamental fuckup somewhere and if only we all used the alternative protocols (which?) everything would be peachy.

Comment: Re:Which 6? (Score 1) 107

by IamTheRealMike (#48456407) Attached to: Google Chrome Will Block All NPAPI Plugins By Default In January

Yes, but exploited browser rendering engines have been a large source of infections too. Sandboxing mobile code is just really hard. However the web is indispensable whereas Java applets aren't, so Java is the one that gets thrown out.

I suspect there isn't any way to build support for Java applets that satisfies Google's policies, therefore, they will end up being restricted to other browsers for the small number of people who need them (mostly enterprise apps).

These days the Java sandbox is actually a lot better than it used to be. Last I heard there had been no zero days this year at all. However, the Java update story still sucks, and Sun/Oracle have made Java supremely unpopular on Windows thanks to the crappy update nags and bundled adware. So nobody will be sad to see it go. Java is moving to JRE bundling for distributed apps anyway: I've written one with the new tools and it basically works like a regular desktop app, with a native installer / package on each major platform.

Comment: Re: Corn Subsidies (Score 1) 183

by epyT-R (#48455897) Attached to: How the World's Agricultural Boom Has Changed CO2 Cycles

I should've stopped reading at 'right wing blinkers', but then I'd've stooped to an NPR level of reasoning.

I'm sure they do because countries that typically have no or weak welfare are rural, where extra hands on the farm are more valuable than the state aid.

The feminist narrative at the heart of your argument is flawed. I wasn't talking about the third world. I was specifically talking about the US system, where EBT cards are handed out to 'heroic' single mothers for the 'accomplishment' of having sex. The number one correlation for lack of maturity and success in poor children in this country is a lack of a father in the home. Then these kids grow up to repeat their parents' mistakes.

As far as 'sugar daddies' go, here in the states, the mother just waits until alimony kicks in, then divorces her 'starter husband' and the ivy league feminist indoctrinated judges award her disproportionate amounts of dad's paycheck, driving him into bankruptcy and then out of work and into debtor's prison for failing to pay. Mom, now 30ish, without any income, looks in vain for another man to latch on to (checkout dating sites for this phenomenon). Women in their 30s with children are undesirable to men who are looking for young, healthy wives to start families, so most of these women resort to fucking around on the side, purposely trying to get knocked up again so they can repeat the process.

If women want respect from and access to men's money, then they'll need to earn it as housewives while he's out making the bucks, or go out and earn their own the same way the men have to. In addition, making real life choices like the high power career OR having children, not both while expecting taxpayers and employers to prop her up, and others like her body, her right, her choice also being her responsibility, would go a long way towards earning mens' respect. This is equality of opportunity, and I have no issue with this. It's what I encourage for everyone. Until the state enforced feminist 'empowerment' is labeled as the hypocritical sexism it is, men have at least one perfectly justified reason for treating un(der)employed baby pumpers who game the system as the irresponsible dependent children they are. No one respects having to slave for another class who gets away with working less, even if it's a pauper's existence. Forcing people's hands makes them resentful. No group should be 'upsetting' any others' productive lifestyle, period, nor should the state engage in picking winners and losers.

HIV infection rate is controlled with judicious selection of sex partners. Most people, even the poor, in this country, know how to do this, but the left's insistence on destroying the family unit without suggesting viable alternatives has caused both sexes to look for sexual opportunity elsewhere, leading to dependence on the state for support, and misery on both sides.

Comment: Re: Corn Subsidies (Score 1) 183

by epyT-R (#48455691) Attached to: How the World's Agricultural Boom Has Changed CO2 Cycles

Right. The only welfare offered by the taxpayer would be abortion and contraceptives. This way when one or both parents lose their job and the family needs assistance, they aren't encouraged to create more dependency.

People with education are smart enough to know when enough is enough, and in some cases, smart enough to know how broken DCF and 'family' court is. Welcome to the idiocracy where the uneducated and poor breed the most.

When I left you, I was but the pupil. Now, I am the master. - Darth Vader

Working...