Comment Re:Maybe Firefox will Chill Out now (Score 1) 432
Standard certs do nothing to establish identity. They merely establish that the site is not being spoofed.
Isn't "preventing spoofing" just another way of saying "establishing identity?"
Standard certs do nothing to establish identity. They merely establish that the site is not being spoofed.
Isn't "preventing spoofing" just another way of saying "establishing identity?"
Have they ever advertised against Firefox?
Oh, yes they did!
The magistrate isn't going to care that the contract was too long for your little brain to easily comprehend.
Apparently they do care... that's why the companies are being fined. Contracts require a "meeting of the minds" and an unreadable EULA should hardly qualify.
Congress shall make no law
... abridging the freedom ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I assume this is the part you're referring to, but I don't agree with your interpretation. I don't think petitioning "the government" in this case means that harrassing one government official in particular is necessarily Constitutionally protected behavior.
If Thompson's bill was worth supporting before, then his bill should still be worth supporting after annoying e-mails, spam or for all I care: murder.
Clearly you don't understand how the Senate works. Bills need support to pass, regarldess of their content. People make deals to support each other's bills. Having friends in your court is crucial if you want to get anything passed. Is this right? Maybe not, but that's how it is, and it's not exactly a secret. For more information, I suggest reading Fight Club Politics, available at your local library.
"But all that means is that the CAN-SPAM act isn't the appropriate law to attack him with: instead, the Senator should just go for plain-old harassment" did you not understand, dumbass?
I think the part he was actually responding to was "Spam is commercial email. This is email about a pending legislative action, and thus Jack Thompson has the right to send it because he has a right to free speech." Spam isn't necessarily commercial, and no he doesn't. The fact that the CAN-SPAM act in particular may not apply doesn't change the widely accepted definition of spam.
Windows has troubles with 64-bit and seems to be avoiding it.
I don't think this has been true for years. And the only problems I recall were some hardware vendors not putting out 64-bit drivers, but they seem to be on board now.
Linux does as well, but much less so.
What the hell are you talking about?
Blaming Disney is a distraction. Focus on the real source of the problem. It's the same thing as blaming movie studios for not letting you watch a film on a non-HDCP display, when in fact it is the operating system (Windows Vista or Mac OS X) that enforces this restriction on you.
This goes both ways. No one is forcing Disney to use the "disable skip" feature. HDCP is required by the hardware (at least for Blu-Ray). Who do you think pushes for things like HDCP? The studios. Yes, that includes Disney. The operating systems wouldn't enforce these restrictions if the media companies weren't pushing for them.
1. Delete e-mail.
2. Log in to bank via their web site.
What scares me is that while this guards against the garden variety phishing attack, it can't protect me from an ISP DNS compromise.
That's what SSL is for. The name on the SSL certificate won't match the address of the site. OR, even if they do make a certificate for wachovia.com (for example), it will be self signed. Your browser will pop up some kind of warning. Firefox will make it almost impossible to proceed (this is what everyone's been complaining about, but now you can see why it's useful).
Where there's a will, there's a relative.