I mostly second this. But please stop confirming, even if only initially and partially, the idiocy of the fairness argument. If anyone earning $10^7 thinks it is "unfair" to pay 70% taxes on that income, he is wellcome to switch position and start flipping burgers instead.
An income of $10^7 is only possible through working the society. Leveraging the rules, taking advantage of empowering circumstances in society. You don't do that working your farm on an isolated island. But society is there for everybody, not just for the 1%. Burger flippers are poorly paid, not because it is fair, but because burger flippers have little leverage and little power. It is not a matter of protecting the human rights of the 1% to keep it that way. Using the voting rights and electing politicians that tax the wealth, is a reasonable way we burger flippers and other 99%ers can wield our power against the powers of the 1%.
Solar particle radiation knocks hydrogen out of the earth's gravitational field. That is, hydrogen atoms achieve escape velocity of 11.186 km/s or more. I guess they mean that the Earth and Moon remained sufficiently hot for sufficiently long.
I thought that Earth was already largely devoid of water since its creation. The creation of Earth amounted to a large mass (one earth mass) falling freely from large distances into the center of the cloud from which the Earth formed, and so hitting the proto-Earth at velocities near the escape velocity. The surface of Earth is thought to have cooled in a few hundred thousand years, but that was probably more than enough time to send all the water to the outer atmosphere and out to cosmos. And besides, most of the water had already disappeared from the dust cloud that gave rise to Earth before that cloud coalesced to Earth, thanks to solar radiation which probably began before Earth reached any appreciable size.
Earth regained water after cooling through comet bombardment. Comets formed sufficiently far away from the sun to be able to keep its water.
Would it be possible to establish additional trust mechanisms, like this?
Establish a service which crawls the internet weekly, and keeps a hash of all new certs seen. Let there be multiple such services run by independent groups. Let such services also keep track of certs that have been revoked.
Then modify an open-source browser to emit queries to one or more such services, asking if the hash of the cert in question is OK.
This allows the users to choose who they trust. It would detect most MITM attacks, as the MITM would present to the victim a cert that would not be known to the service, unless the MITM has previously MITM-attacked the service as well.
Of course, the browser should also keep it's own cache of known good certs. This would greatly reduce the load on such services.
The responses, if affirmative, should be like certs signed by the service. The queries would be encrypted to the service's key, and would contain a symmetric session key to use to encrypt the response.
As an alternative approach, the query could contain also the url being visited. If the service has never crawled this host, it could visit it now, and see if it got the same cert. This would be slower, but would make it work even if the service does not yet have the resources to crawl the entire net, or if the client is visiting an isolated node.
From the article:
“What the certificate does not give them the ability to do is issue public certificates to other organizations. That's the big misunderstanding.”
What does this mean? Could it be that they only can issue certificates for "*.bluecoat.com"?
If so, what is the problem?
He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.