Re: Don't mention China
Yeah I was not being that serious. Actually, your post is way too long. If you cannot express yourself in less that 148 chars then nobody listens.
38 posts • joined 12 Mar 2020
I don't know why there were so many down votes. Remember when that Scotish Chancellor then later PM, Gordon Brown took away our right to legal privilege for taxation matters, well right now a secret trial is being held in Canberra by the state against Bernard Collaery because he got involved in intelligence matters when a client came to him for advice.
Imagine if we did the same with bridges. Yeah the skeleton is done but while you are using it we're going to be removing bits of the road from under you. Oh and some things that you relied on, well when we don't like them, or its a bit hard to maintain them, we'll get rid of them, and claim that we helped you by improving the security.
As a non white, semite (yet not Hebrew nor Jewish, but identifying with Shem), not straight, yet not a poof, neither identifiying as male or female, but rather as *it* and therefore at the tip of the apex of the marginalized, there is nothing that you could say to me that could not cause me offense.
Imagine the bible according to M$. The Egyptian mains mistreated the Hebrew underlings? Or what about the New Testament? Pretty sure that slavery is mentioned there too.
Excuse my cynicism but if they have a guilty conscience about how they have been and/or a treating their staff then they should act to rectify those wrongs.
Remember all those uncanny "coincidences" and other happening that you thought that were more than just random chance acts. As usual keep a list, do the maths and look for details, and you might find out that you are being snooped on.
The only solution for people that are found to have stalking tenancies is a global database with their details, like a sex offender register. Some people just can't be helped.
I guess we need privacy oriented operating systems now too? Has anyone seen how much shit this telemetry sends back? Usernames of logged on accounts CPUIDs, Graphics card, amount of physical RAM, what sort of things you have plugged in your USB slots and some commercial products, including Solidworks of whom it has been alleged even send back email accounts that your mail client is using.
Such things that are alluded to when you click on the terms and conditions button (which might as well be I want you to fuck me over and fuck my privacy) should be outlawed.
Prevention is better than the cure, so a sandboxed OS isn't paranoia these days, it's just plain common sense.
Exactly. It's not encrypting emails from MS GOOG et al.
I think that DANE is quite good. If you read the wiki page "It is proposed in RFC 6698 as a way to authenticate TLS client and server entities without a certificate authority (CA)."
Not necessarily a bad thing. Why have 100's of CAs based in Iran China Turkey etc when you can trust the global Verisign DS records for the root domain and thats it. Also, why bother checking for revocation which is leaking information about which cert you are attempting to verity?
You do away with the whole PKI infrastructure and you check that a DNNSEC signed cert is verified by by the top level DNS servers and use this certificate to setup a TLS connection over which your usual SMTP type hello traffic goes over?
So nothing really changes in so far as MS GOOGLE and other NSA data providers are concerned because you don't encrypt the content but only encrypt the channel still. It's a bit a of as shame that eMail cannot use the certificates to encrypt the content so that only the domain owner can read it, but rather still encrypts only to the MX.
If you just wanted to verify the MX, which is all that you are doing, you could just check that the certificate it presents you is signed for the right host name, and you could still use the PKI.
I was never happy with the revocation thing in certs, but if you use short TTLs you can achieve that same without adding that complexity.
The whole point of the FOI was to release information that you already knew they have. Irrespective of what Sir Humphrey would say about the minutes of the meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s), if a majority of people remember a meeting vastly different from the actual minutes then there is a prima facie case for corruption of some kind. All the FOI has done is criminalise the cover up.
If you are being throttled due to temperature then you should know that there is a cooling problem, usually the flow of heat in air or fluid isn't working, which is part of the usual monitoring. I cannot see why the broken caster is anything special. It could have fallen over due to a centre of mass problem too.
Why don't they install hall effect devices and get the actual level of the rack too? Or about about's they practice some OH&S and physically secure the top of the rack to something that is sturdee and/or structural. I mean your average plumber knows that the hot water heater can fall over due to its center of mass, so all I take from this is that they (google) are just reinventing what has been known for centuries.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020