abugheratwork

I think you're right. I also think the browser, as your agent, should enforce expectations. "This website wants to upload data. Allow? [Once] [Always] [No] [Click here to see the data.]"

Password should be saved per-site. Like, I think they actually are.

I think it's one of those arguments that disappears once you account for context. No, the datestamp doesn't affect the quality of the encryption. Yes, it might matter if the last time this certificate was vouched for was 100 years ago for one year.

You just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us, and then called someone childish.

They're being jerks, but why is an interesting question.

I don't think it's a cognitive dissonance thing, at least where I've seen that picture. I think it's an us/them thing. Specifically, the kind where one group gets the idea that another is out to get them. (That "militant vegetarian" you mention is someone I have heard about my whole life yet never met.) If they don't have a lot of vegetarian friends, you may be their first chance to have a conversation about it, and that's probably the only one they rehearsed.

It may not be as crystallized as other areas, yet, but I think this is also one more field for cultural proxy wars, as we all get drafted into us/them camps. Again, at the individual level, you might notice the person doing the attacking always thinks they're defending. Complicated big picture stuff at play.

I'm glad to read that they ate the salmon.

I was wondering if he just stood there and drank straight lemon juice while he talked about lemonade.

"This attitude of deferring to regulatory agencies ... is dangerous to liberty and innovation."

I'm just checking that that's really what you meant to say.

I think you might be an environmentalist. My understanding is that if you think the environment is something we should take care of, that's basically it.

I guess you're probably just saying you don't identify or maybe agree with some other environmentalists, which also makes sense. The straw ban is a great example. Sometimes you can agree on what's important but disagree about what to do about it.

I think this is the same complex process the word "feminism" gets put through. It's hard to find people who will outright say, "I think women should still have to ask permission from their husbands to seek work," for example. It's easy to find people who are quick to add, "... not that I'm a feminist or anything."

I don't know. Words are funny. At the end of the day it probably doesn't matter whether you qualify as some kind of *-ist, but those words are one way we get convinced that other groups of people are opponents, instead of peers. (... one way that unscrupulous people intentionally convince us, depending on your level of cynicism.)

I mean it doesn't seem feasible, but it doesn't seem like a stupid idea, either.

Any dig for old stuff or old bones is an experiment, which will strengthen or weaken, at a minimum, the hypothesis that stuff is at or near that spot.

The term for the concept is forward secrecy, or often "perfect forward secrecy". It seems like magic to me, too, and I'll probably be reviewing the basics tonight. I couldn't begin to tell you how the trick is accomplished.

Somehow, an attacker can have your whole conversation log (encrypted), including the key exchange, and be unable to retrieve the key used, even if he has the credentials you used at the time the key was generated.

The real crux of the question may be, "How does Diffie-Hellman work?" (Well known key exchange method.)

I mean ... it slopes down to vegetarianism. I like meat, but a world without meat doesn't sound like hell or anything.

Probably not what you meant, but I have kind of an aversion to the phrase "slippery slope", as I think people use it to imply that we shouldn't consider a point because we might not like all the ramifications.

If it turns out all the things I eat are writing ballads about how sad it is that they all get eaten, I'd rather know than not.

If I push some buttons and it shows up later, and I didn't have to stand up to make it happen ... I'm pretty sure I can download toothpaste today. Latency isn't impressive, though.

> We would laugh if it was "Zuckerberg says..."

I mean ... I laughed. Didn't you laugh?

> I often hear how Hackernews is such a bastion of objectivity and critical thinking.

That gave me another good chuckle.

No, man. He said Firefox should change their architecture, and he gave some kind of example.

After the way you seized on the word "typical", I kind of expected you to take words at face value. I didn't see any text to the effect that he thinks his say so is good enough.

Also, you're the one frequently mentioning how varied workloads are, and you don't constitute the discussion.

I'm going to go drink some cocoa to wash down this hook, line, and sinker I swallowed with your flame bait.

Fair. You also said you're not sure Facebook was wrong, and made reference to doxing. Let's see if we can clear up those points.

Providing the identity (or some approximation) of this person, to the family, is not the same as releasing his home address on 4chan. The term "dox" does not apply.

(It might apply if Facebook blindly obeyed the request to restore the page, and it turns out the page has personal information on someone who doesn't want it there. Technically the information was already public, and actually listed in the same place, so I still wouldn't use the term "dox".)

I wouldn't expect them to unquestioningly restore the page upon request, but refusing to talk to someone who says their dead family member's profile was taken down by mistake is shitty behavior. Legal, maybe, but I wouldn't go so far as "not wrong". It's pretty wrong. Right?

"The left" is a hand.

I thought from the title this would be something about a prison. It would probably be wise to mention in the title that this is for identifying network tracker sites (or the actual intent, if I misunderstood.)