antsar

37 ms·

1. 331.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   That's certainly true. But even if there was a way to detect post-TSA tampering, what useful recourse would one have? It seems that in either case, checked luggage is at risk of being tampered with, searched, or outright stolen and t
2. 332.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   The seal is to detect any tampering. Why should TSA tampering be exempt from this?
3. 333.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   Maybe not fatal, but could surely knock out some teeth?
4. 334.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   What's the point of client-side crypto in a browser? Can't you be served backdoored JavaScript that no longer does proper encryption, and you'd be none the wiser?
5. 335.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   When reading a privacy policy from a company like Microsoft, I think assuming the "most hostile interpretation possible" is a safe bet. If it was only for MS accounts, why wouldn't they say so?
6. 336.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   Thank you. Javascript is required to view and upload files. No, it is definitely not.
7. 337.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   We collect passwords, password hints, and similar security information used for authentication and account access. Source: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/default.asp... (Click "Learn More&
8. 338.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   Doesn't Kali default to having you login as "root", for pretty much this exact reason?
9. 339.▲
   by antsar 11y ago

   Or Iceweasel. https://wiki.debian.org/Iceweasel
10. 340.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    Looks like it could use some rate-limiting / blocking / votekicking.
11. 341.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    Is it still a "straightforward photographic copy" now that they've added the ruler for scale though? Perhaps that makes it copyrightable.
12. 342.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    In what way does it seem contradictory? It seems to allow one to write and publish patches , while disallowing the redistribution/resale of the original code .
13. 343.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    Thank you for your hard work on Firefox, Chris. Mozilla has made many good decisions with it, keeping it clearly superior to Chrome/IE in my view. That said, I find it difficult to agree with the decision to remove features like this.
14. 344.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    I agree that this is better. Unfortunately, whitelisting is tedious so I often resort to enabling all JS when I quickly need to use a site or five that require it. Many don't have the patience to keep doing this, so disabling plugin en
15. 345.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    According to EFF's Panopticlick[0], the biggest thing making my browser unique is the list of plugins that I am running. Short of disabling JavaScript, I don't know of a way to prevent that. Can this hypothetically be solved with
16. 346.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    Interesting, thanks for the insight. For anyone else reading this, here's a decent summary of the ADA requirements: http://sterlingelevatorcons.com/white-papers/elevators-and-t...
17. 347.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    There are non-functional "close" buttons? I assumed your GP was saying that the buttons do work, just that they don't need to be used because the door will close anyway. At least that's the case in any building I&#x2
18. 348.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    Why not omit the spaces and newlines: data:text/html,%3Chtml%3E%3Chead%3E%3Cstyle%20type%3D%22text%2Fcss%22%3Ehtml%2Cbody%20%7B%20margin%3A%200%2C%20width%3A%20100%25%3B%20%7Dbody%2C%20input%20%7B%20font-family%3A%20Verdana%2C%20
19. 349.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    I think you and logicrime are saying the same thing.
20. 350.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    That probably was the motive. But the side effect is that now people have public G+ profiles which they may not have wanted, sharing information about them (even as simple as their name and photo) that they would rather keep private.
21. 351.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    When one signs up for G+, their G+ profile (containing information about them) becomes public. It is easy to rush through the setup process, especially when one did not desire to go through it, and accidentally share more information than d
22. 352.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    > they usually don't feel the need to trick users into sharing more than they'd want Like the time they didn't feel the need to harass everyone into signing up for G+ any time one used an unrelated service?
23. 353.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    What about the indirect costs of being involved in such litigation? For example, missed deals/profit due to one's reduced capacity to work while entangled in a legal mess.
24. 354.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    Question for legal-minded readers: can this be worked around by having someone else, a non-AWS-user, enforce the license/copyright on one's behalf? Or perhaps simply terminating use of AWS and proceeding to then enforce the clai
25. 355.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    Until they catch on and disallow it, sure :)
26. 356.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    AFAIK it was built-in from the start, as far as the X.509 protocol is concerned. Its just not used anywhere. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.10
27. 357.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    Here's [0] the relevant section of the X.509 RFC (Name Constraints). Unfortunately, last time this was discussed on HN, someone mentioned that Name Constraints are not supported by all client software, making it unsafe to rely on them.
28. 358.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    > This addon has been discontinued Source: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/
29. 359.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    D'oh, thanks for the correction! I knew about their caching mechanism, but failed to realize that it wouldn't prevent this sort of tracking pixel from working due to the pixel URL being unique (in most cases).
30. 360.▲
    by antsar 11y ago

    How many mail clients load those by default nowadays? Gmail doesn't, Thunderbird doesn't.