deno

82 ms·

871.
by deno 15y ago
This seems rational, but it’s too much complexity for too little gain. If no one have solved this problem in the last 10 years, it won’t happen now.
872.
by deno 15y ago
> My only concern is that 511 could be seen as legitimizing the practice of putting silly click-through terms-of-service roadblocks on free wi-fi (making it impossible for devices to connect without a human operating a web browser), but
873.
by deno 15y ago
Being used to Google, I would first try “-site:youtube.com .”
874.
by deno 15y ago
It can be done somewhat easily for a read-only presentation, assuming certain degree of discipline on the part of the frontend developer. However, should you require any complex logic without js and it’s practically inevitable, that you’ll
875.
by deno 15y ago
Even having the option to load a single JVM instance and share it between different frames/pages/tabs would be a tremendous improvement over current situation. At the present, the best you could do is to fake it using inter-frame communicat
876.
by deno 15y ago
I’m not familiar with haXe all that well, just enough to include it in the list. However, in the end haXe is too, statically translated into Javascript. GWT has an excellent debugger as well, but there’s only so much you can do on that leve
877.
by deno 15y ago
They mean that you can use Chromium as your primary target — your development stack — and their cross-compiler will take care of supporting legacy/incompatible targets. This is just like GWT does now and it seems the technology (apart from
878.
by deno 15y ago
And also: ”Developers using Dash tooling will be able to use a cross-compiler to target Javascript for browsers that do not support Dash natively.” Not very different to having native support for e.g. CoffeScript in browser X and supporting
879.
by deno 15y ago
Firefox 9.0a1 (Nightly) / Linux 3.0 x64 has this problem as well. Might be problem with platform rather than browser itself.
880.
by deno 15y ago
Hmm, yes; it seems I did. I hope that my basic premise holds true though — in that this doesn't make Arabic inherently sexist.
881.
by deno 15y ago
As a side-effect HN has upgraded from HTTP 1.0 to HTTP 1.1.
882.
by deno 15y ago
“The books, she is green” is not very unique to Arabic actually. It's also how you'd say it in Polish, for example. Most languages, that have feminine and masculine forms (unlike English), have some arbitrary rules as to what form to assign
883.
by deno 15y ago
Check out the virtual doctor at totallyadd.com[1]. They have also a very informative PBS documentary. [1] http://totallyadd.com/virtual-doctor
884.
by deno 15y ago
Jetty's HTTP client is pretty decent. http://wiki.eclipse.org/Jetty/Tutorial/HttpClient
885.
by deno 15y ago
There: > {1} With grep you need at least something to search (one argument), don't you? {2} If you don't provide another argument to say "where", it reads from standard input (as most unix commands). And ‘find’ is the other way around.
886.
by deno 15y ago
It's not useless. With cat, I don't have to remember the order of grep's arguments.
887.
by deno 15y ago
So does it just mean that the implementation is hard to get right? I'm all for killing off ideas, especially when it comes to cryptography, but I'd like to at least learn something in the process. Is there somewhere I can learn about everyt
888.
by deno 15y ago
What do you mean? I thought if you eliminate any of the things I've mentioned previously all that is left is just checksum algorithm and some math. Note that the public key would come from the secure TLS channel, so there's no issue of obta
889.
by deno 15y ago
> The idea of replacing it with ad-hoc encryption at the application layer Yes, I understand that this would be a terrible idea. That is why I only intended to verify signed, public content using static key. I don't indent do any
890.
by deno 15y ago
> Nice tool. I would love access to the API once its public to write a bash script that allows you to search from terminal. > cat /etc/services | grep " 80/tcp" http 80/tcp www www-http # WorldWideWeb HTTP
891.
by deno 15y ago
I am mostly interested in replacing bi-directional TLS. There are things that need to be encrypted — authentication, any authorized operations, fetching authorized content — however the majority of content that application uses is public, s
892.
by deno 15y ago
If any of those things can be used to affect the crypto part, then they could be also used to affect the web application itself, in the first place. I'm only looking for the level of integrity, that I can get from launching the web applicat
893.
by deno 15y ago
Well the integrity of the JS cryptosystem would be no worse than the integrity of the webapp itself. I understand that one cannot trust the JS crypto for handling the private key and doing any singing & encryption because of the possibi
894.
by deno 15y ago
I was also wondering — I hope you don't mind — would it be considered safe to just verify signed messages using cryptojs? For example, let's say the environment (webapp) is bootstrapped using TLS, this includes the public key. Now could thi
895.
by deno 15y ago
Well I thought the question was interesting because if that'd work, so would a native Web API.
896.
by deno 15y ago
What about loading Java applet (and communicating from JS) that handles all encrypting/decrypting? Would that take care of at least the latter concern?
897.
by deno 15y ago
You can't do that. Though it seems like the sites are composed, they are in fact just embedded viewports (iframe). The only way to scrape username, at the moment, is to turn that app into a plugin/bookmarklet, or at least bootstrap from one
898.
by deno 15y ago
Comment [dead] for some reason (false positive): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738007
899.
by deno 15y ago
It seems I got it mixed up with a different comment. My apologies.
900.
by deno 15y ago
But you can't trust client-side validation, unless you run the client in a DRM container (client then can just sign the request and you can assume that it executed in a secure memory, unaltered).

More ›