jb613

7 ms·

1.
by jb613 9y ago
> Patents started out as a 20 year protection on mechanical mechanisms or chemical processes as long as what was protected was publicly documented in full. 1) Patents are not an American invention. England had them before, and the Roman
2.
by jb613 9y ago
One has to wonder who the customers this is setup to appease. If something is later found, corporate customers have litigation options - so more likely this is for nation-states.
3.
by jb613 9y ago
The more slow-moving government will get involved, the more industry will be pulled towards open source where there is no need to get government approval. Sure - it won't be easy and will come with other pitfalls, but in some circumsta
4.
by jb613 10y ago
"I think you're missing the point." Ditto. I know exactly what you're saying - tree's take long time to grow, the world is complex and subtly nuanced, once we lose that it's gone, etc. FYI I get all that - or
5.
by jb613 10y ago
No, Easter island wouldn't have had taro, chickens, goats, pigs WITHOUT the polynesian humans bringing them.
6.
by jb613 10y ago
Capitalism may also offer answers. For example, as tree supply diminishes, each tree will become more valuable (assuming wood demand stays stable) thereby incentivizing tree farmers to plant trees over other crops. The world changes and hu
7.
by jb613 10y ago
"Going to be interesting watching this one play out." I suspect, access of "14,000 highly confidential and proprietary files shortly before his resignation" will play a major role in swaying the deciders. Experience tel
8.
by jb613 10y ago
"It is, however, sad to think that this technology could be set back a few years because of Levandowski's actions." I am less concerned about one piece of technology and more concerned about the future of employer relations i
9.
by jb613 10y ago
What concerns me is that we are going to see more and more of this in the coming years - corporations concerned over ex-employees taking their knowledge with them and taking legal recourse. In this case, they complain about access of 14k p
10.
by jb613 10y ago
There is a difference between weakened and backdoored. Weakened is along the lines what you're saying - that likely others than just the governments can easily access, whereas backdoored (if done properly) means only the govt. Of cou
11.
by jb613 10y ago
"wants to regulate cryptography"??? - I suggest it's already in place. For example, if you wish to create crypto software or hardware (or in some cases even simply importing a crypto library) - for 2 sides to communicate req
12.
by jb613 10y ago
Given free market indicators such as Bitcoin marketcap and the recent rise of Monero vs zcash - perhaps absolute privacy is not what the market values?
13.
by jb613 10y ago
government subsidies cause distortions. Somehow providing basic income to incentivize people to live more in rural areas would only cause those currently living in rural areas to be more costly. The salaries of farmers, oil rig workers, t
14.
by jb613 10y ago
That's ridiculous. The Wright Brothers changed the world. On par if not exceeding today's equivalent of Marc Andreesen (Netscape), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Brin&Page (Google) - and the last time I checked, people like that DO
15.
by jb613 10y ago
The reason you will lose that bet is the "any country". In some less developed countries, inflation is out of control (govt sees money printing as the only solution) bitcoin as measured against their currency is rising. Daily.
16.
by jb613 10y ago
If not ID is required then why (and how do they enforce): "The maximum for unregistered clients is 5'000 CHF/EUR per day" https://www.bitcoinsuisse.ch/en/explanation/#p1_4
17.
by jb613 10y ago
I suspect that selling iTunes credit or pre-paid phone codes requires adhering to all kinds of rules and agreements set by the corporations (Apple, phone corps). You can't simply build a box and slap iTunes logo on the outside - there
18.
by jb613 10y ago
Why are the default rules not provided? fw-daemon/rules.go references "/var/lib/sgfw/sgfw_rules" yet nowhere to be found.
19.
by jb613 10y ago
> I suspect we centralized trust at the encouragement of folks like the NSA and similar ilk. In the mid-90's, CA certs were put into Netscape Navigator (IE joined later) in order to facilitate the new wild wacky concept that someone
20.
by jb613 10y ago
> lacks features such as per process rules. You have to do hacks like assign rules to users From a practical standpoint, I find it hard to imagine that the cost of added complexity for configuring application rules per user would outweig
21.
by jb613 10y ago
> Still doesn't make any sense to me. Whether a CA performs a DNS query in order to do domain validation via email, http or to check a CAA record doesn't matter. Brush up on CA cert issuance. You seem to be assuming that all C
22.
by jb613 10y ago
> I'm not sure I follow. My point is that if you're arguing that a DNS query is some kind of added complexity, then I have bad news for you, because DNS queries are already a part of all domain validation methods (whether it is
23.
by jb613 10y ago
> CAs already rely on DNS for domain validation Not all - only a subset of certs issued > If the CA fails to follow the whitelist, it's not worse than a CA that does not implement CAA. Without pointing out evidence that shows ho
24.
by jb613 10y ago
Yeah - in theory, but in reality the browsers are reluctant because of all the other sites that a CA has issued certs for - no browser wants to be singled out for blocking some other non-related sites.
25.
by jb613 10y ago
There's too many paying entities to appease - not just hundreds of CA's but various browser vendors as well. Either MUSTs will be changed to SHOULDs - or fragmentation of the CA/Browser body itself. Look no further than at s
26.
by jb613 10y ago
> It's certainly an effective defense-in-depth mechanism. 1) We've seen time and again that complexity is the enemy of security. Generally, the more moving parts, the more likely for another flaw. This is less defense-in-dept
27.
by jb613 10y ago
1) CAA tries to address the threat of attacker getting a cert issued for your domain - to carry out such an attack inherently requires taking over your DNS record or your domain account - if they can do this then they can also reconfigure y
28.
by jb613 10y ago
You are underestimating 1) the number of CA's embedded in your browser, 2) how easy it is to get one of those CA's to issue a cert for someone else's domain.
29.
by jb613 10y ago
> with CAA and you can change your configuration it any time so too could an attacker. If an attacker is able to set HPKP, then they could just as easily reconfigure CAA to a CA that issues them a cert for your domain.
30.
by jb613 10y ago
> CAA (that little-known standard for enforcing which CAs can issue certs for your domain) I'm sure the CA's absolutely LOVE this - customers are signaling that they will stay with CA 'X'. Given 'vendor lockin&

More ›