Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #51123 > unrolled thread

With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-10-09 08:41 -0500
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-09 15:50 +0000
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-10-09 11:35 -0500
        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-09 19:37 +0200
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-09 21:00 +0000
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-10-10 00:28 +0200
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-10-10 02:01 +0200
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 19:54 +0200
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break elvis-85650@notatla.org.uk - 2018-10-09 21:53 +0000
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-09 14:40 -0600
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-09 23:17 +0200
        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-09 16:18 -0600
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 06:45 +0200
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 14:46 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 09:28 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 16:05 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 10:26 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:23 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2018-10-10 08:32 -0700
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:17 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 13:52 -0400
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 18:15 +0000
                        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 15:01 -0400
                          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 19:49 +0000
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 18:02 +0200
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:26 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 18:11 +0000
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 20:12 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:42 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-10-11 10:23 +0000
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-11 19:03 +0200
                        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-11 17:33 +0000
                          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-11 22:00 +0200
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-10-10 16:22 -0400
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:46 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 21:14 +0000
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-10-11 15:40 -0400
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@blackhole.io> - 2018-10-11 15:08 -0500
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-11 20:56 +0000
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 08:55 -0400
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 16:10 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 10:31 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:49 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-11 07:32 +0100
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-10 08:45 -0600
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 14:06 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-10 13:44 -0600
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-11 07:30 +0100
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-11 09:24 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-11 19:02 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-11 14:12 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-12 01:01 +0200
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Chuck Rhode <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> - 2018-10-12 20:30 -0500
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-12 22:05 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Chuck Rhode <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> - 2018-10-13 07:41 -0500
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-13 09:59 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2018-10-15 19:14 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#51156

"Bobbie Sellers" <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote

| I dunno what you mean by a microwave chef?
| Maybe people who buy prepared food and warm it up
| in a microwave?
|
   Yes.

| You can do a lot more than that with a microwave
| to produce delicious and edible food.

  A little more. If you want to cook something
from scratch you won't be using a microwave.
For instance, a soup that needs to simmer and
will be adjusted as you go along. A microwave just
heats.
   My very elderly father used to like to cook a whole
meal in a microwave. But there was something about
that dehydrated, cruchy cauliflower that made me
think steaming in a saucepan might have been a
better idea. :)

| There are different areas of knowledge and a person
| who knows art may not know much about computers and person
| who know computers may not know much about art or design.
| That is clearly evident from many otherwise interesting
| and informative sites which are painful to view.
|
   Yes. And the fact that it's so easy to do makes
for a lot of people making sites who don't know
what they're doing security-wise. But to me the
people who are semi-skilled and want to load up
on javascript gadgets are much worse. The idea
that a site should degrade gracefully has been thrown
out by people who want to run javascript software in
your browser with 3-20 MB of code. Worse, they don't
actually understand any of that code. They just found
snippets to make menus pop up or animations play.
It's WYSIWYG scripting. Those are exactly the
kind of sites where script shouldn't be enabled.

  I'm finding more and more that I visit a page and
it's blank. Or it's a jumble. They're trying to force script.
So then I disable CSS and I can read the page. But
the page I linked earlier was even worse. Basic HTML
that doesn't work without script. That problem is
increasing fast.

   When they used script for rollover effects it could
be ignored, but now we're getting very close to an
Internet composed of software rather than webpages,
that must use script because that's actually all that's
in the page.

 When every page you visit is a software program,
running locally, and infested by the likes of Google,
as well as a dozen other trackers, https seems like a
quaint idea. Who's left to be private from, other than
a possible man-in-the-middle attack? Some malware
even loads through ad iframes, with people buying
ad space to get into your browser. None of that is
protected by https. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51160

On 2018-10-10, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Bobbie Sellers" <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>
>| I dunno what you mean by a microwave chef?
>| Maybe people who buy prepared food and warm it up
>| in a microwave?
>|
>    Yes.
>
>| You can do a lot more than that with a microwave
>| to produce delicious and edible food.
>
>   A little more. If you want to cook something
> from scratch you won't be using a microwave.
> For instance, a soup that needs to simmer and
> will be adjusted as you go along. A microwave just
> heats.

So does a stove just heat.
The key thing a microwave cannot do is to dry out the surface and
initiate the browning reaction just in the surface. 

>    My very elderly father used to like to cook a whole
> meal in a microwave. But there was something about
> that dehydrated, cruchy cauliflower that made me
> think steaming in a saucepan might have been a
> better idea. :)

You can steam in a microwave as well. 


>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51161

"William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote

| > For instance, a soup that needs to simmer and
| > will be adjusted as you go along. A microwave just
| > heats.
|
| So does a stove just heat.

  A microwave makes food hot by shaking molecules.
A stove is used to apply heat in measured ways.
It's not the same thing. That's obvious in the different
smells and textures of food cooked each way.

  I seem to have accidentally maligned the "Healthy
Choice" crowd here. The Front Page fans of the kitchen? :)

  If you think a microwave only lacks browning then
I'm afraid you don't know how to cook... or eat... or
both. But you can eat as you like. Don't bother to invite
me over for your 120 second lamb stew, or your
spaghetti sauce that somehow magically steeps fresh
herbs in only 27 seconds. I'm not in that much of a
hurry.

   Interesting tangent that you may know about:
Microsoft's Nathan Myhrvold got very wrapped up
in cooking as a discipline of chemistry, coming up
with very detailed techniques for preparing various
foods with effects on the molecular level just so.
He gets deeply into how and why specific chemcial
changes make food delicious.
  I read that he came up with some very good recipes,
apparently taking the approach that cooking can be
as much a science as an art. But I haven't actually
seen the book.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51163

On 2018-10-10, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "William Unruh" <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote
>
>| > For instance, a soup that needs to simmer and
>| > will be adjusted as you go along. A microwave just
>| > heats.
>|
>| So does a stove just heat.
>
>   A microwave makes food hot by shaking molecules.
> A stove is used to apply heat in measured ways.
> It's not the same thing. That's obvious in the different
> smells and textures of food cooked each way.

So does a stove make things hot by shaking molecules.
As i said, a microwave does not dry out and begin to burn the surface of
the food (which gives smells and textures you mention). 
>
>   I seem to have accidentally maligned the "Healthy
> Choice" crowd here. The Front Page fans of the kitchen? :)
>
>   If you think a microwave only lacks browning then
> I'm afraid you don't know how to cook... or eat... or
> both. But you can eat as you like. Don't bother to invite
> me over for your 120 second lamb stew, or your
> spaghetti sauce that somehow magically steeps fresh
> herbs in only 27 seconds. I'm not in that much of a
> hurry.

No worries. I was not planning to invite you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51152

On 10/10/18 2:46 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 06.45, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2018 03:17 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> then you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>>>
>>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>>> not caring about your privacy.
>>>
>>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
>>
>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>> browser maintainers for a long time.
> 
> And you assume that they read those? Why?
> Me, I found out this week.

I do, as it's important for my employer that our customer can access our
websites. I do spend at least 30 mins a day at work just browsing
through article subjects to see if there is something happening that
affects us. If you can't spend that time to keep yourself up to date
with information, then do you really care about your customers?


-- 

 //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51155

On 10/10/2018 18.02, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 10/10/18 2:46 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 10/10/2018 06.45, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>> On 10/09/2018 03:17 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>> then you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>>>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>>>>
>>>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>>>> not caring about your privacy.
>>>>
>>>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>>>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>>>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
>>>
>>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>>
>> And you assume that they read those? Why?
>> Me, I found out this week.
> 
> I do, as it's important for my employer that our customer can access our
> websites. I do spend at least 30 mins a day at work just browsing
> through article subjects to see if there is something happening that
> affects us. If you can't spend that time to keep yourself up to date
> with information, then do you really care about your customers?

No, again, that does not follow. I'd pay someone with the knowledge to
put up the web. Or use a service out there to create my own web. Hey,
computers are just appliances, just like washing machines, they tell us.
I do not need to read how they work inside.

You are different, they pay you to do it.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51158

On 2018-10-10, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 18.02, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 10/10/18 2:46 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2018 06.45, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>>> On 10/09/2018 03:17 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>>> then you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>>>>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>>>>> not caring about your privacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>>>>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>>>>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
>>>>
>>>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>>>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>>>
>>> And you assume that they read those? Why?
>>> Me, I found out this week.
>> 
>> I do, as it's important for my employer that our customer can access our
>> websites. I do spend at least 30 mins a day at work just browsing
>> through article subjects to see if there is something happening that
>> affects us. If you can't spend that time to keep yourself up to date
>> with information, then do you really care about your customers?
>
> No, again, that does not follow. I'd pay someone with the knowledge to
> put up the web. Or use a service out there to create my own web. Hey,
> computers are just appliances, just like washing machines, they tell us.
> I do not need to read how they work inside.

And as with all services there are competent people out there, and
incompetent ones. If you pay one of the incompetent ones, I can feel
sorry for you if your car/washing machine/roof/web page breaks due to
shoddy work, but am neither surpized nor am I terribly sympathetic with
your blaming the road/laundry soap/weather/browser for your problems. 


>
> You are different, they pay you to do it.

You pay others so it would seem you should be even more concerned with
the competence of those you pay.

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51159

On 10/10/18 7:26 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 18.02, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 10/10/18 2:46 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2018 06.45, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>>> On 10/09/2018 03:17 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>>> then you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>>>>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>>>>> not caring about your privacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>>>>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>>>>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
>>>>
>>>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>>>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>>>
>>> And you assume that they read those? Why?
>>> Me, I found out this week.
>>
>> I do, as it's important for my employer that our customer can access our
>> websites. I do spend at least 30 mins a day at work just browsing
>> through article subjects to see if there is something happening that
>> affects us. If you can't spend that time to keep yourself up to date
>> with information, then do you really care about your customers?
> 
> No, again, that does not follow. I'd pay someone with the knowledge to
> put up the web. Or use a service out there to create my own web. Hey,
> computers are just appliances, just like washing machines, they tell us.
> I do not need to read how they work inside.

So you hire who ever, don't care if they are "experts" or some stranger
from the streets of Calcutta? You know you get what you pay for,
spending a buck or two and you get shit.


> You are different, they pay you to do it.

Sure I get paid, in the same way as the one you hire to setup your web site.

-- 

 //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51165

On 10/10/2018 20.12, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 10/10/18 7:26 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 10/10/2018 18.02, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> On 10/10/18 2:46 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 10/10/2018 06.45, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/09/2018 03:17 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>>>> then you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>>>>>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>>>>>> not caring about your privacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>>>>>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>>>>>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>>>>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> And you assume that they read those? Why?
>>>> Me, I found out this week.
>>>
>>> I do, as it's important for my employer that our customer can access our
>>> websites. I do spend at least 30 mins a day at work just browsing
>>> through article subjects to see if there is something happening that
>>> affects us. If you can't spend that time to keep yourself up to date
>>> with information, then do you really care about your customers?
>>
>> No, again, that does not follow. I'd pay someone with the knowledge to
>> put up the web. Or use a service out there to create my own web. Hey,
>> computers are just appliances, just like washing machines, they tell us.
>> I do not need to read how they work inside.
> 
> So you hire who ever, don't care if they are "experts" or some stranger
> from the streets of Calcutta? You know you get what you pay for,
> spending a buck or two and you get shit.

No, I assume they are competent in their field. Who says I hire a
nobody, you? They come with college or university degrees and years of
experience.

>> You are different, they pay you to do it.
> 
> Sure I get paid, in the same way as the one you hire to setup your web site.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51171

J.O. Aho wrote:
> [...]
> So you hire who ever, don't care if they are "experts" or some stranger
> from the streets of Calcutta? 

Unfortunately these days, they're one and the same :(


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51177

On 10/11/18 12:23 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> J.O. Aho wrote:
>> [...]
>> So you hire who ever, don't care if they are "experts" or some stranger
>> from the streets of Calcutta? 
> 
> Unfortunately these days, they're one and the same :(

Simple test to see if it's an expert from the streets of Calcutta, if
the name of the person don't fir on the screen, then it's not an expert.

-- 

 //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51179

On 2018-10-11, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
> On 10/11/18 12:23 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> So you hire who ever, don't care if they are "experts" or some stranger
>>> from the streets of Calcutta? 
>> 
>> Unfortunately these days, they're one and the same :(
>
> Simple test to see if it's an expert from the streets of Calcutta, if
> the name of the person don't fir on the screen, then it's not an expert.

Yeah right. Or if it is short three letter name, it is also not an
expert?

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51187

On 10/11/18 7:33 PM, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2018-10-11, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
>> On 10/11/18 12:23 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>> J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> So you hire who ever, don't care if they are "experts" or some stranger
>>>> from the streets of Calcutta? 
>>>
>>> Unfortunately these days, they're one and the same :(
>>
>> Simple test to see if it's an expert from the streets of Calcutta, if
>> the name of the person don't fir on the screen, then it's not an expert.
> 
> Yeah right. Or if it is short three letter name, it is also not an
> expert?

Depends on what they claim they are export on, tend to be as trustworthy
as those with 12 letters in their name.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51164

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:45:40 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> 
>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>> 
>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>> not caring about your privacy.
>> 
>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
>
> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
> browser maintainers for a long time.
> If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
> about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
> there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
> knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.

Many don't care and that is okay in my opinion. You also DON'T check
with your car dealer if there is a recall or something as customer. You
will get informed if that happens.

If you are a big corporation then you have a webmaster who likely will
learn about this.

But if you are a small business you might be you own webmaster and not
look up what's going on with certs and other webmaster stuff. You expect
you will get informed.

What IMO should had happened is that cert issuers inform their customers
what is about to hit them. They take care of it or inform their customers
what is about to come. Going down the chain until the last authority who
deals with certificates updates them.
-- 
Andreas

My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51166

On 10/10/2018 22.22, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:45:40 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>
>> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>>>
>>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>>> not caring about your privacy.
>>>
>>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
>>
>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>> If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
>> about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
>> there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
>> knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
> 
> Many don't care and that is okay in my opinion. You also DON'T check
> with your car dealer if there is a recall or something as customer. You
> will get informed if that happens.
> 
> If you are a big corporation then you have a webmaster who likely will
> learn about this.
> 
> But if you are a small business you might be you own webmaster and not
> look up what's going on with certs and other webmaster stuff. You expect
> you will get informed.
> 
> What IMO should had happened is that cert issuers inform their customers
> what is about to hit them. They take care of it or inform their customers
> what is about to come. Going down the chain until the last authority who
> deals with certificates updates them.

Exactly...

It is like telling someone that owns a car that he should know that this
particular brand of oil is bad for the car.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51168

On 2018-10-10, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:45:40 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>
>> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>> 
>>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>>> 
>>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>>> not caring about your privacy.
>>> 
>>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
>>
>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>> If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
>> about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
>> there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
>> knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
>
> Many don't care and that is okay in my opinion. You also DON'T check
> with your car dealer if there is a recall or something as customer. You
> will get informed if that happens.
>
> If you are a big corporation then you have a webmaster who likely will
> learn about this.
>
> But if you are a small business you might be you own webmaster and not
> look up what's going on with certs and other webmaster stuff. You expect
> you will get informed.
>
> What IMO should had happened is that cert issuers inform their customers
> what is about to hit them. They take care of it or inform their customers
> what is about to come. Going down the chain until the last authority who
> deals with certificates updates them.

The cert issuer is incompetent. That is why they are being shut out.
You expect them to notify customers that they are incompetent?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51185

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:14:17 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:
>
> On 2018-10-10, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:45:40 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>>> If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
>>> about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
>>> there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
>>> knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
>>
>> Many don't care and that is okay in my opinion. You also DON'T check
>> with your car dealer if there is a recall or something as customer. You
>> will get informed if that happens.
>>
>> If you are a big corporation then you have a webmaster who likely will
>> learn about this.
>>
>> But if you are a small business you might be you own webmaster and not
>> look up what's going on with certs and other webmaster stuff. You expect
>> you will get informed.
>>
>> What IMO should had happened is that cert issuers inform their customers
>> what is about to hit them. They take care of it or inform their customers
>> what is about to come. Going down the chain until the last authority who
>> deals with certificates updates them.
>
> The cert issuer is incompetent. That is why they are being shut out.
> You expect them to notify customers that they are incompetent?

I understood that you, me and 70 year old grandma Gladys must know that
the ISP of their private web site hasn't updated the certificate and take
action like moving it elsewhere.
-- 
Andreas

My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51188

On 10/11/2018 2:40 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:14:17 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-10-10, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:45:40 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>>>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>>>> If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
>>>> about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
>>>> there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
>>>> knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
>>>
>>> Many don't care and that is okay in my opinion. You also DON'T check
>>> with your car dealer if there is a recall or something as customer. You
>>> will get informed if that happens.
>>>
>>> If you are a big corporation then you have a webmaster who likely will
>>> learn about this.
>>>
>>> But if you are a small business you might be you own webmaster and not
>>> look up what's going on with certs and other webmaster stuff. You expect
>>> you will get informed.
>>>
>>> What IMO should had happened is that cert issuers inform their customers
>>> what is about to hit them. They take care of it or inform their customers
>>> what is about to come. Going down the chain until the last authority who
>>> deals with certificates updates them.
>>
>> The cert issuer is incompetent. That is why they are being shut out.
>> You expect them to notify customers that they are incompetent?
> 
> I understood that you, me and 70 year old grandma Gladys must know that
> the ISP of their private web site hasn't updated the certificate and take
> action like moving it elsewhere.
> 
As much as I agree with Chrome's need to do this I feel that way too 
many of the older crowd are going to see it as a failure of Chrome.

Who knows how many people are going to switch to what ever browser lets 
them still access the sites they are used to...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51190

On 2018-10-11, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 21:14:17 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-10-10, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 06:45:40 +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
>>>> browser maintainers for a long time.
>>>> If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
>>>> about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
>>>> there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
>>>> knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
>>>
>>> Many don't care and that is okay in my opinion. You also DON'T check
>>> with your car dealer if there is a recall or something as customer. You
>>> will get informed if that happens.
>>>
>>> If you are a big corporation then you have a webmaster who likely will
>>> learn about this.
>>>
>>> But if you are a small business you might be you own webmaster and not
>>> look up what's going on with certs and other webmaster stuff. You expect
>>> you will get informed.
>>>
>>> What IMO should had happened is that cert issuers inform their customers
>>> what is about to hit them. They take care of it or inform their customers
>>> what is about to come. Going down the chain until the last authority who
>>> deals with certificates updates them.
>>
>> The cert issuer is incompetent. That is why they are being shut out.
>> You expect them to notify customers that they are incompetent?
>
> I understood that you, me and 70 year old grandma Gladys must know that
> the ISP of their private web site hasn't updated the certificate and take
> action like moving it elsewhere.

All I am saying is that it is not to the cert issuer that one should
look for a solution, or even notification. Maybe your web host is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51144

"Grant Taylor" <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

| > . you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.
|
| I disagree.
|
| Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
| not caring about your privacy.
|

   That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that
he's correct in general. Look at any website you
normally visit. It's very likely there's at least code
there for Google tracking, and probably code for
Google ads. In most cases there are completely
unnecessary fonts and scripts pulled in from
elsewhere. And often there are tracker spyware
beacons from the likes of scorecardresearch.com.

  You could say that those webmasters care about
your privacy and just don't know any better, but
that's really not tenable. Anyone who knows enough
to paste in Google tracking code has a basic idea
of what's going on. *They don't care about your
privacy.* They'd probably start yapping about
tinfoil hats if you even mentioned it to them.
It's a simple case of smallmindedness. They can't
be bothered to really think about what they're doing.
They're just trying to make snazzy sites and get
paid as much as possible. They can get paid more if
they sell you out to Google. And like any smallminded
person, they justify that in their own minds by
thinking, "So what? Everyone's doing it." If anyone
wants to make them think about what they're
doing, they drown it out with, "TINFOIL HAT!"

   In the process, they play into corporate tracking
by jumping on every halfwit javascript bandwagon
that hobbles by. "71 dynamically loaded fonts that
all look the same? What a great idea! How can I do
that? Load Google slop remotely? Count me in! That is
sooooo cooool!"

  Last night I visited a site I found in a Michael
Pollan book: csp.org. Council on Spiritual Practices.
They're some kind of clearing house for ideas about
psychedelic drugs and religious experience. Sounded
interesting. It's people who want to experience life
more fully, deeply and joyfully. And they think there
might be a correlation between what chemicals like
psilocybin do and what advanced meditation
techniques do. A bit of a 60s, consumer-goes-
shopping-for-spirituality-on-sale rehash. But I was
curious what they're up to. Ironically, their webpage
was entirely broken. Entirely unnecessarily. And they
don't care about your privacy.

   They pull in a 4.4 MB js file just to do basic things
like load pages from an anchor tag. The internal
links don't work without script! The script is coming
from Cloudfront. They also have Google-Analytics code.
So both Google and Amazon would be tracking me if
I allowed script.

   The https might be stopping my ISP from reading
the page I visit, but Google and Amazon are infesting
the page unnecessarily!

   ....On the other hand, why are Chrome users talking
about privacy? Worrying about https in Chrome, aside
from sites where you give out a credit card number, is
like alcoholics worrying about whether coffee might
cause liver damage. Can you say "denial"? :) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web