Sounds like a "Yes". Thanks for the reply, dahdum.
-11 karma · joined February 15, 2018
AIPAC, "America's Pro-Israel Lobby", isn't worth a mention. Israel apparently does nothing that needs to be dealt with.
Are you Americans on this forum grateful that people like Mr Stamos decide for you which countries should have influence?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cr... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cr...
Since it was sound science in 2009, why would it not be now?
Sure, it's bad for the would-be rent-seekers whose plans have been threatened. Why should anyone else care about them?
Thanks China, and keep up the good work!
TT is stable, available virtually everywhere and (like perl itself) is well documented and works without fuss.
The chief assumption appears to be "anyone but the browser vendors". Let us consult the article:
BeEF
This, to me, was the most impactful demo
"...examines exploitability within the context of the one open door: the web browser."
There could hardly be a clearer expression of contempt for the browser vendors' offerings. But remember, the "open door" is nothing to do with them, it's all your fault for not serving via HTTPS.
Welcome to Clown World.
While I don't doubt dataskydd's good intentions, their advice about referrers is a sign that we live in Clown World.
Yes, your browser's tendency to provide a referrer might well give away information you would prefer it didn't. Unfortunately for you, the browser vendors have chosen to provide browsers that do that.
In a parallel universe it would be obvious that this is a problem (among many) for the browser vendors to address. In Clown World, you are supposed to rely on each and every site providing a special response header.
And let us not forget the EU's efforts to support incumbents and deter new entrants, with their complex, vague and punitive regulations. These also receive much approval here; perhaps a fruitful field for study by some enterprising psychologists!
That's understandable. Fastmail do the same, i.e. acquiring certs for their customers' domains without asking or informing, with a view to moving them to HTTPS.
The general opinion here seems to be in favour of this practice. So we can look forward to a future where your domain may publish on the web only with the permission of a CA.
Not the SSL certificate for your domain, which Fastmail will acquire with or without your prior knowledge or consent, and to which you have no access or control.
In case it's news to others, as it was to me, Fastmail routinely acquires SSL certificates for its customers' domains without their knowledge or consent.