9h1d9j809s

Not anymore. It used to work like that, which is why things like XHTML 2.0 never got traction.

> Welcome to most jobs, ever, in every historical period and culture, ever since humans have had jobs distinct from whatever else they did with their lives.

Many jobs were probably quite fulfilling. A cobbler, for example, who produced a pair of shoes before this task could be automated or split Taylor-style.

"[...] it is just one of the many provocative ideas that he develops and then drops in the course of the book, which reads less like a structured argument than a long prose poem. Sloterdijk’s strength and appeal come from the intuitive and metaphorical quality of his thought, his unconventional approaches to familiar problems, his willingness to scandalize."

This sums up Sloterdijk pretty well. I highly recommend reading him.

Why? Because DNSSEC can be attacked by the DNS root?

It seemed to be our best attempt to get SSL for every website. CA-based certificates just won't cut it.

This is fine, since you have the option to decide. For most people it's okay to store the key on Apples servers. You are still protected if your computer is lost/stolen, for example.

And if you want to be safe from the government, just select "No".

If quantum computing shows up, AES-256 will remain secure. Otherwise there is no advantage at all.

I don't get it. Why does it matter if your tool just decrypts SSL or you use a tool that decrypts SSL and additionally unpacks the binary representation of HTTP 2.0?

The output is exactly the same - plain old HTTP.

> That mainly benefits the big web monopolists, who require the browser to be the ultimate application platform, where they can track to their hearts content, display unsolicited advertising

Please. All you need for advertising is plain text, all you need for tracking is cookies.

> I think it's pretty ludicrous that so many people are willing to let an advertising company basically re-write the way that every computer on the web

First, to call Google an advertising company makes no sense. It's a tech company. You don't call a newspaper an advertising company either.

Second, there were people involved in designing this, not just an anonymous corporation. You can actually see their names in the proposals. It's a good design, that's why it has been adopted.

Yes, it is. If you make my life hell, at least give me the freedom to die.

There is no private communication during a war. This is normal and it makes sense.

We are not in a war, no matter what some say.

(The article actually implies this, but I wanted to clarify for those not reading the article completely.)

Mexico is not part of South America. I agree about Chile. Uruguay is small, corrupt and almost controlled by the US.

I strongly disagree about Argentina and Brazil backing America. I'm not sure if you know much everyone hates the US in South America. And for good reasons: Just look at the history of the Americas in the 70s, 80s and even 90s.

And what do you even mean by World War III?

Which, by the way, would be incredibly important to stabilize the EU.

I've lived in Bolivia for a year when Evo Morales was already president. I've also been to Venezuela.

Assuming the CIA won't try to actually abduct him there and Morales will stay in power, Bolivia is a perfect choice in many ways. Morales is totally trustworthy. The country is very safe and less militarized than Venezuela. Policy is somewhat more moderate, basically based on social democratic ideas as they are seen in Europe. There is a history of corruption, but this is mostly in the lower layers of government and police and elections are probably not affected.

Venezuela, however, can actually protect him once he is inside the country. Bolivia probably can't.

That will not happen. Whatever the US does, it will only bring the countries of South America even closer together.