There is something to be said for shouting them down with song.
charonn0
joined 1 year ago
The 1st Amendment presents a very high bar for criminal prosecution of speech.
These are civil cases.
Depends on what they're talking about.
e.g. "Let's plan a murder" vs. "Let's plan dinner"
Because ultimately the problem with cars is how many of them there are, not what kind of engine they use. If there were only ever, say, 50,000 cars in the entire world we might not even notice the environmental costs. But Google tells me that there are over a billion.
Put another way, a diesel bus carrying 50 people is better for the environment than those 50 people each driving a separate EV car. Not because the bus has less engine emissions, but because it's a more efficient use of materials and energy.
Not if there are going to be hundreds of millions of them, no.
SSL/TLS, the "S" in HTTPS, and other network encryption protocols such as SSH, use a technique called a Diffie-Hellman key exchange. This is a mode of cryptography where each side generates two keys: a public half and a private half. Anything encrypted with the public half is only decryptable by the associated private half (and vice versa).
You and Youtube only ever exchange the public halves of your respective key pairs. If someone snoops on the key exchange all they can do is insert spoofed messages, not decrypt real ones.
Moreover, the keypairs are generated on the fly for each new session rather than reused. This means that even a future compromise of youtube won't unlock old sessions. This is a concept called forward secrecy.
Message spoofing is prevented by digital signatures. These also use the Diffie-Hellman principle of pairs of public/private keys, but use separate longer-term key pairs than those used with encryption. The public half of youtube's signing key, as presented by the server when you connect to it, has to be digitally signed by a well-known public authority whose public signing key was shipped with your web browser.
It never even occurred to you that perhaps I wasn't being deadly serious and absolutely literal either?
While the wikipedia page you cite does have a section heading called "1945-1992", that's only because it uses WW2 and the EU treaty as endpoints. Not because laws were being passed in 1945. Moreover, the cited page doesn't list country-level laws in 1945-1992, it lists international treaties; and the earliest listed treaty is from 1953.
I guess you'd have to watch the whole movie to get the message.