'josh_carterPDX' claimed beta was open now in a comment earlier. Yet you're just adding people to the waiting list? That seems inconsistent.

Security is always a high priority and a fundamental feature for any stage of business. That is especially true when credentials and authorizations are intertwined.

It is SSL*.

The beta is open to some folks that have already signed up. The waitlist is for new beta users. Sorry for the confusion.

You said, "Our beta is open now if you're interested.", to another intrigued commenter 1 hour ago. It's changed since then?

Feel free to sign up. We can add you to the list of interested users. We're hoping to onboard more and more each week.

It is interesting however I feel it is best to wait for your platform to mature. I lack environments to test your product and refuse to use this with anything sensitive. Configuring SSL/TLS is a minuscule process taking only a few minutes, vital for security, that has been neglected. I'll keep your product in mind until these rudimentary basics have been addressed.

Thanks, Josh.

I'd like to disagree with the statement that this can "only take a few minutes" by pointing out, done correctly, essentially everything takes 15+ minutes to accomplish.

As far as SSL/TLS you've got to generate a CSR, get it signed, go poke around in your load balancer and/or application server to reconfigure appropriately, and very probably iterate on your cipher list until SSL Labs (or equivalent) looks good.

If that isn't a contentious view, then I'll go further, building a product has hundreds of these "miniscule" tasks (your words) and added together that's significant time. Whilst you might not agree with the prioritisation, the response that they'd prioritised feature work over ticking off this box was at least honest.

Hat tip to the team for communicating so well in this thread.

I acknowledge your disagreement and find it to be inexperienced. You should follow the standards, not trial-and-error until a third party gives you a thumbs up. Re-configuring your internal structure is only as extensive as the complexity (which is usually nil).

If you need an instructional video on how to complete such a trivial task, let me know. I guarantee it will be less than 5 minutes on a variety of environments. What "hundreds" of these tasks are you speaking of? Please meticulously explain rather than fluff your speech to make the process seem more debilitating than it is.

Also: minuscule

Thanks nixgeek! I didn't have the energy to explain this yesterday, but you nailed it.

Appreciate the candor. The beta is really meant to "test drive" the platform. Hopefully you keep tabs on what we're doing. Thanks!

This seems too risky with their obstacles ahead.

Watch the first video under 'further reading'. Many of those congressmen seem very biased and uneducated while deliberately misconstruing basic knowledge and law.

Edit: wanted to commend congressmen Mr. Issa, Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Johnson.

Wow.

Obama, our manipulating word artisan of a president yet again attempting to use strong language (i.e "fetishizing") to polarize our view.

Interesting choice too - there's clearly a demographic who go to the Folsom Street Fair who definitely don't have negative connotations to "fetishizing", and I suspect any porn site operator could give you some numbers that some people would not believe about the number of people for whom fetishes are a real thing.

I wonder if Obama and his speechwriters have research about how many people (and from which demographics) that phrase is going to be read in which ways? (I wonder if they've worked out that they've already lost the tech crowd on this issue, and there's a statistically significant crossover between the tech crowd and the people for whom fetishes are considered a positive thing?)

If they are not harnessing big data for writing speeches then the White House is less savvy than Netflix and House of Cards writer, Beau Willimon.

Was Obama using this term in a Marxist economics context?

First he accused me of clinging to my guns, but since I didn't own any guns, I was OK with that.

Next he accused me of clinging to my religion, but since I was an atheist, I was like, meh, whatever.

Then he accused me of clinging to my smartphone, and oh, boy. It's on now, motherfucker.

We need to stop this bullshit from happening. We the people.

Fortunate? Freedom of speech (et al.) is a birthright, NOT a privilege. If only the people of Japan stood up for their rights..

> If only the people of Japan stood up for their rights..

As mentioned in the article, there already are massive protests around this issue.

What more could they do? Try to take down the government by force? Even if they succeeded, I'm sure the U.S. would be happy to step in to "calm the waters" and impose martial law outright.

They don't need to have a violent revolution. They can just vote for a different party in the next election cycle. If the votes aren't there, revolution wouldn't succeed anyway.

"They can just vote for a different party in the next election cycle."

The last time they tried that (2009), the different party was literally more of the same. The only thing worth mentioning about the following two elections was their extremely low turnout (the lowest ever in Japan's modern history in the latter).

Revolutions do not need a majority. I think our best guess is that fewer than a third of the then colonists (USA) supported the proclamation of independence.

It is true though that with FPTP, you don't really need a majority to win elections either so it might be a wash.

The difference between a right and a privilege seems to be a matter of definition ..

Where are the security researchers? Credible, elaborate, and well-documented articles? Has this not captured their attention or is it a lack of concern?

Cancerous governments desperate for control. Swim away.