Slashdot Mirror

Except that the Verisign SSL cert is used so other people can trust me. I kinda trust myself not do steal my own privacy or infect my own devices, so why do I still need to pay $99 to Apple in order to be able to trust myself?

True, I hope Apple changes this in future.

Also, why doesn't Apple allow developers to use any development tools they want? There's no good technical reason for that. It's not so much the money that's the problem with Apple, it's the complete lack of choice.

There's no secret sauce, it's all just gcc in the end. See also iPhone Dev, which has been around since the original iPhone :

"The goal of the iphone-dev project is to create a free, portable, high quality toolchain to enable development for the Apple iPhone and other embedded devices based on the ARM/Darwin platform."

Supported and tested on a bunch of Linux distributions too. Of course you don't get the nice GUI etc. you get in Xcode, but you can't blame Apple for not porting that to other platforms anymore than you would expect MS to port Visual Studio to Linux.

Just saw Isles (previously mentioned) had some videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3krXLJEfdhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WX6dcsn-fc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c52hHMHsOGU
etc.

My wife and I visited Isles, Inc about 18 years ago, to talk about our garden simulator. In Marty Johnson's office he had this quote under his computer monitor: "You can't plow a field by turning it over in your mind".

Of course, if you are a computer programmer or mathematician who spends a lot of time on mental things, that adage may be a bit less true, :-) but it's still a good sentiment about engagement.

I regret now not trying harder to figure out some way we could have worked together back then.

Those videos might be inspiring as far as thinking about the value of what you are doing in Chicago and what is possible.

Although I feel we still need bigger things like a basic income or other broader shifts, too, if our economy continues to implode with rising productivity (like from robotics) coupled with limited demand from currency issues and an environmental ethic and the law of diminsihing returns on having more stuff. Stronger local communities might lead to the energy to make bureaucracies accountable again and get better policies in place?

Related about a new book on US economic problems:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber07292011.html
"Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner were at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. this week for a discussion about their book -- Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon. ... "Five years from now, mark my words -- none of the people responsible for this -- not only not be held accountable -- they will be in more important positions -- that is what would happen in Russia." Rosner pretty much agreed. "My father was a federal prosecutor and my mother was a criminologist, and her speciality was Soviet criminology," Rosner said. "As she read our book -- she kept saying -- Jesus, this sounds like the way it is done there. Every piece of it. You have an entrenched bureaucracy without accountability." Rosner said a "code of silence" protects those complicit in the recent collapse."

That new book mentioned there echoes this old one:
"They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security."

Stronger local communities might be able to generate more social energy for national (and global) accountability?
"Visions of a Free Society"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjHTrwCstcM

I mentionian "localism" as one way to deal with increasing unemployment towards the end here (as one of four broad apporaches including a basic income, a gift economy, and better democratic resource-based planning):
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

So, all the local efforts can add up nationally. How can we expect to have healthy national politics if our local politics are non-existent or dysfunctional? (I guess the Greens have been saying that for a long time.)

W

Ethics @ Google?

Yes

They are one of the biggest UK/EU tax dodgers. They don't give back to society. Ever hear about the Double Dutch Sandwich?

You mean unlike other ethical companies like Microsoft?

I am an employee for one of the biggest American ex-HF/Bank in London, but from a moral perspective I feel Google is as transparent as the banks.

Then clearly you have never worked @ Google.

Use your head.

Google are common thieves and are like all the fat cats we love to hate, but really if we look inside things we all know how they can afford to give you free swimming pool or pay you 500K USD per year...

I dunno, maybe because we put out high quality products that people actually like using?

Just don't go around like a peacock as the typical American who likes to show his salary, thinking you really are paid with don't be evil money.

Of course, the reason I posted anonymously is because I want to show off my salary. BTW, I am NOT American.

When you know the true reality about all this huge Ponzi scheme which is the global economy, and know Google is part of it, then probably I guess you'd feel a bit ashamed.

This is rich coming from a guy who admits he works for an American financial institution. Clearly, as everyone knows, Google is responsible for the state of the global (and US) economy, and not the American financial institutions .

What a sad sad world we live in.

I agree, which is precisely why I am thankful that I can work for a company like Google. Maybe you should consider not working for an American bank in London?

Ethics @ Google?

Yes

They are one of the biggest UK/EU tax dodgers. They don't give back to society. Ever hear about the Double Dutch Sandwich?

You mean unlike other ethical companies like Microsoft?

I am an employee for one of the biggest American ex-HF/Bank in London, but from a moral perspective I feel Google is as transparent as the banks.

Then clearly you have never worked @ Google.

Use your head.

Google are common thieves and are like all the fat cats we love to hate, but really if we look inside things we all know how they can afford to give you free swimming pool or pay you 500K USD per year...

I dunno, maybe because we put out high quality products that people actually like using?

Just don't go around like a peacock as the typical American who likes to show his salary, thinking you really are paid with don't be evil money.

Of course, the reason I posted anonymously is because I want to show off my salary. BTW, I am NOT American.

When you know the true reality about all this huge Ponzi scheme which is the global economy, and know Google is part of it, then probably I guess you'd feel a bit ashamed.

This is rich coming from a guy who admits he works for an American financial institution. Clearly, as everyone knows, Google is responsible for the state of the global (and US) economy, and not the American financial institutions .

What a sad sad world we live in.

I agree, which is precisely why I am thankful that I can work for a company like Google. Maybe you should consider not working for an American bank in London?

I agree they contribute most of the same things to society but I don't know about fewer legal issues.

stock+trader+arrested == About 184,000 results

It must be traumatic to feel like there is a Bear in your mind (Assuming it is the grizzly kind, not the furry friendly kind), I wonder how the author can bare it?

OK my mistake, I am actually wrong about this. My apologies to the author.

It could be a golden age -- or a Darwinian nightmare -- it all depends on how we deal with this as a society. I fear that the Wealthiest, are too busy trying to create a police state and already look upon the teaming masses as useless eaters.

Those who like their ideas posed in fiction should check out "Manna" by Marshall Brain.

According to Google Dictionary:
http://www.google.com/dictionary?source=dict-chrome-ex&sl=en&tl=en&q=employ

employ Verb /emploi/

Synonyms:

verb: use, engage, utilize, hire, apply
noun: service, job, occupation, work, business, office, situation, engagement, place, berth
employed past participle; employs 3rd person singular present; employing present participle; employed past tense

1. Give work to (someone) and pay them for it

2. Keep occupied

3. Make use of

I would say that option 3 was used in this case.

Instead of lazying about - how about fixing Google Local?

Huh?

Scrapping bad data and posting it as official.

Making it IMPOSSIBLE for owners to edit/change.

How many other businesses similarly affected? Including Hospitals, Shelters and Emergencies services? Not impressed.

Shame on you Lot !!

Thank you too, in return. I just used that point on fish and water writing to someone else today, coincidentally.

I've been trying to get Richard Stallman and the FSF to consider supporting a campaign (suggesting maybe run by me for pay, so I'm biased, but OK if it was someone else) for fostering the cataloging, creation, and discussion of free software that explores conventional and alternative heterodox economics for a 21st century of abundance for all, based on this appeal:
http://www.responsiblefinance.ch/appeal/
"The authors of this appeal are deeply concerned that more than three years since the outbreak of the financial and macroeconomic crisis that highlighted the pitfalls, limitations, dangers and responsibilities of main-stream thought in economics, finance and management, the quasi-monopolistic position of such thought within the academic world nevertheless remains largely unchallenged. This situation reflects the institutional power that the unconditional proponents of main-stream thought continue to exert on university teaching and research. This domination, propagated by the so-called top universities, dates back at least a quarter of a century and is effectively global. However, the very fact that this paradigm persists despite the current crisis, highlights the extent of its power and the dangerousness of its dogmatic character. Teachers and researchers, the signatories of the appeal, assert that this situation restricts the fecundity of research and teaching in economics, finance and management, diverting them as it does from issues critical to society."

Also related indirectly:
"RSA Animate - 21st century enlightenment "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo

So, it is more than a lack of visionaries. The world has no shortage of would-be visionaries, like Paul Hawken documents:
http://www.blessedunrest.com/
"Paul Hawken has spent over a decade researching organizations dedicated to restoring the environment and fostering social justice. From billion-dollar nonprofits to single-person dot.causes, these groups collectively comprise the largest movement on earth, a movement that has no name, leader, or location, and that has gone largely ignored by politicians and the media. Like nature itself, it is organizing from the bottom up, in every city, town, and culture. and is emerging to be an extraordinary and creative expression of people's needs worldwide."

The problem is more like visionaries are filtered out or bought off or changed or isolated or starved or turned into wage slaves doing unrelated stuff to survive. Example:
"The murdering of my years: artists & activists making ends meet"
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_murdering_of_my_years.html?id=iBA7vACOwngC

Related articles on how dissent in academia is systematically suppressed:
http://disciplinedminds.com/
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html

Yet, things progres anyway, as a tribute to the better side of human nature. Here are examples of GPL'd software that could serve as a base for moving further into exploring alternative economics:
http://p.seppecher.free.fr/jamel/
http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.ryzom.com/en/

There is also a lot of other softwar

"The Pharaoh was not God."

First, you wrote an interesting mix of things in your reply, so thanks. On this point,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion#Divine_pharaoh
"Egyptologists have long debated the degree to which the pharaoh was considered a god. It seems most likely that the Egyptians viewed royal authority itself as a divine force. Therefore, although the Egyptians recognized that the pharaoh was human and subject to human weakness, they simultaneously viewed him as a god, because the divine power of kingship was incarnate in him. He therefore acted as intermediary between Egypt's people and the gods.[25]"

Today, "The Market" is often seen as "God" in the USA, as suggested by Harvey Cox, Harvard theologian:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/03/the-market-as-god/6397/

My point on hunters/gatherers is that we might soon have technology that lets people with access to land use solar panels to collect power for 3D printers that can print more solar panels and 3D printers, along with mining robots and agricultural robots. So, what do you call that lifestyle? See also Marshall Brain's Manna story.
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

We don't need "money" to buy food if we have the land and time and tools to grow it ourselves, or others give it to us (as we give them things), or if the government plans well to produce enough food and distribute it to those who need it, or if, sadly, people feel compelled to steal it (although theft is defined differently in different places, like if deer are "the kings" or not or if wild berries can be picked by anyone on undeveloped property). Those are all alternative ways people get food.

That is why I suggest there have always been five interwoven economies, of which exchange is only one (the others being subsistence, gift, planned, and theft):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY

Right now, in our society, exchange is dominant, though it is coupled with a growing rich/poor divide and flat real wages for 30+ years (despite productivity doubling or tripling during that time with the extra value just going to the top 1%). The system is failing in part because capitalism does not work if wealth is too concentrated. The wealthy tend to pull their money out of the real economy and put it in the "casino" economy of stuff like currency speculation, r into government bonds that finance wars, or even just by buying up all the land speculatively from other and keeping it idle etc..

I agree with you on the dysfunctional make-work aspects of our society, and explored that here, outlining many "transactions of decline" that can be used to create jobs, war being one of those transactions of decline, but others include endless bureaucracy, endless schooling, expanded prisons, increased sickness, and other things:
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

Or we can try to move beyond "work"; some ideas on that by others:
http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/buddhist_economics/english.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjHTrwCstcM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ArkJmUOIqM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNwAZSBMb0

I don't think v

Gmail and yahoo both sign all outgoing messages cryptographically using dkim. That means that if you get a spam claiming to be from one of their accounts, you can verify that it really is from such an account. Once you've done that, you can report it: gmail, yahoo. So if the author of TFA is complaining that this can't be accomplished by sending email to abuse@gmail.com or postmaster@gmail.com, then I suppose he has a valid complaint that they're not complying with RFCs...but...that's the way it is. It's not the end of the world. Gotta use a web interface instead. Boo hoo.

The author of TFA is upset that he can't get spamming accounts shut down instantly, 24/7. I actually don't really want an internet where any random person can get my ability to send email shut down instantly. What if it's a joe-job? What if the complaint is from one of these people who just clicks on "spam" when they don't want the mail, even when it's not spam? A much better way to handle this is to limit the number of messages per hour that can be sent from a newly created account. Then if it takes a day, or three days, to shut down a spam account, the consequences aren't that bad; the spammer can't use the account to send a million emails in 24 hours. I assume that gmail and yahoo already do this kind of rate-limiting.

What would be a huge improvement would be if the remaining big email providers other than gmail and yahoo would start using dkim. Once dkim becomes universal, we can establish actual reputations for people as spammers or non-spammers.

Virtually all the spam I get these days is from small domains. Recent examples include education-portal.com, spacesaver.com, and mg-style.net. The solution proposed by the author of TFA is to bug education-portal.com to respond to email sent to abuse@education-portal.com by deactivating jones@education-portal.com. Um, that isn't going to work, because jones works for education-portal.com, and they want him to spam me. The solution is to make dkim universal enough that people can stop accepting mail from domains that don't dkim-sign. Then education-portal.com can get an online reputation as a spammer, and everyone can start blocking them in their spam filters.

That is a dishonest argument. There are other forms of revenue to pay for cancer research. I don't believe for a second that you have never heard of any of them. http://www.google.com/search?q=cancer+donations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You might not think it is enough money, but it is simply dishonest to even imply that patents is the only way to pay for researchers.

I hate Ron Paul being right, but he is.

We will either default the sudden way of just not paying,
Or we will default by printing money (and destroying everyone's retirement funds - public and private)

Nations, when they hit the debt to GDP ratio have NEVER come back. And we are so hooked on the welfare state and our current spending we cannot ever pay it down without major societal changes. The one thing the 2007 crash taught me was we will ignore the situation until we are forced to acknowledge. We will pay higher rates and we will only worry when we can't get a dime no matter the rate.

Given that spending & taxation is the responsibility of congress, it is the President's job to execute the laws & budget that congress hands him, with whatever funding they provide. We are looking now at a dictator if Obama does not sign a budget passed by congress. The president is essentially saying that his social programs are more important to him than the nation not defaulting.

As much as people hate the tea party, a balanced budget constitutional amendment is not evil. It is the first step at fixing the debt-to-GDP ratio. If we always balance the budget and have 3% inflation we can have the debt down to a 50% ratio in 17 years. Then 25% 17 years after that. And we'll be back at the top of the world again in terms of stability and banking product.

The major changes we'd need to make are not going to go over well. We need to bring the military home. When we do, unemployment will go above 12%. We'll have to give up the war on terror, and the war on drugs, both of which fund major parts of the economy through the narco/military industrial complex, which will ripple through the economy.

There is no way without a balanced budget but default.

I encourage everyone to read this from Commentaries on the Common Laws of England (1827 pp242-)

Thanks for the perspective on the GIS study. Looking again, I also see I might have not read this carefully enough:
    http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/25/technology/solar-new-york/
"If every one of those roofs had solar panels, when the sun shines the brightest the city could get half its electricity from solar power."

So, that would only be for peak hours (so, four hours a day or so, which is more in agreement with what you said). But in any case, cities usually have resource regions, like Jane Jacobs talks about, so there is no reason NYC can't just have a big solar farm upstate, same as it has watersheds there.

I also live in upstate NY, in a partially passive-solar house (it was a cabin in the Adirondacks that someone expanded with passive-solar additions).

The house has electric heat to avoid combustion because that was before air-to-air heat exchangers were understood, and electric heat is expensive, though still less than I used to pay for oil heat in a drafty place a decade ago. We should improve it more though. We could benefit a lot from solar thermal for hot water. Our house is on a slab though, not a basement, so our options are a bit more limited for upgrades. A heat pump might be a great investment, too. Also related on what is possible with much better design:
    "No Furnaces but Heat Aplenty in Innovative 'Passive Houses'"
    http://www.google.com/#q=no+furnace

I'm mostly a software developer (including some real-time embedded in the past) and also a writer, and I don't care for heights (even as my father would tell about scampering up a tall mast on a training ship as a young man to wave his hat to the queen of the Netherlands). So while I like all these changes, they end up being more hands-on than I am comfortable doing myself.

I have one emergency solar panel tucked away I have never put up permanently, for example, that I bought in the run-up to the Iraq war when I was unsure what reprisals there would be, just to be able to keep a laptop going if worst came to worst. About eight years later, that panel can probably now be bought for about half the cost.
    http://solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/module-prices

The XPower 1500 portable battery/inverter device I bought to go with it for energy storage failed though and in a fairly short time, probably over a cheap charger that came with it failing and overcharging (causing the battery to vent sulfurous smelling gas so I did not trust it anymore), and so we paid to have it recycled (the shipping etc. costs to have it sent back to the factory for "repair" was pretty high).

But ultimately, we'd like a permanent system "just in case" and also to be more "green" (though that is debatable when you live near hydroelectric power). It looks like, even being on the grid, the costs are looking more and more attractive (with current subsidies, although if fossil fuels and nukes payed the true costs of pollution, health, defense, and risk up-front, renewables probably have been cheaper since the 1970s, so I don't feel bad about the subsidies).

I feel innovations in financing and the spread of trusted brands for doing these kind of improvements is going to have a big effect in getting more people to make changes. But we are not quite there yet. But we are very close. One of the reasons we've put off doing much about that is just the sense that costs keep dropping, so we wait for the next best thing.

Great to see NYPA is hiring -- something like "Lead Real Time Systems Engineer" is tempting for embedded software developers interested in energy issues, even ones with a fear of heights: :-)
    http://www.nypa.gov/careers/default.htm

To say he was being "a bit disingenuous" is a bit disingenuous: he himself claimed his goal was to manufacture a controversy to generate publicity for his film; that he did this by "out-lawyering the lawyers" — using bullshit historical and moral claims to preempt bullshit legal claims— is actually quite brilliant. It's not "as if" he wanted Warner Bros. to sue — he actually wanted Warner Bros. to sue, as this would generate even more publicity for the film. Alternatively, he wanted to be left alone to make his movie without legal review of each and every comedic detail to ensure "compliance" with some mythical "good-faith effort to avoid infringing on Warner Bros. rights."

To wit: his "publicity stunt" is itself carefully-crafted satire. In particular, note how Groucho's letter is a virtual minefield of double entendre, unverifiable half-truths, outright lies, and facts that are "wrong only in detail," carefully crafted to force any conceivable response to read like a parody of itself. And don't think these things weren't intentional, Marx was quite familiar with the things he's speaking of, and with the law. Consider his jab against "confusing and misleading customers": he begins by saying that it's absurd that consumers would mistake someone with a "face only a brother could love" for Ingrid Bergman, and goes on to compare the head of the studio to Jack the Ripper, "who," according to Marx, "cut quite a figure in his day" (emphasis mine).

Incidentally, those familiar with the Marx Brothers' other work will recognize that Groucho's irreverent attitude towards the "legal establishment" was hardly without well-known precedent, and is generally quite consistent with the tradition of "social ridicule" the Marxes represent.

Well, I'm referring to the telecom industry as a whole. AT&T just instated a 150 GB limit for its DSL users, a time when high-definition streaming is becoming a norm. I'm sure this is the case for a few other ISPs out there. While other countries are investing in their communications infrastructure, these companies here in the United States are trying to profit from every ounce of bandwidth they provide us. I have yet to see Verizon or AT&T experiment with high-speed networks or city-wide WiFi like Google has done in Mountain View ( http://wifi.google.com/ ). As long as customers don't complain too much, these companies have no incentives to provide better infrastructure for its users.

Well, the FACT that CO2 and methane and other pollutants in the air are trapping heat, and something is melting the polar ice caps, warming the ocean, etc., sounds like at least a small clue to me.

What about the fact that CO2 levels have to be dramatically higher than they are now to cause any greenhouse effect?

Your argument appears to be that if two things happen simultaneously, they must be connected. The USA was established at the tail end of the little ice age, does that mean it's responsible for warming the oceans, and by returning to the queen's rule, we can cool the Earth? Incidentally...how did you come up with that cause-effect ordering of the CO2 level and temperatures? Geological evidence shows that CO2 changes follow temperature changes, not the other way around. And it makes sense, given that the oceans hold vast amounts of CO2, and water releases CO2 as it warms, and then absorbs CO2 as it cools. But let's not allow pesky reason to get in the way of a good religious fervor.

Humans are responsible for less than 3% of CO2 production (including indirect sources like cattle farming).

If you want to see some facts check out any mid-90s prediction of global temperatures over the next 15 years...and then compare them to what we saw. They predicted a massive uptick, we experienced a small decline. The best theories for global temperature changes (the ones where reality and theory match) are solar output, oceanic cycles, and clouds produced by cosmic rays (there was a /. story about CERN research on that topic recently).

The IPCC predicted 50million "climate refugees" for the last decade. It didn't happen. The real number was 0. So the IPCC hired Winston Smith to correct the earlier report.

The CRU cherry-picked Russian climate data, to make it look like temperatures were going up.

In real science, if any one piece of evidence is bad, one should toss out everything derived from it, and start again. Climate scientists are intentionally building conclusions based on false data, and fixing the data to support their predetermined conclusions. That reminds me of another group of "scientists".

Humans are responsible for less than 3% of CO2 production (including indirect sources like cattle farming).

If you want to see some facts check out any mid-90s prediction of global temperatures over the next 15 years...and then compare them to what we saw. They predicted a massive uptick, we experienced a small decline. The best theories for global temperature changes (the ones where reality and theory match) are solar output, oceanic cycles, and clouds produced by cosmic rays (there was a /. story about CERN research on that topic recently).

The IPCC predicted 50million "climate refugees" for the last decade. It didn't happen. The real number was 0. So the IPCC hired Winston Smith to correct the earlier report.

The CRU cherry-picked Russian climate data, to make it look like temperatures were going up.

In real science, if any one piece of evidence is bad, one should toss out everything derived from it, and start again. Climate scientists are intentionally building conclusions based on false data, and fixing the data to support their predetermined conclusions. That reminds me of another group of "scientists".

I've tried a ton of science podcasts. By far the best for keeping up with recent developments, though strongly skewed to astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, is ABC (Australia)'s StarStuff with Stuart Gary. The podcast has recently added a general science news segment at the end. Stuart Gary is extremely well-informed and articulate about all his subjects.

Google has explained that being banned only from G+ does not ban you from other services

MYTH: Not abiding by the Google+ common name policy can lead to wholesale suspension of one’s entire Google account.

When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+ profile are not removed. Please help get the word out: if your Google+ Profile is suspended for not using a common name, you won't be able to use Google services that require a Google+ Profile, but you'll still be able to use Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, and so on. (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)

Sorry, this is Slashdot. Because that statement was issued by an entity larger than a single nerd living alone (i.e. a company or someone more famous than whoever's replying to you), it's obviously a lie, oh and they also want to eat your soul. Fear the world, brother! Be the prey!

That would explain the discrepancy between this report and all those others in recent years saying that climate change is actually turning out worse than the models predicted.

PS: Google said they werent blocking entire accounts just Buzz and Google+ a fact is confirmed by some Hong Kong users here

PS: Google said they werent blocking entire accounts just Buzz and Google+ a fact is confirmed by some Hong Kong users here

Which is a ZEUS botnet variant, albeit for "smartphones" (specifically ANDROID iirc):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search

SO, how to do THAT?

Well, use a custom HOSTS file on ANDROID

(Albeit, a modified one, filled with entries blocking out known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware like this, + their botnet C&C servers too):

ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:

---

Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills

---

It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool (Android Debug Bridge):

---

1.) Mount ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS

2.) Copy over your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so

(Otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

---

* DONE, & "easy as apple pie"...

APK

P.S.=> And, IF POSSIBLE? Also, alter your DNS servers to DNSBL filtering ones!

E.G.-> These 3 are really good vs. malware + phishing exploiters online:

Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/
ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/
OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...

HOWEVER:

This I have NOT tried on ANDROID, as I have with HOSTS files, but since it's doabl

Testing != real life. You actually tie things to an account in real life.

If they block my account, I can lose access to my email, photos, custom setups, calendars, documents, voicemail/phone number, blog pages, adsense accounts, billing, credit card info, perhaps actual money from adsense.

See here for a list of what can be taken from you.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/index.html

Granted, it's a free service with no guarantees, but that doesn't mean there isn't real impact on real people.

Google has explained that being banned only from G+ does not ban you from other services

MYTH: Not abiding by the Google+ common name policy can lead to wholesale suspension of one’s entire Google account.

When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+ profile are not removed. Please help get the word out: if your Google+ Profile is suspended for not using a common name, you won't be able to use Google services that require a Google+ Profile, but you'll still be able to use Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, and so on. (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, backup your google docs, gmail while you can... 'coz believe it or not even though I do not have Google+ or Adsense etc in last 2 weeks I've came across "Account has been disabled" screen twice while logging into gmail though somehow after waiting for few minutes both the times i was able log into gmail. And now I'm taking gmail and docs back few times a day to a folder which is being synced with Skydrive.

Gmail : http://www.gmail-backup.com/
Google Docs: http://code.google.com/p/gdocbackup/downloads/list

I'm certainly more impressed by Google's willingness to let me export my data.

I hope you are aware of the fact that they can still hang on to your data, even if you leave? See their Terms of Service, chapter 11. Yes, it really says "perpetual".

Just so you go into this with your eyes open - few read this stuff.

The patent in question is a very very broad patent on distribution of music in a digital form, which basically describes how anyone would ever distribute digital music.

Leaving aside why in hell the link is "distribution of music in a digital form" instead of "patent in question", it doesn't describe that at all.

A brief skim of the claims makes clear the first thing you'd guess from the abstract: that encryption is a necessary part. I think a subset of anyone most definitely would distribute music without encrypting it. In fact, I'd be surprised if any of the many outfits now offering DRM-free music purchases are encrypting their downloads -- encryption does seem rather pointless in that case, no?

Further, it specifies "a defined format for transmission in a digital music information object, the format including a core and a number of additional layers, the core including at least one object identification code, object structure information, a consumer code, and an encryption table, and the one or more additional layers including the actual music information" -- so if your protocol doesn't send the "consumer code" with the object (instead relying on session-level security) you're clear. If you avoid sending an "encryption table" with the object, you're also clear. This could be done, for example, by usnig a key generated and stored on the client, and having them send it to the server when initiating a session. Or if you must use a format meeting these specific requirements (not sure why you would, but let's say so), just don't send the music as part of the object -- send them a unique or short-lived link to stream the music from the same or a different server.

I'm not saying whether this patent was or wasn't sufficiently narrow to be nonobvious in 1995 when it was filed, but the characterization in the summary makes it sound a lot more like "any method of sending any music over any network", when it's really only a fairly broad, but not all-inclusive, class of end-to-end DRM schemes.

Google iphone full disk encryption.

Most results contain the word "useless".

You are still doing better than I am. I use an old steel coat hanger to make the connection.

Indeed, I guess you don't want to try your luck stealing some copper?

So you're basically just going to dodge this one and not answer, right? Sure, Obama would have gone into Afghanistan too. Doubt he would have been dumb enough to go into Iraq while fighting a war in FUCKING AFGHANISTAN!

Nope I completely concur Iraq is totally Bush's baby, and all the fallout and expense is his alone to bear. But when tallying the expense of the wars, people always "package-deal" the Iraq and Afghanistan wars together, and I believe that's a bit disingenuous.

Then, whether we go into Afghanistan or not, why keep the war off the books? Then start another one, and not pay for that either? Then pass a big drug bill and not pay for that either? Then pass a big tax cut and not pay for that either? W T F?

I'm totally on board with you. I don't believe in ludicrous spending by either side.

How do Republicans possibly have the fucking nerve to point the finger at anyone after what they've done with their control of Congress over the 10 years that they had it?

Well, I do believe their rate of spending is still far below Obama's (do you know how much federal spending he increased in his first year in office? Nearly 900 billion, and that's with an incredibly low price estimate on his healthcare bill. And also, it's not very fair to just chastise all Republicans for the actions of a bunch of Neocons. Hell, the whole Tea Party movement was born because of the actions of the previous administration. So I believe it's very fair for some Republicans to "point the finger".

he consensus among economists was that the stimulus was necessary

Ah yes, the staple appeal to authority. Let me counter with: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=economist+no+housing+bubble&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Aside from the fact I think the opinions of "economists" (let's face it, they're all Keynesians...) are roughly equivalent to throwing darts at a dartboard, I'm also convinced a good many of them are just flat out idiots. They've been wrong about practically everything to this point, yet you somehow give them credit for stimulus being the proper course of action, even in the light of unchanged unemployment, sluggish -to-non-existant-growth, still-falling house prices, and soverign debt debacles? You sure have alot of faith in these Oracles.

most thought it should've been bigger.

Another staple counter to "my plan isn't working" -- believe it or not, not all problems are solved just by "throwing more money at it" and the solution to a failing program also isn't as simple as "throw more money at it". Seeing as how it's impossible for me to prove one way or another whether the current stimulus did a damn thing or if a bigger stimulus would have done a damner thing, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Agreeing, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Taxes, subsidies, and regulation are all ways of dealing with externalities through government planning affecting the market.

US Republicans are the worst sort of regressive "socialists" -- they regularly privatize profits but socialize costs.

Renewables have probably been cheaper that fossil fuels and nuclear, accounting for externalities, since the 1970s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power

The total is problematical, but interesting links on the true costs of oil: http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461

On the odd energetics of gasoline made using natural gas and electricity vs. plain electric cars:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm

Why safer electric cars should be free:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/6cdc99eaaba91855/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en#09eb7f4c973349f2

See also my presentation here on five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY

I'm curious how much of an impact the new 'invokedynamic' has - specifically on Ruby and Python - any good performance analysis out there?

Well, according to a comment on HN:

InvokeDynamic is a pretty awesome new feature in JDK7 and will likely be tranformative for dyanmic languages on the JVM. For my mustache.java templating solution it increased performance on an integration benchmark by 25%.

http://groups.google.com/group/mustachejava/browse_thread/thread/24b6c59d2ea55f04

first, downgrading from 4.0 to 3.1.3 on an iphone is (or maybe only was) possible. LMGTFY: http://www.google.com/search?aq=1&oq=downgrade+4.0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=downgrade+4.0+to+3.1.3 (click the top link...)

second, you can dramatically improve the performance of 3g phones running 4.0+ by disabling all (or most) of spotlight search settings -> general -> spotlight search, and then uncheck everything you can live without -- I recommend just keeping mail, events, and contacts)

I find it funny that you complain about apple's treatment of you (and all 3G owners) and then admit to buying a second iphone...

You wrote "making photovoltaic solar panels is a very nasty industrial process that consumes almost as much energy in producing a panel as it produces"

        Energy payback time of First Solar's panels is less than a year. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstsolar.com%2FDownloads%2Fpdf%2FSummaryReport_French_EHS_Aspects_CdTe_PV_NA.pdf&rct=j&q=first%20solar%20energy%20payback%20time&ei=dpIxTpudIoWDtgfT2PCUDQ&usg=AFQjCNHEb0gxRv6ts6DlJrNGfme8gLeHnw&sig2=94JzaGT_GJ7NjZqYJ5fxzQ&cad=rja

    You also wrote "that large scale solar farms destroy the fragile desert ecology, etc."

    If you covered all man made structures with solar PV, you would have more than enough power to run our society. There is also lots of land that is already pretty wasted. For example, you could put solar farms on old mountain top removal mines.

If you don't want it to mess with your images, just tell it not to. you can even prevent specific files from being rewritten. Also, the recompression should be lossless, see here

If you don't want it to mess with your images, just tell it not to. you can even prevent specific files from being rewritten. Also, the recompression should be lossless, see here

Actually, any site benefits from using a separate domain - browsers limit the number of connections per domain, so by using two you can speed up the site considerably.

http://code.google.com/speed/page-speed/docs/rtt.html#ParallelizeDownloads

Have you seen any evidence that Google skews its ranking system in favor of clients that use other Google services? The most I've seen is ads being placed on top, clearly marked as ads. It is in Google's best interest to keep search excellent, regardless of any money that someone could throw at them. After all, they seem to be doing great without the need to sell out on search, don't they?

From: Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.

Isn't the CRU constantly breaking "one of the strongest" rules of scientific life: appealing to the state and or populace when your science fails to convince?

No. If you want an example for that: deniers and Inhofe.

Maybe. If you don't plan on paying or shit, why not? OTOH you pay a small fee to opt out of ads, that would be ok too.

When someone offers a "free" service, it's not really free. Almost always there is a hidden catch of some sort. This idea. This mentality that everything in the world should be free with no strings attached is ludicrous. Either you read and accept the TOS, or you don't.

The posts are already compiled and available afaik: google

Do you think that the link I just posted is (or should be) illegal?

How about if he publishes a book of his Slashdot posts that he earns money from? Does that suddenly make my link illegal?

According to the reports I've read google is being inconsistent in their punishments for fake users. In some cases only the G+ profile is disabled, in some cases the whole account is frozen or destroyed.

Google has publicly stated[1] that they will not disable the non G+ parts of a Google account for a name violation.

The only way to get completely banned is to lie about your age and state you are less than 13, after which point Google must freeze your account to comply with US law (yay for think of the children laws!).

Accounts are not "destroyed" without notice, but always frozen pending review.

[1] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU

I use Google reader to read RSS feeds. I just keep a tab open all day, new items show up almost as soon as they are published. Then, I use Google reader to subscribe to RSS feeds from ArsTechnica.com, TheScientists.com, NewScientist.com, Gizmag.com, and other sites like these. Then, you can just browse through your subscribed RSS feeds for articles. Every RSS item has an article summary and links to the source article, and I read through the ones that catch my eye.

Sometimes it is hard to keep up, but I feel like I am keeping on top of things this way.

Also it's important to note that Paypal has never been hacked in 10+ years which is very important for a company that stories credit card and bank account info.

Oh... wasn't it?

One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.

Isn't the CRU constantly breaking "one of the strongest" rules of scientific life: appealing to the state and or populace when your science fails to convince? Science does not require the rule of "Might makes right" to persuade. Logic and strong correlation of data are all that is required. Thus far, in my opinion, CRU has shown themselves to be anything but scientific. They appeal to the head of state and to the public at large! This, more than anything proves that they are not scientists. What other respected branch of science reaches out for a "consensus" in the government or the populace to prove their theories? Science is not the blatant politicizing of science to overpower the paradigm group you disagree with.

This is a rolling update. Here is a link from Google on how to update: http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=190860