Closed source client: who knows if it's secure or incompetent?
That's a fair point, and I agree with it. It's still way better than Dropbox, and they do take the question seriously themselves. From their Security page:
Privacy and Security
Wuala protects your privacy: In stark contrast to most other online storage services, all your files get encrypted on your computer, so that no one - including the employees at Wuala and LaCie - can access your private files. Your password never leaves your computer.
Wuala employs the 256 bit AES, 2048 bit RSA and SHA-256 algorithms for encryption, signatures and integrity checks. If you're interested in how Wuala manages encryption, have a look at our publication on Cryptree.
Yeah I've worked in the telecom (mobile) industry for 15 years - that still doesn't answer my question on why you would want to reinvent the phy layers we have;)
I don't see why exchanging one form of "wlan" phy layer for another would make the slightest difference, no. There's no one there to intercept my radio waves whichever carrier form I use.
I have to laugh at the people who whine about Cuba's embargo. Cuba is free to trade with every other country on earth.
The US just stopped a Danish national from importing Cuban cigars, from Germany, to Denmark.
“It’s a clear example of the US abusing rules which were implemented to fight terrorism. That the American authorities can stop a completely legal financial transaction between two European countries is an abuse of EU citizens’ rights.”
Your post consists of pure fantasies. You're seriously never bothered to verify the actual science behind any of that, right?
The carbon cycle is a balance
No. (Source, Geocarb III and others)
When the ocean starts to become acidic
Which is not projected to ever happen, by any scientist. The ocean pH varies by an order of magnitude more than the slight change we _think_ we might've seen over the last few hundred years.
I don't know quite enough about Siberia thirty thousand years ago to make a good statement, but I would guess that it was a little more temperate than it currently is
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man 2) If you were to say that they have won ever year since 2011 that would be a true factoid. If you were to say that they are the best baseball of all times it would be an untrue factoid.
Let me phrase it like this:
Are you in denial about the years before 1850?;) [1200, 400, -800, -4000 etc]
(You still haven't understood my original point. Repeating a scientifically true fact can never be "denial" - it can only be cherry picking. That, however, is way to common in all of science - no matter the convictions, no matter the subject)
Now you seem to have missed the point of why I posted the graphs though. Someone who repeats a valid scientific factoid is not a "denier" - which was what you first wrote.
How odd. Why would repeating a scientific factoid be labelled "denial"? I think we're at the same temperature level in the atmosphere today as in 1996, and if we go by the oceans instead (which is much more relevant due to the difference in heat capacity) we're at temperatures the same as in the late 80s. Making such statements is proper science, no matter your personal views on the causes or remedies.
(I also find this whole article to be a bit confusing. The "strategy" document is claimed to be a forgery made by someone who wants to badmouth "deniers", and data forensics support that claim view)
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. All software using cryptography relies on the encryption methods not having been compromised ... ;)
Wuala employs the 256 bit AES, 2048 bit RSA and SHA-256 algorithms for encryption, signatures and integrity checks.
http://wuala.com/en/learn/technology
(But I agree I would be much happier if they just opened up the source)
Closed source client: who knows if it's secure or incompetent?
That's a fair point, and I agree with it. It's still way better than Dropbox, and they do take the question seriously themselves. From their Security page:
Privacy and Security
Wuala protects your privacy: In stark contrast to most other online storage services, all your files get encrypted on your computer, so that no one - including the employees at Wuala and LaCie - can access your private files. Your password never leaves your computer.
Wuala employs the 256 bit AES, 2048 bit RSA and SHA-256 algorithms for encryption, signatures and integrity checks. If you're interested in how Wuala manages encryption, have a look at our publication on Cryptree.
http://dcg.ethz.ch/publications/srds06.pdf
http://wuala.com/
Based in Europe, and uses client-side encryption. They can't peek at your data even if they wanted to.
"It's like Dropbox, but actually usable!"
I had a lot of faith in my fellow swede Hans Blix when he said that Saddam had no WMDs.
Hans Blix was right. The US was wrong.
"Fool me once .. shame on .. "
Actually the quality has gone up considerably lately.
(but then, I'm European)
Does that change any of the content in his extremely well known books?
(also - the linked article does not support the use of "con" in "con artist")
for the same reason that we don't have a gift economy
Humans have always had a gift economy, including today. Book tip: "The generous man" by Tor Norretranders.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/142903.The_Generous_Man
Yeah I've worked in the telecom (mobile) industry for 15 years - that still doesn't answer my question on why you would want to reinvent the phy layers we have ;)
I don't see why exchanging one form of "wlan" phy layer for another would make the slightest difference, no. There's no one there to intercept my radio waves whichever carrier form I use.
What has IP as a bearer to do with "following a feed on Twitter"? How would exchanging the physical layer for another change anything?
Why would you want to reinvent the wheel instead of putting FreedomBox on a Raspberry PI?
(Some things we do ourselves because we want to prove to ourselves that we can, but if you want to change the world it's better to join up)
I have to laugh at the people who whine about Cuba's embargo. Cuba is free to trade with every other country on earth.
The US just stopped a Danish national from importing Cuban cigars, from Germany, to Denmark.
“It’s a clear example of the US abusing rules which were implemented to fight terrorism. That the American authorities can stop a completely legal financial transaction between two European countries is an abuse of EU citizens’ rights.”
http://cphpost.dk/news/international/us-snubs-out-legal-cigar-transaction
Did this fact change your mind about anything? Why not?
High ambient temperature as found surrounding the screen in a mobile phone?
I would think that one conclusion of the article is that it's anything but "imaginary".
Your post consists of pure fantasies. You're seriously never bothered to verify the actual science behind any of that, right?
The carbon cycle is a balance
No. (Source, Geocarb III and others)
When the ocean starts to become acidic
Which is not projected to ever happen, by any scientist. The ocean pH varies by an order of magnitude more than the slight change we _think_ we might've seen over the last few hundred years.
I don't know quite enough about Siberia thirty thousand years ago to make a good statement, but I would guess that it was a little more temperate than it currently is
Not likely. 30000 years ago we were not in an interglacial: http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/alley.png
I don't even accept change back if it's less than 5 SEK (~0.56€, ~$0.75). Too much hassle to carry around coins.
Well, there are many of ways to answer that :)
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
2) If you were to say that they have won ever year since 2011 that would be a true factoid. If you were to say that they are the best baseball of all times it would be an untrue factoid.
Let me phrase it like this:
Are you in denial about the years before 1850? ;) [1200, 400, -800, -4000 etc]
(You still haven't understood my original point. Repeating a scientifically true fact can never be "denial" - it can only be cherry picking. That, however, is way to common in all of science - no matter the convictions, no matter the subject)
Now you seem to have missed the point of why I posted the graphs though. Someone who repeats a valid scientific factoid is not a "denier" - which was what you first wrote.
As to selective data, I'm sure we can play that game until the heat death of the universe: http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/Subatlantic_Had.png
How odd. Why would repeating a scientific factoid be labelled "denial"? I think we're at the same temperature level in the atmosphere today as in 1996, and if we go by the oceans instead (which is much more relevant due to the difference in heat capacity) we're at temperatures the same as in the late 80s. Making such statements is proper science, no matter your personal views on the causes or remedies.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2012
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1988/to:2012
(I also find this whole article to be a bit confusing. The "strategy" document is claimed to be a forgery made by someone who wants to badmouth "deniers", and data forensics support that claim view)
The actual source elaborates:
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#disagreement
Consumer Electronics keep getting cheaper and cheaper. According to your deflation argument, no one would ever buy CE products.
The world economy currently relies on inflation. How's that working out, really?
Don't assume. It works just fine.
http://www.wuala.com/en/launch/
You're looking for http://wuala.com/
It's also a "cloud drive", but client-side encrypted (bye bye Dropbox) as well as hosted in Europe.
Thank you. I take it then that you had no actual source for your original claim of "died painfully", since you're unable to support it.