Tor provides anonymity, not protection against eavesdropping. For the latter, you need to use additional endpoint-to-endpoint security like SSL. Of course, you also shouldn't announce to the whole world who you are while browsing with Tor, which is surprisingly harder than some people might think.
Wow, they encrypted their intra-datacenter comms! Awesome! That so totally shows how much they are fighting against the NSA... as much as the fact that their SSL connections still use unbreakable, military-grade RC4 encryption!
Do you really need web-based email? There are plenty of native pop3/imap clients for every platform that will beat a web-based system any day. And just about any paid email provider will also give you some web-based interface, too, just in case you might need it.
Security is another matter. Unencrypted email can be read by anyone from the local sysadmin to your mom, no matter where and how in the world you send it.
Why would anyone use GMail for handling the mail of his/her own domain? Ever heard of an email client? And regarding the original question, what's the problem? Why don't you just delete the mail? Do you get something like 400 mails per day meant for another person that you cannot filter out?
For example, I'm sometimes programming in Ada, which clang doesn't really compile (at least when I looked last time). Moreover, gcc with -O2 or -O3 produces faster executables on my machine.
As an owner of a refurbished Thinkpad - from a German reseller of used laptops, not the company mentioned in the story - I can assure you that any old Thinkpad with GNU/Linux just works. Older Thinkpads are among the laptops with the best Linux support you can find. I use mine every day for 8 hours for years (and before that I used another old Thinkpad for years).
Regarding the other thing you mention, to be honest I have to admit that I have no idea what "value added" means. I've heard it occasionally but always though it was more like a meaningless buzzword or (worse) a synonym for pre-installed bloatware. What does it mean?
Jesus Christ, take it easy, man. I was making a harmless joke that anyone who was ever forced to watch boring holiday slideshows would be able to understand. Now I'm being accused of mental health issues, not being able to procreate and whatever else.
If hundreds of thousands of family pictures doesn't seem a bit excessive to you, so be it. After all, it takes only a few weeks to sort through them. But please calm down a little and stop spamming AC troll posts.
We have hundreds of thousands of family pictures and videos we're trying to save
Yes, you've got to save them! Your children will be so thankful for countless extended family diashow evenings!
"Look, here is little Tim vomiting when he was 12 years old! How sweet! -- Another vomiting picture. -- Another one. -- I'll skip the next 11 images, still 12,371 to go after all..."
I am a positive atheist. To me personally the first four are slightly annoying (aggressive and discriminating other religions), the seventh is plain ridiculous, and the tenth unneccessary.
But yeah, I'm not offended by a monument with them. I can imagine worse kind of monuments, and in a place where many people are Christians, why not? I'd put a statue of Charles Darwin right next to it, though, just to set things straight.
Also, it's a no brainer: They cannot form any effective alliance against the NSA, just as U.S. companies cannot form a (functional and legal) alliance against, say, the IRS or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It doesn't make sense.
I never log in and don't think I see any results tailored to me, but now I'm wondering whether that's actually true.
You'll never really know will you?
Isn't that testable? Set up two identical browsers on two geographically close machines, make them perform a series of differing and clearly biased searches (e.g. about a political topic or shopping preference) and compare the results of one and the same query from both machines after a few days or weeks.
Does Google adapt based on IP even if you never log into their "services"? I never log in and don't see any results tailored to me, but now I'm wondering whether that's actually true.
Regarding the paper: Don't bother reading it, it's superficial CS stuff with no proper background theory, they don't even model preferences right.:-(
I have nothing against the US selling GM food in Europe, as long as every customer can decide for himself, but this is in reality not the case. The problem is that in European countries the labelling requirements for GM food are generally inadequate and do not cover all cases, e.g. there is no labelling for ingredients below a certain percentage, some pre-processed ingredients or meat from animals fed with GM plants. In fact, most of the labelling is so fine-print that it cannot even be read through a looking glass - illegaly so, but who would go from the supermarket all the way to court only to get slightly larger letters.
I personally do not wish to buy any GM food, not even traces of it, and also do not wish to buy meat produced from animals fed with GM plants, for reasons that have nothing to do with health concerns. I simply do not wish to directly or indirectly support companies like Monsanto who patent genes, blackmail and sue farmers who do not want to buy their shit, and generally are 0 trustworthy. In a nutshell, if there was a mandatory big red warning label "GM" on each and every product during which production GM plants played any role whatsoever, nobody would complain about the US trying to sell their "low cost food".
As for the scientists, their point that one of the editors worked for Monsanto deserves some consideration, doesn't it?
Many if not most existing standards have turned out to be fairly mediocre from a security point of view, think of cell phone and wireless encryption for example. There is also some evidence from the Snowden leak that standards procedures and committees have been weakened by members acting overtly or secretly on behalf of government agencies. So they should be really cautious about such offers.
And why re-invent the wheel and make something fro scratch? Tor is working well, even too well in the eye of some people...
Or do you think they have spared Schneier from being forced to hand out Snowden's data, while they have destroyed Lavabit just to get to his emails? C'mon people, this is ridiculous! Of course he had to give it to them!
On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if he had been somehow prevented (presumably in some 'legal' way) from re-editing and updating Applied Cryptography after the 2nd edition. At least in this case it's fairly hard to see any other reason why the best selling and most popular book on cryptography shouldn't have been modernized.
If the US military would do nothing else than making inventions like the Internet (which strictly speaking wasn't invented by the military, but let's assume this for the sake of the argument), then nobody would have anything against it.
Apollo 12 retrieved some equipment, a camera from Surveyor 3, from the moon and they found that some bacterium (streptococcus miti) had apparently survived (according to some liberal definition of "survived", in spore form). Nowadays they have planetary protection officers like Catharine A. Conley to make sure that spacecraft do not contaminate other celestial bodies.
Incidentally, the planetary protection office is also responsible at NASA for the protection of earth against alien invasions, although it is unlikely they would play a major role int he decision process if that occured - for the US, United States Space Command would take over and, in case of a war, be swiftly destroyed by kinetic energy weapons.
You collect large amounts of H20 or frozen H2 somewhere in the solar system. Since it's frozen, you only need to give it a bump once to set it on a collision course with the planet, where it will rain down in gigantic torrents.
Admittedly, I've just made this up and have no clue. Would this work in principle?
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly. People would just use Freenet or Gnunet instead.
Tor provides anonymity, not protection against eavesdropping. For the latter, you need to use additional endpoint-to-endpoint security like SSL. Of course, you also shouldn't announce to the whole world who you are while browsing with Tor, which is surprisingly harder than some people might think.
Wow, they encrypted their intra-datacenter comms! Awesome! That so totally shows how much they are fighting against the NSA ... as much as the fact that their SSL connections still use unbreakable, military-grade RC4 encryption!
There is nothing wrong with the Internet tubes per se, as long as they are used in the right manner.
Lots of weed. Wait, what was the question again?
Do you really need web-based email? There are plenty of native pop3/imap clients for every platform that will beat a web-based system any day. And just about any paid email provider will also give you some web-based interface, too, just in case you might need it.
Security is another matter. Unencrypted email can be read by anyone from the local sysadmin to your mom, no matter where and how in the world you send it.
Why would anyone use GMail for handling the mail of his/her own domain? Ever heard of an email client? And regarding the original question, what's the problem? Why don't you just delete the mail? Do you get something like 400 mails per day meant for another person that you cannot filter out?
For example, I'm sometimes programming in Ada, which clang doesn't really compile (at least when I looked last time). Moreover, gcc with -O2 or -O3 produces faster executables on my machine.
As an owner of a refurbished Thinkpad - from a German reseller of used laptops, not the company mentioned in the story - I can assure you that any old Thinkpad with GNU/Linux just works. Older Thinkpads are among the laptops with the best Linux support you can find. I use mine every day for 8 hours for years (and before that I used another old Thinkpad for years).
Regarding the other thing you mention, to be honest I have to admit that I have no idea what "value added" means. I've heard it occasionally but always though it was more like a meaningless buzzword or (worse) a synonym for pre-installed bloatware. What does it mean?
Ehm...the US has different parts with different local laws. You didn't know that?
Jesus Christ, take it easy, man. I was making a harmless joke that anyone who was ever forced to watch boring holiday slideshows would be able to understand. Now I'm being accused of mental health issues, not being able to procreate and whatever else.
If hundreds of thousands of family pictures doesn't seem a bit excessive to you, so be it. After all, it takes only a few weeks to sort through them. But please calm down a little and stop spamming AC troll posts.
We have hundreds of thousands of family pictures and videos we're trying to save
Yes, you've got to save them! Your children will be so thankful for countless extended family diashow evenings!
"Look, here is little Tim vomiting when he was 12 years old! How sweet! -- Another vomiting picture. -- Another one. -- I'll skip the next 11 images, still 12,371 to go after all..."
Well, apparently you never used the Plus4, in comparison to which the C128 looked like a nicely crafted supercomputer.
I am a positive atheist. To me personally the first four are slightly annoying (aggressive and discriminating other religions), the seventh is plain ridiculous, and the tenth unneccessary.
But yeah, I'm not offended by a monument with them. I can imagine worse kind of monuments, and in a place where many people are Christians, why not? I'd put a statue of Charles Darwin right next to it, though, just to set things straight.
Also, it's a no brainer: They cannot form any effective alliance against the NSA, just as U.S. companies cannot form a (functional and legal) alliance against, say, the IRS or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It doesn't make sense.
You'll never really know will you?
Isn't that testable? Set up two identical browsers on two geographically close machines, make them perform a series of differing and clearly biased searches (e.g. about a political topic or shopping preference) and compare the results of one and the same query from both machines after a few days or weeks.
I was hoping somebody did that already...
Does Google adapt based on IP even if you never log into their "services"? I never log in and don't see any results tailored to me, but now I'm wondering whether that's actually true.
Regarding the paper: Don't bother reading it, it's superficial CS stuff with no proper background theory, they don't even model preferences right. :-(
I have nothing against the US selling GM food in Europe, as long as every customer can decide for himself, but this is in reality not the case. The problem is that in European countries the labelling requirements for GM food are generally inadequate and do not cover all cases, e.g. there is no labelling for ingredients below a certain percentage, some pre-processed ingredients or meat from animals fed with GM plants. In fact, most of the labelling is so fine-print that it cannot even be read through a looking glass - illegaly so, but who would go from the supermarket all the way to court only to get slightly larger letters.
I personally do not wish to buy any GM food, not even traces of it, and also do not wish to buy meat produced from animals fed with GM plants, for reasons that have nothing to do with health concerns. I simply do not wish to directly or indirectly support companies like Monsanto who patent genes, blackmail and sue farmers who do not want to buy their shit, and generally are 0 trustworthy. In a nutshell, if there was a mandatory big red warning label "GM" on each and every product during which production GM plants played any role whatsoever, nobody would complain about the US trying to sell their "low cost food".
As for the scientists, their point that one of the editors worked for Monsanto deserves some consideration, doesn't it?
Many if not most existing standards have turned out to be fairly mediocre from a security point of view, think of cell phone and wireless encryption for example. There is also some evidence from the Snowden leak that standards procedures and committees have been weakened by members acting overtly or secretly on behalf of government agencies. So they should be really cautious about such offers.
And why re-invent the wheel and make something fro scratch? Tor is working well, even too well in the eye of some people ...
Or do you think they have spared Schneier from being forced to hand out Snowden's data, while they have destroyed Lavabit just to get to his emails? C'mon people, this is ridiculous! Of course he had to give it to them!
On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if he had been somehow prevented (presumably in some 'legal' way) from re-editing and updating Applied Cryptography after the 2nd edition. At least in this case it's fairly hard to see any other reason why the best selling and most popular book on cryptography shouldn't have been modernized.
As if HTML, CSS and Javascript was a desirable combination for anything ...
If the US military would do nothing else than making inventions like the Internet (which strictly speaking wasn't invented by the military, but let's assume this for the sake of the argument), then nobody would have anything against it.
Apollo 12 retrieved some equipment, a camera from Surveyor 3, from the moon and they found that some bacterium (streptococcus miti) had apparently survived (according to some liberal definition of "survived", in spore form). Nowadays they have planetary protection officers like Catharine A. Conley to make sure that spacecraft do not contaminate other celestial bodies.
Incidentally, the planetary protection office is also responsible at NASA for the protection of earth against alien invasions, although it is unlikely they would play a major role int he decision process if that occured - for the US, United States Space Command would take over and, in case of a war, be swiftly destroyed by kinetic energy weapons.
You collect large amounts of H20 or frozen H2 somewhere in the solar system. Since it's frozen, you only need to give it a bump once to set it on a collision course with the planet, where it will rain down in gigantic torrents.
Admittedly, I've just made this up and have no clue. Would this work in principle?
You, on the other hand, write exactly like someone who has studied anthropology (and nothing else). Amazing.