Better than ANY/. poll before, this one's giving me an aneurysm trying to decide which to vote for. In keeping with the political theme, I guess I'll have to vote early, vote often, but keep changing my selection! I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist (well, once in a while), but I think all of these have a high chance of being hit. Well, except for Cowboy Neal. He's too powerful; he's immune!
I guess my question is... how the **** do you guys put up with it! It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all... it sounds outragous!
Yep, you nailed it. There is no competition allowed due to the way the contracts are set up with the local municipalities. Here in Pasadena, CA, we had competition in the form of a second cable/internet/phone provider, but I guess decent equipment and service costs money, so they ended up being bought out by the big brutes in the area. Yep, I'm a capitalist pig, but this is the dirty underbelly of capitalism: enforced monopolies carried out through economic warfare.
The way capitalism is going south here, and the way our government is going south with it, I'm wondering where I should run off to!
In my statement,"Oh, wait, this is/. Nobody here RTFA," I was making a generalization. Any broad, sweeping statement, such as those beginning with 'nobody', should automatically be presumed a generalization, a statement clearly false at the surface, but based on some nugget of information. It's painfully clear than many/. commenters do not RTFA. Thus, the generalization. I didn't point you out as one who failed this. You assumed this simply because I wrote my comment in reply to yours. It seemed a good place at the time, but your emotional instability prove me wrong.
I'm guessing you're not familiar with the concept of 'lies, damn lies, and statistics.' Stats can be made to say just about anything. Like a computer, garbage in, garbage out. I don't say this to insult the author. I think he did a wonderful job. I'm saying the average person should be able to understand the limits of stats.
I've reread the article and I'm quite satisfied that he stated things clearly enough for an average high school grad who's primary language is English, or who's English education has caught up to such a level, would understand the limits of this initial research even before the update and the added note at the bottom. (But, for those not up to the task, I'm glad he added those updates. English is but one of many languages in the wonderfully varied world.)
So you can read and use a computer. Considering what I've seen where I work, I have to say that doesn't take much. But I don't make any assumptions about you or your abilities. What causes me to think lowly of you is your rude, anti-social behavior. OK, so you didn't understand what I wrote and took offense, then wrote about it. Cool. Your verbiage, however, leaves a bit to be desired. I made no offense to you, but you fire vulgarities at me? Way to make a point! Just how daddy taught you to win friends and influence enemies, eh? Worse still, the author of the article did nothing to you, said nothing to you, and you toss such foulness at him? Why? What ever happened to you that made you this rude, semi-literate fool, you need to get over it and get on with your life.
But these charts certainly do not reflect *nothing* -- just be careful what conclusions you draw.
OK, so they reflect trends on the internet and folks who are active on the internet: nothing else.
Exactly. The author states several times that this ONLY looks at a small subset of the population, that this is NOT a proper statistical analysis. Oh, wait, this is/. Nobody here RTFA.
It'd be even more effective if someone 'acquires' the fax or email info of the jury so they can be included in this. (Yes, horribly illegal!! But funny and effective.)
Assuming that a given trend continues is exactly what?
:D I obviously didn't think about it that way, but yes, you're implication is correct. Assuming a trend will continue is assuming that the factors that created the trend will remain in place, and this is a lot of assuming. (I'm sure you've heard this: to assume is to make an ass out of u and me.) A case against such is the news that the life expectancy in the U.S. has dropped. What factor changed that reversed the trend of increasing life expectancy? It's believed to be that we Americans are getting fat and lazy.
However, trends have inertia and if the trend model is built on good research, it's usually a very good guess. The WHO report, while built on solid information such as the knowledge that the older a population, the higher the incident rates of cancer, it doesn't take into account the complete complexity of the issue when making the projections. It mentions various complexities, but there are no numbers, no math to show how it all relates to their projections. Essentially, their report simply says that the world population is aging and older populations show more cancer, so we'll see more cancer. Also, as I mentioned before, they use hard numbers, but show no per capita data or trends.
Besides, quote: "Sources of electromagnetic fields, such as equipment using electricity, television, radio, computers, mobile telephones, microwave ovens as well as radars and equipment used in industry have seen an unprecedented increase, but the carcinogenicity of these fields is not clear, according the study." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/canc-a26.shtml (emphasis added by me)
The very next statement (after your quote) of the report says, "[h]owever, exposure to ionizing radiation, such as medical X-rays and occupational exposures, particularly in the medical and nuclear industries, can cause a variety of neoplasms, including leukemia, breast cancer and thyroid cancer." They point out what we know, that ionizing radiation is linked to cancer and other issues, but this seems to be trying to link it to non-ionizing radiation, such as the radio sources of the first quote. I pointed out already that the studies have, so far, only muddied the issue. Some show a correlation, others do not. And, of course, correlation != causation, with causation having not been determined at all. The two don't equate and we've already beat to death the fact that the reports on the non-ionizing radiation have thus far proven nothing.
(BTW: On a side note, I want to thank everyone who is participating constructively in this. I'm really enjoying myself, whether I am right or 'get schooled'. Fun stuff!)
There is a difference between pointing out a historical trend (number-based facts in this case) and prognostication (number-based predicting in this case, a highly advanced form of guessing). Also, as I pointed out before, there is a difference between numbers of cases and per capita cases. The story you link to provides no per capita data at all, so it's impossible to ascertain what the numbers actually imply about the global cancer load and its positive or negative growth.
However, you (and the authors of the story you linked) do have a valid point in that, as the population ages, the likelihood of cancer increases. We know this to be true, just as we know that through better living (better diet, exercise, less pollution, etc), this can be mitigated. Which side of the equation will dominate? That depends mostly on location. I say location in the political sense. When much of the world has what it needs for a better life that lends itself well to lowering the cancer risk (and so many other benefits), why is the rest of the world does not? Not to go too much off topic, but Myanmar is a prime example, as are many nations in Africa, Asia, and South America. The government (or other forces sometimes) either actively inhibits the proper distribution of aid (be it food, medication, or education) or, through incompetence and/or greed, fails to distribute it properly. A prime point in this would be that enough rice was produced in the previous season to supply every living person 700lbs, but, due to the aforementioned problems, people still starve.
Back to the topic at hand, how many of these disadvantaged places that are likely to be the source of any increase in cancer rates are as inundated with RF as Japan, S. Korea, or the U.S.? Our (U.S.) cancer rates are trending down, as indicated by my previous post, despite the remarkable increase in the use of RF devices. So even if these people do prove to be sensitive (it is not an allergy!!), cancer is not the issue here.
In the comments I've already made and the ones I've read (far from all), I failed to mention or read the big, obvious problem with the claims: it isn't an allergy. The body produces allergic responses to proteins. This is why some of us who have have an issue with milk are called lactose intolerant, not allergic to milk. While some are allergic to milk (a protein therein), what I and others suffer from is a sensitivity to the lactose sugar due to a lack or insufficient amount of the lactase enzyme.
The principle is the same here. IF this proves to be true (and I've noted my doubts), then this would be classified as a sensitivity, not an allergy. (Yes, before someone dumps on me about it, an allergy is classified as a type of hypersensitivity, but the defining aspect of the imuno-response to a protein is what makes the difference for the subject at hand.)
Well, I'd really like to completely shoot this down, but it would seem I can't. Using Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) I searched for, and found, several research papers on the subject. The couple I checked (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785684944~db=all and http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1807747&blobtype=pdf {WARNING: PDF}) indicate that there might be something to this, but also indicate the need for much more research. The studies currently published, when taken together, only show confusion since many, but far from all, show some impact while none show the operational mechanisms (the why and how) at work.
All that being said, I still think most of these claims are probably BS. My reasoning is this: we've been inundated with various EM fields of all kinds of frequencies for as life has existed. We've added a lot to this mix with our artificial sources like TV, AM/FM/CB/HAM radio and many other sources. We also have power transmission lines (which do produce their own magnetic fields and many communities now do not allow residential space to be located beneath). Certainly, over the last several years, we have added a lot to this with cell phones and WiFi. However, take a broad-spectrum measure of the RF energy around you. Except for certain circumstances (like living under a power line or radar dome), the total will be fairly low. So the question becomes one that is similar to the question of lead in paint: how much is too much? If there is a reaction that is generalized to the average person, at what level does this average person begin to react? And, since some might prove to be 'allergic' and thus have a stronger reaction to a smaller stimulus and since this is more like smoking than lead paint in that it is pervasive, how would we regulate its use (if this proves to be true at all)? I can see the sign in front of the courthouse now: No smoking, WiFi, or cell phone use within 20ft.
Cancer rates have DECREASED over the last several years. (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/results_merged/sect_01_overview.pdf WARNING: PDF) What most fail to recognize is that the perceived increase is a combination of increased news access and increased numbers but the actual per capita numbers are trending down. So while living longer and preventing or surviving other diseases grant ample increased opportunity to get cancer, better living has also saved many from that fate. {Examining the other data at this site will probably indicate that some cancers are on the rise, as well as cancer incidents in some populations being on the rise. The PDF I linked to shows the overall trend.)
Encrypt the file with PGP and put it into a TrueCrypt container on a USB stick that requires a thumb-print for access and which is wrapped in a condom and 'hand' delivered by the 'mule' via the usual hidden methods. The access codes are encrypted into an image file delivered by uploading it to a porn site, the location of which is emailed to the intended recipient with a note saying something like, "Hey, check out this babe I was with last night."
It's not so much obscuring as mildly redirecting. It's called gravitational lensing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing) This is what causes effects like the halo around a distant back lit object or the optical illusion of two copies of the same object (star, galaxy).
Basically correct, but you left another relevant fact out: food prices are also going up due to increased energy costs. As for the decreased supply due to drought, flood, and other environment issues, that's not entirely correct. Rice, wheat, corn, and other staple crops were produced at record levels over the last year. Enough rice (or was it wheat, I don't remember) was produced in the most recent season to proved each living human about 700lbs. (I really wish I could find the article for proper citation.) No food shortage at all when looking a the global scale, but there is a shortage of political will to properly distribute the food in many nations where starvation is rampant.
I would use a layered container. Maybe setup a TrueCrypt container with a nice, safe name like databackup.old. Make sure to have some data in it that would be nice to keep safe, but isn't really important. Might even be fake. Inside that container, have another container that either looks like a corrupted junk file or has an even safer name like "mompics". The corrupted-looking file can have a " " (space character) for a name and no icon. It will still show under certain Windows Explorer views (so don't default to them), but not all. IF they see it, it looks corrupted. Analysis would usually prove to be useless. If they suspect something, just tell them you don't remember what it is or what it could be. If pressed, you admit it's OK to delete it since you're pretty sure everything is in the original container that you remember having there. (You do, of course, need to make sure you have a backup of this soon-to-be-deleted data.)
Of course, I don't bother traveling with my laptop, so it's a mute point for me. There are better ways of transferring data, as long as you have access to a safe computer at your destination.
You are absolutely correct. I chose to answer the question of a plugin simply because I don't know what to do about the overriding problem of these companies treating us like such garbage. I am outraged. The problem is the virtual monopoly that exists in most areas. Sure, here in Pasadena (California), we have the option of leaving the cable company for somebody's DSL service, but there are reasons for why that may be prohibitive for some (single bill point is frequently cheaper, for one). I'm willing to pay more, but the roommates aren't. DSL also depends on the phone lines in the area being in good shape, which is not the case here. We HAD a competing cable provider, but they demonstrated that better service costs more and put themselves in a position to be bought out... by the very company they were competing against: Charter. AT&T's fiber isn't in my area yet and there are no other competitors in this region. So what does somebody in my area and situation do? Cellular broadband is slower and much more expensive, not to mention probably less secure.
I am not disagreeing with you at all. My solution works for only the few of us who have the time and training to put it together. I am outraged that this even needs to come up. Short of shutting down the internet, how do we fix this when there is no competition and most people cannot build a privacy system (and shouldn't have to)? And don't expect the government to fix it; they'll just screw it up more. They probably want access to this data!
My original thought was to just use Ad Block Plus, which I already use. Then I realized just how incomplete that answer is! Sure ABP stops the ads from showing, but it doesn't stop Charter, et al from spying. So, to the question of a plugin...
There are several options already available, including Firefox plugins. So far, testing indicates that Charter hasn't begun spying on me YET. I'm looking at using TOR and a local proxy. TOR by itself won't help, though, since your data is unencrypted between you and the first TOR point, so you'll want to go all the way with this and run your own TOR server. Communications between TOR points is encrypted by default. Then, run a proxy server. I don't know if it can be on the same machine as the TOR server, but I don't see why not (not something I've investigated yet and there ~could~ be security complications if you do run them from the same server). Tell your computer to always use the proxy and point it to whatever you chose to run. Often, people use Privoxy on the computer itself, so your proxy settings point to your home IP (127.0.0.1). Set Privoxy (or whichever) to use TOR. You'll need TOR installed locally as well. I think it will automatically use the TOR server you're running, so no need to point your TOR client to your TOR server. I could be wrong since, again, I haven't looked into this very much yet. Through this system, all HTTP will be encrypted. You can designate other protocols to pass through this as well.
You could use a plugin that sets up TOR and Privoxy for you, all built into Firefox. I prefer the full, self-assembled method however since it will cover whatever browser I use, along with other web activity, not just FF.
On the other hand, there is the hard way: rebuild your router (you all have a WR54TGL or similar, right?) with proxy and TOR built in. This way, one little box protects your entire network: PC, Mac, XBox, TiVo, etc. I think that's the best way to go, but it isn't for everybody due to the complex (for many) work involved.
I think that using TOR, with your own local TOR server to make sure you have encryption before your data leaves your LAN, will do the trick. I'm equally sure the wonderful, peaceful, polite/. community will correct me if I'm wrong.:D
Emails don't really fit into the folder structure very well because they might belong to several groupings at the same time, thus requiring multiple copies or shortcuts/links to an original (which most email programs don't do). Tags are definitely better for this since an email can have many tags at once.
Here's another idea you might, or might not, like:
Use GMail, or similar, for a group of accounts, one of which is the main, public address. This main account auto-forwards to the 10 member accounts, much like a list-serve. Replies from a member are CC'ed to the main account (set the rules right, or you could end up with an endless loop!!) and the 'Reply To:' field from the members is to the main account. This way, everybody gets everything, the group account is still the focal point, and everybody is responsible for keeping their own account organized.
If a single person is responsible for all of this (you?), you can set it up such that you are the one who can make changes to all the accounts and the others only have emailing privileges (but I haven't thought this part out and it may be difficult with some systems). One thing to consider if you use this is to either have an agreement (which some will break) or a setup that does not allow the users to use this account setup with out the CC'ing. This prevents them from using the account for personal or nefarious reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Better than ANY /. poll before, this one's giving me an aneurysm trying to decide which to vote for. In keeping with the political theme, I guess I'll have to vote early, vote often, but keep changing my selection! I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist (well, once in a while), but I think all of these have a high chance of being hit. Well, except for Cowboy Neal. He's too powerful; he's immune!
I guess my question is ... how the **** do you guys put up with it! It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all ... it sounds outragous!
Yep, you nailed it. There is no competition allowed due to the way the contracts are set up with the local municipalities. Here in Pasadena, CA, we had competition in the form of a second cable/internet/phone provider, but I guess decent equipment and service costs money, so they ended up being bought out by the big brutes in the area. Yep, I'm a capitalist pig, but this is the dirty underbelly of capitalism: enforced monopolies carried out through economic warfare.
The way capitalism is going south here, and the way our government is going south with it, I'm wondering where I should run off to!
Exactly! Sheesh :D
Let's recap:
/. Nobody here RTFA," I was making a generalization. Any broad, sweeping statement, such as those beginning with 'nobody', should automatically be presumed a generalization, a statement clearly false at the surface, but based on some nugget of information. It's painfully clear than many /. commenters do not RTFA. Thus, the generalization. I didn't point you out as one who failed this. You assumed this simply because I wrote my comment in reply to yours. It seemed a good place at the time, but your emotional instability prove me wrong.
You read the article. Good for you.
In my statement,"Oh, wait, this is
I'm guessing you're not familiar with the concept of 'lies, damn lies, and statistics.' Stats can be made to say just about anything. Like a computer, garbage in, garbage out. I don't say this to insult the author. I think he did a wonderful job. I'm saying the average person should be able to understand the limits of stats.
I've reread the article and I'm quite satisfied that he stated things clearly enough for an average high school grad who's primary language is English, or who's English education has caught up to such a level, would understand the limits of this initial research even before the update and the added note at the bottom. (But, for those not up to the task, I'm glad he added those updates. English is but one of many languages in the wonderfully varied world.)
So you can read and use a computer. Considering what I've seen where I work, I have to say that doesn't take much. But I don't make any assumptions about you or your abilities. What causes me to think lowly of you is your rude, anti-social behavior. OK, so you didn't understand what I wrote and took offense, then wrote about it. Cool. Your verbiage, however, leaves a bit to be desired. I made no offense to you, but you fire vulgarities at me? Way to make a point! Just how daddy taught you to win friends and influence enemies, eh? Worse still, the author of the article did nothing to you, said nothing to you, and you toss such foulness at him? Why? What ever happened to you that made you this rude, semi-literate fool, you need to get over it and get on with your life.
Cheers
But these charts certainly do not reflect *nothing* -- just be careful what conclusions you draw.
/. Nobody here RTFA.
OK, so they reflect trends on the internet and folks who are active on the internet: nothing else.
Exactly. The author states several times that this ONLY looks at a small subset of the population, that this is NOT a proper statistical analysis. Oh, wait, this is
But what about actual evidence? Were the movies and MP3s sitting there in the printer's output try?
It'd be even more effective if someone 'acquires' the fax or email info of the jury so they can be included in this. (Yes, horribly illegal!! But funny and effective.)
You want a list?
Read a little more and you ~might~ get the joke.
"Internet-Based Realtors Win Monster Settlement...", soon to be sued by Monster Cable.
a highly advanced form of guessing
:D I obviously didn't think about it that way, but yes, you're implication is correct. Assuming a trend will continue is assuming that the factors that created the trend will remain in place, and this is a lot of assuming. (I'm sure you've heard this: to assume is to make an ass out of u and me.) A case against such is the news that the life expectancy in the U.S. has dropped. What factor changed that reversed the trend of increasing life expectancy? It's believed to be that we Americans are getting fat and lazy.
Assuming that a given trend continues is exactly what?
However, trends have inertia and if the trend model is built on good research, it's usually a very good guess. The WHO report, while built on solid information such as the knowledge that the older a population, the higher the incident rates of cancer, it doesn't take into account the complete complexity of the issue when making the projections. It mentions various complexities, but there are no numbers, no math to show how it all relates to their projections. Essentially, their report simply says that the world population is aging and older populations show more cancer, so we'll see more cancer. Also, as I mentioned before, they use hard numbers, but show no per capita data or trends.
Besides, quote: "Sources of electromagnetic fields, such as equipment using electricity, television, radio, computers, mobile telephones, microwave ovens as well as radars and equipment used in industry have seen an unprecedented increase, but the carcinogenicity of these fields is not clear, according the study."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/canc-a26.shtml (emphasis added by me)
The very next statement (after your quote) of the report says, "[h]owever, exposure to ionizing radiation, such as medical X-rays and occupational exposures, particularly in the medical and nuclear industries, can cause a variety of neoplasms, including leukemia, breast cancer and thyroid cancer." They point out what we know, that ionizing radiation is linked to cancer and other issues, but this seems to be trying to link it to non-ionizing radiation, such as the radio sources of the first quote. I pointed out already that the studies have, so far, only muddied the issue. Some show a correlation, others do not. And, of course, correlation != causation, with causation having not been determined at all. The two don't equate and we've already beat to death the fact that the reports on the non-ionizing radiation have thus far proven nothing.
(BTW: On a side note, I want to thank everyone who is participating constructively in this. I'm really enjoying myself, whether I am right or 'get schooled'. Fun stuff!)
There is a difference between pointing out a historical trend (number-based facts in this case) and prognostication (number-based predicting in this case, a highly advanced form of guessing). Also, as I pointed out before, there is a difference between numbers of cases and per capita cases. The story you link to provides no per capita data at all, so it's impossible to ascertain what the numbers actually imply about the global cancer load and its positive or negative growth.
However, you (and the authors of the story you linked) do have a valid point in that, as the population ages, the likelihood of cancer increases. We know this to be true, just as we know that through better living (better diet, exercise, less pollution, etc), this can be mitigated. Which side of the equation will dominate? That depends mostly on location. I say location in the political sense. When much of the world has what it needs for a better life that lends itself well to lowering the cancer risk (and so many other benefits), why is the rest of the world does not? Not to go too much off topic, but Myanmar is a prime example, as are many nations in Africa, Asia, and South America. The government (or other forces sometimes) either actively inhibits the proper distribution of aid (be it food, medication, or education) or, through incompetence and/or greed, fails to distribute it properly. A prime point in this would be that enough rice was produced in the previous season to supply every living person 700lbs, but, due to the aforementioned problems, people still starve.
Back to the topic at hand, how many of these disadvantaged places that are likely to be the source of any increase in cancer rates are as inundated with RF as Japan, S. Korea, or the U.S.? Our (U.S.) cancer rates are trending down, as indicated by my previous post, despite the remarkable increase in the use of RF devices. So even if these people do prove to be sensitive (it is not an allergy!!), cancer is not the issue here.
In the comments I've already made and the ones I've read (far from all), I failed to mention or read the big, obvious problem with the claims: it isn't an allergy. The body produces allergic responses to proteins. This is why some of us who have have an issue with milk are called lactose intolerant, not allergic to milk. While some are allergic to milk (a protein therein), what I and others suffer from is a sensitivity to the lactose sugar due to a lack or insufficient amount of the lactase enzyme.
The principle is the same here. IF this proves to be true (and I've noted my doubts), then this would be classified as a sensitivity, not an allergy. (Yes, before someone dumps on me about it, an allergy is classified as a type of hypersensitivity, but the defining aspect of the imuno-response to a protein is what makes the difference for the subject at hand.)
Yes, PDFs cause cancer. The danger is in direct proportion to the size/load time of the document.
Well, I'd really like to completely shoot this down, but it would seem I can't. Using Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) I searched for, and found, several research papers on the subject. The couple I checked (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785684944~db=all and http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1807747&blobtype=pdf {WARNING: PDF}) indicate that there might be something to this, but also indicate the need for much more research. The studies currently published, when taken together, only show confusion since many, but far from all, show some impact while none show the operational mechanisms (the why and how) at work.
All that being said, I still think most of these claims are probably BS. My reasoning is this: we've been inundated with various EM fields of all kinds of frequencies for as life has existed. We've added a lot to this mix with our artificial sources like TV, AM/FM/CB/HAM radio and many other sources. We also have power transmission lines (which do produce their own magnetic fields and many communities now do not allow residential space to be located beneath). Certainly, over the last several years, we have added a lot to this with cell phones and WiFi. However, take a broad-spectrum measure of the RF energy around you. Except for certain circumstances (like living under a power line or radar dome), the total will be fairly low. So the question becomes one that is similar to the question of lead in paint: how much is too much? If there is a reaction that is generalized to the average person, at what level does this average person begin to react? And, since some might prove to be 'allergic' and thus have a stronger reaction to a smaller stimulus and since this is more like smoking than lead paint in that it is pervasive, how would we regulate its use (if this proves to be true at all)? I can see the sign in front of the courthouse now: No smoking, WiFi, or cell phone use within 20ft.
Cancer rates have DECREASED over the last several years. (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/results_merged/sect_01_overview.pdf WARNING: PDF) What most fail to recognize is that the perceived increase is a combination of increased news access and increased numbers but the actual per capita numbers are trending down. So while living longer and preventing or surviving other diseases grant ample increased opportunity to get cancer, better living has also saved many from that fate. {Examining the other data at this site will probably indicate that some cancers are on the rise, as well as cancer incidents in some populations being on the rise. The PDF I linked to shows the overall trend.)
Encrypt the file with PGP and put it into a TrueCrypt container on a USB stick that requires a thumb-print for access and which is wrapped in a condom and 'hand' delivered by the 'mule' via the usual hidden methods. The access codes are encrypted into an image file delivered by uploading it to a porn site, the location of which is emailed to the intended recipient with a note saying something like, "Hey, check out this babe I was with last night."
It's not so much obscuring as mildly redirecting. It's called gravitational lensing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing) This is what causes effects like the halo around a distant back lit object or the optical illusion of two copies of the same object (star, galaxy).
Basically correct, but you left another relevant fact out: food prices are also going up due to increased energy costs. As for the decreased supply due to drought, flood, and other environment issues, that's not entirely correct. Rice, wheat, corn, and other staple crops were produced at record levels over the last year. Enough rice (or was it wheat, I don't remember) was produced in the most recent season to proved each living human about 700lbs. (I really wish I could find the article for proper citation.) No food shortage at all when looking a the global scale, but there is a shortage of political will to properly distribute the food in many nations where starvation is rampant.
I'm pretty sure it's cover page for an alien manual on how to help us. I think the title says To Serve Man.
I would use a layered container. Maybe setup a TrueCrypt container with a nice, safe name like databackup.old. Make sure to have some data in it that would be nice to keep safe, but isn't really important. Might even be fake. Inside that container, have another container that either looks like a corrupted junk file or has an even safer name like "mompics". The corrupted-looking file can have a " " (space character) for a name and no icon. It will still show under certain Windows Explorer views (so don't default to them), but not all. IF they see it, it looks corrupted. Analysis would usually prove to be useless. If they suspect something, just tell them you don't remember what it is or what it could be. If pressed, you admit it's OK to delete it since you're pretty sure everything is in the original container that you remember having there. (You do, of course, need to make sure you have a backup of this soon-to-be-deleted data.)
Of course, I don't bother traveling with my laptop, so it's a mute point for me. There are better ways of transferring data, as long as you have access to a safe computer at your destination.
You are absolutely correct. I chose to answer the question of a plugin simply because I don't know what to do about the overriding problem of these companies treating us like such garbage. I am outraged. The problem is the virtual monopoly that exists in most areas. Sure, here in Pasadena (California), we have the option of leaving the cable company for somebody's DSL service, but there are reasons for why that may be prohibitive for some (single bill point is frequently cheaper, for one). I'm willing to pay more, but the roommates aren't. DSL also depends on the phone lines in the area being in good shape, which is not the case here. We HAD a competing cable provider, but they demonstrated that better service costs more and put themselves in a position to be bought out... by the very company they were competing against: Charter. AT&T's fiber isn't in my area yet and there are no other competitors in this region. So what does somebody in my area and situation do? Cellular broadband is slower and much more expensive, not to mention probably less secure.
I am not disagreeing with you at all. My solution works for only the few of us who have the time and training to put it together. I am outraged that this even needs to come up. Short of shutting down the internet, how do we fix this when there is no competition and most people cannot build a privacy system (and shouldn't have to)? And don't expect the government to fix it; they'll just screw it up more. They probably want access to this data!
My original thought was to just use Ad Block Plus, which I already use. Then I realized just how incomplete that answer is! Sure ABP stops the ads from showing, but it doesn't stop Charter, et al from spying. So, to the question of a plugin...
/. community will correct me if I'm wrong. :D
There are several options already available, including Firefox plugins. So far, testing indicates that Charter hasn't begun spying on me YET. I'm looking at using TOR and a local proxy. TOR by itself won't help, though, since your data is unencrypted between you and the first TOR point, so you'll want to go all the way with this and run your own TOR server. Communications between TOR points is encrypted by default. Then, run a proxy server. I don't know if it can be on the same machine as the TOR server, but I don't see why not (not something I've investigated yet and there ~could~ be security complications if you do run them from the same server). Tell your computer to always use the proxy and point it to whatever you chose to run. Often, people use Privoxy on the computer itself, so your proxy settings point to your home IP (127.0.0.1). Set Privoxy (or whichever) to use TOR. You'll need TOR installed locally as well. I think it will automatically use the TOR server you're running, so no need to point your TOR client to your TOR server. I could be wrong since, again, I haven't looked into this very much yet. Through this system, all HTTP will be encrypted. You can designate other protocols to pass through this as well.
You could use a plugin that sets up TOR and Privoxy for you, all built into Firefox. I prefer the full, self-assembled method however since it will cover whatever browser I use, along with other web activity, not just FF.
On the other hand, there is the hard way: rebuild your router (you all have a WR54TGL or similar, right?) with proxy and TOR built in. This way, one little box protects your entire network: PC, Mac, XBox, TiVo, etc. I think that's the best way to go, but it isn't for everybody due to the complex (for many) work involved.
I think that using TOR, with your own local TOR server to make sure you have encryption before your data leaves your LAN, will do the trick. I'm equally sure the wonderful, peaceful, polite
Emails don't really fit into the folder structure very well because they might belong to several groupings at the same time, thus requiring multiple copies or shortcuts/links to an original (which most email programs don't do). Tags are definitely better for this since an email can have many tags at once.
Here's another idea you might, or might not, like:
Use GMail, or similar, for a group of accounts, one of which is the main, public address. This main account auto-forwards to the 10 member accounts, much like a list-serve. Replies from a member are CC'ed to the main account (set the rules right, or you could end up with an endless loop!!) and the 'Reply To:' field from the members is to the main account. This way, everybody gets everything, the group account is still the focal point, and everybody is responsible for keeping their own account organized.
If a single person is responsible for all of this (you?), you can set it up such that you are the one who can make changes to all the accounts and the others only have emailing privileges (but I haven't thought this part out and it may be difficult with some systems). One thing to consider if you use this is to either have an agreement (which some will break) or a setup that does not allow the users to use this account setup with out the CC'ing. This prevents them from using the account for personal or nefarious reasons.
YES! You ROCK for finding this! Let's hope it stays up for us who prefer this style (perhaps most of us, it looks like). Thanks