I can not offend you, but you or he can take offense. Thats your problem, not mine.
That's just a way of dodging responsibility for your words and actions. You can offend somebody if you mean offense, and you meant offense. Internet pseudo-anonymity doesn't change the fact that you were acting like an asshole to someone whose motivations you have no idea about (FYI: far from fanboy). Get off your high horse.
Despite my previous response, you still haven't told me how exactly I was being a fanboy. There is precedent for silly passive aggressive swipes against Linus Torvalds on Slashdot...remember the Sarah Sharp incident? And how she and others turned it into Big Bad Aggressive Male Developer vs the Feminist Civility Superheroes despite claiming that it wasn't a "gender issue"? It doesn't take being a fanboy to be frustrated by that sort of politicized nonsense.
The irrelevant inclusion of Torvalds falling to 101st definitely seemed to be on the same lines. It's like mentioning that the ever-controversial Rasmus Lerdorf isn't contributing as much to PHP development in an offhand way that isn't at all relevant to the actual issue of PHP development. Why else would it be said?
Its just something to note, no need to get all offended, especially since we're not even talking about you, Fanboy. Linus will eventually stop writing code for Linux all together for any number of reasons, including the inevitable death.
Pull your panties out of your crack and move on. No one is insulting your God.
Calling someone a fanboy with all the abusive tone of Linus Torvalds. How ironic.
Just FYI, I'm not at all attached to Linus or the manner in which he conducts himself towards others...but the continual complaints and passive aggressive swipes can be even more tiring and petty than the man himself. Linus is just not all that big a deal. In what world is the statement "so-and-so has fallen out of the top 100 contributors, ALL THE WAY to 101st!" news? Why are we even talking about him, again? That's my question.
does that matter? He still maintains the repo, still performs the merges, still does the quality control, still determines the direction of future updates. As Slashdot is fond of saying, the quality of a developer isn't just determined by the number of lines or commits he contributes.
I don't know why that bit about Torvalds is even necessary, unless someone is trying to take a swipe at him. Again.
If you think the US government is willfully in bed with terrorists, then you're completely delusional.
Looking at your post history, it appears that your view on Foreign Policy is much the same Cold War-projected claptrap as makes our intelligence agencies so incompetent.
Never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity.
The original Bin Laden al-Qaeda is practically non-existent, its Islamist affiliates are too busy trying to win over regimes in the mideast, Hamas is trying not to piss off the US considering that Obama has been much more pro-Palestinian. Hezbollah....maybe. We're talking about a few tens of thousands of eligible individuals here, most of them with Hezbollah and Hamas.
I have serious doubts that this is anything other than the Three Letter agencies trying to project a Cold War interpretation ("big centralized nation-state entity out to get us") onto a set of data that only shows small, disparate groups who are all actually too busy trying to avoid being smashed by the US, Israel, or the Arab League.
Re:Meanwhile, back at the bean counting dept.
on
Cisco Slashes 4,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm one of the technical cofounders of a software startup. I'm often dumbfounded by how shortsighted my business counterparts are. Some of their behavior can be legitimately justified on account of their concern for the company's bottom line- but only some. For example, they have recently tried to outsource app development for the fourth time (that I know of), thinking it was a quick solution. And for the fourth time, it failed. After talking to them and hearing them go on about how it was still cheaper to outsource development work instead of hiring someone, I still don't think they've learned their lesson.
Their core problem is nothing more and nothing less than the fact that they are "business school" graduates. Because instead of running businesses in a technocratic manner with the intention of selling a good product, we instead need to train a separate class of people to do this nebulous thing called "business", which involves short-term thinking, buzzwords, and a ton of ass-kissing. And it seems that the ultimate purpose of this thing called "business" is just more "business".
Put your Tor client in a Secure Linux VM, so none of your hardware information can be exposed. Go to https://check.torproject.org/ to check if Tor is working, and make sure NoScript or something similar is enabled.
Ok, you have been mostly reasonable but this is kind of ridiculous. There is no way that my cell phone in my pocket can tell that I am looking at a specific billboard or building front.
I'm an Android Developer that develops autonomous high-detail locator apps for public transit telemetry systems running Android, but that wouldn't really tell you why I'm right. So I'll describe exactly why you're wrong.
Phone GPS/Network Location Providers can give speed/heading based on the direction and spacing of your last few positions. This tells me what direction you're headed (since most people don't walk backwards), and more importantly, I can use this information to normalize the output from the phone's accelerometer/tilt sensors. So if your phone is sideways in your pocket, my knowledge of your bearing lets me figure out how much the phone is offset from the standard "flat in hand front to back" orientation so that I'll be able to properly interpret the output from your tilt sensors. I'll be able to tell the difference between running and walking, I'll be able to tell when you move your torso relative to your legs.
I can also use wifi networks or network location providers to figure out where you are even if your GPS is off.
You're seriously underestimating the number of sensors on a standard Android device, and the complex inferences that can be drawn about their simple output.
I defy you to say that you would be capable or even willing to maintain custom ROMs for all of your associates and family
Most popular custom ROMs come with OTA updaters. There are third-party ROM updaters as well.
Once you've loaded a custom ROM you are excluded from any future automatic updates/security patches.
No you're not. ROM updates merge in the latest security patches.
It's not any different than the current problem with Android fragmentation and custom ROMs. If you follow that logic, it leads to a place nobody wants to be.
You either know very little about custom ROMs or you're not very competent at using them.
This comes across as a really contrived set of objections, for a number of reasons.
First of all, all the "they're reading my mind, man" objections can be put to rest with a custom ROM, as I already addressed. Same goes for cellphones.
Second, the "outward tracking" objection is naturally limited by battery power and user consent.
Third, you haven't really described how the basic capabilities differ from a cellphone. Yes, there's a cosmetic difference. But cellphones already accelerometers and tilt sensors- they can tell which direction you are facing and what position your body is in. The "outward tracking" distinction is superficial.
I'm not really a huge Glass fanatic, but these really just come across as whining from conspiracy theorists. Sure it could track your vitals. No, it won't unless you let it, otherwise every major government and data protection agency in the world will eat Google alive. Can you even imagine the EU fine?
Leave out the "slippery slope" objections until you've actually got evidence that such an undertaking would even be economical in the face of the coming ad bubble burst and the government fines.
"Google Glass is scary because it's easier to record others!"
You have a cellphone in your pocket capable of doing just that, and pinhole surveillance cameras have existed forever anyway.
"Google Glass is scary because GPS!"
Your cellphone doesn't even need an active GPS setting in order to be tracked. As an Android App developer, I can just use a Network Location Provider and triangulate your position to within 100-1000 meters. If you have a cellphone, you're being tracked just as easily as with Glass.
"Google Glass is scary because it might serve me ads!"
That's from an early video parody of Glass. Ads are against Google's guidelines.
"Google Glass is scary because they're trying to get us to depend on it, then sneakily put in ads and spyware!"
Even if they do that, we've already got the dumped firmware for Glass. Just run a custom ROM on it.
"Google Glass is scary because some pseudo-libertarian tech journalist told me to be scared!"
Oh ok, I guess that explains the inconsistency in your position. Funny how all these former pro-corporate tech gossip douchebags are suddenly worried about your rights. Where were they 10 years ago? And for that matter, where were you?
Look, that guy ("Required Snark") might have been an asshole, but you didn't really acquit yourself well either in your original post. I cofounded and work for a real-time telemetry contractor. We use Android, but the Linux kernel isn't built to handle read-time applications reliably. There are too many things to handle in terms of time-safe task-switching, execution, multi-processing, and internal consistency in order for it to be a good RTOS. So keeping that in mind, I had to implement a real time environment in userspace that uses root and some native code in order to collect data, send data, and operate hardware in a safe, timely manner. But this isn't the best solution because I still have to deal with the fact that it's all just a frustrating abstraction sitting on top of a kernel that isn't at all concerned with what I'm actually trying to do, despite my best efforts to single-handedly make the necessary changes.
Your "newer processors" bit is also completely off the mark. Radiation-hardened processors lag generations behind owing to the need for extensive redesign and testing. Complicating this picture is the fact that even then, they still have varying levels of reliability and power efficiency. You don't want a processor that has a microcode architecture that makes your targeted code difficult to semantically evaluate and verify. You don't want (or need) a recent processor that hasn't had extensive real-world user testing. You want a processor in the goldilocks zone, one that you've worked with before and has a community behind it.
Keeping that all in mind, they chose a good processor, and already had an OS largely built for it based on previous missions with earlier versions of the same processor.
You're jumping on a bandwagon, parroting what you've heard others say. The first release had some glaring issues that invited SQL injections, mostly. Then the source was released and others began fixing those issues while keeping the data model and UI work the kids had done. As my parent post indicated, you can't judge Linux 3.6 by looking at Torvald's first shitty Linux release. Same thing here.
Frankly, the whole "better to do nothing" idea is completely asinine. It was first started by a blogger, Peter Cantrememberlastname, that wanted to elevate his pageviews by promoting the sensationalist view that the first release was so broken that it was unsalvageable. Completely wrong. Go look at the crypto section of the Diaspora wiki and the source itself if you still have doubts on the basis of a shitty, condescending blog post from two years ago.
I guess you're the center of the universe, then. It didn't happen if you didn't read it. So I'll provide some tech news/blog posts about the similarity. FYI, Diaspora first released the aspects ("circles") feature and the alpha UI in September 2010. Google+ launched in June 2011.
So what's the difference between https://diasp.org/ and https://joindiaspora.com? I made a login at the latter site and it doesn't work with the former. Is it now a fractured community?
No, it uses different "pods", or diaspora servers. These pods communicate with each other, hence the "decentralized social networking" description. You set up an account with one pod, but you can communicate with people on other pods. You can search for a person faster if you know what pod they're on. I have an account on diasp, so my address is [username].diasp.org, which could help you find me if you're on another pod. As far as I know, all pods achieved federation some time ago, so this shouldn't be a problem.
This is a completely sensationalist and somewhat deceptive post.
First of all, those security bugs existed in the first release, before Diaspora even went open-source. Discussing Diaspora's first bugs without mentioning its current project status is like complaining about the first release of Linux when Linux 3.6 just came out. The author is deliberately leaving out information about the current status of the project in a way that is intended to further a deceptive conclusion in the reader's mind.
Second of all, check out http://diasp.org/ because it seriously works.
Third, Diaspora is still being developed by its community.
Fourth, Diaspora had the equivalent of the "circles" feature before Google+ did. In fact, the first release of Google+ looked so similar to Diaspora that people started to talk. And acting like Google+ somehow made Diaspora irrelevant is totally stupid. Apples and Oranges. Big Data and decentralized social networking. They have different purposes and therefore can't be directly compared.
Quit with the sensationalist tech journalism. I don't even use social networking much any more, but considering the friends I know who swear by Diaspora, I know its far from the idea of "a few young kids" creating a failure, which is what this stupid article champions.
By pulling an Ad Hominem, you've forever cast your reliability into doubt! You're obviously a person who does nothing but smear people! I can't trust anything you tell me!
Oh wait, that's your logic. Huh. How bout that.
Once you have been caught falsifying a single document, for any reason whatsoever, everything you claim to be true can, should, and must be called into question.
Nope, that's the slippery slope fallacy. You should analyze motives and context to figure out whether a particular action is likely to be a lie instead of perjoratively declaring that an individual's satirical counter-smear ends all possibility of future truth. It was immature, but Assange was never some sort of bastion of perfection and holiness. He does, however, serve a useful function on occasion.
Now, if the reason for your organization is not as stated above, but is instead just to embarrass and smear people and organizations you don't like, then the false document makes perfect sense.
Have they done that on any other occasions? Because if not, you can't declare a trend of "embarrassing and smearing".
As for the DDOS attack, you don't actually need a botnot to make it appear like a DDOS attack, a simple 'misconfigured' firewall will do just nicely.
Still going on with that silly conspiracy theory, I see. The site is hosted with others by an organization in Sweden at Bahnhof datacenter. Why would the datacenter wish to harm its reputation by going along with such an action? Up-time is a very critical metric for attracting new customers.
Additionally, you haven't addressed by Wikileaks would harm the very site that hosts all of its donation information. How can they "donate now" if they can't get the relevant info? People have short attention spans, when the site comes back up it's not going to be as if there are thousands of people rushing all at once to donate to poor Wikileaks. This is the exact opposite tactic a person would take if they were looking for donations.
First of all, Bill Keller really did write an enormous ad-hominem piece on Assange. The Keller hoax was childish revenge, sure, but it was NOT just done for no reason.
Second of all, the idea that Wikileaks would DDOS itself (thus removing the ability for anyone to actually hit the "donate" buttons on the site) is completely nonsensical. Wikileaks doesn't have the resources to hire a botnet to do that (and they'd need a botnet owing to the secure host Wikileaks uses).
Third, Assange may be vain, but his publicity stunts are mostly confined to revenge and his extradition case. He seems to be pretty preoccupied with getting asylum, his leaks, and his work for RT.
I don't think your conspiracy theory makes sense on multiple levels.
Cutsy sardonic title with no correct assertions made. Please try to familiarize yourself with the project before being a useless contrarian.
This is not a "FOSS" game. It is a reimplementation of the game engine that does not change any of the original visual resources. And it already looks better than the original.
Why, we should ask, if this was all an American plot, was the charges dropped from Assange ahead of the cables leak (when everyone suspected he had the cables), and then only reinstated after the cables were already passed on and so capturing Assange pointless?
I don't think it's an "American plot". Just diplomatic pressure. Attempting to influence another country is a sticky business that often happens behind closed doors, and the speed of the negotiations doesn't always correspond to an external timeline. That being said, the US had no idea which cables he had before he released them, and furthermore, he was in negotiations with the Pentagon/State Department which broke down shortly before these allegations. So to me, their delayed action suggests a "wait and see" attitude.
He was a big name, and he broke the law to the point he used his influence to do things that would get other men arrested too. And then instead of answering the charges, he fled the country. Over something that might get him $1000 in fines and told not to come back to the country.
You appear to have some crucial facts wrong.
Sweden dropped the charges on 21 August 2010 as "baseless". He had sex with both women, and neither had a problem until they found out about each other. They then wanted Assange to take an STD test. He refused, and they then went to the police. They reopened the case early in September, but told him he was free to leave the country.
In November, Sweden signaled that it wished to detain him for questioning, despite the fact that he had already been thoroughly questioned and had offered to be further questioned via video link from the UK. No formal charges were/have been pressed.
Interpol approved a Red Notice on Assange on 20 November. Red Notices tend to be used for manhunts of dangerous criminals or notorious fraudsters (A Red Notice was issued for Osama Bin Laden, for example). Assange then turned himself in to the Police in England, and was held in solitary confinement for 10 days (several sources have indicated that this was not standard procedure).
To summarize: It's the inconsistency of the whole affair that looks odd. They seriously reopened a case that was previously said to be baseless, initiated an international manhunt for one of the mildest possible sex crimes defined anywhere in the civilized world, and then put the guy in solitary?
Disclaimer: I don't think there's any conspiracy to actually grab Assange from Sweden and ship him to the US, but I do think this is something the US would do to incapacitate a troublesome individual. The US has certainly done worse. I guess I should also mention that the US has used Sweden for extraordinary rendition in the past. Although I don't think that will happen to Assange, it is indicate of the US's influence over Swedish policy.
Slashdot Mirror
a rooted Android phone with some sort of toddler app mode or custom ROM.
I can not offend you, but you or he can take offense. Thats your problem, not mine.
That's just a way of dodging responsibility for your words and actions. You can offend somebody if you mean offense, and you meant offense. Internet pseudo-anonymity doesn't change the fact that you were acting like an asshole to someone whose motivations you have no idea about (FYI: far from fanboy). Get off your high horse.
Despite my previous response, you still haven't told me how exactly I was being a fanboy. There is precedent for silly passive aggressive swipes against Linus Torvalds on Slashdot...remember the Sarah Sharp incident? And how she and others turned it into Big Bad Aggressive Male Developer vs the Feminist Civility Superheroes despite claiming that it wasn't a "gender issue"? It doesn't take being a fanboy to be frustrated by that sort of politicized nonsense.
The irrelevant inclusion of Torvalds falling to 101st definitely seemed to be on the same lines. It's like mentioning that the ever-controversial Rasmus Lerdorf isn't contributing as much to PHP development in an offhand way that isn't at all relevant to the actual issue of PHP development. Why else would it be said?
Its just something to note, no need to get all offended, especially since we're not even talking about you, Fanboy. Linus will eventually stop writing code for Linux all together for any number of reasons, including the inevitable death.
Pull your panties out of your crack and move on. No one is insulting your God.
Calling someone a fanboy with all the abusive tone of Linus Torvalds. How ironic.
Just FYI, I'm not at all attached to Linus or the manner in which he conducts himself towards others...but the continual complaints and passive aggressive swipes can be even more tiring and petty than the man himself. Linus is just not all that big a deal. In what world is the statement "so-and-so has fallen out of the top 100 contributors, ALL THE WAY to 101st!" news? Why are we even talking about him, again? That's my question.
does that matter? He still maintains the repo, still performs the merges, still does the quality control, still determines the direction of future updates. As Slashdot is fond of saying, the quality of a developer isn't just determined by the number of lines or commits he contributes.
I don't know why that bit about Torvalds is even necessary, unless someone is trying to take a swipe at him. Again.
If you think the US government is willfully in bed with terrorists, then you're completely delusional.
Looking at your post history, it appears that your view on Foreign Policy is much the same Cold War-projected claptrap as makes our intelligence agencies so incompetent.
Never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity.
or actual infiltration?
The original Bin Laden al-Qaeda is practically non-existent, its Islamist affiliates are too busy trying to win over regimes in the mideast, Hamas is trying not to piss off the US considering that Obama has been much more pro-Palestinian. Hezbollah....maybe. We're talking about a few tens of thousands of eligible individuals here, most of them with Hezbollah and Hamas.
I have serious doubts that this is anything other than the Three Letter agencies trying to project a Cold War interpretation ("big centralized nation-state entity out to get us") onto a set of data that only shows small, disparate groups who are all actually too busy trying to avoid being smashed by the US, Israel, or the Arab League.
I'm one of the technical cofounders of a software startup. I'm often dumbfounded by how shortsighted my business counterparts are. Some of their behavior can be legitimately justified on account of their concern for the company's bottom line- but only some. For example, they have recently tried to outsource app development for the fourth time (that I know of), thinking it was a quick solution. And for the fourth time, it failed. After talking to them and hearing them go on about how it was still cheaper to outsource development work instead of hiring someone, I still don't think they've learned their lesson.
Their core problem is nothing more and nothing less than the fact that they are "business school" graduates. Because instead of running businesses in a technocratic manner with the intention of selling a good product, we instead need to train a separate class of people to do this nebulous thing called "business", which involves short-term thinking, buzzwords, and a ton of ass-kissing. And it seems that the ultimate purpose of this thing called "business" is just more "business".
Put your Tor client in a Secure Linux VM, so none of your hardware information can be exposed. Go to https://check.torproject.org/ to check if Tor is working, and make sure NoScript or something similar is enabled.
Ok, you have been mostly reasonable but this is kind of ridiculous. There is no way that my cell phone in my pocket can tell that I am looking at a specific billboard or building front.
I'm an Android Developer that develops autonomous high-detail locator apps for public transit telemetry systems running Android, but that wouldn't really tell you why I'm right. So I'll describe exactly why you're wrong.
Phone GPS/Network Location Providers can give speed/heading based on the direction and spacing of your last few positions. This tells me what direction you're headed (since most people don't walk backwards), and more importantly, I can use this information to normalize the output from the phone's accelerometer/tilt sensors. So if your phone is sideways in your pocket, my knowledge of your bearing lets me figure out how much the phone is offset from the standard "flat in hand front to back" orientation so that I'll be able to properly interpret the output from your tilt sensors. I'll be able to tell the difference between running and walking, I'll be able to tell when you move your torso relative to your legs.
I can also use wifi networks or network location providers to figure out where you are even if your GPS is off.
You're seriously underestimating the number of sensors on a standard Android device, and the complex inferences that can be drawn about their simple output.
I defy you to say that you would be capable or even willing to maintain custom ROMs for all of your associates and family
Most popular custom ROMs come with OTA updaters. There are third-party ROM updaters as well.
Once you've loaded a custom ROM you are excluded from any future automatic updates/security patches.
No you're not. ROM updates merge in the latest security patches.
It's not any different than the current problem with Android fragmentation and custom ROMs. If you follow that logic, it leads to a place nobody wants to be.
You either know very little about custom ROMs or you're not very competent at using them.
This comes across as a really contrived set of objections, for a number of reasons.
First of all, all the "they're reading my mind, man" objections can be put to rest with a custom ROM, as I already addressed. Same goes for cellphones.
Second, the "outward tracking" objection is naturally limited by battery power and user consent.
Third, you haven't really described how the basic capabilities differ from a cellphone. Yes, there's a cosmetic difference. But cellphones already accelerometers and tilt sensors- they can tell which direction you are facing and what position your body is in. The "outward tracking" distinction is superficial.
I'm not really a huge Glass fanatic, but these really just come across as whining from conspiracy theorists. Sure it could track your vitals. No, it won't unless you let it, otherwise every major government and data protection agency in the world will eat Google alive. Can you even imagine the EU fine?
Leave out the "slippery slope" objections until you've actually got evidence that such an undertaking would even be economical in the face of the coming ad bubble burst and the government fines.
"Google Glass is scary because it's easier to record others!"
You have a cellphone in your pocket capable of doing just that, and pinhole surveillance cameras have existed forever anyway.
"Google Glass is scary because GPS!"
Your cellphone doesn't even need an active GPS setting in order to be tracked. As an Android App developer, I can just use a Network Location Provider and triangulate your position to within 100-1000 meters. If you have a cellphone, you're being tracked just as easily as with Glass.
"Google Glass is scary because it might serve me ads!"
That's from an early video parody of Glass. Ads are against Google's guidelines.
"Google Glass is scary because they're trying to get us to depend on it, then sneakily put in ads and spyware!"
Even if they do that, we've already got the dumped firmware for Glass. Just run a custom ROM on it.
"Google Glass is scary because some pseudo-libertarian tech journalist told me to be scared!"
Oh ok, I guess that explains the inconsistency in your position. Funny how all these former pro-corporate tech gossip douchebags are suddenly worried about your rights. Where were they 10 years ago? And for that matter, where were you?
1. Banning ad-blocker apps from the Google Play App store
2. Banning jabber invites
3. Killing Google Reader
They're too big to need to play nice with anyone.
Look, that guy ("Required Snark") might have been an asshole, but you didn't really acquit yourself well either in your original post. I cofounded and work for a real-time telemetry contractor. We use Android, but the Linux kernel isn't built to handle read-time applications reliably. There are too many things to handle in terms of time-safe task-switching, execution, multi-processing, and internal consistency in order for it to be a good RTOS. So keeping that in mind, I had to implement a real time environment in userspace that uses root and some native code in order to collect data, send data, and operate hardware in a safe, timely manner. But this isn't the best solution because I still have to deal with the fact that it's all just a frustrating abstraction sitting on top of a kernel that isn't at all concerned with what I'm actually trying to do, despite my best efforts to single-handedly make the necessary changes.
Your "newer processors" bit is also completely off the mark. Radiation-hardened processors lag generations behind owing to the need for extensive redesign and testing. Complicating this picture is the fact that even then, they still have varying levels of reliability and power efficiency. You don't want a processor that has a microcode architecture that makes your targeted code difficult to semantically evaluate and verify. You don't want (or need) a recent processor that hasn't had extensive real-world user testing. You want a processor in the goldilocks zone, one that you've worked with before and has a community behind it.
Keeping that all in mind, they chose a good processor, and already had an OS largely built for it based on previous missions with earlier versions of the same processor.
You're jumping on a bandwagon, parroting what you've heard others say. The first release had some glaring issues that invited SQL injections, mostly. Then the source was released and others began fixing those issues while keeping the data model and UI work the kids had done. As my parent post indicated, you can't judge Linux 3.6 by looking at Torvald's first shitty Linux release. Same thing here.
Frankly, the whole "better to do nothing" idea is completely asinine. It was first started by a blogger, Peter Cantrememberlastname, that wanted to elevate his pageviews by promoting the sensationalist view that the first release was so broken that it was unsalvageable. Completely wrong. Go look at the crypto section of the Diaspora wiki and the source itself if you still have doubts on the basis of a shitty, condescending blog post from two years ago.
I guess you're the center of the universe, then. It didn't happen if you didn't read it. So I'll provide some tech news/blog posts about the similarity. FYI, Diaspora first released the aspects ("circles") feature and the alpha UI in September 2010. Google+ launched in June 2011.
http://www.gizmag.com/diaspora-google-plus-resemblance/20638/
http://www.launch.co/blog/did-google-copy-diaspora-or-vice-versa.html
http://babyfruit.typepad.com/mediagirl/2011/09/google-meet-diaspora-or-maybe-you-know-them-already.html
http://www.launch.co/blog/diaspora-finally-unveiled-feels-like-google.html
So what's the difference between https://diasp.org/ and https://joindiaspora.com? I made a login at the latter site and it doesn't work with the former. Is it now a fractured community?
No, it uses different "pods", or diaspora servers. These pods communicate with each other, hence the "decentralized social networking" description. You set up an account with one pod, but you can communicate with people on other pods. You can search for a person faster if you know what pod they're on. I have an account on diasp, so my address is [username].diasp.org, which could help you find me if you're on another pod. As far as I know, all pods achieved federation some time ago, so this shouldn't be a problem.
This is a completely sensationalist and somewhat deceptive post.
First of all, those security bugs existed in the first release, before Diaspora even went open-source. Discussing Diaspora's first bugs without mentioning its current project status is like complaining about the first release of Linux when Linux 3.6 just came out. The author is deliberately leaving out information about the current status of the project in a way that is intended to further a deceptive conclusion in the reader's mind.
Second of all, check out http://diasp.org/ because it seriously works.
Third, Diaspora is still being developed by its community.
Fourth, Diaspora had the equivalent of the "circles" feature before Google+ did. In fact, the first release of Google+ looked so similar to Diaspora that people started to talk. And acting like Google+ somehow made Diaspora irrelevant is totally stupid. Apples and Oranges. Big Data and decentralized social networking. They have different purposes and therefore can't be directly compared.
Quit with the sensationalist tech journalism. I don't even use social networking much any more, but considering the friends I know who swear by Diaspora, I know its far from the idea of "a few young kids" creating a failure, which is what this stupid article champions.
Five years ago I did my IB thesis on this robot. This is very old news.
You are either incredibly naive, stupid, or both.
By pulling an Ad Hominem, you've forever cast your reliability into doubt! You're obviously a person who does nothing but smear people! I can't trust anything you tell me!
Oh wait, that's your logic. Huh. How bout that.
Once you have been caught falsifying a single document, for any reason whatsoever, everything you claim to be true can, should, and must be called into question.
Nope, that's the slippery slope fallacy. You should analyze motives and context to figure out whether a particular action is likely to be a lie instead of perjoratively declaring that an individual's satirical counter-smear ends all possibility of future truth. It was immature, but Assange was never some sort of bastion of perfection and holiness. He does, however, serve a useful function on occasion.
Now, if the reason for your organization is not as stated above, but is instead just to embarrass and smear people and organizations you don't like, then the false document makes perfect sense.
Have they done that on any other occasions? Because if not, you can't declare a trend of "embarrassing and smearing".
As for the DDOS attack, you don't actually need a botnot to make it appear like a DDOS attack, a simple 'misconfigured' firewall will do just nicely.
Still going on with that silly conspiracy theory, I see. The site is hosted with others by an organization in Sweden at Bahnhof datacenter. Why would the datacenter wish to harm its reputation by going along with such an action? Up-time is a very critical metric for attracting new customers.
Additionally, you haven't addressed by Wikileaks would harm the very site that hosts all of its donation information. How can they "donate now" if they can't get the relevant info? People have short attention spans, when the site comes back up it's not going to be as if there are thousands of people rushing all at once to donate to poor Wikileaks. This is the exact opposite tactic a person would take if they were looking for donations.
Baseless speculation.
First of all, Bill Keller really did write an enormous ad-hominem piece on Assange. The Keller hoax was childish revenge, sure, but it was NOT just done for no reason.
Second of all, the idea that Wikileaks would DDOS itself (thus removing the ability for anyone to actually hit the "donate" buttons on the site) is completely nonsensical. Wikileaks doesn't have the resources to hire a botnet to do that (and they'd need a botnet owing to the secure host Wikileaks uses).
Third, Assange may be vain, but his publicity stunts are mostly confined to revenge and his extradition case. He seems to be pretty preoccupied with getting asylum, his leaks, and his work for RT.
I don't think your conspiracy theory makes sense on multiple levels.
Cutsy sardonic title with no correct assertions made. Please try to familiarize yourself with the project before being a useless contrarian.
This is not a "FOSS" game. It is a reimplementation of the game engine that does not change any of the original visual resources. And it already looks better than the original.
Your comment is therefore irrelevant.
How does that constitute me being "misinformed"?
You're only talking about the internal decision about molestation (which doesn't appear to contradict anything I said), not about the response.
Your claim appears to be contradicted by both the BBC (in one of my source links) and CNN:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-23/world/sweden.wikileaks.assange_1_arrest-warrant-wikileaks-julian-assange?_s=PM:WORLD
Perhaps new witness testimony emerged.
http://www.nickdavies.net/2010/08/29/assange-and-the-sex-charges-the-missing-facts/
Why, we should ask, if this was all an American plot, was the charges dropped from Assange ahead of the cables leak (when everyone suspected he had the cables), and then only reinstated after the cables were already passed on and so capturing Assange pointless?
I don't think it's an "American plot". Just diplomatic pressure. Attempting to influence another country is a sticky business that often happens behind closed doors, and the speed of the negotiations doesn't always correspond to an external timeline. That being said, the US had no idea which cables he had before he released them, and furthermore, he was in negotiations with the Pentagon/State Department which broke down shortly before these allegations. So to me, their delayed action suggests a "wait and see" attitude.
He was a big name, and he broke the law to the point he used his influence to do things that would get other men arrested too. And then instead of answering the charges, he fled the country. Over something that might get him $1000 in fines and told not to come back to the country.
You appear to have some crucial facts wrong.
Sweden dropped the charges on 21 August 2010 as "baseless". He had sex with both women, and neither had a problem until they found out about each other. They then wanted Assange to take an STD test. He refused, and they then went to the police. They reopened the case early in September, but told him he was free to leave the country.
In November, Sweden signaled that it wished to detain him for questioning, despite the fact that he had already been thoroughly questioned and had offered to be further questioned via video link from the UK. No formal charges were/have been pressed.
Interpol approved a Red Notice on Assange on 20 November. Red Notices tend to be used for manhunts of dangerous criminals or notorious fraudsters (A Red Notice was issued for Osama Bin Laden, for example). Assange then turned himself in to the Police in England, and was held in solitary confinement for 10 days (several sources have indicated that this was not standard procedure).
To summarize: It's the inconsistency of the whole affair that looks odd. They seriously reopened a case that was previously said to be baseless, initiated an international manhunt for one of the mildest possible sex crimes defined anywhere in the civilized world, and then put the guy in solitary?
Disclaimer: I don't think there's any conspiracy to actually grab Assange from Sweden and ship him to the US, but I do think this is something the US would do to incapacitate a troublesome individual. The US has certainly done worse. I guess I should also mention that the US has used Sweden for extraordinary rendition in the past. Although I don't think that will happen to Assange, it is indicate of the US's influence over Swedish policy.
Sources:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/08/report-assange-rape-case-sparked-std-fears/
http://thestandard.org.nz/marianne-ny-making-an-arse-of-swedish-law/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341