So in other words: There is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL you can do? Any suggestions yourself, then?
But actually, say I use an XMPP server in some country in Europe and everyone I know also uses that server (ie. no need to use federation, which would possibly go through American servers)... I'd say that's protection. Unless we find out that the country it is based in is helping/sharing with the NSA as well. But as it is, XMPP is decentralized into so many small servers around the world I seriously doubt it would ever be a problem... at least not any time soon. Then there's always OTR if you want a good instant messaging encryption system.
If all (or most) of the services I use are purely in another country (say... no Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, AOL, etc.), unless it's e-mail or some similar decentralized service and you send messages across servers... how am I at risk unless I log in with some Microsoft product or into one of their services? Admittedly, this is further than I care to go personally, but if done right why wouldn't it work? Avoid U.S. companies, period (especially the big ones)--so far they're the ones who are targeted according to the leaks.
And VPN... again, if you choose one outside of the U.S. that specifically tries to protect your privacy (ie. does not store unnecessarily detailed logs for an excessive amount of time), it is not subject to direct PRISM surveillance (because it's not in the U.S.) or U.S. warrants (again, it's not in the U.S.)... and you're sharing an IP address with many, many other people. Combine that with regular and frequent destruction of logs and even if the country its based in did come with a warrant ask for information, there would be no data to give.
What it boils down to is: Avoid the U.S., avoid the U.S., avoid the U.S. American service providers (especially the big ones), any special servers located there, proprietary software from American companies, etc. How, exactly, will that work against you? I would expect that if I continue to trust American Internet communications companies and the government not to intercept everything that goes through their Internet connection and continue to rely heavily on them with no thought to privacy or second thoughts on alternative providers, then I'd have another thing coming... who knows what the next company to be a part of PRISM will be, but if history tells us anything then we can't rely on the U.S. government or its companies to tell us.
I was thinking Incognito/TAILS, exactly. Those guys seem incredibly serious about privacy and security. I haven't messed a whole lot with it myself lack of memory, no discs to spare, runs like crap in a VM...), but I recall it even featured Tor and a Tor Firefox extension and it had strict rules about *not* allowing certain "convenience" features in the name of privacy (ie. swap partition). No doubt, with security features and precautions like those, its Firefox browser is probably locked tight as hell by default.
Aside from this, I figure with all the extensions available and some additional services, you could help to protect yourself. You could start by doing the usual in your browser (disable third-party cookies, install the Adblock Plus, NoScript and DoNotTrackMe extensions, etc.). Reduce your reliance on American companies and/or servers. Example: Since Google's going to be killing off Talk/XMPP support, I decided to look around for alternatives, and chose many XMPP servers to test and decide which one to use. I originally was interested in performance and was going to choose one closest to me, in my own country if possible (the United States). Now, I am almost 100% certain my primary XMPP account will *not* be on an American server, unless I happen to decide to try my hand at setting up and maintaining my own XMPP server.
And... services. Obviously Tor can work as in Incognito if you want to use that, but another option would be a VNC provider. Specifically, one that respects your privacy (ie. does not store any more log data than they need to operate), and possible more importantly--again--one that is not in the United States. I'm not sure of a good VNC provider, but I can say that it's pretty pathetic when you are forced to subscribe to and pay a foreign provider just to try to ensure your own privacy. But, well, it looks like the U.S. government has no end in sight when it comes to royally fucking up own economy.
And last... you run Windows? Mac? Might want to change your operating system. It's already been discovered that various U.S. government agencies have deals with Microsoft to learn about zero-day exploits before anyone else in the world... who knows what other deals they might have, or what other American companies also have deals. Definite possibility of backdoors as well.
The real problem is that PRISM works (from what I can understand) by splitting the signal in between, for example, Microsoft's or Google's servers and their respective ISPs (Steve Gibson brings some pretty good points in a recent episode of Security Now). This means they get *everything*, so if it's encrypted (https:// for example) the government *may* not be able to read the data itself as it's transferred for storage in their own top-secret storage rooms... but they can definitely look at the activity to find out what IP address communications are between at any given time (or... just ask the company running the servers who that user is).
Bull fucking shit. The user is given the chance to look over the defaults and answer either "yes" or "no" when asked if everything looks okay before even using the browser for the first time. Nothing is stopping them from clicking "no" and choosing to click the button saying, "yes, please tell all the scummy cocksucking advertising companies out there to monitor everything I do on the Internet while using my computer." Preferably with a very descriptive paragraph of what they really do and what they use it for, to prevent anyone from *ever* turning it on. Then Microsoft would be sued for telling the facts, and their browser's DNT would still be blacklisted, but at least then everyone would realize what a bunch of god damn crooked assfucks the people in the advertisement business are.
Yep, being the very first company involved in the Prism surveillance system, I'm sure Microsoft knows this "snooping" Google does on your privacy well...
Look at their past. Microsoft's past, especially their recent past, is full of arrogance and "we know better than you do." Did you even read their statement? The whole damn thing looks like it was written by a depressed Microsoft Games Studio marketing official, lamenting the fact that they had to bow down to the customers' wishes and that they still "believe in the benefits of a connected, digital future." In other words--it'll be back.
Just look at Metro/Windows 8 and how Microsoft tries to twist and turn everything around, saying it's a "Start button" that people want, carefully ignoring the fact that that button originally brought up the "Start menu" which they refuse to mention and act dumbfounded when people get pissed and bitch. What they refuse to get is that we don't all want *their* future for all of our systems, we want a traditional Start menu brought up by a simple button in the corner of the screen for our mouse-based desktops, not a touchscreen tablet/phone-oriented full-screen interface.
1) I wouldn't be so quick to forgive Microsoft. Be one of the first to buy an Xbox One and you may be repaid by a system update in the not-to-distant future slowly re-implementing, bit by bit, this DRM scheme that they have claimed to be discarding.
2) I do agree with you on Sony. Neither company can be trusted, really.
Most likely because they've got an expensive machine to sell with the Xbox One (is it it acceptable to just call it Xboner for short from now on?), while with Windows... for the most part it's just software and their traditional monopoly products that fuels it (MS Office...). Not to mention, I figure they've got more to lose with their video game systems, since that market seems to be continuing to expand and has has had some pretty stiff competition for decades now. But who knows... maybe the guys in the Windows division just have more balls, or the Xbox guys care a bit more about their customers' view of their products. It's Microsoft, we'll probably never really know. All I know is that their true desires and intentions have been revealed, I wouldn't just give them a free ride after finally doing the "right thing" in the end. I would consider them highly suspicious of similar activity in the future, whether the Xboner is still the current-generation system at the time or something else has succeeded it.
Ah, don't worry about that. They've already got fiber optic splitting in the areas between Facebook, Yahoo!, Skype, Google, Microsoft, etc. and their respective Internet service providers. There's not as much need for a backdoor in the user/client side when practically all of the communications between these companies and their users are under constant surveillance and being sent in to top-secret NSA-controlled data gathering server rooms.
Ah, I see--that clears it up well. I still think the idea of altering the writer's words and punctuation in the name of piracy is going too far though.
If the content of a book--what is thought up and written by a human--is what is traditionally copyrighted, then what exactly are they copyrighting in this case? Obviously the content is "written" by the writer and then published in an electronic book format similarly to how it would be printed on pages and made into a physical book, but if that content is automatically tampered with by machines it is no longer what the author wrote. How would copyright work in this case? Hundreds of copyrights of individual "variations" of the same exact book? Sounds like a fucking mess. And that's not to say how irritating it would be to know that you are, in fact, not getting exactly what the author wrote. Not to mention the fact that you're not getting ownership of it while still paying for it.
I remember a time when people were willing to try different programs to communicate, and it was no big deal. It seems like over time, people have become more and more wedded to frameworks provided by big companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple, rather than tools.
I noticed the same thing. I have also noticed that with the explosion of text messaging, people tend to just use that and avoid *anything* that requires any amount of setting up whatsoever. While people used to be more willing to change, it seems that these days they are far more resistant to stray from text messaging and Facebook. They tend to use the claims "I'm on Facebook" or "everyone I know is on Facebook," or for text messaging "I'm paying for it so I use it" or "I have unlimited text messaging."
Basically, people use what they pay for above something that is free and far superior in many ways, and of course they gravitate towards whatever service is "big" and "popular" at the time. Before Facebook, it was MySpace.
Also, it seems that while people used to primarily use desktop machines and be open to installing programs to achieve additional functionality, these days more and more they seem tied to their cell phone and highly resistant to installing anything new. It's literally like they're welcoming a walled garden and just take whatever the Master gives them, with no thought whatsoever about alternatives. Basically, they seem to be viewing their phone as a dumb device and not as a portable computer, and relying on it more and more--exclusively.
WTF... did I seriously just type that? Wow, I really need to get new glasses... know, I obviously meant... Where is the edit function when you need it?
They don't want to be lectured on the importance of openness
Which is why I'd go over the unique features above all else, and only briefly touch on the "openness" details... such as Federation and the freedom to even host your own server if you want. The way I see it, the "openness" (specifically, the Federation) is just a bonus.
at most they'll acknowledge it's a neat idea but in the end what they care about is: Does it work (reliably)? Does it have nice features (voice, video, and possibly file transfers and emoticons)? Can I use it across my devices? For example, Skype mostly fits the bill here.
Reliability--yeah, people care about that, but it's not something most people consider when choosing a service. Most people I know just get pissed when the service doesn't work, but as soon as it works again they forget all about it. Most services have adequate reliability these days for reliability, though. Voice and video? These are instant messaging clients--I've never seen someone that demanded these features. Most people can also live without emoticons, and I haven't transferred a file with anyone in decades...
I'll give you one downside: *nobody* outside of us techies has heard of XMPP. So *their* acquaintances are not on XMPP either and they would let you install that client only to chat with you.
Yeah, so? Unlike AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo! and the rest, the people behind free standards don't tend to have unlimited $$$ to force their creations down everyone's throat using every type of media available for the broadest reach, so you have to do a little bit of explaining yourself. The good thing is that it doesn't have to be pure bullshit and marketing drivel like you would see on TV and in magazines or hear on the radio, but instead the *real* facts and advantages of using the service.
Even for most of these other services, people don't typically choose them just because they're heavily advertised. They choose to use them through word of mouth and curiosity, and above everything else because that's where all the people they know are at. I know of NO ONE who uses Skype, one person who *has* a Google Talk account but doesn't use it (plus two people I "converted" a while back), and countless people who use text messaging and/or Facebook exclusively. I no longer no anyone who uses AIM, and it seems that everyone has ditched Yahoo!'s messenger service as well.
Unfortunately, it: 1) Requires a Facebook account, and I would never trust that company enough to create an account there. 2) Is not really XMPP from what I understand, just an interface for compatibility purposes. 3) Does not support Federation with all the other XMPP servers out there.
But yeah--I agree that if you've already given your information to Facebook, then their "chat" service might not be too bad. Certainly it's got users out the ass.
You can have the best-thought-out, most efficient, open and extensible gem of a protocol, but how many people are going to download a (likely clunky) client and nag their relatives, friends and coworkers into installing it too?
That's why you try to educate people on why they should use that "open" service instead of the increasingly-closed crap, offer to set it up for them (bonus: to register an XMPP account, typically no e-mail address or additional "personal" information is needed), install a good client, and just go on from there. If they like it and want to use it, great--if not, they can go back to whatever increasingly-closed service they were on to begin with. But from now on, they'll most likely only be able to find me on XMPP.
Unfortunately, the chances of people actually choosing to use it (or even wiling to try it) is relatively slim. Not because of anything inherently wrong with XMPP itself, but primarily the extreme foothold shitty text messaging and Facebook has these days. People for whatever reason these days love bending over with their pants down, paying ridiculous amounts for text messages (bragging "unlimited" this, "unlimited" that), and anything better (cheaper, not tied to one phone/system, security with TLS and OTR, etc.) is automatically shunned when the word "registration" pops up. Not to mention most people I talk to end up with a blank stare and do not care one bit when I bring up "security" and "privacy" in the conversation.
For a lot of people it really is an already-determined lost cause. Those people, I just won't "chat" with.
On the one hand, yes, in a way it is dumb to "open it up" after all this time when XMPP is there. On the other hand, with Google having lost its Federation support and soon enough to lose XMPP support altogether; with MSN Messenger being eliminated in favor of the Outlook.com site or the Skype with a totally closed protocol, and who knows what else, it seemed that XMPP was the only choice. Well, still, for now at least it is probably the best choice--let's see how IMPP takes off--but at least it's no longer the only "open" choice. The promise of Federation with XMPP servers is also good. Overall, I think the extra choice prevails in importance over everyone just jumping blindly to XMPP (simply because it's all that there is left).
I mean nothing against XMPP--I will be using it unless IMPP proves itself and offers something superior, but I appreciate the choice and the opportunity for the two to compete on a level (open) playing field for the best features. This just means there will be more choice when using multi-protocol clients like Pidgin, and will likely spawn special IMPP "native" instant messaging clients, similarly to what Psy is to XMPP. In the end, I would say this is a welcome change, and with the recent turn of events the timing really isn't too late.
You still don't get the point. I like my systems and network to be nice and clean. Simple as that. I also tend to use static IP addresses for all of my machines (DHCP for others, especially those belonging to guests).
I'm not a fan of putting *anything* to waste. Yes--that includes having dozens of unnecessary IP addresses scattered all over the house. It's not about a lack of resources as much as it is a desire to have a cleaner, more easy to manage network.
what is wrong with a good old fashioned light bulb??
Apparently they're too dumb...
But I do agree with you. As long as they don't force this shit on us and it's just another option at the store, then I don't mind a little bit of extra choice. I'm not even so sure that I would want to have two dozen basically meaningless "devices" (light bulbs) wasting my router's resources in the first place... but depending on what these things allow, maybe a few of them in certain rooms wouldn't be too bad.
Well said... I pretty much agree. I couldn't pinpoint exactly *what* it was about the new Duke, but he was lacking something. He seemed like less of a badass, trying to be funny so hard that he wasn't. The Halo-style two-weapon limit and automatic health regeneration were also two of the worst things about the game, gameplay-wise. Overall... everything just seemed stale. I couldn't even appreciate the game if it came out in, say, 2006 or so--DNF almost completely lacks what made Duke3D awesome. A game's a game, and the time period it came out (graphics, audio, etc.) doesn't mean shit. The game itself is where it's at, not the technological bling crap. Its predecessor is technically inferior in every way imaginable, but it's still a hell of a lot better to this day.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words: There is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL you can do? Any suggestions yourself, then?
But actually, say I use an XMPP server in some country in Europe and everyone I know also uses that server (ie. no need to use federation, which would possibly go through American servers)... I'd say that's protection. Unless we find out that the country it is based in is helping/sharing with the NSA as well. But as it is, XMPP is decentralized into so many small servers around the world I seriously doubt it would ever be a problem... at least not any time soon. Then there's always OTR if you want a good instant messaging encryption system.
If all (or most) of the services I use are purely in another country (say... no Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, AOL, etc.), unless it's e-mail or some similar decentralized service and you send messages across servers... how am I at risk unless I log in with some Microsoft product or into one of their services? Admittedly, this is further than I care to go personally, but if done right why wouldn't it work? Avoid U.S. companies, period (especially the big ones)--so far they're the ones who are targeted according to the leaks.
And VPN... again, if you choose one outside of the U.S. that specifically tries to protect your privacy (ie. does not store unnecessarily detailed logs for an excessive amount of time), it is not subject to direct PRISM surveillance (because it's not in the U.S.) or U.S. warrants (again, it's not in the U.S.)... and you're sharing an IP address with many, many other people. Combine that with regular and frequent destruction of logs and even if the country its based in did come with a warrant ask for information, there would be no data to give.
What it boils down to is: Avoid the U.S., avoid the U.S., avoid the U.S. American service providers (especially the big ones), any special servers located there, proprietary software from American companies, etc. How, exactly, will that work against you? I would expect that if I continue to trust American Internet communications companies and the government not to intercept everything that goes through their Internet connection and continue to rely heavily on them with no thought to privacy or second thoughts on alternative providers, then I'd have another thing coming... who knows what the next company to be a part of PRISM will be, but if history tells us anything then we can't rely on the U.S. government or its companies to tell us.
I was thinking Incognito/TAILS, exactly. Those guys seem incredibly serious about privacy and security. I haven't messed a whole lot with it myself lack of memory, no discs to spare, runs like crap in a VM...), but I recall it even featured Tor and a Tor Firefox extension and it had strict rules about *not* allowing certain "convenience" features in the name of privacy (ie. swap partition). No doubt, with security features and precautions like those, its Firefox browser is probably locked tight as hell by default.
Aside from this, I figure with all the extensions available and some additional services, you could help to protect yourself. You could start by doing the usual in your browser (disable third-party cookies, install the Adblock Plus, NoScript and DoNotTrackMe extensions, etc.). Reduce your reliance on American companies and/or servers. Example: Since Google's going to be killing off Talk/XMPP support, I decided to look around for alternatives, and chose many XMPP servers to test and decide which one to use. I originally was interested in performance and was going to choose one closest to me, in my own country if possible (the United States). Now, I am almost 100% certain my primary XMPP account will *not* be on an American server, unless I happen to decide to try my hand at setting up and maintaining my own XMPP server.
And... services. Obviously Tor can work as in Incognito if you want to use that, but another option would be a VNC provider. Specifically, one that respects your privacy (ie. does not store any more log data than they need to operate), and possible more importantly--again--one that is not in the United States. I'm not sure of a good VNC provider, but I can say that it's pretty pathetic when you are forced to subscribe to and pay a foreign provider just to try to ensure your own privacy. But, well, it looks like the U.S. government has no end in sight when it comes to royally fucking up own economy.
And last... you run Windows? Mac? Might want to change your operating system. It's already been discovered that various U.S. government agencies have deals with Microsoft to learn about zero-day exploits before anyone else in the world... who knows what other deals they might have, or what other American companies also have deals. Definite possibility of backdoors as well.
The real problem is that PRISM works (from what I can understand) by splitting the signal in between, for example, Microsoft's or Google's servers and their respective ISPs (Steve Gibson brings some pretty good points in a recent episode of Security Now). This means they get *everything*, so if it's encrypted (https:// for example) the government *may* not be able to read the data itself as it's transferred for storage in their own top-secret storage rooms... but they can definitely look at the activity to find out what IP address communications are between at any given time (or... just ask the company running the servers who that user is).
Bull fucking shit. The user is given the chance to look over the defaults and answer either "yes" or "no" when asked if everything looks okay before even using the browser for the first time. Nothing is stopping them from clicking "no" and choosing to click the button saying, "yes, please tell all the scummy cocksucking advertising companies out there to monitor everything I do on the Internet while using my computer." Preferably with a very descriptive paragraph of what they really do and what they use it for, to prevent anyone from *ever* turning it on. Then Microsoft would be sued for telling the facts, and their browser's DNT would still be blacklisted, but at least then everyone would realize what a bunch of god damn crooked assfucks the people in the advertisement business are.
You have to check that file on a Xenix/SCO UNIX system. It will probably have Netcraft credits at the bottom with the copyright.
Yep, being the very first company involved in the Prism surveillance system, I'm sure Microsoft knows this "snooping" Google does on your privacy well...
Look at their past. Microsoft's past, especially their recent past, is full of arrogance and "we know better than you do." Did you even read their statement? The whole damn thing looks like it was written by a depressed Microsoft Games Studio marketing official, lamenting the fact that they had to bow down to the customers' wishes and that they still "believe in the benefits of a connected, digital future." In other words--it'll be back.
Just look at Metro/Windows 8 and how Microsoft tries to twist and turn everything around, saying it's a "Start button" that people want, carefully ignoring the fact that that button originally brought up the "Start menu" which they refuse to mention and act dumbfounded when people get pissed and bitch. What they refuse to get is that we don't all want *their* future for all of our systems, we want a traditional Start menu brought up by a simple button in the corner of the screen for our mouse-based desktops, not a touchscreen tablet/phone-oriented full-screen interface.
1) I wouldn't be so quick to forgive Microsoft. Be one of the first to buy an Xbox One and you may be repaid by a system update in the not-to-distant future slowly re-implementing, bit by bit, this DRM scheme that they have claimed to be discarding.
2) I do agree with you on Sony. Neither company can be trusted, really.
Most likely because they've got an expensive machine to sell with the Xbox One (is it it acceptable to just call it Xboner for short from now on?), while with Windows... for the most part it's just software and their traditional monopoly products that fuels it (MS Office...). Not to mention, I figure they've got more to lose with their video game systems, since that market seems to be continuing to expand and has has had some pretty stiff competition for decades now. But who knows... maybe the guys in the Windows division just have more balls, or the Xbox guys care a bit more about their customers' view of their products. It's Microsoft, we'll probably never really know. All I know is that their true desires and intentions have been revealed, I wouldn't just give them a free ride after finally doing the "right thing" in the end. I would consider them highly suspicious of similar activity in the future, whether the Xboner is still the current-generation system at the time or something else has succeeded it.
...to the moon and Mars.
The government is looking into out-of-this-world control!
Ah, don't worry about that. They've already got fiber optic splitting in the areas between Facebook, Yahoo!, Skype, Google, Microsoft, etc. and their respective Internet service providers. There's not as much need for a backdoor in the user/client side when practically all of the communications between these companies and their users are under constant surveillance and being sent in to top-secret NSA-controlled data gathering server rooms.
LMFAO! Very good point. That was hilarious.
Ah, I see--that clears it up well. I still think the idea of altering the writer's words and punctuation in the name of piracy is going too far though.
If the content of a book--what is thought up and written by a human--is what is traditionally copyrighted, then what exactly are they copyrighting in this case? Obviously the content is "written" by the writer and then published in an electronic book format similarly to how it would be printed on pages and made into a physical book, but if that content is automatically tampered with by machines it is no longer what the author wrote. How would copyright work in this case? Hundreds of copyrights of individual "variations" of the same exact book? Sounds like a fucking mess. And that's not to say how irritating it would be to know that you are, in fact, not getting exactly what the author wrote. Not to mention the fact that you're not getting ownership of it while still paying for it.
I remember a time when people were willing to try different programs to communicate, and it was no big deal. It seems like over time, people have become more and more wedded to frameworks provided by big companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple, rather than tools.
I noticed the same thing. I have also noticed that with the explosion of text messaging, people tend to just use that and avoid *anything* that requires any amount of setting up whatsoever. While people used to be more willing to change, it seems that these days they are far more resistant to stray from text messaging and Facebook. They tend to use the claims "I'm on Facebook" or "everyone I know is on Facebook," or for text messaging "I'm paying for it so I use it" or "I have unlimited text messaging."
Basically, people use what they pay for above something that is free and far superior in many ways, and of course they gravitate towards whatever service is "big" and "popular" at the time. Before Facebook, it was MySpace.
Also, it seems that while people used to primarily use desktop machines and be open to installing programs to achieve additional functionality, these days more and more they seem tied to their cell phone and highly resistant to installing anything new. It's literally like they're welcoming a walled garden and just take whatever the Master gives them, with no thought whatsoever about alternatives. Basically, they seem to be viewing their phone as a dumb device and not as a portable computer, and relying on it more and more--exclusively.
These are some sad, disturbing trends.
I no longer no anyone who uses AIM
WTF... did I seriously just type that? Wow, I really need to get new glasses... know, I obviously meant...
Where is the edit function when you need it?
They don't want to be lectured on the importance of openness
Which is why I'd go over the unique features above all else, and only briefly touch on the "openness" details... such as Federation and the freedom to even host your own server if you want. The way I see it, the "openness" (specifically, the Federation) is just a bonus.
at most they'll acknowledge it's a neat idea but in the end what they care about is: Does it work (reliably)? Does it have nice features (voice, video, and possibly file transfers and emoticons)? Can I use it across my devices? For example, Skype mostly fits the bill here.
Reliability--yeah, people care about that, but it's not something most people consider when choosing a service. Most people I know just get pissed when the service doesn't work, but as soon as it works again they forget all about it. Most services have adequate reliability these days for reliability, though. Voice and video? These are instant messaging clients--I've never seen someone that demanded these features. Most people can also live without emoticons, and I haven't transferred a file with anyone in decades...
I'll give you one downside: *nobody* outside of us techies has heard of XMPP. So *their* acquaintances are not on XMPP either and they would let you install that client only to chat with you.
Yeah, so? Unlike AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo! and the rest, the people behind free standards don't tend to have unlimited $$$ to force their creations down everyone's throat using every type of media available for the broadest reach, so you have to do a little bit of explaining yourself. The good thing is that it doesn't have to be pure bullshit and marketing drivel like you would see on TV and in magazines or hear on the radio, but instead the *real* facts and advantages of using the service.
Even for most of these other services, people don't typically choose them just because they're heavily advertised. They choose to use them through word of mouth and curiosity, and above everything else because that's where all the people they know are at. I know of NO ONE who uses Skype, one person who *has* a Google Talk account but doesn't use it (plus two people I "converted" a while back), and countless people who use text messaging and/or Facebook exclusively. I no longer no anyone who uses AIM, and it seems that everyone has ditched Yahoo!'s messenger service as well.
Unfortunately, it:
1) Requires a Facebook account, and I would never trust that company enough to create an account there.
2) Is not really XMPP from what I understand, just an interface for compatibility purposes.
3) Does not support Federation with all the other XMPP servers out there.
But yeah--I agree that if you've already given your information to Facebook, then their "chat" service might not be too bad. Certainly it's got users out the ass.
You can have the best-thought-out, most efficient, open and extensible gem of a protocol, but how many people are going to download a (likely clunky) client and nag their relatives, friends and coworkers into installing it too?
That's why you try to educate people on why they should use that "open" service instead of the increasingly-closed crap, offer to set it up for them (bonus: to register an XMPP account, typically no e-mail address or additional "personal" information is needed), install a good client, and just go on from there. If they like it and want to use it, great--if not, they can go back to whatever increasingly-closed service they were on to begin with. But from now on, they'll most likely only be able to find me on XMPP.
Unfortunately, the chances of people actually choosing to use it (or even wiling to try it) is relatively slim. Not because of anything inherently wrong with XMPP itself, but primarily the extreme foothold shitty text messaging and Facebook has these days. People for whatever reason these days love bending over with their pants down, paying ridiculous amounts for text messages (bragging "unlimited" this, "unlimited" that), and anything better (cheaper, not tied to one phone/system, security with TLS and OTR, etc.) is automatically shunned when the word "registration" pops up. Not to mention most people I talk to end up with a blank stare and do not care one bit when I bring up "security" and "privacy" in the conversation.
For a lot of people it really is an already-determined lost cause. Those people, I just won't "chat" with.
On the one hand, yes, in a way it is dumb to "open it up" after all this time when XMPP is there. On the other hand, with Google having lost its Federation support and soon enough to lose XMPP support altogether; with MSN Messenger being eliminated in favor of the Outlook.com site or the Skype with a totally closed protocol, and who knows what else, it seemed that XMPP was the only choice. Well, still, for now at least it is probably the best choice--let's see how IMPP takes off--but at least it's no longer the only "open" choice. The promise of Federation with XMPP servers is also good. Overall, I think the extra choice prevails in importance over everyone just jumping blindly to XMPP (simply because it's all that there is left).
I mean nothing against XMPP--I will be using it unless IMPP proves itself and offers something superior, but I appreciate the choice and the opportunity for the two to compete on a level (open) playing field for the best features. This just means there will be more choice when using multi-protocol clients like Pidgin, and will likely spawn special IMPP "native" instant messaging clients, similarly to what Psy is to XMPP. In the end, I would say this is a welcome change, and with the recent turn of events the timing really isn't too late.
That is pretty interesting, especially the first part. Where are mod points when you need them?
Well fucking said!
You still don't get the point. I like my systems and network to be nice and clean. Simple as that. I also tend to use static IP addresses for all of my machines (DHCP for others, especially those belonging to guests).
I'm not a fan of putting *anything* to waste. Yes--that includes having dozens of unnecessary IP addresses scattered all over the house. It's not about a lack of resources as much as it is a desire to have a cleaner, more easy to manage network.
what is wrong with a good old fashioned light bulb??
Apparently they're too dumb...
But I do agree with you. As long as they don't force this shit on us and it's just another option at the store, then I don't mind a little bit of extra choice. I'm not even so sure that I would want to have two dozen basically meaningless "devices" (light bulbs) wasting my router's resources in the first place... but depending on what these things allow, maybe a few of them in certain rooms wouldn't be too bad.
Well said... I pretty much agree. I couldn't pinpoint exactly *what* it was about the new Duke, but he was lacking something. He seemed like less of a badass, trying to be funny so hard that he wasn't. The Halo-style two-weapon limit and automatic health regeneration were also two of the worst things about the game, gameplay-wise. Overall... everything just seemed stale. I couldn't even appreciate the game if it came out in, say, 2006 or so--DNF almost completely lacks what made Duke3D awesome. A game's a game, and the time period it came out (graphics, audio, etc.) doesn't mean shit. The game itself is where it's at, not the technological bling crap. Its predecessor is technically inferior in every way imaginable, but it's still a hell of a lot better to this day.