Yeah, at least that shreds light on the true meaning of holistic!
Now, let me try and explain these comments from a non-chauvinist point of view. Etymologically, the term whore is related to desire, wish, aspiration —our noblest qualities. Nowadays it is used to indicate females who vilify those qualities by turning them into a source of profit. By extension, human males use the term to refer to just any woman, thereby unwittingly recovering the original, etymological meaning. That attitude is considered bad, for obvious reasons. However, we must admit that it emphasizes how we routinely ruin our best resources in an attempt to make more money. Like most occurrences of indecent language, it reminds us of what we really are, our success in building a logic that obscures our true essence notwithstanding.
Wikimedia is not using its resources to get rich. It complies with the spirit (and the letter) of free software. So, why should we use AI to help us editing our knowledge? Possibly, our rational knowledge is artificial already, in a sense. We wouldn't need to take recourse to circumlocutions meant to exclude rationality from our emotive talking otherwise. Free sex was already attempted in the 60s. I hope free software is blessed by a better fate.
Aagh! That pairs well with an above post, namely "Except no one but old farts and programmers notice or modify urls".
<sarcasm>I let all my communication be scanned by Google, and never bother looking at technical details (after all, if there's clearly written "Paypal" in the body of the page, then it must be it.) In short, whatever happens to me is not my business!</sarcasm>
I wonder how much of that feeling pervaded Mozilla to let them come up with such a disastrous strategy. There was a time when they cared about privacy issues and autonomous, self-sufficient computing. I, and possibly others as well, believed that was their mission, their attitude; not the outcome of their marketing research. Quite astonishingly, when a majority of email users gave up fighting spam and opted to rely on content-based (as opposed to policy-based) ham/spam discernment —which requires some share of the global email flow— Mozilla followed and toed the line.
There must be some practical biomass~energy equivalence, something more workable than Einsteins's E=mc2, whereby a starship loaded with tons of people, other animals and plants can sustain itself for several generations, and also produce some acceleration. I envisage ships are made of Earth-built components, each loaded with a few thousands pioneers, equipment and livestock, so that it can be raised in orbit by some kind of sling lift, and assembled there. It may take several months to complete a ship, but many can be built in parallel. Once completed, the ship is relatively autonomous, so long as it gets sunlight.
Cost / safety trade-off is an important point in ship design. Travelers will probably be happy if their safety on board is just better than on Earth. Therefore, the more we take on anti-social, terrorist behavior, the more the climate grows hostile, the less the price of a starship ticket. Even people who are not going to leave may be interested in funding the project, as survival chances may make ethnic cleansing appear somewhat ethic:-/
Think of 100 ships leaving every day... Lemmings adrift in space.
A tighter car analogy would have considered a place where people can drive without license, car vendors increasingly hide technical details such as control lights and rev counters, and it is generally considered unfeasible for drivers to be their own security managers.
The fact than one finds more advertising than explanations already betrays the true nature of that feature. In short, you post a link to an ephemeral resource; but you may further encumber that with DRM-like stuff. More here and here.
In fact, all email is self-destructing, eventually. Just not under the sender's control.
Was it by chance that the advent of a new level of scientific and technological achievements more or less coincided with the fall of aristocracy? The currently leading nation, the US, came out of a triumphant revolution. French revolution failed, but they have no king now. Dickensian England has gone for good, although the Queen still seems to be a useful institution. China, USSR, etc.
Rules about the so-called intellectual property have become a limiting factor. They reward predatory behavior, which hampers both consumption and progression (think free software, or 5,000% drug price hikes, for example). Those tycoons are todays aristocrats, which we need to skim.
I wish I could say the say for the apparent bugfest that is the DKIM validation plug-in for Thunderbird. Again, Mozilla, where is the security focus in Thunderbird? Why do I need to install a buggy plug-in to get DKIM validation?
DKIM was designed to be verified on the receiving servers. Users' mail clients were expected to visibly mark verification results. I guess one reason they don't is because few senders add DKIM-Signatures, so much so that that add-on rolls its own DKIM verification crypto. Another reason is that DKIM authentication by itself can be misleading. DMARC adjustments still cannot address a faked domain, either look-alike or display phrase. And end users don't seem to care much.
The answer to your question ought to be "because email authentication is somewhat experimental". But then, yes, Mozilla's participation to such experiment would probably have helped. They seem to get more easily involved in other kinds of experiments, perhaps those having direct marketing relevance.
By 285 votes to 281, MEPs decided to call on EU member states to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender".
Can you really imagine smart phones developing if cell carriers had been under any net neutrality-like rules? What rule would apply to streaming video? What rule would apply to SMS texts? Since none of those existed, they're be no rule to allow them to be used.
That's because rulers cannot keep pace with innovators. Indeed, last year's leaked document naively noticed "a simplified principle-based approach, in order not to inhibit innovation and to avoid technological developments making the regulation obsolete". A rather self-discrediting stance, which just add[s] confusion for freedom of communication and online innovation, according to European Digital RIghts.
The OP wrote "this server was configured perfectly: not on any blacklists, reverse DNS set up, SPF, DKIM and DMARC policies in place, etcetera." Perhaps he deleted SPF and DKIM records after he gave up? However, the domain is registered by Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0141536996, which I wouldn't deem a good start for a mail domain. The IP belongs to LINODE, a German Linux hosting place, and seems to be static. Only one black list, rbl.rbldns.ru, has it, which shouldn't be a major problem, but may suggest that some email problems did happen. He didn't subscribe to DNSWL.ORG either.
All that said, that conclusion is correct, IMHO. Microsoft in particular files all mail to the spam folder unless the sender is too big to block (TBTB). Even if I subscribed to their feedback loop, mail from an address they never saw, such as yyyy-mm-dd@my.example.com, is considered spam, no matter how many times the recipient whitelisted messages from the same domain.
"Our organisations's strategic goal is to impact a corporate paradigm shift by standardising the mission critical infrastructures and methodologies to drive down operating spend through supply based logistical consolidation and leveraging group in-year cost savings as well as exploiting best-in-class technologies and next generation behavioural practices to maximise robust, scalable and agile services with excellent customer experience in the global market place through the implementation of disruptive innovation."
A key difference between our (US and EU alike) governors and Arab caliphs is that the former are not going to go over the top to preserve their personal power. Consider Al Gore after Florida vote, for example. Had Assad, Gaddafi, or Mubarak accepted to step down peacefully, their people wouldn't have had to suffer that much.
While we feature democratic governments, we miss democracy in workplaces. That way, Megacorp can corrupt US and EU governors alike, and do what the hell they like. Sentences like this are more of a palliative than a cure, yet better than nothing.
In France we use the long scale but the term "billion" is almost never used. The short scale billion is called milliard and for the short scale trillions, we simply use thousands of milliards.
Ditto for Italian. Long scale terms seem to imply a billiard is 10^15. Carambola!
Please try and strike the line "3) PROFIT". Software is already so complicate that it is a headache to make it work and keep it updated. If we need to make it profitable, we're hardly going to make it. (Oh, well, profitable and working but never updated, as well as profitable and updated but not working are possible, uninteresting variations.)
In your opinion, how can a government strike a fair balance between privacy and snooping powers?
My take: Let g-men snoop as far as they can, but keep them obliged to inform snoopees about their findings, including intrusion technical details and clues on how to fix their system in order to avoid further break-ins. A nationwide penetration test system.
But then how would StartsWithABang put food on the table? His blog clearly can't survive with every single post being reblogged on slashdot.
Why not? It is enough to keep each post below the pace that energy decreases by.
I'm not clear whether unnecessary thoughts consume the same amount of energy as necessary ones. As new as Dyson's statements are, I'm still missing a good textbook modeling how Sun's radiation created intelligence on Earth, assuming the Solar system is fairly closed —no, wait, maybe this?
The result is that maybe on paper unemployment is lower, but several million people spend their days in low-pay (I can't even say "minimum wage", because we freaking don't even have that!), temporary jobs.
What I find disturbing, and paradoxical, is that this kind of affair results from managing an OS distribution. [S]hareholders didn't want to put up more money to save Mandriva, the report says. Obviously, labor laws provide no special grants. Would it have been different if Mandriva had been non-profit? Do people care what's the legal standing of the distros they use?
Free software movement should provide a business model which overcomes such relics inherited from the industrial revolution, just like it overcomes copyright laws...
Note, I am not passing a judgment on whether the state monopoly on force is a good thing, only that it is generally accepted.
Guns and software are both subject to bugs, operating errors, and bad or wrong usage. However, software by itself can never kill. Thus, the argument of lowering casualties by restricting weapon traffic does not apply to software. All the arguments that inspired the second amendment, instead, do apply. The right to bear software —any software— deserves to be recognized as an auxiliary to the long-established natural right of thinking and watching, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.
[...] as long as they tried and made it a priority.
That's the key point!
While it is commonly agreed, nowadays, that computing is as revolutionary as the invention of writing, global alphabetization is not being addressed.
Jacob Kaplan-Moss seems to derive the U-shape myth from the assumption that people don't even try to understand programming unless they aim for top notch.
Perhaps, that's the real myth he meant to address. Look at this snippet.
I believe some patent rights are necessary to promote innovation [...]
IME, patents rather hinder than promote innovation, especially on software methods. The way they are used is to protect big players against one another's legal challenges. As a side effect, small players are quite locked out. But then, IANAL; can someone give an example of a software patent that actually promoted innovation?
The struggle now is how to keep people from destroying things.
When serious work is involved, there is no hooliganism. "Explorative development" may be a better term than "destruction", not to negate that some products seem to go astray, but to ease asking why.
Market-driven companies have a clear answer —the more it sells, the better a product is. Alternative developments are sometimes subject to hairy evaluations, bringing about considerations on how well a product implements RFCs, its tunability and safety, its compliance with accepted models, and other issues that proprietary marketers don't care much about. I tend to consider such criticism good, but I must admit that while it can be constructive from a developer point of view, it doesn't help sales.
Let me also recall that the Free Software model is not overly clear on how programmers are going to get paid. Could crowd-funding reintroduce market-drivenness? Would that be good?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, at least that shreds light on the true meaning of holistic!
Now, let me try and explain these comments from a non-chauvinist point of view. Etymologically, the term whore is related to desire, wish, aspiration —our noblest qualities. Nowadays it is used to indicate females who vilify those qualities by turning them into a source of profit. By extension, human males use the term to refer to just any woman, thereby unwittingly recovering the original, etymological meaning. That attitude is considered bad, for obvious reasons. However, we must admit that it emphasizes how we routinely ruin our best resources in an attempt to make more money. Like most occurrences of indecent language, it reminds us of what we really are, our success in building a logic that obscures our true essence notwithstanding.
Wikimedia is not using its resources to get rich. It complies with the spirit (and the letter) of free software. So, why should we use AI to help us editing our knowledge? Possibly, our rational knowledge is artificial already, in a sense. We wouldn't need to take recourse to circumlocutions meant to exclude rationality from our emotive talking otherwise. Free sex was already attempted in the 60s. I hope free software is blessed by a better fate.
Aagh! That pairs well with an above post, namely "Except no one but old farts and programmers notice or modify urls".
<sarcasm>I let all my communication be scanned by Google, and never bother looking at technical details (after all, if there's clearly written "Paypal" in the body of the page, then it must be it.) In short, whatever happens to me is not my business!</sarcasm>
I wonder how much of that feeling pervaded Mozilla to let them come up with such a disastrous strategy. There was a time when they cared about privacy issues and autonomous, self-sufficient computing. I, and possibly others as well, believed that was their mission, their attitude; not the outcome of their marketing research. Quite astonishingly, when a majority of email users gave up fighting spam and opted to rely on content-based (as opposed to policy-based) ham/spam discernment —which requires some share of the global email flow— Mozilla followed and toed the line.
What more do you want?
Hardware neutrality.
There must be some practical biomass~energy equivalence, something more workable than Einsteins's E=mc2, whereby a starship loaded with tons of people, other animals and plants can sustain itself for several generations, and also produce some acceleration. I envisage ships are made of Earth-built components, each loaded with a few thousands pioneers, equipment and livestock, so that it can be raised in orbit by some kind of sling lift, and assembled there. It may take several months to complete a ship, but many can be built in parallel. Once completed, the ship is relatively autonomous, so long as it gets sunlight.
Cost / safety trade-off is an important point in ship design. Travelers will probably be happy if their safety on board is just better than on Earth. Therefore, the more we take on anti-social, terrorist behavior, the more the climate grows hostile, the less the price of a starship ticket. Even people who are not going to leave may be interested in funding the project, as survival chances may make ethnic cleansing appear somewhat ethic :-/
Think of 100 ships leaving every day... Lemmings adrift in space.
A tighter car analogy would have considered a place where people can drive without license, car vendors increasingly hide technical details such as control lights and rev counters, and it is generally considered unfeasible for drivers to be their own security managers.
The fact than one finds more advertising than explanations already betrays the true nature of that feature. In short, you post a link to an ephemeral resource; but you may further encumber that with DRM-like stuff. More here and here.
In fact, all email is self-destructing, eventually. Just not under the sender's control.
Was it by chance that the advent of a new level of scientific and technological achievements more or less coincided with the fall of aristocracy? The currently leading nation, the US, came out of a triumphant revolution. French revolution failed, but they have no king now. Dickensian England has gone for good, although the Queen still seems to be a useful institution. China, USSR, etc.
Rules about the so-called intellectual property have become a limiting factor. They reward predatory behavior, which hampers both consumption and progression (think free software, or 5,000% drug price hikes, for example). Those tycoons are todays aristocrats, which we need to skim.
I wish I could say the say for the apparent bugfest that is the DKIM validation plug-in for Thunderbird. Again, Mozilla, where is the security focus in Thunderbird? Why do I need to install a buggy plug-in to get DKIM validation?
DKIM was designed to be verified on the receiving servers. Users' mail clients were expected to visibly mark verification results. I guess one reason they don't is because few senders add DKIM-Signatures, so much so that that add-on rolls its own DKIM verification crypto. Another reason is that DKIM authentication by itself can be misleading. DMARC adjustments still cannot address a faked domain, either look-alike or display phrase. And end users don't seem to care much.
The answer to your question ought to be "because email authentication is somewhat experimental". But then, yes, Mozilla's participation to such experiment would probably have helped. They seem to get more easily involved in other kinds of experiments, perhaps those having direct marketing relevance.
MEPs seem to be almost 50-50. By comparison:
Does that mean. if you're a foreigner, you cannot bring your phone or laptop with you whenever you travel to UK?
That's because rulers cannot keep pace with innovators. Indeed, last year's leaked document naively noticed "a simplified principle-based approach, in order not to inhibit innovation and to avoid technological developments making the regulation obsolete". A rather self-discrediting stance, which just add[s] confusion for freedom of communication and online innovation, according to European Digital RIghts.
The OP wrote "this server was configured perfectly: not on any blacklists, reverse DNS set up, SPF, DKIM and DMARC policies in place, etcetera." Perhaps he deleted SPF and DKIM records after he gave up? However, the domain is registered by Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0141536996, which I wouldn't deem a good start for a mail domain. The IP belongs to LINODE, a German Linux hosting place, and seems to be static. Only one black list, rbl.rbldns.ru, has it, which shouldn't be a major problem, but may suggest that some email problems did happen. He didn't subscribe to DNSWL.ORG either.
All that said, that conclusion is correct, IMHO. Microsoft in particular files all mail to the spam folder unless the sender is too big to block (TBTB). Even if I subscribed to their feedback loop, mail from an address they never saw, such as yyyy-mm-dd@my.example.com, is considered spam, no matter how many times the recipient whitelisted messages from the same domain.
"Our organisations's strategic goal is to impact a corporate paradigm shift by standardising the mission critical infrastructures and methodologies to drive down operating spend through supply based logistical consolidation and leveraging group in-year cost savings as well as exploiting best-in-class technologies and next generation behavioural practices to maximise robust, scalable and agile services with excellent customer experience in the global market place through the implementation of disruptive innovation."
How about "Weird Al" Yankovic - Mission Statement?
A key difference between our (US and EU alike) governors and Arab caliphs is that the former are not going to go over the top to preserve their personal power. Consider Al Gore after Florida vote, for example. Had Assad, Gaddafi, or Mubarak accepted to step down peacefully, their people wouldn't have had to suffer that much.
While we feature democratic governments, we miss democracy in workplaces. That way, Megacorp can corrupt US and EU governors alike, and do what the hell they like. Sentences like this are more of a palliative than a cure, yet better than nothing.
In France we use the long scale but the term "billion" is almost never used. The short scale billion is called milliard and for the short scale trillions, we simply use thousands of milliards.
Ditto for Italian. Long scale terms seem to imply a billiard is 10^15. Carambola!
Please try and strike the line "3) PROFIT". Software is already so complicate that it is a headache to make it work and keep it updated. If we need to make it profitable, we're hardly going to make it. (Oh, well, profitable and working but never updated, as well as profitable and updated but not working are possible, uninteresting variations.)
In your opinion, how can a government strike a fair balance between privacy and snooping powers?
My take: Let g-men snoop as far as they can, but keep them obliged to inform snoopees about their findings, including intrusion technical details and clues on how to fix their system in order to avoid further break-ins. A nationwide penetration test system.
But then how would StartsWithABang put food on the table? His blog clearly can't survive with every single post being reblogged on slashdot.
Why not? It is enough to keep each post below the pace that energy decreases by.
I'm not clear whether unnecessary thoughts consume the same amount of energy as necessary ones. As new as Dyson's statements are, I'm still missing a good textbook modeling how Sun's radiation created intelligence on Earth, assuming the Solar system is fairly closed —no, wait, maybe this?
The result is that maybe on paper unemployment is lower, but several million people spend their days in low-pay (I can't even say "minimum wage", because we freaking don't even have that!), temporary jobs.
What I find disturbing, and paradoxical, is that this kind of affair results from managing an OS distribution. [S]hareholders didn't want to put up more money to save Mandriva, the report says. Obviously, labor laws provide no special grants. Would it have been different if Mandriva had been non-profit? Do people care what's the legal standing of the distros they use?
Free software movement should provide a business model which overcomes such relics inherited from the industrial revolution, just like it overcomes copyright laws...
Can anyone confirm NSA / GCHQ and Chinese intelligence's ability to monitor Tor user's traffic, from entry to exit?
Are there any articles online which can substantiate that claim??
See e. g. How the NSA Attacks Tor/Firefox Users With QUANTUM and FOXACID. That's NSA monitoring, based on Snowden disclosures. More references in the Astoria article.
Note, I am not passing a judgment on whether the state monopoly on force is a good thing, only that it is generally accepted.
Guns and software are both subject to bugs, operating errors, and bad or wrong usage. However, software by itself can never kill. Thus, the argument of lowering casualties by restricting weapon traffic does not apply to software. All the arguments that inspired the second amendment, instead, do apply. The right to bear software —any software— deserves to be recognized as an auxiliary to the long-established natural right of thinking and watching, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.
[...] as long as they tried and made it a priority.
That's the key point!
While it is commonly agreed, nowadays, that computing is as revolutionary as the invention of writing, global alphabetization is not being addressed. Jacob Kaplan-Moss seems to derive the U-shape myth from the assumption that people don't even try to understand programming unless they aim for top notch. Perhaps, that's the real myth he meant to address. Look at this snippet.
How is Tilda supposed to determine which domains are safe to whitelist?
Whitelist sites whose mission would justify spying, in case they do
.
I believe some patent rights are necessary to promote innovation [...]
IME, patents rather hinder than promote innovation, especially on software methods. The way they are used is to protect big players against one another's legal challenges. As a side effect, small players are quite locked out. But then, IANAL; can someone give an example of a software patent that actually promoted innovation?
The struggle now is how to keep people from destroying things.
When serious work is involved, there is no hooliganism. "Explorative development" may be a better term than "destruction", not to negate that some products seem to go astray, but to ease asking why.
Market-driven companies have a clear answer —the more it sells, the better a product is. Alternative developments are sometimes subject to hairy evaluations, bringing about considerations on how well a product implements RFCs, its tunability and safety, its compliance with accepted models, and other issues that proprietary marketers don't care much about. I tend to consider such criticism good, but I must admit that while it can be constructive from a developer point of view, it doesn't help sales.
Let me also recall that the Free Software model is not overly clear on how programmers are going to get paid. Could crowd-funding reintroduce market-drivenness? Would that be good?