What I like about Privacy Badger is that it comes from EFF and it's free software (gplv3).
On the other hand, I don't know how good their algorithm is or how it distinguishes between good and bad content providers. For example, one massive privacy invasion is Google web services, but these are legitimately used by many websites, for images or javascript or fonts.
I don't know how Privacy Badger views this type of service. They could have a hand-written rule for Google, but what about lesser known sites providing similar services?
Then there's the issue of me having more stringent requirements than most. For example, another line in my/etc/hosts is:
0.0.0.0 fonts.googleapis.com
Seeing the web developer's chosen font is not important enough to justify google getting notified every time I visit a site.
But Privacy Badger is definitely something that's "good enough" for me to be able to install it on a non-technical friend's computer. It's not perfect but I'd know I'd improved their situation.
Unhelpful people will point out that such a list isn't and can't be perfectly complete. That's true, but so what, this list blocks a ton of tracking. If I'm missing important domains, please tell me which ones. I've merged in the domains from Blaskowicz's list which weren't already in mine. (I've also heard conflicting opinions on using 127.0.0.1 vs 0.0.0.0. I don't know which is better but I do know the difference is insignificant.)
By definition every language starts out with this problem, but some (like C) provided such huge advantages that people were willing to learn it so they could use it. Is Rust as revolutionary today as C was?
I agree with your last sentence, but I think the key issue is whether the improvements of Rust are enough to justify the problems of using a language that almost no one is familiar with.
I'm no fan of PHP, but if you want to build a contributor community for a web thingy, you'll have more of a chance by using PHP than some other language which fans will explain is superior.
If GCC could be improved to provide to C and C++ the checking that Rust comes with, then that would be close to a win-win.
They mightn't be in it for the money, but fair is fair. There's a lot of money in the music industry, but way too much is going into marketing a small selection of CDs and funding a showcase lifestyle for a small number of musicians. There must be a model that creates fewer millionaires but gives more musicians a sufficient wage so they don't give up or end up broke and washed up by 40.
But lone examples, or a dozen or a hundred bands being able to afford mansions doesn't mean that an industry supports musicians.
The majority get almost nothing. Most give up early. Others struggle on a low income until their talent fades somewhat and then they give up.
If I said something was impossible, then a lone example would suffice to prove me wrong, but I'm not saying it's impossible to make money from selling CDs. I'm saying it's rare in the current system.
Musicians never got money from album sales. A sliver get allocated to them, and taken away again to repay the advance which the label gave them to make the album.
Buying concert tickets and merchandise, IIRC, is where they earn money.
That turns you from a wannabe con artist into a con artist with some success, but if journalists do the five minutes of verification that I did then your game is up.
> Good luck in life! Sounds like you have a really > pleasant relationship with a special someone!
Said the guy who spends his weekends looking for the most uninteresting paragraphs of Wikipedia so he can make edits no one will care about. And then blogs about it.:-p
Your misinformation is line 404. In this sentence:
"The nearest weather station to provide sunshine statistics is at Durham, about 14 miles to the South of Newcastle City Centre."
You changed "South" to "northwest". What's your point? Do you think 5% of readers absorbed this misinformation and a handful of them are now surely living dishevelled in their cars somewhere northwest of Newcastle City Centre trying to find the weather station?
A micro change that no one cares about in probably the least read part of a very long article, and you're pretending it's proof that Wikipedia is a hive of nonsense information.
You are not worth listening to. Your claims don't stand up to two minutes of scrutiny.
If the seller is to get the money then the bar code must be unique to that seller, so it's not the general bar code of the magazine that's getting scanned.
The phone then reports this seller's ID to some central server. Does it also report geolocation data? (Is there any non-free-software app nowadays that doesn't?) How many people get this data? Google and the magazine company (and any government agency that asks for it)?
So smartphone users are being used to report homeless people's movements around the city. Or at the very least, it's open to that type of abuse.
The last time anyone contributed to the information content of that article was a minor edit in December 2012! The edits since then are to add or remove spam or vandalism.
You've proven my point: your silly edits only last if you stick them in an article that's getting no attention.
Moreover, the repeated spam removal edits show that even an article that no one is working on still gets its spam and vandalism removed!
You hid your edits in dusty little corners of Wikipedia and you're pretending they're representative.
You're a fraud. Your "research" is debunked, it has no value. Away!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm seeing this problem too.
Accents in Tagalog are optional and rarely used, but they are there.
I've never seen them used on websites, but they're used in most or all dictionaries.
You mean "ij"? The unified ij character isn't used by anyone. Not sure if it's even recommended by any body.
But Dutch does have accents (één, vóór, ...). News headlines this morning:
"Verstekeling valt boven Londen uit vliegtuig na 11u lange vlucht, één overleeft"
"Grieken demonstreren ook vóór de euro"
It seems these systems have taken over the world in less than ten years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just print some eggs. I hear they came first.
Software Freedom Law Center's brief regarding whether the Supreme Court should take the case or not:
https://www.softwarefreedom.or...
Look but don't touch.
Is this really the source code to the binaries we're using?
hahaha, but of course it is!
You ignored my question.
Khan started, with zero market share, in 2004 and it was only in 2010, when he had lots of users, that he started getting big grants.
(This much info is from a few quick web searches.)
If they'd no market share, do you think they'd still get the same level of grants?
Of course they wouldn't.
I use both, and AdblockPlus.
What I like about Privacy Badger is that it comes from EFF and it's free software (gplv3).
On the other hand, I don't know how good their algorithm is or how it distinguishes between good and bad content providers. For example, one massive privacy invasion is Google web services, but these are legitimately used by many websites, for images or javascript or fonts.
I don't know how Privacy Badger views this type of service. They could have a hand-written rule for Google, but what about lesser known sites providing similar services?
Then there's the issue of me having more stringent requirements than most. For example, another line in my /etc/hosts is:
0.0.0.0 fonts.googleapis.com
Seeing the web developer's chosen font is not important enough to justify google getting notified every time I visit a site.
But Privacy Badger is definitely something that's "good enough" for me to be able to install it on a non-technical friend's computer. It's not perfect but I'd know I'd improved their situation.
Unhelpful people will point out that such a list isn't and can't be perfectly complete. That's true, but so what, this list blocks a ton of tracking. If I'm missing important domains, please tell me which ones. I've merged in the domains from Blaskowicz's list which weren't already in mine. (I've also heard conflicting opinions on using 127.0.0.1 vs 0.0.0.0. I don't know which is better but I do know the difference is insignificant.)
0.0.0.0 apps.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 connect.facebook.net
0.0.0.0 de-de.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 developers.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 error.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 es-es.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 facebook.com
0.0.0.0 facebook.net
0.0.0.0 fb.com
0.0.0.0 fbcdn-creative-a.akamaihd.net
0.0.0.0 fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net
0.0.0.0 fbm.mysocialpixel.com
0.0.0.0 fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net
0.0.0.0 fr-fr.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 internet.org
0.0.0.0 l.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 newsroom.fb.com
0.0.0.0 nl-nl.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 pixel.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 s-static.ak.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 scontent-ams.xx.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 static.ak.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 static.api.ak.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 threatexchange.fb.com
0.0.0.0 upload.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.connect.facebook.net
0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.facebook.net
0.0.0.0 www.fb.com
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.connect.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 1-edge-chat.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 2-edge-chat.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 3-edge-chat.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 4-edge-chat.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 5-edge-chat.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 6-edge-chat.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 7-edge-chat.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 8-edge-chat.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 9-edge-chat.facebook.com
We've made very little progress in anonymising cashless transactions (and this proposal might rely on transactions never being anonymous).
This not only reduces people's privacy but also gives government officials a way to remotely block you from making any payments. That's severe.
Why? That has nothing to do with my point.
By definition every language starts out with this problem, but some (like C) provided such huge advantages that people were willing to learn it so they could use it. Is Rust as revolutionary today as C was?
I agree with your last sentence, but I think the key issue is whether the improvements of Rust are enough to justify the problems of using a language that almost no one is familiar with.
I'm no fan of PHP, but if you want to build a contributor community for a web thingy, you'll have more of a chance by using PHP than some other language which fans will explain is superior.
If GCC could be improved to provide to C and C++ the checking that Rust comes with, then that would be close to a win-win.
They mightn't be in it for the money, but fair is fair. There's a lot of money in the music industry, but way too much is going into marketing a small selection of CDs and funding a showcase lifestyle for a small number of musicians. There must be a model that creates fewer millionaires but gives more musicians a sufficient wage so they don't give up or end up broke and washed up by 40.
But lone examples, or a dozen or a hundred bands being able to afford mansions doesn't mean that an industry supports musicians.
The majority get almost nothing. Most give up early. Others struggle on a low income until their talent fades somewhat and then they give up.
If I said something was impossible, then a lone example would suffice to prove me wrong, but I'm not saying it's impossible to make money from selling CDs. I'm saying it's rare in the current system.
The Beatles and Pink Floyd are extreme examples from the top 1% of the music industry, and neither are even active in today's music industry.
It's like arguing that the lotto is a good way to become rich because Mr. X won the lotto in 1981, and Ms. Y won it in 1994.
Musicians never got money from album sales. A sliver get allocated to them, and taken away again to repay the advance which the label gave them to make the album.
Buying concert tickets and merchandise, IIRC, is where they earn money.
This argument is very easy to understand, so it's a great starting point.
The first targets for a campaign for free software apps should be educational institutions and public services.
GNU.org has a good list of proprietary software packages with spyware:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
I tried to make a more readable version of similar data on this wiki page:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Micro...
Help appreciated.
That turns you from a wannabe con artist into a con artist with some success, but if journalists do the five minutes of verification that I did then your game is up.
> Good luck in life! Sounds like you have a really
> pleasant relationship with a special someone!
Said the guy who spends his weekends looking for the most uninteresting paragraphs of Wikipedia so he can make edits no one will care about. And then blogs about it. :-p
I'm pointing out that you're not worth listening to.
I won't go through each of your 30 silly edits, but ok, I'll look at one more.
You brag that the Newcastle upon Tyne article is "whoppingly" active. Your silly edit was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
Your misinformation is line 404. In this sentence:
"The nearest weather station to provide sunshine statistics is at Durham, about 14 miles to the South of Newcastle City Centre."
You changed "South" to "northwest". What's your point? Do you think 5% of readers absorbed this misinformation and a handful of them are now surely living dishevelled in their cars somewhere northwest of Newcastle City Centre trying to find the weather station?
A micro change that no one cares about in probably the least read part of a very long article, and you're pretending it's proof that Wikipedia is a hive of nonsense information.
You are not worth listening to. Your claims don't stand up to two minutes of scrutiny.
If the seller is to get the money then the bar code must be unique to that seller, so it's not the general bar code of the magazine that's getting scanned.
The phone then reports this seller's ID to some central server. Does it also report geolocation data? (Is there any non-free-software app nowadays that doesn't?) How many people get this data? Google and the magazine company (and any government agency that asks for it)?
So smartphone users are being used to report homeless people's movements around the city. Or at the very least, it's open to that type of abuse.
Am I wrong?
Now you're caught.
I checked the history of the page where you wrote about sacrificed Welsh Corgis: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
The last time anyone contributed to the information content of that article was a minor edit in December 2012! The edits since then are to add or remove spam or vandalism.
You've proven my point: your silly edits only last if you stick them in an article that's getting no attention.
Moreover, the repeated spam removal edits show that even an article that no one is working on still gets its spam and vandalism removed!
You hid your edits in dusty little corners of Wikipedia and you're pretending they're representative.
You're a fraud. Your "research" is debunked, it has no value. Away!