and very few people recognize a more subtle ethical dilemma. by agreeing to google's tos not only are you giving up your privacy, you are also surrendering the privacy of the people with whom you send and receive email. something almost everyone would acknowledge that they don't have the right to do without first acquiring consent.
i have not verified any of the details (which is why i'm posting a link to the article here). and while i'm skeptical given the free-energy theme of the web site on which it resides, i'm capable of imagining some of the details of the article might be true.
So my browsing preference is Firefox + cookie whitelist + NoScript. That combination is enough to fully bypass Verified by Visa. A few months back I put in an order at NewEgg where I was challenged by the Verified by Visa system (which was not white listed for cookies or scripts) upon making the white list change to NoScript, the window refreshed and amazingly I had successfully completed the Verified by Visa Challenge (by allowing scripting on the page). Order went through without a hitch. Another satisfied customer (of NewEgg)
iirc, Verified by VISA at newegg is optional. i wonder if this "trick" would work at a merchant where Verified by VISA is compulsory? did you happen to test this work-around at such a merchant's website?
how a merchant integrates the Verified by VISA system into their website may also affect whether or not the system can be bypassed.
this research was specifically directed at analyzing truecrypt's deniable file system technology--which did *not* include an analysis of the truecrypt's crypto algorithms.
the researchers went out of their way to point this out. from their research paper:
"We do not describe the details of the TrueCrypt encryption and decryption algorithms since we (largely) treat TrueCrypt as a black box."
i'm frankly surprised at the degree to which truecrypt has been accepted given the lack of an independent review.
it's real simple why comcast does this. it helps them to maintain their market share.
a majority of broadband sales probably result from advertising campaigns. comcast's business model based on overselling allows them to claim "unlimited" bandwidth in their advertising.
if they defined a cap they couldn't advertise "unlimited" and this would reduce their ability to financially gain via overselling. this would also put competitive pressure on comcast from other suppliers who sell 'value-added' broadband services (i.e. broadband not based on overselling). it would make sales for these competitors easier. because right now the notion of "unlimited" is probably the single biggest influencing factor on most purchase decisions. comcast doesn't want to lose this carrot.
a competitive isp who's business model is based on adding value needs to jump through extra hoops to explain to potential customers that comcast is lying about their unlimited offering. even after explaining, more folks than not (i'd wager) will still opt for comcast because they really want to believe they are getting unlimited bandwidth.
comcast's deception helps them to maintain their market share.
i used to subscribe to this magazine. reading it was by far my favorite way to enhance my IT knowledge--something i need to do daily in this industry.
i stopped my subscription when i decided to stop paying for dead tree media--an ecological decision.
i contacted the Sys Admin publisher and told them many many times that i was willing to pay *twice* their subscription price if they would make the magazine available digitally because i did't want a dead tree version. they told me in many different ways, no can do.
i'm not kidding when i say i contacted them many times and "climbed the ladder" speaking to various higher-ups. everytime i was met with what i would describe as a lack of vision. i was given every reason in the book as to why offering Sys Admin digitally via the internet would kill their revenue stream. unbelievable to me in the face of me telling them that i was willing to them pay double their subscription price (heck, i probably would have paid more).
imho, Sys Admin had a chance to become a (possibly THE) premier _profitable_ digital resource for IT folks. what got in their way was their lack of vision--their inability to re-imagine themselves.
R.I.P. Sys Admin
P.S. if there are any flickering embers in the Sys Admin ashes, if someone takes up the reins and makes the rag digital i'm still willing to pony up good money for a subscription (and i suspect many others would be too).
Marine researchers now believe that the Arctic Bowhead whale may live 180 years or longer making it the longest lived mammal on earth. Back in the early 1990's, biologists weren't sure whether to trust these estimates, that is, until they stumbled on an important clue. I'm Jim Metzner, and this is the Pulse of the Planet, presented by DuPont. Jeffery Bada is a Professor of Marine Chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California.
"During the annual harvest by the local Inuit hunters, the biologists that were observing this found that there were stone harpoons imbedded in some of these whales. And these stone harpoons were no longer used by the local hunters after about 1870. Stone harpoons in a whale that was killed in the 90's implies that it is over a hundred years old, and this provided independent confirmation that we indeed were onto something really interesting."
What proved equally as interesting to Jeffrey Bada and the other researchers, was the fact that the oldest whales taken during the harvest were all males.
"I don't think it necessarily implies that the males of the species live longer than the females. It has more to do with their behavior. These hundred year plus old whales were survivors of the great slaughter of whales that took place in the late nineteenth century. And males in this species of Bowheads, tend to be solitary animals, where as the females group together in these big pods of whales, and as a result, they were probably more easily hunted. It may be that the solitary males survived, whereas the females were more heavily exploited."
We'll hear more about the long-lived Bowhead whales in a future programs. Pulse of the Planet is presented by DuPont, bringing you the miracles of science for 200 years, with additional support provided by the National Science Foundation. ---
Aaron's well-written reply and the movie aside, corporations are *not* people.
my point? spend a fair amount of time pounding home that corporations are not people and that meme will grow--in spite of what the law says. spending too much time focused on what the law says (yes, spend some time there) saps the energy of change.
look at young people, quintessential change makers. they don't spend time debating the nuances of why things are the way they are. they demand change, and they often get it (much to the chagrin of many parents). embrace more of that energy.
- mile after mile of billboards as you are driving
- the yellow pages
in the first example you are essentially held captive and forced to see advertising. in the second you've made the choice to look at advertising in search of products and services.
the first example is for all intents and purposes against your will (thus violent). the second example is something you choose freely.
if the community wants advertising, my preference would be for a "yellow pages" type of advertising model.
if you are for wikipedia advertising, which example most closely resembles the type of advertising you would choose?
> There's always the problem of asphyxiating ourselves
certainly worth more study but it does seem likely that removal of oxygen along with the carbon may not be significant, especially in light of the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
if the goal is to remove 32 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per second, how many tons of carbon dioxide would that be equivalent to? and how big would the condenser need to be?
"surely it's better that MS used a tried and tested stack rather than going it alone and producing a buggy, not quite compatible version of their own?"
is anyone else tired of being bombarded with advertising for splunk's proprietary software?
splunk people, if you read this, stop bashing everyone over the head with advertising. free your software and you won't have to spend so much time trying to convince folks that it's ok to use your proprietary software.
-- >i'm trying to grok the implications of what >"GPL-compatible" means. > >in a nutshell my understanding is that anything >with a GPL-compatible license can be re-released >under the GPL. is this the understanding y'all >have?
No. The GPL does not permit you to impose additional restrictions on GPL-licensed code; and nothing in any of the common forms of the BSD license, for example, permits you to strip the BSD license (and its restrictions) from BSD-licensed code. So, in so doing, you both create legal hash of the GPL (simultaneously imposing further restrictions and claiming that you can't do so) while violating the BSD license you received the code under. --
this person makes it sound like it is *not* possible to relicense BSDL'd code as GPL'd code.
Slashdot Mirror
imho, most people do not understand the deal.
and very few people recognize a more subtle ethical dilemma. by agreeing to google's tos not only are you giving up your privacy, you are also surrendering the privacy of the people with whom you send and receive email. something almost everyone would acknowledge that they don't have the right to do without first acquiring consent.
sylpheed is better:
http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/
it uses MH for storage (similar to maildir - a requested tbird enhancement that has fallen on deaf ears for years)
here's another perspective.
i have not verified any of the details (which is why i'm posting a link to the article here). and while i'm skeptical given the free-energy theme of the web site on which it resides, i'm capable of imagining some of the details of the article might be true.
Mother of all gushers could kill Earth's oceans
http://pesn.com/2010/05/02/9501643_Mother_of_all_gushers_could_kill_Earths_oceans/
imho, the best email-only provider is http://www.tuffmail.com/
So my browsing preference is Firefox + cookie whitelist + NoScript. That combination is enough to fully bypass Verified by Visa. A few months back I put in an order at NewEgg where I was challenged by the Verified by Visa system (which was not white listed for cookies or scripts) upon making the white list change to NoScript, the window refreshed and amazingly I had successfully completed the Verified by Visa Challenge (by allowing scripting on the page). Order went through without a hitch. Another satisfied customer (of NewEgg)
iirc, Verified by VISA at newegg is optional. i wonder if this "trick" would work at a merchant where Verified by VISA is compulsory? did you happen to test this work-around at such a merchant's website?
how a merchant integrates the Verified by VISA system into their website may also affect whether or not the system can be bypassed.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/17/2043248
this research was specifically directed at analyzing truecrypt's deniable file system technology--which did *not* include an analysis of the truecrypt's crypto algorithms.
the researchers went out of their way to point this out. from their research paper:
"We do not describe the details of the TrueCrypt encryption and decryption algorithms since we (largely) treat TrueCrypt as a black box."
i'm frankly surprised at the degree to which truecrypt has been accepted given the lack of an independent review.
On Sunday August 03, @08:48AM, AmiMoJo wrote:
Truecrypt['s] . . . source . . . has been examined by experts
from where are you getting this information?
no independent cryptographer has ever publicly stated that they have performed an audit of truecrypt's source, iirc.
Obama's website is hosted by pair.com not godaddy.com.
notice all the users with low Slashdot IDs praising gmail.
afaik, the truecrypt code has never been audited for security issues by professional cryptographers. does anyone know if i'm mistaken?
if the code has never been audited doesn't it seem a bit irresponsible to recommend truecrypt?
i'd appreciate it if a few folks mod the parent up as insightful.
sylpheed is a cross-platform email client that is lighter-weight and more stable than thunderbird.
http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/
interesting. thanks for the link.
i wonder what will happen if i subscribe to the digital subscription . . .
it's real simple why comcast does this. it helps them to maintain their market share.
a majority of broadband sales probably result from advertising campaigns. comcast's business model based on overselling allows them to claim "unlimited" bandwidth in their advertising.
if they defined a cap they couldn't advertise "unlimited" and this would reduce their ability to financially gain via overselling. this would also put competitive pressure on comcast from other suppliers who sell 'value-added' broadband services (i.e. broadband not based on overselling). it would make sales for these competitors easier. because right now the notion of "unlimited" is probably the single biggest influencing factor on most purchase decisions. comcast doesn't want to lose this carrot.
a competitive isp who's business model is based on adding value needs to jump through extra hoops to explain to potential customers that comcast is lying about their unlimited offering. even after explaining, more folks than not (i'd wager) will still opt for comcast because they really want to believe they are getting unlimited bandwidth.
comcast's deception helps them to maintain their market share.
i used to subscribe to this magazine. reading it was by far my favorite way to enhance my IT knowledge--something i need to do daily in this industry.
i stopped my subscription when i decided to stop paying for dead tree media--an ecological decision.
i contacted the Sys Admin publisher and told them many many times that i was willing to pay *twice* their subscription price if they would make the magazine available digitally because i did't want a dead tree version. they told me in many different ways, no can do.
i'm not kidding when i say i contacted them many times and "climbed the ladder" speaking to various higher-ups. everytime i was met with what i would describe as a lack of vision. i was given every reason in the book as to why offering Sys Admin digitally via the internet would kill their revenue stream. unbelievable to me in the face of me telling them that i was willing to them pay double their subscription price (heck, i probably would have paid more).
imho, Sys Admin had a chance to become a (possibly THE) premier _profitable_ digital resource for IT folks. what got in their way was their lack of vision--their inability to re-imagine themselves.
R.I.P. Sys Admin
P.S.
if there are any flickering embers in the Sys Admin ashes, if someone takes up the reins and makes the rag digital i'm still willing to pony up good money for a subscription (and i suspect many others would be too).
---
Aging Whales: Evidence of Age
Marine researchers now believe that the Arctic Bowhead whale may live 180 years or longer making it the longest lived mammal on earth. Back in the early 1990's, biologists weren't sure whether to trust these estimates, that is, until they stumbled on an important clue. I'm Jim Metzner, and this is the Pulse of the Planet, presented by DuPont. Jeffery Bada is a Professor of Marine Chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California.
"During the annual harvest by the local Inuit hunters, the biologists that were observing this found that there were stone harpoons imbedded in some of these whales. And these stone harpoons were no longer used by the local hunters after about 1870. Stone harpoons in a whale that was killed in the 90's implies that it is over a hundred years old, and this provided independent confirmation that we indeed were onto something really interesting."
What proved equally as interesting to Jeffrey Bada and the other researchers, was the fact that the oldest whales taken during the harvest were all males.
"I don't think it necessarily implies that the males of the species live longer than the females. It has more to do with their behavior. These hundred year plus old whales were survivors of the great slaughter of whales that took place in the late nineteenth century. And males in this species of Bowheads, tend to be solitary animals, where as the females group together in these big pods of whales, and as a result, they were probably more easily hunted. It may be that the solitary males survived, whereas the females were more heavily exploited."
We'll hear more about the long-lived Bowhead whales in a future programs. Pulse of the Planet is presented by DuPont, bringing you the miracles of science for 200 years, with additional support provided by the National Science Foundation.
---
[ above from: http://pulseplanet.com/archive/Feb02/2602.html ]
Aaron's well-written reply and the movie aside, corporations are *not* people.
my point? spend a fair amount of time pounding home that corporations are not people and that meme will grow--in spite of what the law says. spending too much time focused on what the law says (yes, spend some time there) saps the energy of change.
look at young people, quintessential change makers. they don't spend time debating the nuances of why things are the way they are. they demand change, and they often get it (much to the chagrin of many parents). embrace more of that energy.
corporations are not people!
it appears that there has never been a third-party review of truecrypt's source:
truecrypt code analysis
http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?p=23552
ok, not all of the time, but much of the time.
two examples:
- mile after mile of billboards as you are driving
- the yellow pages
in the first example you are essentially held captive and forced to see advertising.
in the second you've made the choice to look at advertising in search of products and services.
the first example is for all intents and purposes against your will (thus violent).
the second example is something you choose freely.
if the community wants advertising, my preference would be for a "yellow pages" type of advertising model.
if you are for wikipedia advertising, which example most closely resembles the type of advertising you would choose?
> There's always the problem of asphyxiating ourselves
certainly worth more study but it does seem likely that removal of oxygen along with the carbon may not be significant, especially in light of the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide
[from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere]
if the goal is to remove 32 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per second, how many tons of carbon dioxide would that be equivalent to? and how big would the condenser need to be?
"surely it's better that MS used a tried and tested stack rather than going it alone and producing a buggy, not quite compatible version of their own?"
not necessarily.
is anyone else tired of being bombarded with advertising for splunk's proprietary software?
splunk people, if you read this, stop bashing everyone over the head with advertising. free your software and you won't have to spend so much time trying to convince folks that it's ok to use your proprietary software.
unfortunately hula doesn't appear to support maildir. only mbox.
the hula project also has some BS on their website about maildir being slower than mbox. this myth was disproven many moons ago:
mbox versus maildir
http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/
if you want to meet some *real* Willy Wonkas goto:
e ction=opensource_movies&collectionid=Radical_Choco late_unedited
Grenada Chocolate http://grenadachocolate.com/
also, they have an amateurish but sweet promo video at:
http://tinyurl.com/6jmgf/
actual url: http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?coll
oh, and the chocolate is very dark and rich, mmm . . .
hmmm . . ., read this:
--
>i'm trying to grok the implications of what
>"GPL-compatible" means.
>
>in a nutshell my understanding is that anything
>with a GPL-compatible license can be re-released
>under the GPL. is this the understanding y'all
>have?
No. The GPL does not permit you to impose additional restrictions on GPL-licensed code; and nothing in any of the common forms of the BSD license, for example, permits you to strip the BSD license (and its restrictions) from BSD-licensed code. So, in so doing, you both create legal hash of the GPL (simultaneously imposing further restrictions and claiming that you can't do so) while violating the BSD license you received the code under.
--
this person makes it sound like it is *not* possible to relicense BSDL'd code as GPL'd code.