The Verge: US media outlet.
The Guardian: UK media outlet.
Focus Ecuador: nobody ever heard of them before until now, but The Guardian felt it necessary that the story be co-written by people associated with it.
That this may be disinformation is at the very least a strong possibility.
When it comes to the US, the daily standard operations of those companies are already integrated into aggressive global cyberattack infrastructure of the US state security organs.
Russian government trying to protect their citizens' own Internet-of-Things devices from attack by US and UK intelligence services, which they must not even think about trying to do.
If by being an ardent opponent of the Pentagon and its' evil, then you'll have to count me a Russian Troll, as well. I stand firmly against the Pentagon, the US State Dept., the CIA, the US Congress, and all those organs of evil along with their foul counterparts in the evil UK.
My concern is that these deletions are happening not out of a genuine concern for user privacy on the Internet, but rather as yet another outlet for the culture of social political, and cultural outrage upon which many (if not most or all) are continuing to draw sustenance. That would not be constructive.
The main takeaway from this story is that a whole lot of people are interested in no longer using Facebook, but only because of a (you guessed it) social media campaign on another platform started by a colossal jackass who created another horrible social media platform who made a gobsmacking pile of money selling it to (you guessed it) Facebook. I honestly can't tell who's more contemptible: Facebook, or the atrocious monsters who are its' users.
The award is 17,000 GBP. It's completely unnecessary to describe this amount in terms of USD. Readers who live in a country which uses that currency must certainly be able to perform the conversion on their own.
But as Russia has cracked down on internet freedomsæ
Yet another red herring from âoeanonymousâ/PsyOps. There are no such things as Internet âoefreedomsâ anywhere that Russia could have âoecracked downâ on.
This post is a red herring, pretending to ask about energy ideas while his primary aim is to get front-page Slashdot play for his political viewpoint.
Meanwhile, in reality, Russia has been trying to diversify supply routes to Europe (see Nord Stream and South Stream) to reduce dependence on unreliable transit countries, those countries being responsible for interruption in the past (and most likely in the future, as well).
Meanwhile, in reality, the political leadership in most Central and Eastern (not to mention Western) European countries (with very few exceptions) is almost exclusively in bed with (though perhaps "tied up in bed by" is a more accurate analogy) the United States and the UK vis-a-vis their NATO military empire, primarily for banking reasons.
Meanwhile, in reality, Central European countries have done great work diversifying their energy supply to avoid dependence on one source of energy, which is great.
What really needs to be done with certs? Do they really need to be revoked and reissued? Must the re-issued cert have a new issue date?
At least one service provider I work with has claimed they somehow reissued their certificate, but it has the same, old issue date and a different signature. Is this enough?
The problem with all of these kinds of things is that they're aiming to replace fundamental parts and protocols of the Internet and the Web, but those parts and protocols were not originally developed with a profit motive. No genuine replacement for things like telnet, SMTP, HTTP, IMAP, IRC, FTP, etc. will ever come out of an organization oriented purely towards a profit motive (which all “start-ups” are, just like mature business organizations).
For all their huge success, even organizations like Google and Facebook have not been able to do this (no, not even SPDY), so why should a "start-up" be able to?
Who, on Earth, would want them to?
This is a tech-oriented site. Do you have any idea how many of us work in the XML world for a living? If you're going to go for cheap parlor tricks like HTML 5, at least go with the XHTML variety.
You can have my well-formedness and validity when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone call Neal Stephenson.
The Verge: US media outlet. The Guardian: UK media outlet. Focus Ecuador: nobody ever heard of them before until now, but The Guardian felt it necessary that the story be co-written by people associated with it. That this may be disinformation is at the very least a strong possibility.
When it comes to the US, the daily standard operations of those companies are already integrated into aggressive global cyberattack infrastructure of the US state security organs.
Russian government trying to protect their citizens' own Internet-of-Things devices from attack by US and UK intelligence services, which they must not even think about trying to do.
If by being an ardent opponent of the Pentagon and its' evil, then you'll have to count me a Russian Troll, as well. I stand firmly against the Pentagon, the US State Dept., the CIA, the US Congress, and all those organs of evil along with their foul counterparts in the evil UK.
My concern is that these deletions are happening not out of a genuine concern for user privacy on the Internet, but rather as yet another outlet for the culture of social political, and cultural outrage upon which many (if not most or all) are continuing to draw sustenance. That would not be constructive.
Wow, the NATO trolls are really out in force commenting on this story.
The main takeaway from this story is that a whole lot of people are interested in no longer using Facebook, but only because of a (you guessed it) social media campaign on another platform started by a colossal jackass who created another horrible social media platform who made a gobsmacking pile of money selling it to (you guessed it) Facebook. I honestly can't tell who's more contemptible: Facebook, or the atrocious monsters who are its' users.
Anonymous "US officials" and the Washington Post. Now there's a recipe for credibilityNOT.
...no. No, they are not.
Stop posting as an anonymous coward if you want your viewpoint to be taken seriously. As far as anyone's concerned, you're a paid shill.
The award is 17,000 GBP. It's completely unnecessary to describe this amount in terms of USD. Readers who live in a country which uses that currency must certainly be able to perform the conversion on their own.
It...it's because Steve misses us all. Right?
This is something broadly analogous to the Semantic Web on AI times 1,000, and the world decided it didn't want the Semantic Web, it wanted iPhones.
I might have watched it did it not feature actor-activist Leonardo DiCaprio.
Is there any person reading this who genuinely believes the United States doesn't engage in exactly the same behavior, if not worse?
Why in the world are we still using this completely unnecessary software?
You have no goal for Russia. Your country is pure evil and must be removed from the Earth.
Totally wrong for Cuba. The United States is pure evil and can only do that poor country harm.
Yet another red herring from âoeanonymousâ/PsyOps. There are no such things as Internet âoefreedomsâ anywhere that Russia could have âoecracked downâ on.
This post is a red herring, pretending to ask about energy ideas while his primary aim is to get front-page Slashdot play for his political viewpoint.
Meanwhile, in reality, Russia has been trying to diversify supply routes to Europe (see Nord Stream and South Stream) to reduce dependence on unreliable transit countries, those countries being responsible for interruption in the past (and most likely in the future, as well).
Meanwhile, in reality, the political leadership in most Central and Eastern (not to mention Western) European countries (with very few exceptions) is almost exclusively in bed with (though perhaps "tied up in bed by" is a more accurate analogy) the United States and the UK vis-a-vis their NATO military empire, primarily for banking reasons.
Meanwhile, in reality, Central European countries have done great work diversifying their energy supply to avoid dependence on one source of energy, which is great.
Please stop mentioning it.
What really needs to be done with certs? Do they really need to be revoked and reissued? Must the re-issued cert have a new issue date? At least one service provider I work with has claimed they somehow reissued their certificate, but it has the same, old issue date and a different signature. Is this enough?
The problem with all of these kinds of things is that they're aiming to replace fundamental parts and protocols of the Internet and the Web, but those parts and protocols were not originally developed with a profit motive. No genuine replacement for things like telnet, SMTP, HTTP, IMAP, IRC, FTP, etc. will ever come out of an organization oriented purely towards a profit motive (which all “start-ups” are, just like mature business organizations). For all their huge success, even organizations like Google and Facebook have not been able to do this (no, not even SPDY), so why should a "start-up" be able to? Who, on Earth, would want them to?
This is a tech-oriented site. Do you have any idea how many of us work in the XML world for a living? If you're going to go for cheap parlor tricks like HTML 5, at least go with the XHTML variety. You can have my well-formedness and validity when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.