Ever since I started using Request Policy (a Firefox extension) I've noticed that severan sites use request to another domain that looks related but end in cdn, example. www.penny-arcade.com makes requests to pa-cdn.com, and there are many other examples of such.
To me it sucks because if too many sites start requiring google-cdn.com I might as well stop using Request Policy, and no I don't use google.com for my searches.
Why is G+ better than Facebook? Circles. Why would you want circles? Because there stuff you want to share with some of your friends but not others. By implementing circles they admit to this.
So what about public statements? I make software reviews, (and restaurant reviews and movie reviews). I make comments on slashdot, and the minecraft forums, and I promote the games I like on twitter. I make all sort of public statements that I don't necessarily want linked together.
"But you can't be public AND private at the same time!" Sure I can, I just make a new name. That's what me and almost everybody on the Internet does.
So if you want to use G+ in a public way and still keep your "public circles" separated, you will create different profiles. A lot of people will. But thanks to the "real name"[1] policy, if I want to keep "requiem18th"'s circle from my family or work profile, the only choice I have is to create a profile named "John Smith" and add requiem18th as the main alias.
Why not skip the last part? In fact everybody should do it like this until G+ drops it's "real name" policy.
[1] By some abstract definition of "real name" I'm not aware of. PS: Facebook, regardless of its real name policy, has a shit-load of nicknamed profiles, I'm sure they wouldn't see the end of it if they got anal with that policy now as they did at first.
This. Twitter goes along better with the way people manage their identity on the web. Pseudonymously.
The way Google is handling Google+ makes it clear Google wants you to have only one account to be THE account "to bind them all". Not even Facebook does that although it's probably because it tries to and does a lousy job.
For fuck's sake I think I've read about this supposed "early adopter bonus" two dozen times already so let me say it loud and clear:
EARLY ADOPTERS ARE NOT AT SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE.
I want people to understand that mining bitcoins was not easier at the beginning than it is now. In fact due to technological advances, bitcoin mining is easier nowadays.
BTC are basically worth a measure of computer cycles. If you invest the same amount of computer cycles you get the same amount of BTC. More actually thanks to revised algorithms.
An early adopter can be beaten by a late adopter if the late adopter invests more resources into the mesh than the early adopter. An early adopter using old hardware in his basement only during the night when the power bills are cheaper can be beaten by a late adopter using modern GPUs running fulltime in a week. In two weeks you will be twice as rich, in BTC, than him.
When you realise that mining for BTC costs real money it means that early adopters aren't really at an advantage. They have more BTC but less UDS, which places limits on them.
Now early adopters have been profiting from block checking, but that is no different than profiting from services in any other industry. Also I admit that early BTC buyers (not minners, buyers) do have early adopter advantages right now, since BTC are worth more today than early, but if the value of BTC drops so does their investment, they aren't at much of an advantage.
And of course, even that advantage is only relative to their total investment.
I'm sure someone with a more economics bent than me can come up other early adopter advantages I haven't considered, but in my technical opinion this is probably balanced with the late adopter advantages due to technological progress.
I represent the State of George Lucas and I ask you to case and desist from repeating that quote as well as case and desist from thinking that patented core belief.
How are copyright laws just? Why can I plagiarise from the Grim Brothers or William Shakespeare but I can't release a dubbed parody of Star Wars? Or post night driving videos of Montreal to the music of Richard Clayderman or fucking sing Happy Birthday on TV?
Which of these works of art are cultural heritage and which private property?
The law is: "the ones which someone is paying the government for protection are private, the ones which aren't are public domain".
So I refuse to discuss copyrights in terms how just or ethical they are, or how unethical is infringement.
Piracy, like abusive uses of copyright and the intrusions, are a socio-economic problem. One can discuss the best ways to reward artist or the problems of lack of funding for art projects.
But one can't talk about copyright and fairness unless it is to repel it altogether or to extend it to the stone age and I can only hope you are not talking about the later.
How are copyright laws just? Why can I plagiarise from the Grim Brothers or William Shakespeare but I can't release a dubbed parody of Star Wars? Or post night driving videos of Montreal to the music of Richard Clayderman or fucking sing Happy Birthday on TV?
Which of these works of art are cultural heritage and which private property?
The law is: "the ones which someone is paying the government for protection are private, the ones which aren't are public domain".
So I refuse to discuss copyrights in terms how just or ethical they are, or how unethical is infringement.
Piracy, like abusive uses of copyright and the intrusions, are a socio-economic problem. One can discuss the best ways to reward artist or the problems of lack of funding for art projects.
But one can't talk about copyright and fairness unless it is to repel it altogether or to extend it to the stone age and I can only hope you are not talking about the later..
I've come to realise this was a huge blunder from the beginning of the web.
Remember how we took so long to make a standard for moving fonts over the web? We could have done so much better if we only had invented a way for a page to contain the required fonts, and images, and scripts.
Loading a web page basically means code injection. Even without javascript, every "src=" in a web page is code executed in your host, as commanded by an untrusted source.
But alas, we were too concerned with net load. We had to, the net was very slow back then. However, as long as the same origin policy is honoured the risk of loading external resources is --I suppose-- null. And assuming your browser is properly sandboxed, so is running scripts.
In my opinion, and I might be wrong, what's wrong with Javascript as long as all connections are done to the same host? RequestPolicy is, in my opinion, a much important game changer than NoScript.
Problem is, most people don't see it this way. Most people don't know what anonymous or lulzsec are, most people don't know they are being hacked by them and don't know why. Most people don't know NotW hacked a dead girl's phone and copied her voice mail and delete4d it effectively stealing it.
All the know, if at all, is that scary stuff is happening on the Internet and someone [not them] must do something. And that someone is Mr Government., Who then immediately claims to need some laws placed to protect us, thus eroding our freedoms.
What lulzsec/anonymous needs right now is a good marketing campaign, or they are going to end up as the villians and not NotW who are the real assholes.
Wow so now you are insinuating that ReiserFS has been abandoned because Hans Reiser killed someone and that this excuses this woman for being an idiot?
Both things are wrong. Firstly, while it's true that some people are indeed against Reiser(FS|4) because of Hans, that only makes them bigots too it doesn't make her right.
But the number of people rejecting Reiser(FS|4) because of that is rather limited.
ReiserFS is still widely in use, it continues releasing bug fixes and security patches at kernel.org. It was embraced by the military. It's true they mention that they aren't having any commercial activities, and they haven't found someone interested in buying the company, but why would anyone when their product is free? DARPA is funding them, that's something I'd call successful for an open source project.
ReiserFS has in fact stopped adding features, because they are putting them in Reiser4. Now, Reiser4 has indeed not being accepted in the main kernel distribution, and Hans claims it's because of political reasons, but the kernel developers explicitly deny such accusations, so either they are not bigots, or they are bigots and aware of it. And ashamed of it.
But if they say there are technical issues I believe them. Besides Reiser(FS|4) are still one of the most popular files systems on Linux, probably the second most popular after ext[234].
Oh but don't you see, the one who is taking this into that direction it's you. I never said he wasn't insensitive (dick is a word i reserve for worse people). My point is that she can't blame the fucking whole open source community because one guy was insensitive. That's bigotry, that's guilt by association.
And the community is being very sympathetic towards her case, they even made the guy change the name to something completely inoffensive (there's nothing offensive about "Misaka" despite what the article tries to implicate).
The worst she can blame the community about is that the community doesn't proactively go around censoring packages names according to her taste, the worst thing they did is giving any though to this and discuss rather than burn him on the spot the instant he said a naughty word.
And yes, that is a matter of free speech. Because of freedom of speech concerns they actually discussed the issue after and asked him to rename his package.
But that was not enough but her. And people are making it seem as if this one package symbolises how the whole of FOSS is some sort of putrid pile of shit.
As if some day some one is going to ask, "maybe we could use an open audio format like OGG" -- "No we can't! Because once upon a time an 'OpenSource' dick made a package named panty shot!! They are tainted!"
Pleaaaaaase. I know I'm overdramatising. I find it amusing. He was insensitive, I'd never do what he did, but it is this woman's behaviour which I find unbearably idiotic.
Well, the woman who was running the project that got sideswiped by this naming issue has now said she is leaving "open source" b/c of the experience. Seems like if you're going to ask about the impact of "what's in a name?" there's a good place to start.
No sorry, she's a bigoted idiot. If she was a man anybody would have pointed that out.
It's called guilt by association. One guy/kid mentions up skirts and she leaves the whole community? Even though the community was sympathetic and tried to seek reconciliation?
I find Bill O'Rilley offensive as hell, can I extrapolate the beliefs of all Americans from him? I mean, even if you say you disagree with him, you allow him to live in your country, so you obviously support him right?
Except no, I can't extrapolate from him and no, even if you don't support his opinions you support the concept of free speech. I understand that, I hope you understand that. This woman clearly doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me more of a case of a forced meme. Hasbro is astroturfing poor 4chan and now /.
The bastards know no limits nor decency.
Dragon Ball Evolution, fucking Dragon Ball Evolution.
Just don't dare.
Ever since I started using Request Policy (a Firefox extension) I've noticed that severan sites use request to another domain that looks related but end in cdn, example. www.penny-arcade.com makes requests to pa-cdn.com, and there are many other examples of such.
To me it sucks because if too many sites start requiring google-cdn.com I might as well stop using Request Policy, and no I don't use google.com for my searches.
And yet their customer service is shit, I guess all those logs only are good for witch hunts, I mean fighting terrorist child pornographing pirates.
Why is G+ better than Facebook? Circles.
Why would you want circles? Because there stuff you want to share with some of your friends but not others.
By implementing circles they admit to this.
So what about public statements? I make software reviews, (and restaurant reviews and movie reviews). I make comments on slashdot, and the minecraft forums, and I promote the games I like on twitter. I make all sort of public statements that I don't necessarily want linked together.
"But you can't be public AND private at the same time!" Sure I can, I just make a new name. That's what me and almost everybody on the Internet does.
So if you want to use G+ in a public way and still keep your "public circles" separated, you will create different profiles. A lot of people will. But thanks to the "real name"[1] policy, if I want to keep "requiem18th"'s circle from my family or work profile, the only choice I have is to create a profile named "John Smith" and add requiem18th as the main alias.
Why not skip the last part? In fact everybody should do it like this until G+ drops it's "real name" policy.
[1] By some abstract definition of "real name" I'm not aware of.
PS: Facebook, regardless of its real name policy, has a shit-load of nicknamed profiles, I'm sure they wouldn't see the end of it if they got anal with that policy now as they did at first.
This. Twitter goes along better with the way people manage their identity on the web. Pseudonymously.
The way Google is handling Google+ makes it clear Google wants you to have only one account to be THE account "to bind them all". Not even Facebook does that although it's probably because it tries to and does a lousy job.
For fuck's sake I think I've read about this supposed "early adopter bonus" two dozen times already so let me say it loud and clear:
EARLY ADOPTERS ARE NOT AT SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE.
I want people to understand that mining bitcoins was not easier at the beginning than it is now. In fact due to technological advances, bitcoin mining is easier nowadays.
BTC are basically worth a measure of computer cycles. If you invest the same amount of computer cycles you get the same amount of BTC. More actually thanks to revised algorithms.
An early adopter can be beaten by a late adopter if the late adopter invests more resources into the mesh than the early adopter. An early adopter using old hardware in his basement only during the night when the power bills are cheaper can be beaten by a late adopter using modern GPUs running fulltime in a week. In two weeks you will be twice as rich, in BTC, than him.
When you realise that mining for BTC costs real money it means that early adopters aren't really at an advantage. They have more BTC but less UDS, which places limits on them.
Now early adopters have been profiting from block checking, but that is no different than profiting from services in any other industry. Also I admit that early BTC buyers (not minners, buyers) do have early adopter advantages right now, since BTC are worth more today than early, but if the value of BTC drops so does their investment, they aren't at much of an advantage.
And of course, even that advantage is only relative to their total investment.
I'm sure someone with a more economics bent than me can come up other early adopter advantages I haven't considered, but in my technical opinion this is probably balanced with the late adopter advantages due to technological progress.
Kami, is that you?
I represent the State of George Lucas and I ask you to case and desist from repeating that quote as well as case and desist from thinking that patented core belief.
How are the laws unjust?
How are copyright laws just? Why can I plagiarise from the Grim Brothers or William Shakespeare but I can't release a dubbed parody of Star Wars? Or post night driving videos of Montreal to the music of Richard Clayderman or fucking sing Happy Birthday on TV?
Which of these works of art are cultural heritage and which private property?
The law is: "the ones which someone is paying the government for protection are private, the ones which aren't are public domain".
So I refuse to discuss copyrights in terms how just or ethical they are, or how unethical is infringement.
Piracy, like abusive uses of copyright and the intrusions, are a socio-economic problem. One can discuss the best ways to reward artist or the problems of lack of funding for art projects.
But one can't talk about copyright and fairness unless it is to repel it altogether or to extend it to the stone age and I can only hope you are not talking about the later.
How are the laws unjust?
How are copyright laws just? Why can I plagiarise from the Grim Brothers or William Shakespeare but I can't release a dubbed parody of Star Wars? Or post night driving videos of Montreal to the music of Richard Clayderman or fucking sing Happy Birthday on TV?
Which of these works of art are cultural heritage and which private property?
The law is: "the ones which someone is paying the government for protection are private, the ones which aren't are public domain".
So I refuse to discuss copyrights in terms how just or ethical they are, or how unethical is infringement.
Piracy, like abusive uses of copyright and the intrusions, are a socio-economic problem. One can discuss the best ways to reward artist or the problems of lack of funding for art projects.
But one can't talk about copyright and fairness unless it is to repel it altogether or to extend it to the stone age and I can only hope you are not talking about the later..
Also, slashdot's javascript makes it impossible to click on links. Or write comments.
I've come to realise this was a huge blunder from the beginning of the web.
Remember how we took so long to make a standard for moving fonts over the web? We could have done so much better if we only had invented a way for a page to contain the required fonts, and images, and scripts.
Loading a web page basically means code injection. Even without javascript, every "src=" in a web page is code executed in your host, as commanded by an untrusted source.
But alas, we were too concerned with net load. We had to, the net was very slow back then. However, as long as the same origin policy is honoured the risk of loading external resources is --I suppose-- null. And assuming your browser is properly sandboxed, so is running scripts.
In my opinion, and I might be wrong, what's wrong with Javascript as long as all connections are done to the same host? RequestPolicy is, in my opinion, a much important game changer than NoScript.
Problem is, most people don't see it this way. Most people don't know what anonymous or lulzsec are, most people don't know they are being hacked by them and don't know why. Most people don't know NotW hacked a dead girl's phone and copied her voice mail and delete4d it effectively stealing it.
All the know, if at all, is that scary stuff is happening on the Internet and someone [not them] must do something. And that someone is Mr Government., Who then immediately claims to need some laws placed to protect us, thus eroding our freedoms.
What lulzsec/anonymous needs right now is a good marketing campaign, or they are going to end up as the villians and not NotW who are the real assholes.
Bush Obama
I think they believe in their freedoms. It's other people's freedoms that gets in their way.
I know, honeypots, you have to thrust someone etc but startpage.com sounds good.
But since their activities are secret who knows, maybe some people have been offed for exercising their "right to know" that.
Wow so now you are insinuating that ReiserFS has been abandoned because Hans Reiser killed someone and that this excuses this woman for being an idiot?
Both things are wrong. Firstly, while it's true that some people are indeed against Reiser(FS|4) because of Hans, that only makes them bigots too it doesn't make her right.
But the number of people rejecting Reiser(FS|4) because of that is rather limited.
ReiserFS is still widely in use, it continues releasing bug fixes and security patches at kernel.org. It was embraced by the military. It's true they mention that they aren't having any commercial activities, and they haven't found someone interested in buying the company, but why would anyone when their product is free? DARPA is funding them, that's something I'd call successful for an open source project.
ReiserFS has in fact stopped adding features, because they are putting them in Reiser4. Now, Reiser4 has indeed not being accepted in the main kernel distribution, and Hans claims it's because of political reasons, but the kernel developers explicitly deny such accusations, so either they are not bigots, or they are bigots and aware of it. And ashamed of it.
But if they say there are technical issues I believe them. Besides Reiser(FS|4) are still one of the most popular files systems on Linux, probably the second most popular after ext[234].
The length people go to excuse bigotry...
To the war it is then!
Gentlemen, fetch me mine monocle!
We can, however, ask what the decades of trying to engage them got us: less than nothing. They got nukes anyway.
But they only destroyed two Japanese cities with them! I think they still deserve to be in the UN. Wait what country are we talking about again?
Oh but don't you see, the one who is taking this into that direction it's you. I never said he wasn't insensitive (dick is a word i reserve for worse people). My point is that she can't blame the fucking whole open source community because one guy was insensitive. That's bigotry, that's guilt by association.
And the community is being very sympathetic towards her case, they even made the guy change the name to something completely inoffensive (there's nothing offensive about "Misaka" despite what the article tries to implicate).
The worst she can blame the community about is that the community doesn't proactively go around censoring packages names according to her taste, the worst thing they did is giving any though to this and discuss rather than burn him on the spot the instant he said a naughty word.
And yes, that is a matter of free speech. Because of freedom of speech concerns they actually discussed the issue after and asked him to rename his package.
But that was not enough but her. And people are making it seem as if this one package symbolises how the whole of FOSS is some sort of putrid pile of shit.
As if some day some one is going to ask, "maybe we could use an open audio format like OGG" -- "No we can't! Because once upon a time an 'OpenSource' dick made a package named panty shot!! They are tainted!"
Pleaaaaaase. I know I'm overdramatising. I find it amusing. He was insensitive, I'd never do what he did, but it is this woman's behaviour which I find unbearably idiotic.
But Misaka Mikoto is a kick-boxing fighter who wears boxers underneath her uniform so you get no panty shots
Definitively not a panty shot
Well, the woman who was running the project that got sideswiped by this naming issue has now said she is leaving "open source" b/c of the experience. Seems like if you're going to ask about the impact of "what's in a name?" there's a good place to start.
No sorry, she's a bigoted idiot. If she was a man anybody would have pointed that out.
It's called guilt by association. One guy/kid mentions up skirts and she leaves the whole community? Even though the community was sympathetic and tried to seek reconciliation?
I find Bill O'Rilley offensive as hell, can I extrapolate the beliefs of all Americans from him? I mean, even if you say you disagree with him, you allow him to live in your country, so you obviously support him right?
Except no, I can't extrapolate from him and no, even if you don't support his opinions you support the concept of free speech. I understand that, I hope you understand that. This woman clearly doesn't.