when you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting.
Look, not to be antagonistic or anything, but you've just got done saying "The books are not to be taken literally, the authorities which publish the books are not to be trusted, and a majority of the actions of the believers are contradicting and hypocritical".
That being understood, when you say "When you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting." then where exactly are you asking us to look? Where should one find the "substance" of a religion if not in the textual doctrine, not in the governing practices, nor in the popular implementation? Saying that the text is better interpreted "figuratively" puts us in the position where the text does not paint a picture for us but instead reflects the image of whatever we read into it. The reason I ask all of this is that I fear what you mean by the "substance" of the religions may be nothing more than what you are personally reading into it. Unfortunately every believer will be tickled by his image in that mirror, so there is no truth to be found there, either.
Put simply, I will find your interpretation contradictory and you will find my interpretation contradictory because each naturally depends upon our personal contexts. This question devolves into either "Is the text literal and can it be judged that way?" or "Is the text figurative with a trusted interpreter who can render it into something literal we can judge?" or "Is the text figurative and capable of a personal interpretation which forwards more people than it hinders, so that society as a whole nets a benefit?" I see no positive results from any of those three razors, and no other way to judge the doctrines.
To me, all major religious doctrines appear to have the same mentally anesthetic effect as any superstition and are used by large organisations to pacify and manipulate large masses of people. I know it sounds bleak, but I see greater demonstrable and practical value in learning about the world from interacting with it, instead of reading about or being preached to about best the practices of hundreds of generations back. We should learn lessons from our past and from our ancestors, not mandates.
When people stop producing because there is no profit in it, then you have denied me access to what hasn't been made.
Wait, what are you arguing against here, abortion?
If you want it to be made, then fucking pay for it and stop moaning already. If you're not going to pay the full price to have it made, then you're in no position to whine at everyone else for not subsidizing your petty entertainment needs. We frankly don't give a damn whether it gets made or not. If we were concerned, then yes, we would have directed cash in that general direction. And we wouldn't have bitched at you about where you directed your cash, not being our business and all.
Finance what you wish to support and then embrace the blindingly obvious fact that once the media is publicly available it will be publicly broadcast. If this means your $15 movie ticket and $15 bucket of popcorn no longer mainline your CGI robot dinosaurs battling space hookers and your 99 cent Itunes purchases no longer keep the Jonas Brothers in concert, then I really have a hard time seeing the downside.
I don't understand why everyone is overthinking this. The law as proposed is perfect! Don't you see?
This is the same well vetted "no ID, no merchandise" approach that ensures that all of our teenagers stay sober. And everyone knows that 16 year olds are way cagier than professional criminals and terrorists, so there is no way this could go wrong.:D
plus it seems to be fragile allowing the discs to degrade, This utterly delights the Media industry as the discs will slowly die giving them another money fountain.
What, so you think Big Media will allow this tech to exist at all to begin with? 25TB per disc optical storage? I can store 8.5 SOLID YEARS of DVD-quality video on a single disc. That's one disc for every film that's ever played in any theater plus another disc for every episode of every syndicated television show to ever be broadcast on American network television, and then they could fit in the same gem case.
All useful sites offer complete SSL access, but I guess Google - as with IPv6 - gets to be congratulated when it makes a half hearted attempt to do what real technology pioneers have been doing for a good decade.
In other news, everything Apple's ever done is original.
Google is an industry leader. TBH, I'm pretty sure that if they switched all Google searches to default SSL (or assuming all searchers were clever enough to opt for it), "Google Searches" probably represent a greater percentage of all internet traffic then every other HTTPS request on todays internet combined.
Put in that perspective, yes it's a big deal. It would be like if Electric Cars had been built as one-offs for a century (they have) and then Toyota up and decides that every model they sell 2012 and up will have a no-additional-cost option of being electric. In essence, bringing an innovation to bear in a large market is a more important step than hobby (your website) or niche (banking, medical, conspiracy periodical) adoption of an innovation.
In other news, I'd like to hear your take about how this attempt is half-hearted. I suspect your lone gripe is "Google is still mining your data". Thus, please differentiate how this is different from every SSL endpoint on the web. Sure there might be people who happen to not mine data from my visits to their sites, but the point is I cannot prevent them from doing so.
Or, if you believe a "full hearted" implementation of Google+SSL would somehow magically bind Google's hands and make it technically impossible for them (or anyone, anywhere) to log your data, then please lay out how this would be done as I'm fairly certain it violates the principals of basic causality.:3
Not that I have any ill will towards what scroogle is trying to do, but they were scraping Google results from an ancient hack designed to appease IE6 and bawled when Google stopped relying upon that hack. The bawling was quite loud too, as it was designed to make it seem as though Google was gagging them instead of changing a non-public-facing feature Scroogle was not contracted to exploit.
At the end of the day, Scroogle relies upon Google for it's existence and Google owes Scroogle no quarter. I am certain if Google really gave a damn about it, it would take them virtually no effort to alter their search service to be effectively "un-scroogleable" and even to do so in a non-obvious way. Hell, they keep spam out of my Gmail inbox with astounding profundity.:P
Yet they do not blackball Scroogle, and the reason they do not is A> Scroogle is too small for anyone to care and B> they whine alot, the bad PR from Scroogles "Brin ran over my dog by changing their UI" et al amounts to a slightly larger mole-hill than would be gained today by shutting Scroogle out.
At the end of the day the ultimately important point is: how in hell can I prove that Scroogle is not mining my data and selling it to insurance companies? If user data is valuable, then the data of users who demonstrate themselves to be paranoid must be juicier still, right?
Tor + Google + SSL + adblock + get the fuck off my lawn.
This would only work if your browser doesn't send the referrer or you click on https links only. Otherwise ISPs can just parse the referrer header (or the referer header, good thing spell checking was invented).
As mentioned above, when you search with Google-SSL and click on a non-SSL result link, Google does not include your search terms in the HTTP referrer tag.
A previous poster claimed they sent a referrer tag of only "www.google.com/", but I just tested this in firefox with Live HTTP headers and confirmed that they sent no referrer tag at all, which matches what the RFC recommends. 8I
Sigh. You went to your ISP for transit. You didn't go anywhere else. You chose to have your data processed as in the T&Cs of your ISP contract. If you don't want Phorm to have your search data, you can opt out of that by not using your ISP at all.
Defending Google is defending the right of corporations to have arbitrary privacy policies "because you can go elsewhere if you don't like it", which is ultimately defending Phorm. You are battling against yourself.
Not even mentioning the USA/ISP Duopoly issue today, the other big difference is that Google's SSL move allows you to perform searches without your ISP eavesdropping or intervening and without switching ISPs. Now, I am fairly certain that if someone points out some feature which allowed us to perform Searches against Google's database with Google's envied algorithms but without Google being able to mine our data (so THEN the only people we have to "worry about" are the end-websites we are searching for) this would be hailed still farther as a victory and you would still be bitching about the sysadmins running the destination websites knowing that we've shown up.
In short: You can't get intel without someone knowing (or with enough work conceivably unraveling) you are seeking the intel. Google SSL reduces the number of people who know about what you are searching for. You don't have to search with Google and if for some reason you feel as though Phorm having your data makes it less of a travesty that Google also has your data (you said something about them having a monopoly on raping you?) then you can choose to use Google without the SSL. If you're really that concerned about Google having the data at all, then hit them through Tor. I know you'll bitch about the Tor Endpoints and their ISP's then having the ability to track or forge you, but oh! You can combine Tor with Google-SSL.
As Tor puts it that is still not "good enough for strong anonymity", but paired with sanitary browsing practices it's about the damned safest way on this planet to perform a search across the wild internet.
Now FNN, as much as you appear to be trying to say that Google providing SSL is either worse than before or no better, I would prefer to hear what your thoughts are on how to build a search engine that is in any way less compromising than Google (or Google-SSL, or Tor-Google-SSL) while being in any way practical to the end-user. I'll even give you "let's assume infinite funding to the project forever" as a head start, so that whatever organization provides the service is not financially forced into evil acts.:P Your only design constraint would be to somehow guarantee that no person other than the one initiating the search can ever know what was being searched for. Or, at least hew closer to this ideal than Google presently allows without sacrificing quality.
SHOULD. It is a recommendation; not a requirement. I just checked FF 3.6.4 & it does send the referrer but only the https://www.google.com/ part. it did not send the query itself. Some might not like that but I think that it is a good balance. It at least informs the target what website linked to it. For the paranoids there is https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/953/
Whether Google blanks the referrer completely or just blanks out the search portion (which is what my largest concern would be) it's still a TWO FOLD win, actually!:D
Imagine you're a site owner and rely on keyword analysis. You want that referer data, and suddenly more and more people who use Google SSL aren't giving you the data on what they searched for.
What do you do?
Implement SSL on your site as well!:D Then the referer data comes to you cleanly, and still remains out of the hands of eavesdroppers.
If Google ends up pressuring a greater adoption of SSL for standard web surfing across SEO-conscious websites, then I would call this a significant win. Yes, I realize Google is still raeping my data. But that has not gotten demonstrably worse by this change while many many other benefits appear to be cropping up. xD
If people were willing to pay to use facebook what would happen is they would pay and get bombarded with ads anyway a la cable tv.
And.... their data they were paying to keep confident would still get randomly published one day, that is after it's value being resold on the black market a few thousand times had plummeted low enough. x3
To each their own, but RegExs, to me, are far more rickety. You're essentially adding a language on top of a language, and the one your are adding has no cues for your brain to pick up on like it would reading English based code.
The thing is, the correct way to maintainably invoke regex is to build long pattern matches out of constants and keep the constants both simple and easy to separately test.
That way, the constants you build the regex out of are both self-documenting and "cues for your brain to pick up on based on English words".
The inherent advantage of humans knowing what "IF", "THEN" and "ELSE" means is completely nullified after many pages of it. I understand that code folding IDE's can make such efforts more manageable, but IMO relying on the next debugger using a compatible code folding IDE is just as dangerous as relying on the next debugger being as much of a Regex wizard as you are. (and, apologies if mentioning fancy IDE is a strawman, I just can't pre-emptively guess how else you might try to defend pages of if-then-else. Just being pro-active.;3 )
You can step through a large block of code bit by bit with the debugger. You can't do that with a regex.
I think this post really illustrates the gulf between those who fear regex and those who do not.
A lot of coders today simply do not know how to code (or know how to and avoid doing so), they know how to set breakpoints in a debugger looking for large duplo-blocks of code to comment out or alter in predictable ways until the code outputs what they expect from it.
Now if we are lucky, if we are very lucky the coders who do this are forced to at least write regression tests for their changes. But at the foundational level, they don't know what they changed or why it worked, they just banged the code with a hammer until the rattling stopped. Not having to do so again next month is above their payscale.
Once you abandon this dangerous approach and assume that debugging involves actually grokking the code, then regex suddenly becomes the right tool for a wide variety of parsing jobs. While obviously very terse, it is also rich in it's ability to comment, build larger pattern matches out of smaller, atomic, easily tested pattern matches, etc.
Regex requires someone familiar with Regex to debug. Pages of if-then-else require someone with an automated debugger and no hope of seeing the bigger picture to debug. Regex simply wins this battle, so long as the author is careful to comment and build up well labeled match strings atomically. I am not trying to say that a majority of regex slingers do The Right Thing, I am saying that with if-then-else alone it is not possible to do The Right Thing and no amount of debugger-friendliness changes that.
Sorry, you're going to have repost that, it looks like your modem had some problems and there is quite a lot of line noise in it.
Honestly, if you think that is readable you need to get out more.
Look, it's quite simple. Show us how you would do that as if-then-elses. Once you do, then I'll have a witty retort about how your mess isn't readable (or isn't practicable, I'll have to wait and see what you post to know what problems it will have.;3)
If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times; use an HTTP proxy like Privoxy
Privoxy + SSL = Fail, and many people SSL to many different places.
Now I'm not saying that proxy-modifying-SSL would be impossible: what would be choice would be to establish a trust-chain to your proxy, so you negotiate SSL to the proxy which negotiates SSL to the world. Hell, at that point you could always run SSL to the proxy and thwart many malware and eavesdropping angles of attack against non-SSL sites.
Well, at any rate, I don't think Privoxy is that serious about what they do just yet. That's a lot of work.;3
If it is possible to desensitize folks from strong reactions to roaches using exposure to virtual roaches, why is it somehow absurd to suggest that people are desensitized from strong reactions to violence by exposure to violence in video games?
Your question is a well chosen one sir, although I think that the standard slashdotter mentality remains correct on these points. The seeming paradox comes from differing kinds of "sensitivity" one is being "desensitized" to.
Specifically, virtual immersion in a situation can desensitize you to a debilitating phobia quite effectively, but we are arguing that it has no significant impact on desensitizing a person's moral compass. Exposure to bloody and violent games may allow a person the clarity of mind to not seize up in terror when they witness a tragedy in real life, but there are no respectable studies which suggest that violent video games increase the likelihood of an individual to stop caring whether or not they initiate a tragedy in real life.
Unless you are suggesting we are really all murderers who are simply too neurotic to commit such a messy crime, until we have cured our phobias of seeing blood and gore in a video game?;3
Well, off the top of my head, "localism" or "regionalism" is desirable for a number reasons
I know a lot of people who feel this way. Hell, I even lent a hand for our local farmer's co-op to get their website off the ground. But let's say that 90% of the world slowly changes to purchasing purely local food and raw materials. What impact does this have on the impoverished farmers in Brazil? If there is less demand for their product, do they just stop mowing down forest and somehow "win the game"? I would expect they would mow down the forest faster since cheaper product requires higher volume to stay in business.
And what impact does this have on us? Well, hopefully we're eating healthier. We don't need as much processed food or preservatives if the food doesn't need to migrate to us. OTOH, driving around the countryside to pick up your groceries from a half dozen farmers who live nowhere near each other, or driving to a clearinghouse on specified days to pick up your orders, which involve you purchasing whole cows and chickens and paying further for butchering, lead to food costs magnitudes higher than just stopping by Fred Meyers once a week and filling a shopping cart.
So you're bottom line gets gutted, as do the Brazilians. When you live month to month working 2-4 jobs per household like virtually everyone I know, any added expense and inconvenience had better damned well be justified. So when it turns out the forests and all the endangered species just burn down faster, you can bet I'd feel a bit miffed by the outcome.
The point I am making is that we, every one of us relevant to the matter, are simply trying to survive. There exist environmental activists that try to make American citizens feel guilty by making claims that we are in the top 1% wealthiest people in the world by salary, etc etc. Thus we should be able to somehow tighten our belts and for pennies a day send an African child to school, or buy locally which protects the rain forests, or loosens the grip of chain shopping centers, or whatever. The reality is that while in America you make more than in most parts of the world, it also costs more to exist here. It's like the Mall down the block where shops pay $4/hr above minimum wage, but then charge you $8/hr for union dues.
No, I think that resolving these problems need to be done at the international diplomatic level. If the rain forests in Brazil are so vital to the world, then the rest of the world needs to negotiate with the government of Brazil to keep them safe. The people of Brazil are the custodians of this lush habitat, and those people are cutting it down. They do so because they have no other options and because, let's be fair, the rest of the world aren't giving them any incentive not to lean on that resource.
They are the folk who live in the library, freezing to death and burning up the books because there is no other way to keep warm. Just because Wal-Mart is buying the ashes from them doesn't mean boycotting Wal-Mart would keep the books safe. What they need is to be somehow compensated for their duty of preserving and maintaining those books. No amount of local-shopping or gasoline-sipping will fulfill that specific goal.
You miss the point that they are largely deforesting to supply demand in other parts of the world -- whether its for "cheap" agriculture, wood, etc.
No, U. I asked "what comfort you could conceivably give up that would give Brazilian farmers an alternative to deforestation?" If you believe our luxurious choices of shopping at Wal-Mart instead of shopping at Mom n' Pawp (who wholesale with the same traders as Wal-Mart) will alter the old supply and demand curve until Brazillian Farmers can make money from practices aside from getting free cropland by mowing down the unclaimed forests, then I would like to hear your illustration to that point.
The thing is, we are not facing any extreme temperature-like metaphor. We are sacrificing them for our own comfort, not for our survival.
I don't perceive any true elements to that statement. Are middle Americans driving over exotic flora and fauna in their SUV's by shortcutting through the 'glades to get their groceries quicker? Or are acres of rain forest being burned and cut down every day by subsistence farmers in financial straits where they have no other options?
Only a small portion of the world can really argue from the position of having comfort to sacrifice things over, and those are in virtually all cases not the portions of the population on the front lines of our encroachment against nature.
I am not trying to tell you that reversing this trend is impossible, but we should not kid ourselves what socially deep roots would need to be cut or rearranged in order to affect change. So why don't you start by illustrating what comfort you could conceivably give up that would give Brazilian farmers an alternative to deforestation? Hint: it's not buying a hybrid.
I guess if you were living your entire life inside the Library of Alexandria, you would be burning books for fuel.
While I appreciate what you are trying to say, I watched "The Day After Tomorrow" where people trapped in the NYPL facing liquid nitrogen temps outside were left to do pretty much exactly that. My question is, what else would you have them do? Freeze to death specifically so that people not trapped in the library can later read that material?
As a species and as a collected civilization, our first priority is to survive. If we are given the choice to allow a specific other species to continue it's genetic heritage at the cost of our own continued survival, then you cannot list the luxury of later being able to learn that species' quantum secrets among the benefits of our sacrifice as we won't be around to learn them.
We've made big changes to the world we evolved into. The number of species going extinct during the last few generations of humans is now among the biggest dieoffs the planet has ever seen.
And that couldn't possibly be because of our advancing ability to perceive new and exotic species and thus to also perceive them dying off too? Or do you have a citation to back up your stat?:3
Slashdot Mirror
when you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting.
Look, not to be antagonistic or anything, but you've just got done saying "The books are not to be taken literally, the authorities which publish the books are not to be trusted, and a majority of the actions of the believers are contradicting and hypocritical".
That being understood, when you say "When you go look at the substance of the religions, these are not inherently wrong, nor self-contradicting." then where exactly are you asking us to look? Where should one find the "substance" of a religion if not in the textual doctrine, not in the governing practices, nor in the popular implementation? Saying that the text is better interpreted "figuratively" puts us in the position where the text does not paint a picture for us but instead reflects the image of whatever we read into it. The reason I ask all of this is that I fear what you mean by the "substance" of the religions may be nothing more than what you are personally reading into it. Unfortunately every believer will be tickled by his image in that mirror, so there is no truth to be found there, either.
Put simply, I will find your interpretation contradictory and you will find my interpretation contradictory because each naturally depends upon our personal contexts. This question devolves into either "Is the text literal and can it be judged that way?" or "Is the text figurative with a trusted interpreter who can render it into something literal we can judge?" or "Is the text figurative and capable of a personal interpretation which forwards more people than it hinders, so that society as a whole nets a benefit?" I see no positive results from any of those three razors, and no other way to judge the doctrines.
To me, all major religious doctrines appear to have the same mentally anesthetic effect as any superstition and are used by large organisations to pacify and manipulate large masses of people. I know it sounds bleak, but I see greater demonstrable and practical value in learning about the world from interacting with it, instead of reading about or being preached to about best the practices of hundreds of generations back. We should learn lessons from our past and from our ancestors, not mandates.
Stop justifying thievery.
Hypocrite troll breathing up all my air. >:/
When people stop producing because there is no profit in it, then you have denied me access to what hasn't been made.
Wait, what are you arguing against here, abortion?
If you want it to be made, then fucking pay for it and stop moaning already. If you're not going to pay the full price to have it made, then you're in no position to whine at everyone else for not subsidizing your petty entertainment needs. We frankly don't give a damn whether it gets made or not. If we were concerned, then yes, we would have directed cash in that general direction. And we wouldn't have bitched at you about where you directed your cash, not being our business and all.
Finance what you wish to support and then embrace the blindingly obvious fact that once the media is publicly available it will be publicly broadcast. If this means your $15 movie ticket and $15 bucket of popcorn no longer mainline your CGI robot dinosaurs battling space hookers and your 99 cent Itunes purchases no longer keep the Jonas Brothers in concert, then I really have a hard time seeing the downside.
Shhhh! First rule of usenet!
What, you mean TITS OAR GTFO?
Somehow I don't think you want that. :P
I don't understand why everyone is overthinking this. The law as proposed is perfect! Don't you see?
This is the same well vetted "no ID, no merchandise" approach that ensures that all of our teenagers stay sober. And everyone knows that 16 year olds are way cagier than professional criminals and terrorists, so there is no way this could go wrong. :D
plus it seems to be fragile allowing the discs to degrade, This utterly delights the Media industry as the discs will slowly die giving them another money fountain.
What, so you think Big Media will allow this tech to exist at all to begin with? 25TB per disc optical storage? I can store 8.5 SOLID YEARS of DVD-quality video on a single disc. That's one disc for every film that's ever played in any theater plus another disc for every episode of every syndicated television show to ever be broadcast on American network television, and then they could fit in the same gem case.
('mass of gas' vs. 'miasma of plasma')
Bwahaha, so like many of us you prefer the tune of the thesis that has been rendered invalid; remixed as it is these days on Youtube. :3
Luckily for us, "Science is real" and you can always "test it out". Unless ofc it's climate science, in which case you don't have the credentials to oppose the scribes' word on the matter. But then again, "how could you deny an Electric Car"? x3
All useful sites offer complete SSL access, but I guess Google - as with IPv6 - gets to be congratulated when it makes a half hearted attempt to do what real technology pioneers have been doing for a good decade.
In other news, everything Apple's ever done is original.
Google is an industry leader. TBH, I'm pretty sure that if they switched all Google searches to default SSL (or assuming all searchers were clever enough to opt for it), "Google Searches" probably represent a greater percentage of all internet traffic then every other HTTPS request on todays internet combined.
Put in that perspective, yes it's a big deal. It would be like if Electric Cars had been built as one-offs for a century (they have) and then Toyota up and decides that every model they sell 2012 and up will have a no-additional-cost option of being electric. In essence, bringing an innovation to bear in a large market is a more important step than hobby (your website) or niche (banking, medical, conspiracy periodical) adoption of an innovation.
In other news, I'd like to hear your take about how this attempt is half-hearted. I suspect your lone gripe is "Google is still mining your data". Thus, please differentiate how this is different from every SSL endpoint on the web. Sure there might be people who happen to not mine data from my visits to their sites, but the point is I cannot prevent them from doing so.
Or, if you believe a "full hearted" implementation of Google+SSL would somehow magically bind Google's hands and make it technically impossible for them (or anyone, anywhere) to log your data, then please lay out how this would be done as I'm fairly certain it violates the principals of basic causality. :3
Not that I have any ill will towards what scroogle is trying to do, but they were scraping Google results from an ancient hack designed to appease IE6 and bawled when Google stopped relying upon that hack. The bawling was quite loud too, as it was designed to make it seem as though Google was gagging them instead of changing a non-public-facing feature Scroogle was not contracted to exploit.
At the end of the day, Scroogle relies upon Google for it's existence and Google owes Scroogle no quarter. I am certain if Google really gave a damn about it, it would take them virtually no effort to alter their search service to be effectively "un-scroogleable" and even to do so in a non-obvious way. Hell, they keep spam out of my Gmail inbox with astounding profundity. :P
Yet they do not blackball Scroogle, and the reason they do not is A> Scroogle is too small for anyone to care and B> they whine alot, the bad PR from Scroogles "Brin ran over my dog by changing their UI" et al amounts to a slightly larger mole-hill than would be gained today by shutting Scroogle out.
At the end of the day the ultimately important point is: how in hell can I prove that Scroogle is not mining my data and selling it to insurance companies? If user data is valuable, then the data of users who demonstrate themselves to be paranoid must be juicier still, right?
Tor + Google + SSL + adblock + get the fuck off my lawn.
This would only work if your browser doesn't send the referrer or you click on https links only. Otherwise ISPs can just parse the referrer header (or the referer header, good thing spell checking was invented).
As mentioned above, when you search with Google-SSL and click on a non-SSL result link, Google does not include your search terms in the HTTP referrer tag.
A previous poster claimed they sent a referrer tag of only "www.google.com/", but I just tested this in firefox with Live HTTP headers and confirmed that they sent no referrer tag at all, which matches what the RFC recommends. 8I
In a word, noice! :3
Sigh. You went to your ISP for transit. You didn't go anywhere else. You chose to have your data processed as in the T&Cs of your ISP contract. If you don't want Phorm to have your search data, you can opt out of that by not using your ISP at all.
Defending Google is defending the right of corporations to have arbitrary privacy policies "because you can go elsewhere if you don't like it", which is ultimately defending Phorm. You are battling against yourself.
Not even mentioning the USA/ISP Duopoly issue today, the other big difference is that Google's SSL move allows you to perform searches without your ISP eavesdropping or intervening and without switching ISPs. Now, I am fairly certain that if someone points out some feature which allowed us to perform Searches against Google's database with Google's envied algorithms but without Google being able to mine our data (so THEN the only people we have to "worry about" are the end-websites we are searching for) this would be hailed still farther as a victory and you would still be bitching about the sysadmins running the destination websites knowing that we've shown up.
In short: You can't get intel without someone knowing (or with enough work conceivably unraveling) you are seeking the intel. Google SSL reduces the number of people who know about what you are searching for. You don't have to search with Google and if for some reason you feel as though Phorm having your data makes it less of a travesty that Google also has your data (you said something about them having a monopoly on raping you?) then you can choose to use Google without the SSL. If you're really that concerned about Google having the data at all, then hit them through Tor. I know you'll bitch about the Tor Endpoints and their ISP's then having the ability to track or forge you, but oh! You can combine Tor with Google-SSL.
As Tor puts it that is still not "good enough for strong anonymity", but paired with sanitary browsing practices it's about the damned safest way on this planet to perform a search across the wild internet.
Now FNN, as much as you appear to be trying to say that Google providing SSL is either worse than before or no better, I would prefer to hear what your thoughts are on how to build a search engine that is in any way less compromising than Google (or Google-SSL, or Tor-Google-SSL) while being in any way practical to the end-user. I'll even give you "let's assume infinite funding to the project forever" as a head start, so that whatever organization provides the service is not financially forced into evil acts. :P Your only design constraint would be to somehow guarantee that no person other than the one initiating the search can ever know what was being searched for. Or, at least hew closer to this ideal than Google presently allows without sacrificing quality.
SHOULD. It is a recommendation; not a requirement. I just checked FF 3.6.4 & it does send the referrer but only the https://www.google.com/ part. it did not send the query itself. Some might not like that but I think that it is a good balance. It at least informs the target what website linked to it. For the paranoids there is https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/953/
Whether Google blanks the referrer completely or just blanks out the search portion (which is what my largest concern would be) it's still a TWO FOLD win, actually! :D
Imagine you're a site owner and rely on keyword analysis. You want that referer data, and suddenly more and more people who use Google SSL aren't giving you the data on what they searched for.
What do you do?
Implement SSL on your site as well! :D Then the referer data comes to you cleanly, and still remains out of the hands of eavesdroppers.
If Google ends up pressuring a greater adoption of SSL for standard web surfing across SEO-conscious websites, then I would call this a significant win. Yes, I realize Google is still raeping my data. But that has not gotten demonstrably worse by this change while many many other benefits appear to be cropping up. xD
If people were willing to pay to use facebook what would happen is they would pay and get bombarded with ads anyway a la cable tv.
And.... their data they were paying to keep confident would still get randomly published one day, that is after it's value being resold on the black market a few thousand times had plummeted low enough. x3
To each their own, but RegExs, to me, are far more rickety. You're essentially adding a language on top of a language, and the one your are adding has no cues for your brain to pick up on like it would reading English based code.
The thing is, the correct way to maintainably invoke regex is to build long pattern matches out of constants and keep the constants both simple and easy to separately test.
That way, the constants you build the regex out of are both self-documenting and "cues for your brain to pick up on based on English words".
The inherent advantage of humans knowing what "IF", "THEN" and "ELSE" means is completely nullified after many pages of it. I understand that code folding IDE's can make such efforts more manageable, but IMO relying on the next debugger using a compatible code folding IDE is just as dangerous as relying on the next debugger being as much of a Regex wizard as you are. (and, apologies if mentioning fancy IDE is a strawman, I just can't pre-emptively guess how else you might try to defend pages of if-then-else. Just being pro-active. ;3 )
You can step through a large block of code bit by bit with the debugger. You can't do that with a regex.
I think this post really illustrates the gulf between those who fear regex and those who do not.
A lot of coders today simply do not know how to code (or know how to and avoid doing so), they know how to set breakpoints in a debugger looking for large duplo-blocks of code to comment out or alter in predictable ways until the code outputs what they expect from it.
Now if we are lucky, if we are very lucky the coders who do this are forced to at least write regression tests for their changes. But at the foundational level, they don't know what they changed or why it worked, they just banged the code with a hammer until the rattling stopped. Not having to do so again next month is above their payscale.
Once you abandon this dangerous approach and assume that debugging involves actually grokking the code, then regex suddenly becomes the right tool for a wide variety of parsing jobs. While obviously very terse, it is also rich in it's ability to comment, build larger pattern matches out of smaller, atomic, easily tested pattern matches, etc.
Regex requires someone familiar with Regex to debug. Pages of if-then-else require someone with an automated debugger and no hope of seeing the bigger picture to debug. Regex simply wins this battle, so long as the author is careful to comment and build up well labeled match strings atomically. I am not trying to say that a majority of regex slingers do The Right Thing, I am saying that with if-then-else alone it is not possible to do The Right Thing and no amount of debugger-friendliness changes that.
Sorry, you're going to have repost that, it looks like your modem had some problems and there is quite a lot of line noise in it.
Honestly, if you think that is readable you need to get out more.
Look, it's quite simple. Show us how you would do that as if-then-elses. Once you do, then I'll have a witty retort about how your mess isn't readable (or isn't practicable, I'll have to wait and see what you post to know what problems it will have. ;3)
If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times; use an HTTP proxy like Privoxy
Privoxy + SSL = Fail, and many people SSL to many different places.
Now I'm not saying that proxy-modifying-SSL would be impossible: what would be choice would be to establish a trust-chain to your proxy, so you negotiate SSL to the proxy which negotiates SSL to the world. Hell, at that point you could always run SSL to the proxy and thwart many malware and eavesdropping angles of attack against non-SSL sites.
Well, at any rate, I don't think Privoxy is that serious about what they do just yet. That's a lot of work. ;3
If it is possible to desensitize folks from strong reactions to roaches using exposure to virtual roaches, why is it somehow absurd to suggest that people are desensitized from strong reactions to violence by exposure to violence in video games?
Your question is a well chosen one sir, although I think that the standard slashdotter mentality remains correct on these points. The seeming paradox comes from differing kinds of "sensitivity" one is being "desensitized" to.
Specifically, virtual immersion in a situation can desensitize you to a debilitating phobia quite effectively, but we are arguing that it has no significant impact on desensitizing a person's moral compass. Exposure to bloody and violent games may allow a person the clarity of mind to not seize up in terror when they witness a tragedy in real life, but there are no respectable studies which suggest that violent video games increase the likelihood of an individual to stop caring whether or not they initiate a tragedy in real life.
Unless you are suggesting we are really all murderers who are simply too neurotic to commit such a messy crime, until we have cured our phobias of seeing blood and gore in a video game? ;3
Well, off the top of my head, "localism" or "regionalism" is desirable for a number reasons
I know a lot of people who feel this way. Hell, I even lent a hand for our local farmer's co-op to get their website off the ground. But let's say that 90% of the world slowly changes to purchasing purely local food and raw materials. What impact does this have on the impoverished farmers in Brazil? If there is less demand for their product, do they just stop mowing down forest and somehow "win the game"? I would expect they would mow down the forest faster since cheaper product requires higher volume to stay in business.
And what impact does this have on us? Well, hopefully we're eating healthier. We don't need as much processed food or preservatives if the food doesn't need to migrate to us. OTOH, driving around the countryside to pick up your groceries from a half dozen farmers who live nowhere near each other, or driving to a clearinghouse on specified days to pick up your orders, which involve you purchasing whole cows and chickens and paying further for butchering, lead to food costs magnitudes higher than just stopping by Fred Meyers once a week and filling a shopping cart.
So you're bottom line gets gutted, as do the Brazilians. When you live month to month working 2-4 jobs per household like virtually everyone I know, any added expense and inconvenience had better damned well be justified. So when it turns out the forests and all the endangered species just burn down faster, you can bet I'd feel a bit miffed by the outcome.
The point I am making is that we, every one of us relevant to the matter, are simply trying to survive. There exist environmental activists that try to make American citizens feel guilty by making claims that we are in the top 1% wealthiest people in the world by salary, etc etc. Thus we should be able to somehow tighten our belts and for pennies a day send an African child to school, or buy locally which protects the rain forests, or loosens the grip of chain shopping centers, or whatever. The reality is that while in America you make more than in most parts of the world, it also costs more to exist here. It's like the Mall down the block where shops pay $4/hr above minimum wage, but then charge you $8/hr for union dues.
No, I think that resolving these problems need to be done at the international diplomatic level. If the rain forests in Brazil are so vital to the world, then the rest of the world needs to negotiate with the government of Brazil to keep them safe. The people of Brazil are the custodians of this lush habitat, and those people are cutting it down. They do so because they have no other options and because, let's be fair, the rest of the world aren't giving them any incentive not to lean on that resource.
They are the folk who live in the library, freezing to death and burning up the books because there is no other way to keep warm. Just because Wal-Mart is buying the ashes from them doesn't mean boycotting Wal-Mart would keep the books safe. What they need is to be somehow compensated for their duty of preserving and maintaining those books. No amount of local-shopping or gasoline-sipping will fulfill that specific goal.
You miss the point that they are largely deforesting to supply demand in other parts of the world -- whether its for "cheap" agriculture, wood, etc.
No, U. I asked "what comfort you could conceivably give up that would give Brazilian farmers an alternative to deforestation?" If you believe our luxurious choices of shopping at Wal-Mart instead of shopping at Mom n' Pawp (who wholesale with the same traders as Wal-Mart) will alter the old supply and demand curve until Brazillian Farmers can make money from practices aside from getting free cropland by mowing down the unclaimed forests, then I would like to hear your illustration to that point.
The thing is, we are not facing any extreme temperature-like metaphor. We are sacrificing them for our own comfort, not for our survival.
I don't perceive any true elements to that statement. Are middle Americans driving over exotic flora and fauna in their SUV's by shortcutting through the 'glades to get their groceries quicker? Or are acres of rain forest being burned and cut down every day by subsistence farmers in financial straits where they have no other options?
Only a small portion of the world can really argue from the position of having comfort to sacrifice things over, and those are in virtually all cases not the portions of the population on the front lines of our encroachment against nature.
I am not trying to tell you that reversing this trend is impossible, but we should not kid ourselves what socially deep roots would need to be cut or rearranged in order to affect change. So why don't you start by illustrating what comfort you could conceivably give up that would give Brazilian farmers an alternative to deforestation? Hint: it's not buying a hybrid.
I guess if you were living your entire life inside the Library of Alexandria, you would be burning books for fuel.
While I appreciate what you are trying to say, I watched "The Day After Tomorrow" where people trapped in the NYPL facing liquid nitrogen temps outside were left to do pretty much exactly that. My question is, what else would you have them do? Freeze to death specifically so that people not trapped in the library can later read that material?
As a species and as a collected civilization, our first priority is to survive. If we are given the choice to allow a specific other species to continue it's genetic heritage at the cost of our own continued survival, then you cannot list the luxury of later being able to learn that species' quantum secrets among the benefits of our sacrifice as we won't be around to learn them.
We've made big changes to the world we evolved into. The number of species going extinct during the last few generations of humans is now among the biggest dieoffs the planet has ever seen.
And that couldn't possibly be because of our advancing ability to perceive new and exotic species and thus to also perceive them dying off too? Or do you have a citation to back up your stat? :3
See kids? Cryptanalysis can be fun. ;3
49 20 67 6F 74 20 74 68 65 20 64 69 73 74 69 6E 63 74 20 69 6D 70 72 65 73 73 69 6F 6E 20 73 6F 6D 65 74 68 69 6E 67 20 77 65 6E 74 20 6F 66 66 21
Encoded Message Follows: 000 0100 01 000 0000 100 111 1 010 001 0100 0 000
I'm sorry, but all I get from that mess is HTEHPLOCJITBH. :3