My first thought was Gabriel Syme, the titular Man Who Was Thursday. That's a novel where everyone's an anarchist, a secret policeman or both, so would have made sense as a reference.
Apparently Deus Ex makes several nods to the novel, but I've never played that game (my geek card is already winging its way to the appropriate authorities).
David Cameron talks about wanting the UK to produce its own internet giants. How can there ever be a "British Google" or the like under a system which ships off British innovators to the US when their business operates in the tricky legal grey area of international/internet boundaries? If YouTube didn't exist and were invented in Britain tomorrow, the creators would be extradited to the US post-hate, rather than allowed to develop their legitimate business. If Cameron actually wants the UK to punch above its weight on the internet, he needs to start fostering a culture of explicitly supporting British businesses and bedroom startups.
I believe that it's been going in the bank against the day when funding dried up and to avoid becoming reliant on external influence from any partner, current or future. I've not got a citation though, that's from vaguely recalled coverage of the Google deal being extended three years ago (not instituted as TFS mistakenly claims).
Their whole strategy so far has been to blame the users: "Its not Gawkers fault your passwords are so weak."
Which is both reprehensible of them and false. Their poor choice of algorithm literally truncated my sixteen character password to an eight character one. When I logged in to change mine I did so with just the front half.
This comment is asinine, not insightful. Companies are complaining about being unfairly ranked (as they see it) when people search for their services on Google. The companies can't "use something else" because they aren't the ones doing the googling.
Government x doesn't like Wikileaks redistributing its documents to the general public? They should use something else!
Brit here. Parallel with "Cool Britannia" (remember that?) I saw a lot of use in the press of the "Naughty Nineties" (modelled on the "Swinging Sixties"). So if the astonishingly imaginative trend continues, I imagine the next decade will be christened the Naughteens.
What are you talking about? Britain doesn't even have a constitution.
Claiming that Britain lacks a constitution on the basis that no-one has written it all down in one place is akin to claiming that the USA doesn't have a head of state because Obama doesn't wear a pointy gold hat.
Cuil was launched last year with great fanfare regarding its privacy policy which promised not to track users' personally identifiable information. See their current policy alongside a warning that it is soon to change somehow here: http://www.cuil.com/info/privacy/
I use and normally recommend Clusty which says in plain English that "We at Clusty don't track you." (http://clusty.com/privacy) and in legalese that they do collect "Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, referral data, the date and time of your query and one or more cookies (described below) that may uniquely identify your browser" (http://clusty.com/privacypolicy).
That's either ethical or useful for you. tl;dr - one beginning with "C".
Firefox extensions and browser plugins proper certainly can be disabled/prevented from installing by Mozilla. See https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/blocklist/ for the (en-US only?) naughty list.
I don't know what SeaMonkey, Camino, Iceweasel, etc do, but filtering for "blocklist" on about:config shows your browser's exact settings. Notably the extensions.blocklist.enabled pref allows the user to turn the remote killswitch off if they so desire.
Amusingly enough, the propensity to unthinkingly invoke Orwell is akin to his concept of duckspeak. Reading multiple +5 Insightful "1984 wasn't an instruction manual maaaan" posts in a single Brit-related topic makes me wonder about the duckmods though. Perhaps it's hard to peck out the -1 Overrated with a bill?
Same with the PyGame docs installation exe. AVG mistakenly flagged it a few days ago. No major problem obviously, but a needless irritation nonetheless.
Bridges? Ooh, la-di-da! We would have given our eyeteeth for a bridge. We used to live near a ford and had to shout our disruptive and disingenuous comments from a nearby coppice or shrubbery. None of your bridges back when I was growing up!
Are any of these extensions (CalendarEncrypt, Adblock Plus) against the TOS? As much as I believe that you should be allowed to do whatever you want on your computer, when your data is in the cloud the provider can always pull the plug so you better not ignore the TOS.
The cloud is a lie. One we're better off not perpetuating at that. Our data is on Google's servers, under their control and used for their benefit. I realise you're referring unambiguously to this yourself when you talk about breaching their TOS, but I'm against embracing nebulous non-threatening jargon which obscures the true state of our personal information.
As to your point, I have no idea whether these tools are against the TOS. Since everyone includes the proviso that their terms can be unilaterally revised at any time, there's no reason why they shouldn't become so in the future.
...and lots of other parts of the mozilla site went down at times, too, making it difficult to find extensions, or just information.
What's particularly irritating there is that pressing F1 now takes you to their support.mozilla.com site, meaning that the Help menu is worthless if your connection or their servers aren't functioning.
And who among us can honestly say they've never oiled their snake?
Girls?
Who?
I'm surprised you haven't heard of them. They're another lame, overexposed internet meme like monkeys, pirates and ninjas. Probably invented by Fark or 4chan or something.
You have 300gb of new files every week? The MPAA is looking for you.
What, so they can drown GP's independently produced film-making in Coke ads, jaggy CGI explosions and piss-poor Nu Metal cover versions? Oooh, they really are evil, aren't they?
Also, international cooperation is necessary since the US has already nixed bankrolling manned Mars missions.
Thanks for clearing that up submitter! I'd hate to think it was being done in a spirit of international cooperation to advance the sum of human knowledge.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Slashdot Mirror
My first thought was Gabriel Syme, the titular Man Who Was Thursday. That's a novel where everyone's an anarchist, a secret policeman or both, so would have made sense as a reference.
Apparently Deus Ex makes several nods to the novel, but I've never played that game (my geek card is already winging its way to the appropriate authorities).
David Cameron talks about wanting the UK to produce its own internet giants. How can there ever be a "British Google" or the like under a system which ships off British innovators to the US when their business operates in the tricky legal grey area of international/internet boundaries? If YouTube didn't exist and were invented in Britain tomorrow, the creators would be extradited to the US post-hate, rather than allowed to develop their legitimate business. If Cameron actually wants the UK to punch above its weight on the internet, he needs to start fostering a culture of explicitly supporting British businesses and bedroom startups.
I believe that it's been going in the bank against the day when funding dried up and to avoid becoming reliant on external influence from any partner, current or future. I've not got a citation though, that's from vaguely recalled coverage of the Google deal being extended three years ago (not instituted as TFS mistakenly claims).
Which is both reprehensible of them and false. Their poor choice of algorithm literally truncated my sixteen character password to an eight character one. When I logged in to change mine I did so with just the front half.
This comment is asinine, not insightful. Companies are complaining about being unfairly ranked (as they see it) when people search for their services on Google. The companies can't "use something else" because they aren't the ones doing the googling.
Government x doesn't like Wikileaks redistributing its documents to the general public? They should use something else!
Brit here. Parallel with "Cool Britannia" (remember that?) I saw a lot of use in the press of the "Naughty Nineties" (modelled on the "Swinging Sixties"). So if the astonishingly imaginative trend continues, I imagine the next decade will be christened the Naughteens.
Claiming that Britain lacks a constitution on the basis that no-one has written it all down in one place is akin to claiming that the USA doesn't have a head of state because Obama doesn't wear a pointy gold hat.
Cuil was launched last year with great fanfare regarding its privacy policy which promised not to track users' personally identifiable information. See their current policy alongside a warning that it is soon to change somehow here: http://www.cuil.com/info/privacy/
I use and normally recommend Clusty which says in plain English that "We at Clusty don't track you." (http://clusty.com/privacy) and in legalese that they do collect "Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, referral data, the date and time of your query and one or more cookies (described below) that may uniquely identify your browser" (http://clusty.com/privacypolicy).
That's either ethical or useful for you. tl;dr - one beginning with "C".
Firefox extensions and browser plugins proper certainly can be disabled/prevented from installing by Mozilla. See https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/blocklist/ for the (en-US only?) naughty list.
I don't know what SeaMonkey, Camino, Iceweasel, etc do, but filtering for "blocklist" on about:config shows your browser's exact settings. Notably the extensions.blocklist.enabled pref allows the user to turn the remote killswitch off if they so desire.
Amusingly enough, the propensity to unthinkingly invoke Orwell is akin to his concept of duckspeak. Reading multiple +5 Insightful "1984 wasn't an instruction manual maaaan" posts in a single Brit-related topic makes me wonder about the duckmods though. Perhaps it's hard to peck out the -1 Overrated with a bill?
Same with the PyGame docs installation exe. AVG mistakenly flagged it a few days ago. No major problem obviously, but a needless irritation nonetheless.
Having played Missile Command released in 1980, I'm inclined to disagree with GP too.
It's like Dad warned me when I turned 16: "When you give someone your password you're giving it to them plus everyone they ever slept with."
Bridges? Ooh, la-di-da! We would have given our eyeteeth for a bridge. We used to live near a ford and had to shout our disruptive and disingenuous comments from a nearby coppice or shrubbery. None of your bridges back when I was growing up!
The cloud is a lie. One we're better off not perpetuating at that. Our data is on Google's servers, under their control and used for their benefit. I realise you're referring unambiguously to this yourself when you talk about breaching their TOS, but I'm against embracing nebulous non-threatening jargon which obscures the true state of our personal information.
As to your point, I have no idea whether these tools are against the TOS. Since everyone includes the proviso that their terms can be unilaterally revised at any time, there's no reason why they shouldn't become so in the future.
What's particularly irritating there is that pressing F1 now takes you to their support.mozilla.com site, meaning that the Help menu is worthless if your connection or their servers aren't functioning.
Hobbit II: The Hobbitch is Back (Again)
Either way the smell is going to be terrible.
What, so they can drown GP's independently produced film-making in Coke ads, jaggy CGI explosions and piss-poor Nu Metal cover versions? Oooh, they really are evil, aren't they?
Not to mention the plesiosaur with the "END NUCLEAR TESTING NOW" sign.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!