your company will probably block myfriend.com soon, but they havn't because it's new.
They won't block it if only one person uses it, traffic is too small to get noticed. Plus, if myfriend.com is on DSL or some other ISP that DHCP's a new IP regularly, then it is effectively unblockable.
As far as I know, with tor, you don't have to trust a specific machine
They claim it is a feature - that you have to have a relationship - like an immigrated family member - with the owner of the system. That should reduce abusive uses to about zero, which should make it a lot more palatable for regular people to run, and a lot simpler, than an onion router system.
I know the reason we invested in Apollo was for military reasons. Don't shatter my deepfelt optimism that one day we'll invest as much money in exploration as we did in a giant pissing match.
Pssst! The chatter says Osama is developing his own terrorist space elevator. If we do not build our own Freedom Elevator to Heaven first, then the terrorists have won!
They write off evolution being able to produce entirely new species altogether.
Thus the intelligent creation of "micro-evolution" as in - we have no way to dispute something that people have witnessed in thousands of experiments with fruit flies, not to mention every single evanglist dog breeder and cattle farmer in Texas.
But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"
No matter how easy - short of retail packaging, Joe Sixpack, by definition, ain't going to be installing it in the first place. The secret is safe!
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen. DigitalConvergence has every right to choose the mechanism for selling its product.
US principle are not universal principles. I do not believe in censorship, I think it's wrong, but the 'great firewall' in China is not something *wrong*.
But if you use his "free" software in a manner he does not like, he WILL use the coercive power of government to stop you.
This is a red herring from the original argument that RMS does not allow anyone to disagree with him.
His concept of "copyleft" cannot exist without a foundation of coercive legal enforcement.
Funny - we don't have any laws requiring that the hoods on cars not be welded shut, yet no commercially available vehicle comes with its hood welded shut.
not much different than Marx's argument that proletarian dictatorships wouldn't be needed if there weren't authoritarian governments.
That's funny, considering that RMS's argument on the point is that a free market is all that is necessary, very much the opposite of Marxism.
Freedom by definition IMHO needs to include the freedom to disagree with him...which is one element of it that he has repeatedly indicated that he does not want people to have.
That is like saying, "Freedom of speech means that the government should be free to tell people not to listen."
RMS is an advocate, but he is not an enforcer with a gun to your head, not the government, not some corp with a patent on software licensing. You are free to disagree with him all you want, free to release software under whatever license you can dream up. But he does not have to encourage you, nor even make it easy for you to do so. If you don't want him to challenge your beliefs, then don't get involved. It's called the marketplace of ideas, and he's doing his best to sell his ideas.
Normally these ideas make me fume with rage at their sheer evilness. This is odd. I can't actually fathom the logic of this one.
That's because the telco's are implementing the Chewbacca Defense approach to lobbying.
This does not make sense! Thus congress must pass a law to guarantee telco's the ability to make non-sensical profits!
The problem is, that doing a Chewbacca is standard fare when lobbying congress, so they are all likely to blindly accept it and then go back to their edit wars in the wikipedia articles about the opposition party.
Nobody is going to be passing this stuff around the net, or archiving it, or much of anything, DRM or not, - it's just too darn big.
Yeah, and 640K is more RAM than anyone will ever need.
Gotta break it to you - people are already passing this stuff around on the net and have been doing so wide-scale for almost 2 years. Furthermore, that ~35GB mpeg2 of about 4 hours of superbowl can be relatively easily converted to ~8GB or less of h.264 with little perciptible loss of quality. HD movies which tend to run 10-20GB in mpeg2 can be similarly re-encoded with h.264 to ~4.5GB to fit on a single DVD-R.
Any copy-prevention scheme that relies on "its too big to copy" has a life-time of months nowadays.
The terrorist just made three calls, found out the guy with the laptop was gone, and then left the place where the phone number was.
Hey, anybody make up movie plots. If the people involved really believe that is going to happen, then they do have probable cause. Of course, if they don't believe that and just want to fiddle their bits instead of following up on the hundreds of other stronger leads that the same raid generated -- why are we paying them?
The whole point of these things is that they find the number and sometimes have just minutes or hours to tap before the loss is noticed and the line is useless for intelligence.
The whole point of the FISA court is that they have 72 hours to retroactively clear such a wiretap. So where is the problem?
What if they're tapping less phone lines, but more of the important ones?
By definition, if they are important, then they've got probable cause. Else how do they know they are important?
Besides, what kind of a colossal fuckup would it be if someone did detonate an Iranian suitcase nuke in San Diego,
And what a colossal fuckup it would be if the information to stop 9/11 was already recorded by agents in the field, reported and filed on FBI computers but nobody noticed?
Oh yeah, it was.
You demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about how security works. It is impossible to follow up on every diddly little lead. There are not enough resources to cover everything. So you prioritize and work the leads with the highest probability of yielding results. To do otherwise is to ignore the obviously good leads in favor of chasing your tail. The leads that have high-probability of yielding results are, by definition, those for which there is probable cause.
You advocate ignoring good security principles in favor of something akin to throwing darts. In which case you have roughly no security at all.
You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line. What do you do? Give up?
You do some legwork - find out who owns that phone line. See if they have any other connections that makes them suspicious and if they do, then you've got your probable cause. If they don't - then you've probably got bigger fish to fry. It isn't like fatherland security has a bunch of agents sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for new leads to pop up.
They've already got information overload, a couple of orders of magnitude more information per agent than they had before 9/11 - and they obviously did not have enough agents then because all the clues they needed to prevent 9/11 were already recorded and filed. Tapping even more phonelines isn't going to make the investigators more efficient - its going to make them waste even more time on pointless "leads."
Is there a good extension out there that will let you keep your bookmarks (and other things like browser history, cookie-database, password database, etc) on a central server? Preferrably one under your own control, rather than one run by a Big Corp?
Re:Do people actually log-in when searching Google
on
Google Toolbar v.4
·
· Score: 1
Some of us don't have _anything_ to hide. I would gladly give all of my surfing data to whomever wishes to have it....
How do you know? Privacy is like Pandora's Box - once you let your information out, it is no longer under your control. If you change your mind, there is nothing you can do to get your privacy back.
I am reminded of DejaNews, ironically now acquired by Google. When Deja first came-up online there was a lot of consternation by people who had said silly things on usenet in the past, things they were embarrassed by now. In some cases, things that could cause them a lot of trouble now, like openly discussing their use of recreational pharmaceuticals or their participation in fringe sexual activities. When those people originally wrote those articles, they had no concept that later in life it might come back to haunt them.
How can you know that your surfing activity today won't be of keen interest to someone who wishes you harm tomorrow? You can't.
Best to keep your options open and keep your privacy today. You can always give it away tomorrow if you really want to.
Any cash transactions over $10k, you need to report to the IRS.
As others have pointed out, the post I was responding to said "credit check." But presuming he really meant "id check" then the next time I pay over $10K for an airline ticket we can talk.
As for transfer of title without showing ID? No problem, the seller can leave that portion of the form blank and I can fill it in and file the completed paperwork myself - this is what I usually do. Even if the seller wants to file it himself, he doesn't need to see ID, I just have to tell him a name to put on the form.
it's ridiculous to claim this policy is a perfect example of the FAA's complete ineptness and a specific byproduct of them being tasked with 'two conflicting tasks' when most other countries (without an FAA) have the SAME POLICY.
You missed my point - most of the other countries that have implemented this policy did so long after the US did and did it as part of the post-9/11 bridge-jumping hysteria.
For that matter, Australia does not require photo ID by law, even Britain does not require it by law either. I was unable to find conclusive proof that Germany, France, India or Japan require, by law, photo id for domestic flights either. Israel was the only country that clearly requires it by law and they are not a state which we should be emulating lest we end up digging ourselves into the same hole they have. Lots of individual airlines do it as "policy" but not by government mandate.
Given even the small chance of someone attempting to do something on a plane
So then it must follow that given the much greater chance, orders of magnitude greater in fact, of someone causing an accident when driving a car, that we ought to at least check id before letting someone drive a car. Yet no one is calling for mandatory ID checking before you get behind a steering wheel.
And for the moron who is going to say, "but you need a driver's license to drive" -- I know people who have driven with an expired license for years and nobody stopped them from driving, much less checked their id.
Slashdot Mirror
What does that have to do with anything,
It is a joke. It is true, but still funny.
your company will probably block myfriend.com soon, but they havn't because it's new.
They won't block it if only one person uses it, traffic is too small to get noticed. Plus, if myfriend.com is on DSL or some other ISP that DHCP's a new IP regularly, then it is effectively unblockable.
As far as I know, with tor, you don't have to trust a specific machine
They claim it is a feature - that you have to have a relationship - like an immigrated family member - with the owner of the system. That should reduce abusive uses to about zero, which should make it a lot more palatable for regular people to run, and a lot simpler, than an onion router system.
This sounds like it is a rewriting proxy - you request a page, say www.yahoo.com by using the URL:
o m/
https://psiphonat.myfriend.com/http://www.yahoo.c
and then proxy re-writes all URLs in the document to be of that same form so that clicks will automagically go through the psiphon proxy.
How is this better than Tor: http://tor.eff.org/
I would tell you, but my corporate firewall won't allow access to that website.
or just an HTTP Proxy that supports CONNECT for SSL traffic?
Because people may be forced to use a proxy just to get outside of the firewall. You can't chain proxies, at least not with normal web browsers.
I know the reason we invested in Apollo was for military reasons. Don't shatter my deepfelt optimism that one day we'll invest as much money in exploration as we did in a giant pissing match.
Pssst! The chatter says Osama is developing his own terrorist space elevator.
If we do not build our own Freedom Elevator to Heaven first, then the terrorists have won!
They write off evolution being able to produce entirely new species altogether.
Thus the intelligent creation of "micro-evolution" as in - we have no way to dispute something that people have witnessed in thousands of experiments with fruit flies, not to mention every single evanglist dog breeder and cattle farmer in Texas.
You're confusing two different issues.
And you are missing the forest for the trees.
But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"
No matter how easy - short of retail packaging, Joe Sixpack, by definition, ain't going to be installing it in the first place.
The secret is safe!
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen. DigitalConvergence has every right to choose the mechanism for selling its product.
US principle are not universal principles. I do not believe in censorship, I think it's wrong, but the 'great firewall' in China is not something *wrong*.
Yes, in fact, it is doubleplusgood!
Then I remembered Google's book search, which came up with at least five or six solid hits that actually helped
But even google books could not tell you what movies to watch. You should have just posted to "Ask Slashdot"...
But if you use his "free" software in a manner he does not like, he WILL use the coercive power of government to stop you.
This is a red herring from the original argument that RMS does not allow anyone to disagree with him.
His concept of "copyleft" cannot exist without a foundation of coercive legal enforcement.
Funny - we don't have any laws requiring that the hoods on cars not be welded shut, yet no commercially available vehicle comes with its hood welded shut.
not much different than Marx's argument that proletarian dictatorships wouldn't be needed if there weren't authoritarian governments.
That's funny, considering that RMS's argument on the point is that a free market is all that is necessary, very much the opposite of Marxism.
Freedom by definition IMHO needs to include the freedom to disagree with him...which is one element of it that he has repeatedly indicated that he does not want people to have.
That is like saying, "Freedom of speech means that the government should be free to tell people not to listen."
RMS is an advocate, but he is not an enforcer with a gun to your head, not the government, not some corp with a patent on software licensing. You are free to disagree with him all you want, free to release software under whatever license you can dream up. But he does not have to encourage you, nor even make it easy for you to do so. If you don't want him to challenge your beliefs, then don't get involved. It's called the marketplace of ideas, and he's doing his best to sell his ideas.
They'll be happy to charge $10000 per dose to make up for their overwhelming research budget, I'm sure.
You mispelled "advertising budget."
Normally these ideas make me fume with rage at their sheer evilness.
This is odd. I can't actually fathom the logic of this one.
That's because the telco's are implementing the Chewbacca Defense approach to lobbying.
This does not make sense! Thus congress must pass a law to guarantee telco's the ability to make non-sensical profits!
The problem is, that doing a Chewbacca is standard fare when lobbying congress, so they are all likely to blindly accept it and then go back to their edit wars in the wikipedia articles about the opposition party.
Nobody is going to be passing this stuff around the net, or archiving it, or much of anything, DRM or not, - it's just too darn big.
Yeah, and 640K is more RAM than anyone will ever need.
Gotta break it to you - people are already passing this stuff around on the net and have been doing so wide-scale for almost 2 years. Furthermore, that ~35GB mpeg2 of about 4 hours of superbowl can be relatively easily converted to ~8GB or less of h.264 with little perciptible loss of quality. HD movies which tend to run 10-20GB in mpeg2 can be similarly re-encoded with h.264 to ~4.5GB to fit on a single DVD-R.
Any copy-prevention scheme that relies on "its too big to copy" has a life-time of months nowadays.
The terrorist just made three calls, found out the guy with the laptop was gone, and then left the place where the phone number was.
Hey, anybody make up movie plots. If the people involved really believe that is going to happen, then they do have probable cause. Of course, if they don't believe that and just want to fiddle their bits instead of following up on the hundreds of other stronger leads that the same raid generated -- why are we paying them?
The whole point of these things is that they find the number and sometimes have just minutes or hours to tap before the loss is noticed and the line is useless for intelligence.
The whole point of the FISA court is that they have 72 hours to retroactively clear such a wiretap. So where is the problem?
What if they're tapping less phone lines, but more of the important ones?
By definition, if they are important, then they've got probable cause. Else how do they know they are important?
Besides, what kind of a colossal fuckup would it be if someone did detonate an Iranian suitcase nuke in San Diego,
And what a colossal fuckup it would be if the information to stop 9/11 was already recorded by agents in the field, reported and filed on FBI computers but nobody noticed?
Oh yeah, it was.
You demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about how security works. It is impossible to follow up on every diddly little lead. There are not enough resources to cover everything. So you prioritize and work the leads with the highest probability of yielding results. To do otherwise is to ignore the obviously good leads in favor of chasing your tail. The leads that have high-probability of yielding results are, by definition, those for which there is probable cause.
You advocate ignoring good security principles in favor of something akin to throwing darts.
In which case you have roughly no security at all.
You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line. What do you do? Give up?
You do some legwork - find out who owns that phone line. See if they have any other connections that makes them suspicious and if they do, then you've got your probable cause. If they don't - then you've probably got bigger fish to fry. It isn't like fatherland security has a bunch of agents sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for new leads to pop up.
They've already got information overload, a couple of orders of magnitude more information per agent than they had before 9/11 - and they obviously did not have enough agents then because all the clues they needed to prevent 9/11 were already recorded and filed. Tapping even more phonelines isn't going to make the investigators more efficient - its going to make them waste even more time on pointless "leads."
Is there a good extension out there that will let you keep your bookmarks (and other things like browser history, cookie-database, password database, etc) on a central server? Preferrably one under your own control, rather than one run by a Big Corp?
Some of us don't have _anything_ to hide. I would gladly give all of my surfing data to whomever wishes to have it....
How do you know? Privacy is like Pandora's Box - once you let your information out, it is no longer under your control. If you change your mind, there is nothing you can do to get your privacy back.
I am reminded of DejaNews, ironically now acquired by Google. When Deja first came-up online there was a lot of consternation by people who had said silly things on usenet in the past, things they were embarrassed by now. In some cases, things that could cause them a lot of trouble now, like openly discussing their use of recreational pharmaceuticals or their participation in fringe sexual activities. When those people originally wrote those articles, they had no concept that later in life it might come back to haunt them.
How can you know that your surfing activity today won't be of keen interest to someone who wishes you harm tomorrow? You can't.
Best to keep your options open and keep your privacy today. You can always give it away tomorrow if you really want to.
Any cash transactions over $10k, you need to report to the IRS.
As others have pointed out, the post I was responding to said "credit check." But presuming he really meant "id check" then the next time I pay over $10K for an airline ticket we can talk.
As for transfer of title without showing ID? No problem, the seller can leave that portion of the form blank and I can fill it in and file the completed paperwork myself - this is what I usually do. Even if the seller wants to file it himself, he doesn't need to see ID, I just have to tell him a name to put on the form.
it's ridiculous to claim this policy is a perfect example of the FAA's complete ineptness and a specific byproduct of them being tasked with 'two conflicting tasks' when most other countries (without an FAA) have the SAME POLICY.
You missed my point - most of the other countries that have implemented this policy did so long after the US did and did it as part of the post-9/11 bridge-jumping hysteria.
For that matter, Australia does not require photo ID by law, even Britain does not require it by law either. I was unable to find conclusive proof that Germany, France, India or Japan require, by law, photo id for domestic flights either. Israel was the only country that clearly requires it by law and they are not a state which we should be emulating lest we end up digging ourselves into the same hole they have. Lots of individual airlines do it as "policy" but not by government mandate.
the kind of ridiculously wasteful policy used by nearly every other industrialized country?
What are you still doing here? Didn't you hear, all your friends jumped off the bridge.
This ID check is not unreasonable nor troublesome to any passenger.
So they check your ID and what good does it do?
Are they checking to make sure your ID isn't stamped "terrorist" or "manic-depressive?"
Just because some action is not particularly troublesome for most people does not make it at all reasonable.
A strip-/cavity-search would be where I would draw the line.
Funny that -- at least such a search will guarantee that you are not carrying anything dangerous to your fellow passengers, unlike an ID check.
Your reasoning is just rationalization for behaving like a lemming instead of thinking about actual security.
Given even the small chance of someone attempting to do something on a plane
So then it must follow that given the much greater chance, orders of magnitude greater in fact, of someone causing an accident when driving a car, that we ought to at least check id before letting someone drive a car. Yet no one is calling for mandatory ID checking before you get behind a steering wheel.
And for the moron who is going to say, "but you need a driver's license to drive" -- I know people who have driven with an expired license for years and nobody stopped them from driving, much less checked their id.