Does anyone know a secure IM? I've heard you can interface Gaim with tor, but does it work with Gaim descendents like Adium for OS X? And can you have real time IM with these secure proxy stuff.
Also, I'd recommend Tor and Privoxy for normal browsing if you want security.
Is this going to be a new Slashdot meme? I mean, I don't want to see it become like "In Russia, " or "I, for one, welcome our new ____ overlords". Then again, it'd have to go on Wikipedia if it did become like that, and imagine the "No Self Reference" Arguments when they mention the origin of it.
Ok, but then someone comes along and either a) reverse-engineers or b) decompiles the software and finds a way to remove the encryption. Then it's on a torrent or downloads site, and it'll be encryptionless, so it shows up as a free work.
Again, that means NSA jumping into the call. They have to not just copy the communication, but change something in the call, which would be "out of sight" of the speakers, but still would require fast action and lots of bandwidth. They'd have to handle all the encryption and decryption of every PGP phone in the country, which sounds hard if it becomes semi-standard. Also, wouldn't someone notice if they checked their logs, and everyone had the same public key (NSA's)?
Wait, that requires them not just listening in on the call, that requires them actually intervening in it. That's a lot of time and computer power to devote to every PGP phone (and I assume there would be a lot of them? eventually, if they become public)
Prior exchange, out of band, of the public keys would make the man in the middle attack harder to do.
And since it doesn't matter who knows my public key (unless the entirety of NSA spent a holiday weekend on cracking it), I could literally publish it everywhere I put my cellphone number. And it is non-changing. Prior exchange is very easy to do.
And this is why new companies show up every year that compete just fine with the big guys? Where was google on the map 10 years ago? Oh, they weren't.
The cost to make a website is low. You pay the domain name fees, you get a hosting computer. In the beginning, it can be a pretty normal computer if you don't get much traffic. The cost scales with the traffic (and thus theoretically with the profits) in the website "industry"
In the ISP industry, the cost of entry is low if you can buy access on someone else's phone lines. If that isn't the case, and if this two-tiered thing goes through, a startup needs to wire the entire region it wishes to serve, at a minimum. And every time its traffic goes through the big boy's lines, it get de-prioritized. Meaning you need to wire half the country. How's that for an upfront cost?
Is there a chance the facial images have changed over the 1000-1500 years or whatever? I mean, obviously they wouldn't change much, but maybe a little?
More importantly, are we sure da Vinci had regular access to girl's faces? I mean, it was probably mostly guesswork on his part.
1) People likely won't know about it, and Joe Average will just buy it with his computer not realizing the problem and risks. 2) There are only so many hardware providers. What happens when they all carry it? Unless you like build your computers from scrap, you'd be stuck with it. And at some point, they'll just start carrying them on all processors or something. This was made by an alliance of AMD, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft and Sun after all. If Intel joined the fray, the computing world would be sunk.
Ok, here's how I see it. This law only records logs with ports and IPs, not all the actual data. Now let's assume the govt is corrupt and the recording industry or software industry or Hollywood studios, etc. get their hands on the logs. Even if they can get the IP numbers and whatnot and say that person X connected to person Y on the port normally associated with LimeWire, they still have to prove what you LimeWired (is it a verb yet?). I mean, they can prove X connected to a torrent, but not what X got off it or put in it. I mean, there are legitimate uses for filesharing, so how does this prove copyright infringment?
Bias shouldn't be that tough to spot. Featured article Candidates should be pretty safe. Check the talk page, if it has lots of disputes on it, avoid it. If the history is short, it hasn't been revised often. Also, if an article's tagged, don't touch it. Lastly, if it cites sources, you can read them or at least look at them as backup. If this is research, you need to take it seriously. Single-sourcing anything is dangerous.
Ideally, the victim of a falsehood shouldn't have to prove anything, it is just helpful if he/she does. Otherwise, a celeb could demand that something negative be removed even if there are sources to back it.
So Wikipedia is the best place to find out things that most people already know? Fantastic.
By more widely known, I mean more published. There probably hasn't been much research into the life of John Seigenthaler. In fact, the closest to a biography I can see (only searched for 5 minutes) is a 3 page, 874 essay about him that you can buy on Amazon here . I mean, compared to say, the British Empire or Quantum Physics or a major world leader, John Seigenthaler is an unknown.
Ideally the innocent should require no proof, but if the guy links sources, then there are two ways to demonstrate that something is wrong:
1) Go through the source 2) Cite another source.
It shouldn't be his job, but it often works that the first claim improperly gets a bit of a legitimacy boost undeservedly, both in Wikipedia and human thought. There's some social psychological principle or something about it, but I forgot what its called (luckily it wasn't on the final)
If I was him, I'd go onto the talk page, and say that neither of the comments were adequately sourced, and that's why they got the axe. That'd prolly have gone over fine. And I'm sure he has some way to prove he didn't live in the Soviet Union from 1969 to 1985 or whatever it was.
Mr. Seigenthaler's page's problem is that it is relatively obscure. He isn't a guy anyone outside of 1960s politics or the newspaper industry would know about, if I understand correctly. Wikipedia tends to be better at articles that receive more traffic and where the information is more widely known.
All that is required of a person who sees a flaw is to contact someone at wikipedia. If they don't have the necessary knowledge to resolve the issue, they can toss up a flag, like the "The Factual Accuracy of this page has been disputed" or the "This article needs to be cleaned up..." flags, and hopefully someone will fix it.
Personally, I only use Wikipedia for getting a brief conceptual overview of a topic, and only generally ones that I don't study. But if I wanted serious research and accuracy, it does have a list of sources at the bottom of each correctly-done page.
Very true. Wikipedia has a lot of accurate articles, and if nothing else, collates a lot of good sources for someone to look at. Obviously it isn't perfect. But it's darn good. This is like me giving you a free luxury car, and you complaining that it only has half a tank of gas in it. Accept good things, and strive to make them better, don't reject them because they aren't perfect.
This episode shows a strength of Wikipedia, it is quick to respond to problems when it recognizes them. Tell a company about a bug, wait a month, get a response. Tell Wikipedia about a factual error, wait a hour, and see it fixed.
Well, if you are a hot girl between 18 and 28, and you are trying to get noticed in terms of modelling or something, and you download Opera, you have a great shot at winning. Five minutes worth of work in order to qualify for the contest? Heck, someone like that could just ask any geek, and they'd do the download for her. Easiest beauty contest ever.
For businesses, it gets you seen. Few people are going to try to look at anything beyond the first page or two of search results. Therefore, if you are #35 on the listings for a keyword vital to you, you're going to get a lot less traffic. If you are a business, and you have 5 competitors selling X, then whenever someone Googles X, your goal is to be the first website they see (aside from X.com or whatever the parent company is).
For non business organizations, if you want people to read what you have to say, like if you're a blog or a wiki or just a regular site, it helps to be one of the first sites on the google listing. For instance, two days ago I started a wiki as a project to create a third American political Party based on a technologist and freedom stance, as opposed to big business. Now, it's not for money and is just for a fun project, but I want people to see it and contribute. Obviously I have an interest in SEO, but I'm too cheap to pay for it.
The significance here is that Newsweek is running this story, which means that intelligent people without heavy business/technology backgrounds are learning about this. It shouldn't be something we don't already know a decent bit about, but now millions of Americans know about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know a secure IM? I've heard you can interface Gaim with tor, but does it work with Gaim descendents like Adium for OS X? And can you have real time IM with these secure proxy stuff.
Also, I'd recommend Tor and Privoxy for normal browsing if you want security.
I don't care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
If Spitzer is doing this for his own good, for the good of the consumers, or just because he felt like suing someone, he is doing a good thing.
Sorry, I just really wanted to steal that one crapflooder's line, and it works here. Trolls = helpful for once? What's the world come to?
"It's extremely cheap to make dupes now"
That explains everything.
was involved in the Kennedy assassination
Is this going to be a new Slashdot meme? I mean, I don't want to see it become like "In Russia, " or "I, for one, welcome our new ____ overlords". Then again, it'd have to go on Wikipedia if it did become like that, and imagine the "No Self Reference" Arguments when they mention the origin of it.
Ok, but then someone comes along and either a) reverse-engineers or b) decompiles the software and finds a way to remove the encryption. Then it's on a torrent or downloads site, and it'll be encryptionless, so it shows up as a free work.
Again, that means NSA jumping into the call. They have to not just copy the communication, but change something in the call, which would be "out of sight" of the speakers, but still would require fast action and lots of bandwidth. They'd have to handle all the encryption and decryption of every PGP phone in the country, which sounds hard if it becomes semi-standard. Also, wouldn't someone notice if they checked their logs, and everyone had the same public key (NSA's)?
Wait, that requires them not just listening in on the call, that requires them actually intervening in it. That's a lot of time and computer power to devote to every PGP phone (and I assume there would be a lot of them? eventually, if they become public)
Prior exchange, out of band, of the public keys would make the man in the middle attack harder to do.
And since it doesn't matter who knows my public key (unless the entirety of NSA spent a holiday weekend on cracking it), I could literally publish it everywhere I put my cellphone number. And it is non-changing. Prior exchange is very easy to do.
And this is why new companies show up every year that compete just fine with the big guys? Where was google on the map 10 years ago? Oh, they weren't.
The cost to make a website is low. You pay the domain name fees, you get a hosting computer. In the beginning, it can be a pretty normal computer if you don't get much traffic. The cost scales with the traffic (and thus theoretically with the profits) in the website "industry"
In the ISP industry, the cost of entry is low if you can buy access on someone else's phone lines. If that isn't the case, and if this two-tiered thing goes through, a startup needs to wire the entire region it wishes to serve, at a minimum. And every time its traffic goes through the big boy's lines, it get de-prioritized. Meaning you need to wire half the country. How's that for an upfront cost?
How does this take two months to get out? If it were me this happened to, I'd call the press the minute the men in black suits left.
It strikes me as troubling that this stuff waits a while before hitting the presses. So in two months we'll hear about the stuff happening now.
Is there a chance the facial images have changed over the 1000-1500 years or whatever? I mean, obviously they wouldn't change much, but maybe a little?
More importantly, are we sure da Vinci had regular access to girl's faces? I mean, it was probably mostly guesswork on his part.
If you don't like it then don't buy it.
1) People likely won't know about it, and Joe Average will just buy it with his computer not realizing the problem and risks.
2) There are only so many hardware providers. What happens when they all carry it? Unless you like build your computers from scrap, you'd be stuck with it. And at some point, they'll just start carrying them on all processors or something. This was made by an alliance of AMD, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft and Sun after all. If Intel joined the fray, the computing world would be sunk.
Ok, here's how I see it. This law only records logs with ports and IPs, not all the actual data. Now let's assume the govt is corrupt and the recording industry or software industry or Hollywood studios, etc. get their hands on the logs. Even if they can get the IP numbers and whatnot and say that person X connected to person Y on the port normally associated with LimeWire, they still have to prove what you LimeWired (is it a verb yet?). I mean, they can prove X connected to a torrent, but not what X got off it or put in it. I mean, there are legitimate uses for filesharing, so how does this prove copyright infringment?
Bias shouldn't be that tough to spot. Featured article Candidates should be pretty safe. Check the talk page, if it has lots of disputes on it, avoid it. If the history is short, it hasn't been revised often. Also, if an article's tagged, don't touch it. Lastly, if it cites sources, you can read them or at least look at them as backup. If this is research, you need to take it seriously. Single-sourcing anything is dangerous.
Ideally, the victim of a falsehood shouldn't have to prove anything, it is just helpful if he/she does. Otherwise, a celeb could demand that something negative be removed even if there are sources to back it.
So Wikipedia is the best place to find out things that most people already know? Fantastic.
By more widely known, I mean more published. There probably hasn't been much research into the life of John Seigenthaler. In fact, the closest to a biography I can see (only searched for 5 minutes) is a 3 page, 874 essay about him that you can buy on Amazon here . I mean, compared to say, the British Empire or Quantum Physics or a major world leader, John Seigenthaler is an unknown.
Ideally the innocent should require no proof, but if the guy links sources, then there are two ways to demonstrate that something is wrong:
1) Go through the source
2) Cite another source.
It shouldn't be his job, but it often works that the first claim improperly gets a bit of a legitimacy boost undeservedly, both in Wikipedia and human thought. There's some social psychological principle or something about it, but I forgot what its called (luckily it wasn't on the final)
If I was him, I'd go onto the talk page, and say that neither of the comments were adequately sourced, and that's why they got the axe. That'd prolly have gone over fine. And I'm sure he has some way to prove he didn't live in the Soviet Union from 1969 to 1985 or whatever it was.
Mr. Seigenthaler's page's problem is that it is relatively obscure. He isn't a guy anyone outside of 1960s politics or the newspaper industry would know about, if I understand correctly. Wikipedia tends to be better at articles that receive more traffic and where the information is more widely known.
All that is required of a person who sees a flaw is to contact someone at wikipedia. If they don't have the necessary knowledge to resolve the issue, they can toss up a flag, like the "The Factual Accuracy of this page has been disputed" or the "This article needs to be cleaned up..." flags, and hopefully someone will fix it.
Personally, I only use Wikipedia for getting a brief conceptual overview of a topic, and only generally ones that I don't study. But if I wanted serious research and accuracy, it does have a list of sources at the bottom of each correctly-done page.
Very true. Wikipedia has a lot of accurate articles, and if nothing else, collates a lot of good sources for someone to look at. Obviously it isn't perfect. But it's darn good. This is like me giving you a free luxury car, and you complaining that it only has half a tank of gas in it. Accept good things, and strive to make them better, don't reject them because they aren't perfect.
This episode shows a strength of Wikipedia, it is quick to respond to problems when it recognizes them. Tell a company about a bug, wait a month, get a response. Tell Wikipedia about a factual error, wait a hour, and see it fixed.
Well, if you are a hot girl between 18 and 28, and you are trying to get noticed in terms of modelling or something, and you download Opera, you have a great shot at winning. Five minutes worth of work in order to qualify for the contest? Heck, someone like that could just ask any geek, and they'd do the download for her. Easiest beauty contest ever.
As I said,
A) I made it two days ago. I'm a college student, give me time over winter break.
B) This was mostly to make the point in an ironic manner.
I never said business people weren't people, I just said they aren't the only people.
PageRank is worth a lot more than vanity.
For businesses, it gets you seen. Few people are going to try to look at anything beyond the first page or two of search results. Therefore, if you are #35 on the listings for a keyword vital to you, you're going to get a lot less traffic. If you are a business, and you have 5 competitors selling X, then whenever someone Googles X, your goal is to be the first website they see (aside from X.com or whatever the parent company is).
For non business organizations, if you want people to read what you have to say, like if you're a blog or a wiki or just a regular site, it helps to be one of the first sites on the google listing. For instance, two days ago I started a wiki as a project to create a third American political Party based on a technologist and freedom stance, as opposed to big business. Now, it's not for money and is just for a fun project, but I want people to see it and contribute. Obviously I have an interest in SEO, but I'm too cheap to pay for it.
The significance here is that Newsweek is running this story, which means that intelligent people without heavy business/technology backgrounds are learning about this. It shouldn't be something we don't already know a decent bit about, but now millions of Americans know about it.