> unfortunately, they also can't have a "don't remember these sites" list for obvious reasons
Why not have a "don't ever remember this site" button that keeps a list of the $FavouriteAlgorithm hashes of the base second level domains (foo.org) of the sites you click you the button while surfing. Every time you visit a site, it hashes domain; if the hash matches the "do not remember" list, it doesn't keep any records.
I prefer the term "raping children" myself. It fits well, does away with the positive connotations that the term "piracy" has gained in some circles, and -perhaps most important- it really makes the pirates mad.
I was planning to do this for a home fileserver I need to build, but I also wanted it to act as a seedbox for torrents. Is there a decent torrent client that can be accessed over an HTTP interface that runs on Solaris?
>There is no better way than store a backup on DVD and store the main data on a raid-1 disk set.
Use a ZFS storage pool. You get the redundancy of RAID, but it's orders of magnitude easier to add disks and grow the pool whilst keeping redundancy, plus you're not as screwed if your RAID controller craps out. If you accidentally delete a file or folder, you can just undelete it (copy-on-write).
Well, that can't really undermine my point seeing as that *is* my point. If I'd said "When you make broad, sweeping uninsightful philosophical comments you completely undermine your point, therefore filesharing is good", you might have a point.
>Situational ethics and moral relativism are the height of craven hypocrisy.
And moral absolutism is the height of arrogant oversimplification. When you make broad, sweeping uninsightful philosophical comments you completely undermine your point.
Here in Toronto, Bell is already sending out wireless dsl routers with 128 bit WPA-PSK pre-configured, and the key printed on the base of the router. Hopefully, that'll soon be the norm everywhere.
Once everyone is using WPA, this is a non-issue. Even if an exploit is discovered that makes cracking WPA trivial, breaking encryption on someone else's network is clearly illegal, and it will be safe to assume that any unencrypted network is intended for public access.
I, for one, will not mourn the passing of a thousand light/water/keyhole/car-left-with-keys-in-ignition/radio/tv-through-window analogies.
> And also because HTTP authentication dialogs are quite "spoofable" anyway.
This reminds me of something I've been meaning to investigate for a while now.
If you use Firefox to store your passwords for various sites using its password manager, you have the option of setting a "Master Password" - a password that is used to encrypt your stored passwords on disk as a security precaution. Each time you start an instance of firefox, if you browse to a site for which you have a stored password, firefox will ask you for the master password so it can decrypt the stored password for the site and autocomplete it for you.
So, this is my concern - how hard would it be to fake this security dialogue with javascript and store whatever the user entered?
I completely agree. I am continually amazed at how good google's input-correction is - if I do a search for 'pale gire', it knows to correct it to 'pale fire', yet if I do a search for 'canadian gire', it's clever enough to work out that I mean 'canadian tire'. I'm also continually amazed that people running other search services haven't yet realised just how vital this feature is - it's probably one of my favourite things about Google. Less so for monosyllables, but it's useful for words like "monosyllables". I'm particulary surprised that prominent online dictionaries don't have similar funcionality, seeing as I would imagine a large portion of their usage is to find the correct spelling of words.
TFA is terrible. What is X18+ and RC+ content? How is it possible that this content is prohibited, yet "adults won't be affected"? Does the new legislation cover just commercial content? Does the legislation only cover content hosted in Australia?
> Now the hard stuff is making TOR work ONLY for Google and search sites.
No it's not. You can specify per-domain proxies with FoxyProxy, as I pointed out above.
Re:Want to keep your internet activities private?
on
Will Privacy Sell?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> Forget the delete cookies/history/temp files routine. Get Sandboxie.
That program isn't really relevent to what's being discussed here. Running programs in a sandbox or under a VM doesn't prevent Google storing data about you on their servers. The only relevent thing it might do is prevent persistant cookies between browsing sessions, but you're better off just blocking cookies from search engines in the first place. Sandboxing doesn't do anything to prevent Google storing your search terms tagged with your IP.
>...is a service that wipes my information out of Google.
Well, what I really need is a service that gives me billions of dollars for sitting on my ass, makes me irresistable to lithe young women, ends world hunger and punches Bill O'Reilley in the face every six seconds.
See? I can suggest lots of cool things if we disregard logic and common sense.
Re:results are more important
on
Will Privacy Sell?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
> If I can't find what I'm looking for, I don't care if nobody knows about it.
Agreed. Results are paramount.
I'd rather choose my favourite search engine based on technical merit, then take steps to protect my privacy myself. It means I get the satisfaction of not having to rely on hidden propriety code on someone else's server for my privacy.
> I am not an economist, but I am an economist major and I hope to get a PhD in economics down the road
If you hope to get a PhD in Economics, you should try to understand what price elasticity of demand is.
> as soon as you raise the price a little bit, the number of people willing to buy the good drops substantially. This is called the price elasticity of demand.
No, it's not.
Price elasticity of demand is the ratio of the decrease in demand given an increase in price. It is usually represented by a negative number.
If the number is 0, demand is said to be perfectly inelastic. That is, you can change price infinitely and it will have no effect on demand.
If the number is between 0 and -1, price is said to be inelastic. That is, an x% increase in price will effect a less than x% decrease in demand. e.g. if the elasticity is -0.5, then increasing price by 10% will decrease demand by 5%.
If the number is -1, price is said to be unit elastic. That is, an x% increase in price will effect an x% decrease in demand.
If the number is less than -1, price is said to be elastic. That is, an x% increase in price will effect a greater than x% decrease in demand. e.g. if the elasticity is -9, a 10% increase in price will decrease demand by 90%.
If the number is negative infinity, price is said to be perfectly elastic. That is, any increase in price will eliminate all demand.
Typically, elasticity is different at different points in the demand curve (although Economists do tend to favour logarithmic functional forms that maintian a single elasticity over the entire curve as they do simplify matters a great deal) so what you are in fact describing is a demand curve that is elastic when P is close to 0.
Slashdot Mirror
> unfortunately, they also can't have a "don't remember these sites" list for obvious reasons Why not have a "don't ever remember this site" button that keeps a list of the $FavouriteAlgorithm hashes of the base second level domains (foo.org) of the sites you click you the button while surfing. Every time you visit a site, it hashes domain; if the hash matches the "do not remember" list, it doesn't keep any records.
Barackobama.com doesn't even have a robots.txt file.
I prefer the term "raping children" myself. It fits well, does away with the positive connotations that the term "piracy" has gained in some circles, and -perhaps most important- it really makes the pirates mad.
See the problem?
> The MSI Wind goes on sale today in the UK ... for £350 (around $700). Not cheap for a supposedly low-cost laptop
£350 doesn't make it "not cheap for a supposedly low-cost laptop", it makes a regularly priced laptop.
I was planning to do this for a home fileserver I need to build, but I also wanted it to act as a seedbox for torrents. Is there a decent torrent client that can be accessed over an HTTP interface that runs on Solaris?
>There is no better way than store a backup on DVD and store the main data on a raid-1 disk set. Use a ZFS storage pool. You get the redundancy of RAID, but it's orders of magnitude easier to add disks and grow the pool whilst keeping redundancy, plus you're not as screwed if your RAID controller craps out. If you accidentally delete a file or folder, you can just undelete it (copy-on-write).
Well, that can't really undermine my point seeing as that *is* my point. If I'd said "When you make broad, sweeping uninsightful philosophical comments you completely undermine your point, therefore filesharing is good", you might have a point.
>Situational ethics and moral relativism are the height of craven hypocrisy.
And moral absolutism is the height of arrogant oversimplification. When you make broad, sweeping uninsightful philosophical comments you completely undermine your point.
>Interesting, is there some reason that you need to type /. backwards in order to have that work properly?
Nope, typo.
>i would redirect http://slashdot.org/ to http:///..org
./ in the location bar redirects to http://www.slashdot.org
Actually, I have a Firefox Smart Bookmark set up so that
I swear by widescreen laptops, for the simple reason that they let me read comic book scans in their native aspect ratio.
> I wish I could filter out Yahoo answers from my entire online experience.
http://www.cogentmetal.org/aux/archives/2007/yahoo-answers-bringing-together-idiocy-and-loneliness-since-2005/
> * Modify the kernel so it can run in Xen without CPU-virtualization extensions.
Yes! I can't tell you how useful this feature would have been to me in the past!
-G. Freeman
Apparently it's not that common.
Here in Toronto, Bell is already sending out wireless dsl routers with 128 bit WPA-PSK pre-configured, and the key printed on the base of the router. Hopefully, that'll soon be the norm everywhere.
Once everyone is using WPA, this is a non-issue. Even if an exploit is discovered that makes cracking WPA trivial, breaking encryption on someone else's network is clearly illegal, and it will be safe to assume that any unencrypted network is intended for public access.
I, for one, will not mourn the passing of a thousand light/water/keyhole/car-left-with-keys-in-ignition/radio/tv-through-window analogies.
> The ISPs are citing technical and legal reasons for why they do not wish to do this.
Uhm, how about not wanting to be forced to abondon ten percent of their paying customers as a reason not to wish to do this?
> Just because the USA and the UK use it
Elections for the Scottish Parliament use a hybrid of first past the post and proportional representation.
> And also because HTTP authentication dialogs are quite "spoofable" anyway.
This reminds me of something I've been meaning to investigate for a while now.
If you use Firefox to store your passwords for various sites using its password manager, you have the option of setting a "Master Password" - a password that is used to encrypt your stored passwords on disk as a security precaution. Each time you start an instance of firefox, if you browse to a site for which you have a stored password, firefox will ask you for the master password so it can decrypt the stored password for the site and autocomplete it for you.
So, this is my concern - how hard would it be to fake this security dialogue with javascript and store whatever the user entered?
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/9444/slashdotcu7.png -- screencap of the security dialogue
I completely agree. I am continually amazed at how good google's input-correction is - if I do a search for 'pale gire', it knows to correct it to 'pale fire ', yet if I do a search for 'canadian gire', it's clever enough to work out that I mean 'canadian tire '. I'm also continually amazed that people running other search services haven't yet realised just how vital this feature is - it's probably one of my favourite things about Google. Less so for monosyllables, but it's useful for words like "monosyllables". I'm particulary surprised that prominent online dictionaries don't have similar funcionality, seeing as I would imagine a large portion of their usage is to find the correct spelling of words.
TFA is terrible. What is X18+ and RC+ content? How is it possible that this content is prohibited, yet "adults won't be affected"? Does the new legislation cover just commercial content? Does the legislation only cover content hosted in Australia?
I'm completely confused.
> Now the hard stuff is making TOR work ONLY for Google and search sites.
No it's not. You can specify per-domain proxies with FoxyProxy, as I pointed out above.
> Forget the delete cookies/history/temp files routine. Get Sandboxie.
That program isn't really relevent to what's being discussed here. Running programs in a sandbox or under a VM doesn't prevent Google storing data about you on their servers. The only relevent thing it might do is prevent persistant cookies between browsing sessions, but you're better off just blocking cookies from search engines in the first place. Sandboxing doesn't do anything to prevent Google storing your search terms tagged with your IP.
> ...is a service that wipes my information out of Google.
Well, what I really need is a service that gives me billions of dollars for sitting on my ass, makes me irresistable to lithe young women, ends world hunger and punches Bill O'Reilley in the face every six seconds.
See? I can suggest lots of cool things if we disregard logic and common sense.
> If I can't find what I'm looking for, I don't care if nobody knows about it.
Agreed. Results are paramount.
I'd rather choose my favourite search engine based on technical merit, then take steps to protect my privacy myself. It means I get the satisfaction of not having to rely on hidden propriety code on someone else's server for my privacy.
To get around the Google big-bad-data-retention, I find that Firefox + CookieCuller + FoxyProxy + TOR works pretty well.
> I am not an economist, but I am an economist major and I hope to get a PhD in economics down the road
If you hope to get a PhD in Economics, you should try to understand what price elasticity of demand is.
> as soon as you raise the price a little bit, the number of people willing to buy the good drops substantially. This is called the price elasticity of demand.
No, it's not.
Price elasticity of demand is the ratio of the decrease in demand given an increase in price. It is usually represented by a negative number.
If the number is 0, demand is said to be perfectly inelastic. That is, you can change price infinitely and it will have no effect on demand.
If the number is between 0 and -1, price is said to be inelastic. That is, an x% increase in price will effect a less than x% decrease in demand. e.g. if the elasticity is -0.5, then increasing price by 10% will decrease demand by 5%.
If the number is -1, price is said to be unit elastic. That is, an x% increase in price will effect an x% decrease in demand.
If the number is less than -1, price is said to be elastic. That is, an x% increase in price will effect a greater than x% decrease in demand. e.g. if the elasticity is -9, a 10% increase in price will decrease demand by 90%.
If the number is negative infinity, price is said to be perfectly elastic. That is, any increase in price will eliminate all demand.
Typically, elasticity is different at different points in the demand curve (although Economists do tend to favour logarithmic functional forms that maintian a single elasticity over the entire curve as they do simplify matters a great deal) so what you are in fact describing is a demand curve that is elastic when P is close to 0.