Bullying is a big deal. Of course it's simplistic to say that it is caused entirely by any one factor, but I think Lavoie's 5 steps to help develop social skill are great for addressing part of the overall equation.
If you want to understanding bullying in more detail, however, you can read this article: Big Bad Bully. I highly recommend it.
The world is not a better place after your comment, neither more enlightened nor amused.
Please note, everyone, it does not help the world or you to post simply because you have feelings you need to vent. Please make your communication constructive. And vent your feelings to your teddy bear.
I hope people don't mistake your silliness as some kind of wisdom about how it's okay to trust Microsoft now. I mean, it's a funny joke and all, even if it's a bit premature Godwin effect, but it's not wisdom.
Microsoft grabbed a monopoly on web browsing and let the tech stagnate for half a decade because it was a threat to the OS as a platform. Are people forgetting that lag? We're still suffering from it. Microsoft also tries to subvert any attempt at document standards because that's a threat to their office suite.
But are they all better now? Yay!
Luckily people change! We can expect Microsoft to be very excited about promoting open standards!
Right.
Well, web standards are making progress despite all the folks like you who fell for getting locked into using IE6. Document standards are making progress, too.
Third, I've read stories that circumcised men also "last longer" in bed because the feeling isn't as intense for them compared to an uncircumcised man.
This is a selling point?
If you think making your penis less sensitive is best way to last longer in bed...
I'm afraid to imagine other problems you've got solutions for.
And if you're a Green who realizes that political power oscillating back and forth between the conservatives and the liberals is a control system with feedback seeking balanced policy over time, then what can we make of you?
Clueless if not extremely interested in Preference Voting systems?
When he talks about hiding in the crowd, he talks about hiding in the Tor crowd.
When you talk about compressing packets, you probably aren't referring to encrypted packets. Including SSL. Which there's lots of.
I ran a Tor node for a long time. And never used it myself. Others are welcome to "raise the noise floor" with such participation and/or licit uses.
I think mix networks should work pretty well, but I wouldn't say that I have a complete grasp of the details. Nor do I expect you have, judging by your response. My guess is that if you have a substantial quantity of Tor nodes on your side of an eavesdropper tap that traffic analysis doesn't stand a real chance. Does that sound right to you? So mesh networks should be an anathema to would-be attackers. And any steps in that direction (more reliable peers and connections to peers) help. Anyway, I wouldn't already expect my government to be placing record-keeping taps at each ISP rather than just peering points.
As with any discussion about security, I note that the issue isn't black and white. There are many degrees and kinds of being hidden or vulnerable and countlessly varied purposes for hiding. If I want not to be traceable as the annoying AC who makes racist remarks on Slashdot, would I use Tor? Sure (or I wouldn't even bother). I wouldn't bend over and kiss my anonymity goodbye. If I were planning an attack on the World Trade Center, would I use Tor? Maybe. Though I'd be careful about my entry node and its immediate peers. And probably my endpoint would be an.onion service run by someone I trusted.
But, yeah, there has to be some plausibility to your downloading noise. I mean, noise that's as substantial in volume as your encrypted traffic. (So downloads from random.org might not afford you plausible deniability.)
I'd like to encourage more folks to look critically at this system. You can think of it as an analog to public key servers, which are a free solution for associating public keys with persons.
Giant problem? Perhaps in the context of perfect security. But there is no such thing.
I use YouTube without JavaScript (I also use a video downloader add-on).
Anyway, if I want to view a particular YouTube page, I press the NoScript "temporarily allow" button. Am I then subject to every possible XSS that could be happening at YouTube across the entire site or every time I visit the site? No. Am I subject to as much vulnerability as if I always visited YouTube with JavaScript enabled? Not nearly.
There is substantial security gain.
Saying there's a "giant problem" with NoScript is like saying there's a "giant problem" in being given $200 when you're wanting $20,000. Fine, give me that $200, then.
Slashdot Mirror
Patent pusher? "The next six years are free..."
Bullying is a big deal. Of course it's simplistic to say that it is caused entirely by any one factor, but I think Lavoie's 5 steps to help develop social skill are great for addressing part of the overall equation.
If you want to understanding bullying in more detail, however, you can read this article: Big Bad Bully. I highly recommend it.
They've got a Firefox extension, too: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~perspectives/firefox.html#install
And this conveys the idea quickly and visually... the web demo: http://moo.cmcl.cs.cmu.edu/perspectives/
They're also looking for developers to take the project. This could be a great tool for everyone.
The world is not a better place after your comment, neither more enlightened nor amused.
Please note, everyone, it does not help the world or you to post simply because you have feelings you need to vent. Please make your communication constructive. And vent your feelings to your teddy bear.
Did you notice how many CAs are in the list? How do you feel about each?
I might recommend encouraging technologies like Perspectives to provide defense in depth.
I hope people don't mistake your silliness as some kind of wisdom about how it's okay to trust Microsoft now. I mean, it's a funny joke and all, even if it's a bit premature Godwin effect, but it's not wisdom.
Microsoft grabbed a monopoly on web browsing and let the tech stagnate for half a decade because it was a threat to the OS as a platform. Are people forgetting that lag? We're still suffering from it. Microsoft also tries to subvert any attempt at document standards because that's a threat to their office suite.
But are they all better now? Yay!
Luckily people change! We can expect Microsoft to be very excited about promoting open standards!
Right.
Well, web standards are making progress despite all the folks like you who fell for getting locked into using IE6. Document standards are making progress, too.
It's your kind of genius that saddled us with IE6 for so long.
And may I remind everyone that IE8 is made by the same people who thought that letting us languish with IE6 was an okay thing to do?
Third, I've read stories that circumcised men also "last longer" in bed because the feeling isn't as intense for them compared to an uncircumcised man.
This is a selling point?
If you think making your penis less sensitive is best way to last longer in bed...
I'm afraid to imagine other problems you've got solutions for.
Yeah, but be careful with SSRIs, they can be very dangerous.
(aggravated suicidality, serotonin syndrome, sexual dysfunction...)
Don't get carried away and be all rash now.
Some drugs actually promote neurogenesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/
You wouldn't want to get stoned all the time and then have this new cell therapy and end up with too many neurons.
Good work. This utility is very helpful.
I'm glad I support the EFF.
And if you're a Green who realizes that political power oscillating back and forth between the conservatives and the liberals is a control system with feedback seeking balanced policy over time, then what can we make of you?
Clueless if not extremely interested in Preference Voting systems?
"We sue." I get it. Nice.
Thanks for the reminder.
What do you mean by "[they obscure] the location of the node to peers"?
When he talks about hiding in the crowd, he talks about hiding in the Tor crowd.
When you talk about compressing packets, you probably aren't referring to encrypted packets. Including SSL. Which there's lots of.
I ran a Tor node for a long time. And never used it myself. Others are welcome to "raise the noise floor" with such participation and/or licit uses.
I think mix networks should work pretty well, but I wouldn't say that I have a complete grasp of the details. Nor do I expect you have, judging by your response. My guess is that if you have a substantial quantity of Tor nodes on your side of an eavesdropper tap that traffic analysis doesn't stand a real chance. Does that sound right to you? So mesh networks should be an anathema to would-be attackers. And any steps in that direction (more reliable peers and connections to peers) help. Anyway, I wouldn't already expect my government to be placing record-keeping taps at each ISP rather than just peering points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#Weaknesses
As with any discussion about security, I note that the issue isn't black and white. There are many degrees and kinds of being hidden or vulnerable and countlessly varied purposes for hiding. If I want not to be traceable as the annoying AC who makes racist remarks on Slashdot, would I use Tor? Sure (or I wouldn't even bother). I wouldn't bend over and kiss my anonymity goodbye. If I were planning an attack on the World Trade Center, would I use Tor? Maybe. Though I'd be careful about my entry node and its immediate peers. And probably my endpoint would be an .onion service run by someone I trusted.
Local computing power is wearable already in the form of phones. (Which keep getting more powerful.)
Eventually there'll be convenient video through glasses. You won't need an additional device like a phone.
Maybe you'll have something like a Bluetooth earbud, or maybe audio will come through glasses arms (transduction or buds).
Maybe an input device for a while. Or maybe straight to gestures in air or on handy surfaces.
Ultimately, just glasses. And that vision, if you will, is not far. I give it 10 years.
Eventually, contact lenses, maybe another 15 years after the above scenario.
Note that it's all a trend towards being borg.
All hail the prophet Steve Mann!
Shush, you! This is no time for feasible speculation! Can't you see there's a curmudgeonfest in process?
Rubber hose?
But, yeah, there has to be some plausibility to your downloading noise. I mean, noise that's as substantial in volume as your encrypted traffic. (So downloads from random.org might not afford you plausible deniability.)
Also, you could get a significant percentage of your own downloads to be noise. That would also work.
So, as much as you can be compelled to decrypt your data is proportional to how much noise may be compelled to be transferred.
Well, Perspectives performs basically the same function and it's roughly free.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~perspectives/index.html
I'd like to encourage more folks to look critically at this system. You can think of it as an analog to public key servers, which are a free solution for associating public keys with persons.
Maybe Perspectives can help show that certs come from the right source.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~perspectives/index.html
If you think you're getting the actual words from a page by copying and pasting... you may be surprised to find your copy taynted.
And that folks have been spying on your mouse.
Giant problem? Perhaps in the context of perfect security. But there is no such thing.
I use YouTube without JavaScript (I also use a video downloader add-on).
Anyway, if I want to view a particular YouTube page, I press the NoScript "temporarily allow" button. Am I then subject to every possible XSS that could be happening at YouTube across the entire site or every time I visit the site? No. Am I subject to as much vulnerability as if I always visited YouTube with JavaScript enabled? Not nearly.
There is substantial security gain.
Saying there's a "giant problem" with NoScript is like saying there's a "giant problem" in being given $200 when you're wanting $20,000. Fine, give me that $200, then.
But, ZOMG, speculation !
I may also be having a problem reading the article carefully. We should both look closely at this particular sentence:
MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides.
Actually, after a bit of perusing, I feel quite confident that it's not about spraying.
Now, that said, Bt toxins are supposed to be not so toxic to humans. At least when sprayed.