141–150 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a one-click service to backup everything in your google account. Email, google drive, youtube, location history, blogger blogs, bookmarks, calendar, literally ever google service. https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout
What format does this produce? A bit of googling suggests mbox. What happens to 'labels' on emails?
Friendly reminder that your stuff is not "backed up" in the cloud unless you have a local copy. Otherwise it just lives in the cloud, meaning it lives on someone else's server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just get a stable, world-reachable[1] IP address? All the services you use have them. You can too. When you have your own, then you can run your own "services", not to mention many other possibilities, such as true decentralized communications -- no third party servers needed. 1. "World-reachable" means you control the firewall, not a third party. Alternatively, be satisfied and keep depending on third partie…
Good luck getting email to work with that setup though.
Email dates back to timesharing, when people shared computers, each user having an "email account" on a single computer.
For people today, each with their own computer, it's still possible to do email without store and forward, with each user running SMTP servers that talk directly to each other instead of connecting to "email providers".
This is grassroots. Not meant to leverage existing "email provider" ecosystem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His/her superiors.
Aren't you saying that despite the observable part of the moon being rock, the unobservable part is cheese?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal domains won't help you if the state releases laws which enables providers to silence whole domains against unwanted opinions. What we need is a new decentralized Internet. We need not only open source software (for security reasons), not only open hardware (for security reasons) but also a new open non-commercial Internet which cannot be censored.
> but also a new open non-commercial Internet which cannot be censored. Why does it need to be non-commercial? Personally I see commercial (with healthy competition) as a good sign that something will stick around for a while.
We already have a commercial Internet, we don't need a second one. Commercial interests would make the second Internet also a target of control.
The hindsight-prescriptive comments here focus on backing up, and that's a sensible practice. But there was another kind of damage done here, to the man's identity, location and voice. His blog and his email address were his public persona. He used his blog and his address as identity, and as his channel of communication with followers, other artists, and I assume most of his general online communication. That person…
If the internet didn't exist, an artist would have bought storage for his art. Why this artist feels that a service he didn't pay for owes him anything is baffling to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not somewhat, but really, really relevant. Dude uploaded all his work to a service he did not control without having backups or plans to move to a self-hosted blog. Hell, he could have used wordpress.com if he didn't want the "hassle" of updating his installation. And on top he didn't have local backups? I mean, what if his hard drive had died? Would he have blamed WD or Seagate?
This makes me laugh my ass off. This is a bit of a pet peeve I have with people and modern technology. They believe they have a right to use a service even though they're not paying for the usage of the service. Then they turn around shocked and angry when the free service is removed. `Why! why did they do this to me, this is the biggest injustice! How un-professional of them!`. Kind of like the dicussion I have with…
It is a failure of ethics to then delete that indispensable thing.
There were laws in the old USAmerican West about horse theft. Strict laws! And similarly strict laws throughout history in shepherding cultures, regarding livestock.
The justification for draconian punishments for livestock theft has always been that the animals (property, items) were indispensable. You can't go around drastically changing or possibly ending people's lives by taking the things they depend on away from them. It's wrong!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully agree with your comments, but I fear we're going in the wrong direction with the silo-ization of the web and the decline in open standards being ratified and used by large companies. Just look at Google's hostility towards maintaining standardized IMAP/SMTP support for third party mail clients. Google Apps and Office 365 would drop IMAP access to their services in a heartbeat if they could. Furthermore a lot of…
Hm, I've spoken to gmail's lead developer for imap many times over the years and never detected even a hint of hostility. What have I missed?
The impression I have formed is that gmail will have whatever features google's gmail-for-businesses product needs. If a considerable percentage of customers (ie. the ones who pay per month and user) use a particular feature, then that feature stays and is maintained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to follow Richard Stallman in his obsession with ehtics. "Sorry mate, I find FB/Google/Skype/etc. unethical, so I won't get in touch with you using this, let's better stick with email, phone call or meeting in person".
Which is, maybe, the reason nobody knows or cares about Richard Stallman and his ideas beyond us tech folk.