551–560 of 588 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google maps offers this functionality. I've had my local map and maps of any place I regularly go to downloaded for many years.
Google times out the downloaded maps without warning, so you go to use them and find out it won't let you use them.
Looks like there's more going on than what the title implies about the Tor exit node: > What do you do now? >§I left Austria and now work for a German company in IT, and have a data center in Kosovo… hosting grey area things there. Warez primarily. > Also, I do want to add that I have more backstory. The CP was not the only reason for the raid. He goes on to mention someone using the exit node to try to hack a NATO f…
Nah. It's not like it was a legitimate homebrew forum or something and someone backdoored it to hack NATO -- it was a warez organization that might have had CP on it too.
It managed to stay under the radar until someone did something to get the attention of the authorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangential to your much larger lament - OpenStreetMap, and specifically OSMAnd which is libre and free on F-droid, works great for offline maps that are downloaded ahead of time. (I think the version on Google Play limits the number of regions you can download unless you make a small donation).
Google maps offers this functionality. I've had my local map and maps of any place I regularly go to downloaded for many years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please provide examples where they maintained continual access via hacking legal operations instead of serving entities with paperwork?
The Interpol literally took over a darknet market (Dream) using stolen admin credentials and continued to run the site for months to gather intelligence on vendors and buyers. Not the same thing but if LE is willing to operate a major illegal drug trafficking operation then surely hacking a few VPN companies doesn't seem impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "especially when we offend" > This is a fundamental premise of freedom of speech and a large reason as to why it exists. I cringe whenever somebody makes this point. Offensive speech isn't even in the top 10 reasons to support free speech. It isn't a reason at all. Tolerating offensive speech is something we have to do to make free speech work, it's one of the "cons" not the "pros".
If speech is not offensive it wouldn't be suppressed therefore making the right to free speech irrelevant. You're free to say you like pickles over carrots in Saudi Arabia. Offensive doesn't necessarily mean demeaning of human rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "especially when we offend" > This is a fundamental premise of freedom of speech and a large reason as to why it exists. I cringe whenever somebody makes this point. Offensive speech isn't even in the top 10 reasons to support free speech. It isn't a reason at all. Tolerating offensive speech is something we have to do to make free speech work, it's one of the "cons" not the "pros".
If speech is not offensive it wouldn't be suppressed therefore making the right to free speech irrelevant. You're free to say you like pickles over carrots in Saudi Arabia. Offensive doesn't necessarily mean demeaning of human rights.
Why don’t we put Tor nodes in space? Seems like a few hundred micro satellites could circumvent sovereignty this way.
Only 11-year-old Libertarians think this way. "Circumventing sovereignty" is the surest way to destruction. Anyone who stands outside the protection of a legitimate sovereign power will be immediately destroyed by a real country. If you fly your shit out in space and declare your satellites to be independent of any flag, I am sure that they will all promptly disappear due to mysterious causes. Likewise, if you believ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s a damn shame how the original cyberpunk dream played out. Isn't it more, "This is why the original cyberpunk dream was always a naive and bad idea"? Like, it appealed to me too when I was young, but then I learned more about humans and our history and ...
Since when was cyberpunk a dream to be pursued? It's the opposite of a naive dream. It's a nightmare full of high tech and people living on scraps, constantly trying to keep up with the tech fallout from big corporations. One of the most iconic places in cyberpunk was literally described as being "like a deranged experiment in social Darwinism, designed by a bored researcher who kept the thumb permantently on the fas…
transhumanism is how technology will reshape what we think it is to be human, how we view life, death, love, family, success, fear, etc. Cyberpunk is how it won't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If speech is not offensive it wouldn't be suppressed therefore making the right to free speech irrelevant. You're free to say you like pickles over carrots in Saudi Arabia. Offensive doesn't necessarily mean demeaning of human rights.
That could not be further from the truth. There’s plenty of offensive speech that isn’t suppressed (personal insults, porn/other things that used to be considered “obscene”) and there’s plenty of inoffensive speech that is (spam, sometimes defamation).
You would find that porn and personal insults are not legal in many parts of the world. The Chinese government has adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward so-called sexual content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_China
To them it is offensive therefore illegal. Again, protecting offensive speech is the point behind free speech as a human right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
I don't know how those examples relate to my point. "protecting offensive speech is the point behind free speech as a human right."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is how fascism started, increasing the verbal threat, a string of political assassinations and subsequently not giving a f* because your hands are clean, but shouldn't ideas be challenged not suppressed? If people cannot be trusted and should rather be cocooned from the true range of human thought, doesn't this go against every assumption we use to justify our freedoms?
> If people cannot be trusted and should rather be cocooned from the true range of human thought, doesn't this go against every assumption we use to justify our freedoms? Well, we've seen in 1933-1945 where that sort of orthodox interpretations of "free speech" leads. And we've seen in the Covid era that some people are able to politicize wearing masks ... or to put it differently: the intersection between the dumbes…
I want to live somewhere with liberal values, universal suffrage, same sex marriage, the right to change your gender, tax-funded healthcare and capitalist neo-liberal means of production but I cannot deny someone else's dream of a white nationalist state or socialist dictatorship or black ethnostate or Shariah theocracy.
I'd hope if people actually lived in a society that had those values and endured all the limitations it brings they'd change their minds about the rules they want to structure society, given the only rule would be for everyone to be free to choose where they want to live.
Yes I do think people should be free to ruin their own lives as much as possible if it doesn't infringe on others.