Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paying For Privacy?

rayracine.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Paying For Privacy?

#31

Post by cgore »

gcb1 wrote: post #20
cgore wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no kidding. Feeding and providing medical care for the Untouchables in India? She should have made an iPhone app to help find friends in restaurants nearby, that would have made he a real selfless altriust.

in her letters she said she was forbiden to provide actual health care. all they gave was a place for the sick to convalesce. also, she and most othe rreligious still advocate over population and against several sane health treatments. not to mention education. no little good religion does compensate for the long term damage.

They were given medicine, not just a place to convelesce, but even just providing a place to convalesce is a great mercy to people who were (and often still are) dying on the sides of the street, thrown away by their society as if they were nothing more than trash.

But then, what do I know, I am sure that you must know vastly more than I do, seeing as to how as a Christian I must advocate against education now. I should write letters to all of the universities I have attended, asking them to please revoke my diplomas on the basis of my religious freedom.

Re: Paying For Privacy?

#32

Post by drdaeman »

outside1234 wrote: post #13

yet another article that values our time at $0. come on, we all make something like $80-130/hr. Are you really going to spend less than 1 hour maintain this sort-of-github instance you have?

He gains not only hosting value from maintaining the instance, but also the experience. And the experience is a valuable asset that you can't really buy with money.

Obviously, a sort of pre-built image to spawn "own" Gitolite/Gitlab/whatever instance would be nice, so noone but those particularly interested in the process would have to spend their time setting things up. But I suspect such images/build scripts already exist, it's just that I didn't even bothered to search for them.

Re: Paying For Privacy?

#33

Post by drdaeman »

gcb1 wrote: post #24

summary: paying a vps is cheaper and gives you more than git hub. in my experience, pros: - full control (he is not using this as he and all other probably commit as user git) - commit hooks contra: - you take the time to setup, debug, maintain. (track all those pesky security updates) - you have to backup. - people already have their keys setup at github. also, about the paying for privacy... i have two github accou…

> i have two github accounts. one with my real name another with a pseudonym.

Until relatively recently (at least that was the case about an year ago) having multiple GH accounts was a TOS violation. (And I needed a pseudonymous account, so that drove me off to BitBucket.) They seem to have changed that, so you're not allowed to have more than one free account per human.

Re: Paying For Privacy?

#35

Post by rarw »

I applaud the writer for his approach to making his own hub for his team. However, this is not a real 1-1 swap. In terms of pure functionality this may be an even exchange; his own platform might meet his needs just as well as GitHub. Yet it lacks major benefit - the community/public aspect of that environment. Duplicating that factor would take too much time an effort when you could just pay 7 bucks a month for the same thing.

Sometimes, while its fun to reinvent things, it just makes more sense to use what's there.

Re: Paying For Privacy?

#36

Post by icebraining »

cgore wrote: post #29
icebraining wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor... http://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/Mother-Teresa-saint-of-th...

Hitchens is not an unbiased citation, not even close. He routinely engaged in character denigration of several religious individuals, most notably Mother Teresa. The main argument he seems to have had with her is that he didn't think religious people should be allowed to have political opinions, and she did. Here is a thorough review of his vitriol against her: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/mother-te…

That review doesn't refute a any of Hiutchens' points. In the question of association with unsavory characters, the reply is to accuse him of having done the same, which might have made him an hypocrite but doesn't refute his claim.

On the matter of convincing the victims to forgive their aggressor, they confirm what he says.

As for the Albania issue, they cling to an incorrect but completely irrelevant historical fact he gets wrong, avoiding having to deal with the actual point, which is whether Mother Teresa actually supported it or not.

I don't know if Hitchens was right, but if the best her supporters can come up with is a reply filled with deceit and red herrings, I'm starting to think maybe he was on to something.

What is the most telling is the response to Hitchens from the order she founded, on hearing about his death.

That's the same reply any Catholic organization gives whenever someone dies, except maybe for cruel dictators. I'm not criticizing it, but it tells us absolutely nothing.

Re: Paying For Privacy?

#37

Post by cgore »

icebraining wrote: post #36
cgore wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hitchens is not an unbiased citation, not even close. He routinely engaged in character denigration of several religious individuals, most notably Mother Teresa. The main argument he seems to have had with her is that he didn't think religious people should be allowed to have political opinions, and she did. Here is a thorough review of his vitriol against her: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/mother-te…

That review doesn't refute a any of Hiutchens' points. In the question of association with unsavory characters, the reply is to accuse him of having done the same, which might have made him an hypocrite but doesn't refute his claim. On the matter of convincing the victims to forgive their aggressor, they confirm what he says. As for the Albania issue, they cling to an incorrect but completely irrelevant historical fa…

A lot of people involved with politics are unsavory characters. How is turning down their money going to help the dying in India? All it does is puff up someone's self-righteousness.

Re: Paying For Privacy?

#38

Post by ewzimm »

cgore wrote: post #29
icebraining wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor... http://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/Mother-Teresa-saint-of-th...

Hitchens is not an unbiased citation, not even close. He routinely engaged in character denigration of several religious individuals, most notably Mother Teresa. The main argument he seems to have had with her is that he didn't think religious people should be allowed to have political opinions, and she did. Here is a thorough review of his vitriol against her: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/mother-te…

Hitchens is not the only one who has come out against Mother Theresa. Here's a recent study by the University of Montreal:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/uom-mta022813...

Re: Paying For Privacy?

#39

Post by jlgaddis »

zrail wrote: post #7

Watch out with the sending email directly from an EC2 instance. You don't really have a fixed IP so rDNS isn't going to work very well, and that's still a front-line filter for a lot of big email providers.

Yep, some RBLs block most/all of EC2's address space, it seems. Or used to, at least, and that probably hasn't changed.
Post reply on HN