91–100 of 121 posts
> How about Visit my distributed website at http://198.199.80.174/ FTFY. DNS is a centralized service.
DNS is HIGHLY distributed (more so than SMTP)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as we can all agree not to get complacent, it's a step in the right direction. Arguing that people need to go form 0 to 60 in under a second isn't going to get us anywhere. For example, if you want to convince someone to become a vegan, which path is more likely to succeed: Omnivore => Vegan or: Omnivore => Vegetarian => Vegan or even: Omnivore => No red meat => Only fish => Vegetarian => Vegan
On the other hand.. what's easier, convincing someone to change a habit once, or convincing them four times?
First of all, there is no such thing as a requirement for a blogging licence. I can blog, my friends can blog - and we all don't have to get a blogging licence. It is irresponsible, given that the author claims to have "read an article", that he decided to summarise it in two words - a "blogging license". This shows that either he doesn't understand it, or he is deliberately trying to mislead people.
Next, I'm tired of people saying that free speech is limited in Singapore. It is not. There are rules in place to prevent over-zealous extremists (of any kind or nature). I urge anyone who feels otherwise to take a look at Singapore's short national history - about mass inter-racial riots that caused massive turmoil in the country. This is why the laws have been enacted. These laws simply say that we aren't allowed to publicly denounce another religion, or another race. And before you start jumping up and down saying "that's limiting my freedom to speak!", let me clarify. It's not what you think. It's not that I can't complain or even speak badly about someone else's race or religion in public. I can. But the moment I start shouting these insults, that's when the authorities would take action against me. It's only civilised, and the government has formalised this civility. On one hand, people ignorant to historical events in Singapore can simply surmise that they are tools by the government to inhibit freedom of speech. On the other hand, however, and this is what I personally feel, these laws exist to keep the peace. Think about it. Singapore is a small island filled with people of different races and religions. Yet we don't have religious wars and we certainly don't have racial riots.
And finally, the claim of, "I suspect at some point the Singapore intelligence agency may have hacked into my email while I was there (another IP was registering on my Gmail account). Also I believe I was interviewed by a Singaporean spy." I seriously doubt it. Do you really think that if a highly trained spy wanted to covertly interview you, a technical writer and web developer, that you would know? And if they did want you to know, you would have known that you're being interviewed. I doubt (and here I'm assuming) that spending hours reading conspiracy theories online would make one an expert in counter-intelligence. Again, like what I said, this ill-constructed idea that the author has is probably due to the lack of understanding of the so-called "blogging license". And again, I repeat: one DOES NOT require a licence to blog.
Over the last couple of years, I've seen an increase in the number of people (mostly foreigners) writing articles about Singapore, saying that citizens' liberties are curtailed and limited. Again, as a citizen, this isn't true. Just like how Americans value their "freedoms", sometimes till the point of absurdity (absurd at least to foreigners like myself, and with regards to "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"), we Singaporeans value the peace and harmony within our tiny island-state. We put this, sometimes, even above our own personal liberty - like the freedom to shout racist remarks in a coffeeshop. Is that wrong? Only someone who has seen the bloody effects of racial and religious unrest would be qualified to answer the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The teen chatters of the world—the ones who set the cultural trends—got a handle on it, but did their parents? :)
The parents often don't catch on Twitter either. I think it's mostly due to a different communication culture, not technical ineptitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All it takes is a warrant and a plea bargain, and your private 'darknet' (haha) irc server is now a honeypot collecting all the traffic you thought was private. The more popular an easily controlled solution like private IRC servers become, the greater the advantage for law enforcement and others to control them. End-to-end encryption is a requirement for secure communication. Anything less is the same as scribbling…
As long as we can all agree not to get complacent, it's a step in the right direction. Arguing that people need to go form 0 to 60 in under a second isn't going to get us anywhere. For example, if you want to convince someone to become a vegan, which path is more likely to succeed: Omnivore => Vegan or: Omnivore => Vegetarian => Vegan or even: Omnivore => No red meat => Only fish => Vegetarian => Vegan
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, this is the kind of thing I'm working on at the moment and I'm finding that other folks are thinking along similar lines (but taking different approaches). The first application we want to build on top of the underlying 'private cloud' is email. My viewpoint is that to do this properly, we need to think through things from the ground up with privacy and security built in, otherwise I don't see it as that much be…
> from the ground up with privacy and security built in Couldn't agree more! > I'm finding that other folks are thinking along similar lines > (but taking different approaches) Not sure if this is the right place for it but does anyone have a list of all these similar projects? I know of: * ArkOS [ https://arkos.io ] * FreedomBox [ https://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/ ] Seems to me that something like this can be bu…
The founding fathers set up America as a distributed system. It's no accident that as the federal government has taken more power from the states that it has gone to shit.
> It's no accident that as the federal government has taken more power from the states that it has gone to shit. At which point in the process did this happen? The Civil War and Reconstruction, when the federal government took power from the states and abolished slavery? Or the Civil Rights Act, when the federal government took power from the states and abolished Jim Crow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding P2P e-mail, Bitmessage (similar to Bitcoin's protocol) claimed to have solved the problem this way: > "When you send a message, your client must first compute a Proof of Work (POW). This POW helps mitigate spam on the network. Nodes and other clients will not process your message if it does not show sufficient POW. After the POW is complete, your message is shared to all of your connections which in turn sh…
StartPage.com may have better search results because it's based on Google's search data, but it suffers from the same core issue as DDG. Instead of being based off of [Yahoo!'s Search Data][1], it's based off of Google's search data. Effort would be better spent working on a true alternative, rather than just a wrapper. [1]: http://developer.yahoo.com/boss/search/
Interesting effect: Use Yacy as your web proxy and it indexes everything (non-SSL) you visit. Better history search than any browser offers you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All it takes is a warrant and a plea bargain, and your private 'darknet' (haha) irc server is now a honeypot collecting all the traffic you thought was private. The more popular an easily controlled solution like private IRC servers become, the greater the advantage for law enforcement and others to control them. End-to-end encryption is a requirement for secure communication. Anything less is the same as scribbling…
As long as we can all agree not to get complacent, it's a step in the right direction. Arguing that people need to go form 0 to 60 in under a second isn't going to get us anywhere. For example, if you want to convince someone to become a vegan, which path is more likely to succeed: Omnivore => Vegan or: Omnivore => Vegetarian => Vegan or even: Omnivore => No red meat => Only fish => Vegetarian => Vegan
They hadn't thought about the ethics of meat before, when they did, they chose to be vegan.
So it turns out (in my experience) telling rational people "do the thing that makes sense, even if it's a little extreme" is much more likely to result in the most extreme change of behavior. But we're deep into anecdotal/psychological theory land here, so I claim no authority beyond N=30 vegans.