goodplay

You can also add an exception for a blocked site by marking it green and clicking on the opened padlock in the umatrix panel.

No need to nuke a city to get a fly.

The university I attended had females comprise 90% of all students in computer science, and over half of all students in engineering fields. Anecdotes are fun.

Anecdotal experience: I switched browsers on android because android's default browser kept opening map links in google map. Firefox mobile didn't seem to suffer from that issue.

While google's tight integration lead to a positive experience for you, it lead to a very poor experience for myself or others who want to use something not google. I'm not asking for the EUC to fine google, I'm asking for choice.

Are the files categorized? While I can't mirror the whole thing, I'm more than willing to archive the categories that are relevant to my interests.

I think the single point of failure issue can be easily remedied if people could easily back specific parts of libgen/scihub.

I personally find this to be better and more honest. If we as customers don't own something, companies shouldn't use words like "your" and "ownership" to mislead people.

Touch ID is a username, not a password.

"They trust me - dumb fucks" --zuckerberg

We're the ones to blame for our current and sad state of affairs though.

> ostensibly only after terrorists

Only wittingly.

> (of old age)

I find the need to add this qualifier sad. Normally, any rational adult (children even) would be able to correctly infer your intent from the context, but given how things are these days and the crazy laws being passed, I certainly don't blame you for feeling the need to be specific.

See the particularly sad "Special note to law-enforcement agents" on https://sphincs.cr.yp.to/ .

I can't help but feel that things are taking a turn for the worse.

Hope really hard that 3d-printed electronics become a thing.

Thank you for the detailed response. I don't have any working knowledge on how bitcoin is practically used as a currency, so your comment provides insight that's very valuable to someone like me. Zero-confirmation transaction seem like the perfect solution for an infrequent, low value service that can sink more than a couple of fraudulent transactions.

You have my thanks!

A note on ipfsstore: while ipfsstore provides a very valuable service for those who know why such a a service would be used, the website provides no real information for those who don't already have that prior knowledge. What little information it has is tucked away on a separate page. I think if you clearly advertised the primary value that your service provides (offsite data redundancy/replication) on your landing page, you might see more uptake.

If IPFS and bitcoin ever hit critical mass, I think you'll end up with a surprisingly lucrative venture on your hands.

If I may ask, do those 4 cents include bitcoin's transaction fee? How well have bitcoin transactions worked for you so far?

I've been pondering starting a cheap service that accepts bitcoin (too cheap for CCs and not worth the hassle of paypal), but wasn't sure about the viability of relying on bitcoin as the primary transaction currency.

Not necessarily. For issues like the one discussed in this thread, a simple ssh-style "trust initially" would have sufficed, and would have prevented the malicious installer from running.

Note that I'm not proposing this as a replacement for the current cert system (which you pay into), but as a replacement for unsigned executables.

Perhaps we need a letsencrypt for signing packages on walled-garden systems.

That's the problem, I wad through enough bureaucracy when dealing with government institutions in my day job. I just don't have the time, patience, nor desire to read through pages-worth of rules and policies and correspond with a string of people who may or may not be willing to help, just to have my edit persist. I gain nothing either way.

Agreed with your statement in general. I once added a [citation needed] to a non-controversial technical statement that was false by definition only to have the edit reverted. When I asked for an explanation, the editor replied that the tag "has no place on a highly visible page". I never participated after that point.

People who have a lot of time or have been incentivised to edit wikipedia will always have the final say in what changes persist, regardless of the rules that governs the site.

I don't think a person should be held liable in this case because the solution was clearly labeled as a toy, and not as a serious solution.

If this person presented it as a real solution, however, then yes I believe he should be held liable, as much as a lawyer would be for recklessly giving out legal advice.

In either case, The developer who built upon the solution without validating it or verifying its correctness should bear most of the blame, regardless of how the answer was given.

> meant I'm sure as hell not inventing something new if it sets me up for civil liabilities.

And I'm arguing that not doing so might be a good thing. I shudder to think how we'd be off if other infrastructure disciplines took the same approach we take to develop software.

If you build something that people use in important infrastructure, prepare to be on the hook if it fails.

I've personally experience very tangible productivity gains once I got past the (very steep) learning curve.

The compiler will catch many errors that other languages consider logic errors; if your source code compiles, it tends to run as expected.

As for the disclosure: I'm a normal software programmer, and haven't written a single line of code for rust's compiler and tooling.

>Or for [buggy] software not to get written in the first place.

FTFY

We place too much trust and rely too much on computer systems these days to have the luxury to write software like we used to.

Anonymous within this context refers to unauthenticated clients, not communication privacy.

Non-ev HTTPS should loose its green color. The green padlock should only be displayed with ev certs.

Given a choice between a safe web by default and nice looking urls, I'd choose the former.

Furthermore, the real problem is that the green lock is displayed for https sites rather than those with extended verification. Http should be red, https should be plain, and ev https should be green with a padlock.

It's a failure in browser UI.

That would work for a country that can't defend itself or retaliate. I'm not sure that applies to any of the three mentioned.

My bet is that the few deaths that will initially occur, will be due to stupidity, rather than the ability to fix your property.

If people thought like you did, we wouldn't have kitchen knifes.

That component you refer to was necessary for the safe usage of the vehicle. If it fails, bad things would happen (and they did).

Having control over your tractor does not necessarily kill people. Death is not inherently implied by farmers merely having access.

Apples and oranges. Equating the two is silly.

Most people won't be adding in gotos and if statements, they'll be replacing borken parts and getting their tractors working again.

Those few who actually do end up writing code for it, and those who opt to run it, will do so with the full knowledge that it'll be their asses on the line when something goes wrong.

Either way, my point was that people won't die from access unless they do something really stupid, and death due to stupidity is going to occur regardless of whether the tractor is locked down or not.

Not the author, but I similarly support eliminating (well, severely limiting) intellectual property protections and make use copyright at the same time (GPL term enforcement).

With current laws, it's one reasonable way to get close to my ideals. It's the same reason why the Apache 2.0 license is against the friction caused patents by acknowledging them and addressing the issues they raise.

It's using ip law against itself (although I can't really speak for the author in this specific case).

Let people run their own software. If they kill someone, hold them liable. If deaths become endemic, then consider locking them down.

As many comments on these stories demonstrate, farmers have as much valid reasons to have control over their equipment as John Deere has for preventing it.

Technology is always about trade-offs. It's just that John Deere took things too far.

Generic Chinese phones seem to sport either intel or allwinner. Both aren't broadcom.

Targeted attacks are hard enough to fend off on systems that are fully up-to-date. What chance does an out-of-date locked-down phone have?

If you're not allowed to control and secure your phone yourself, the next best thing is to go with uncommon tech.

Security-by-obscurity seems to be back in fashion :(

I'm also avoiding broadcom as a "vote with my wallet"-type of punishment for being reckless with people's property. If enough people react similarly, broadcom will learn from its mistake. If not, at least I've done my part.