jabbernotty

I am thinking of using this for my personal website. It has been a while since I have had to think about licenses, and I am having trouble thinking this one through.

Markdeep is open source. You may use, extend, and redistribute Markdeep without charge under the terms of the BSD license: ... Markdeep includes markdown.js, so you are also bound by the MIT license (which is BSD-compatible): ... ...and the highlight.js BSD license:

If I understand correctly that means I have to serve all three licenses in my HTML?

I find the proposed solution for 'SELECT COUNT(customer_id) FROM orders' confusing. They suggest placing the 3 billion order rows into three sets of 1 billion, to be distributed among three machines. But summing the number of distinct customer IDs in each bucket doesn't give you the number of distinct customer IDs in the orders table because an ID could be in more than one bucket. What am I missing?

Perhaps the light is on so that they can spot dead devices at a glance?

If opt-out happens after install, I would expect that your phonebook and such have already been transmitted before you are able to opt-out. But maybe the opt-out option occurs before/during install?

It does not serve a purpose to me. To whom does it serve a purpose to shadow-ban that user, and what purpose is it?

Yes, it is a disappointment. And yet, it is the reality. As a result, the GNOME team does still need to pay their lawyers.

If I may be so blunt, I suggest you help yourself. You will no longer be 'C# illiterate' when you have.

I'm having difficulty understanding in what way C# is difficult to read for someone who can write in the languages that you mentioned.

Did you do a web search before you wrote that?

The first hit when I did:

http://www.iamsterdam.com/en-GB/living/official-matters/comp...

"In 2005 the Dutch government introduced a law to improve public safety stating that everyone must be able to produce valid identification when requested by the police or supervisory officials. Those who fail to produce vailid identification risk being fined. Read on to learn more about valid identification, and to whom the law is applicable."

> Kind of ironic that Tradehill's founder is giving security advice in this article.

You do not realize how silly such a statement is? Edit: To clarify, one should not immediately discount the man's insight because of a past security incident. The experience probably adds value to his insights rather than substract from it.

I don't know anything about the implementation, but I would assume that the idea is to avoid having the service provider be a single point where complete failure can occur. Perhaps this new system offloads that risk to the customer.

But then I get confused, what service is the service provider providing if the customer still needs to carry around half of 'the data'?

The article also mentions this company's new product where additional security is possible because decryption requires data kept only by the customer. Perhaps that is the new way to go?

OT, but I find random promotional mentions of random people on Wikipedia to be pretty unfortunate.

Blacker Lotus and Mox Lotus are both part of a joke set.

> Their opinion only matters because you make it matter, by caring about it enough to let it stop you from doing something you want to do.

I disagree. If enough people in your community say that you are unwanted, you will become unwanted.

The Guardian doesn't 'admit' anything (it wasn't hiding anything in the first place), and legality doesn't predict whether actions are being taken or not.

>I wonder if the leaked presentation touches on this point.

That seems unlikely to me, as this is a technical presentation.

I've come to Gmail with an invite too, and I fully agree with you. But I don't know yet where I would jump to. I would prefer it to be a European company.

The fact that it says all these things on Wikipedia doesn't mean that much to me.

I hope you don't mind if I rephrase that last bit, I felt it was overly specific:

"-Do you want to a) protect your computer from being stolen? b) improve the privacy of your files? c) protect your online credentials?"

I could never have written the ad in such a thoughtless manner myself (neither could I have written your own well-reasoned post, for that matter).

But I do think it is just clumsyness - I don't think he thinks of women as objects, he is probably just happy to have them around for what they add as a person.

Or am I being naive?

The way I understand it, he was trying to state (in a clumsy way) what kind of team they have. Indicating that it's technical staff does not consist only of men.

I'm browsing from my separate internet-enabled machine right now. I'm not working in defense, but just a place that has secrets to keep. If you ask me, I'd say that is true for almost every organization, because most organizations have computer files on original research, sensitive sales-related or private information.

In what sense? Availability, security, ...?

It surprises me to see landing pages, such as https://ifttt.com/, that don't provide information themselves.

I think you are confusing the current social/political issue (overreaching surveillance) with the mere fact that surveillance technology exists (a neutral thing, in and out of itself). This would be like speaking out against police in general, because police can be corrupt. It is understandable, but not realistic; we still want those robberies, murders and break-ins solved.

As ryanseys points out, a timestamp and username doesn't provide any kind of security.

Since this uses Twitter, a good move may be to use Twitter's API to check if the correct user has been logged in (I don't know the Twitter API).

Would using direct messages work?

There were 3000 casualties.

>The existence of 'security theatre', the only example I can think of being the TSA, doesn't preclude the possibility that there are real threats.

A related thought: Just because you have spend a lot on security, and there haven't been much in the way of incidents, doesn't mean the security spendings are sensible.

It is possible that this kind of activity from European countries is in fact a direct result of similar activity by the US government.

Why should it query more from Google for people to 'take it seriously'?

Edit: It is through tracking that Google gets results that some people see as being superiour to those of DuckDuckGo: Google's model of you makes them think that they know what you want to see, and they give you those pages.

It uses many different sources to get it's information. Bing is probably one of them, yes. What is it, that makes you feel you can't take it seriously? It does in fact do what it says on the tin, which is letting you search in an +- anonymous way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo#Features

I'm not seeing the connection between the asofterworld post you linked, and this topic.

However, I do think that the page behind the hidden heart is most adorable.