xorbyte

Opt-in is quite obviously not the same as opt-out (via restrictions) so it's dubious to compare the two. The parent poster was asking for a way to allow iOS users a way to voluntarily and explicitly enable content that may be deemed objectionable by some. It's not the same as restrictions, because the device is passively not going to allow those types of applications.

I'm not sure what the current state of the WordPress world is, but I know that without caching you were bound to crumble under any kind of traffic spike not very long ago.

Perhaps that's a good first step (I'm sorry I don't know which of the caching plugins is best, WP SuperCache used to be the one to use 'back in the day')

Not sure how that's relevant. Are you implying that Apple is like Microsoft regarding anti-trust, because TechCrunch makes itself hard to read in Mobile Safari without downloading a specific app?

For those interested in per-application tweaks for Gatekeeper, rather than changing the setting system-wide. I prefer to know which apps are or are not signed, so I keep the 'signed' setting on, and use this as necessary.

Finding a great tool and sticking to it means you're then free to focus on work, not process. While I completely agree one shouldn't be enslaved to their tools (and, thus, capable to work with nearly anything and everything) it isn't true that any tool is a good tool. Mastering one means you're vastly superior at the work you do when using said tool.

If I were to venture a guess, it's got more to do with the presentation of those ideas, rather than their substance.

Is it?

You equate financial viability with artistic value. But, there was Vincent van Gogh; large swaths of what we consider art today was commissioned by kings and popes and presidents on their dime, not sold or traded; it is virtually impossible, in the Kickstarter model, to fundraise sculptures and installations.

I certainly don't think art needs an erudite committee approving it for 'value' (in a non-financial sense), but neither does it need to be subjected to the tyranny of the majority, lest we want to limit ourselves to bazaar kitsch dolls and whatever else can be easily mass-made and sold. So while Kickstarter can certainly replace entities like NEA for many artists (many projects seem easier, logistically, to fund through KS) I don't know this says NEA is no longer needed.

There seem to be quite a few knobs to tweak, and I'd be interested in seeing how such a service would work in iOS/OSX while minimizing user involvement. I suspect there would be certain tendency to still make oneself somewhat trackable if the user were to be given the possibility to tweak the Clone's parameters—much in the way that tweaking one's User Agent is quite likely going to severely lower privacy in terms of uniqueness.

On a tangential note, I'm always glad to see entities try and solve problems (here: user tracking, surveillance, and privacy violations) with strong technological solutions rather than conventions and policy. It's not that, say, DNT can't work, but solutions similar to the one at hand[^0] seem much stronger as guarantees.

Needless to say, I'd also be very interested in using this system, or a subset thereof. Hopefully, in a way that ensures not even Apple can track me ;)

[^0]: Acknowledging the fact that Apple themselves might not actually implement this, of course, and that Novell doesn't do much with it further.

There seem to be quite a few knobs to tweak, and I'd be interested in seeing how such a service would work in iOS/OSX while minimizing user involvement. I suspect there would be certain tendency to still make oneself somewhat trackable if the user were to be given the possibility to tweak the Clone's parameters—much in the way that tweaking one's User Agent is quite likely going to severely lower privacy in terms of uniqueness.

On a tangential note, I'm always glad to see entities try and solve problems (here: user tracking, surveillance, and privacy violations) with strong technological solutions rather than conventions and policy. It's not that, say, DNT can't work, but solutions similar to the one at hand[^0] seem much stronger as guarantees.

Needless to say, I'd also be very interested in using this system, or a subset thereof. Hopefully, in a way that ensures not even Apple can track me ;)

[^0]: Acknowledging the fact that Apple themselves might not actually implement this, of course, and that Novell doesn't do much with it further.

Well, I do own a black reader, so perhaps Square moved back to using white at some point. But there have been white readers unable to encrypt the data out 'in the wild', and I suspect this project used one of those.

The new readers are black, the old (unencrypted ones) are white. There was a presentation at BlackHat 2011 on how to use them as general purpose skimmers: http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/05/square-found-to-be-ripe-f...

It would appear that THN has been previously called out for plagiarism by Attrition.org back in January:

http://attrition.org/errata/plagiarism/thehackernews/

CSS and HTML aren't the only things 'Mohit Kumar' copies, it would appear.

I think the net effect of this explosion in TLDs is that the individual appeal of each will diminish, as the novelty wears off. This will simply accelerate the erosion of the address as the primary means of access of a web resource (from a consumer point of view.)

I see some obvious parallels between domains and TLDs in how they become limited to singular entities. After all, it's non-trivial to obtain a scripting.com subdomain for myself, and I see no reason why someone is more entitled to such a subdomain than I am, besides being first to have registered the domain itself.

The argument against 403 is that the server might not get to the resource at all, so it doesn't get a chance to refuse the response. A router with filtering capabilities might also terminate the connection and return 451 if the target server is censored and won't be reached. (wether that's practically likely to happen—e.g., at the Great Firewall, or for ICE seizures—is a different matter entirely)

Also, the title tag is "CryptPaste".

Since there is some confusion on Twitter[0], perhaps you'd like to clarify wether you did, in fact, disclose information on a 14-year old girl to the government, without the presence of a subpoena asking you to do so?

[0]: http://twitter.theinfo.org/190203402284834816

The current trend with buyouts seems to be eventual integration. Google recently did this with their privacy policy, and it was received with mixed feelings. I see no reason to expect Facebook's acquisition of Instagram not to change how the latter operates: it must become profitable to FB somehow (beyond talent), and data is the most straightforward way. The two blog posts announcing the acquisition aren't legally binding with respect to the future of the products, and nobody should be surprised if a 180º shift happens in a few months. Facebook is in the business of monetizing user data after all.

Unless you happen to know, factually, that he is guilty (and perhaps therefore a witness in the trial?) this is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't happen before a verdict has been handed down. Kim's personality has little to do with how the law should be applied.

Choice of clothing is always an expression of one's personality.

Such a blatant and fundamental failure to be transparent in regards to user privacy should make everyone doubt Path's ability to function as a private social network. Whether this incident is a reflection of their technical incompetence or a lack of actually caring about their user's privacy (as their Values would otherwise have you believe) the expectation that their product can live up to its purported goal is misplaced.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Doesn't this set up 'probable cause to search' because the LEOs get a complaint of suspicious behaviour from a civillian? It certainly seems to be an easy way to bypass the 4th.

It seems that ICE is using top-level domains to claim jurisdiction, [anything .net or .com that's registered through Verisign](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/03/us-anti-pir...)