Ah look, it even has snowflakes.
285 karma · joined March 10, 2016
He is known for much more than his historical novels, including translations and biographies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Brian#Bibliography
Thus, Apache is configured with the following LogFormat[0] which associates an explicit format[1] with a nickname (here, "essential"):-
LogFormat "%{%FT%T%z}t \"%r\" %>s %B %D %L" essential
CustomLog ${APACHE_LOG_DIR}/access.log essential
[1]: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_log_config.html#fo...
[2]: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_log_config.html#cu...
If enough people were willing to do this we could create a massive distributed index to rival google's.
Why do the families of victims matter the most? Does not every person matter equally?
This is mis-categorisation. The article says "I won't recommend the use of Signal" and gives reasons and desired improvements.
and just to add, the paper itself and a video of the author's presentation are available at this page.
It is not a "wish" when payment is demanded for a product. You violate a social contract and a legal statute when not paying for a product for which payment is demanded. This is nothing like the situation here where the content is absolutely available for free. This is beyond question.
> I mean ignorant at best. Pretending that there isn't even a discussion to be had about ethics in this area is just shoving your head into the sand.
Perhaps you might advance a rational argument for the viewing of ads as an ethical decision.
False equivalence. Further, they certainly are allowing the content to be consumed for free.
> There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue.
We violate nothing by choosing not to abide by the wish that we view ads. There is no obligation to do so. It has nothing to do with ethics.
> It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best.
I think you mean "ignorant at worst". At best, we are ideologically opposed. :)
The publisher expressly allows the content to be consumed for free - they don't require payment for the content. Therefore it is not unethical to consume that content for free.
That they desire us to view ads is beside the point: we're not obliged to view them, nor is it unethical to choose not to view them.
The web is a public place where the majority of content is free to consume. Those publishers who wish not to provide content for free are free to demand payment for it. They're free to raise revenue by delivering ads too, but we're not obliged to see them.
I find this sad and hope that we can bring about a revolution: actual privacy when using the Internet.
Would you agree that the programs revealed in them go far beyond the programs previous whistle-blowers revealed?
Did you know beforehand that completely innocent citizens of the world may be targeted for surveillance or their systems compromised because of the company they work for or because they use encryption and live in a particular country?
Do you realise that the details of many of your digital interactions are collected and recorded and could at any time be collated into dossier that would inform its readers of many details of your private life?
Maybe you were, wouldn't, did and do; maybe you personally don't have any reason to be thankful for this guy's actions, but many of us didn't have any idea of the extent to which our data is being collected or the ways in which it can be used against us.
Some of us are rightly thankful for being told what our governments should have had the decency to tell us.
Wanting the country you live in to be safer and stronger is certainly not basic self-interest: that would be wanting oneself to be safer and stronger, without regard for anyone else. It is certainly nationalism, if not quite patriotism.
The parent responded to "made the US safer" and "made the US weaker". The point is that there is a bigger picture than the question of the USA's safety or strength: the effect that the Snowden's revelations have had on all humans when taken together.
> Even the least patriotic people generally prefer not to be murdered by terrorists
You seem to be saying that the desire not to be killed by terrorists is a good reason for the citizens of one nation to be want it to be safer and stronger than another nation. Perhaps the desire not to be murdered by terrorists is a good reason for all nations to be, together, safer and stronger.
Exactly. Submitting tokens via GET requests (as is necessary for an emailed token) should be handled in the same way as POST (POST-redirect-GET): the resource which validates the token should not be the one that presents the "password reset" form.
There is nothing really wrong with it; it's a good way to reduce the burden of managing secrets. The downside though is when multiple remote machines need to be contacted because a private key was revoked. Then again, a common need for revocation is a compromise of the machine on which the private key(s) is stored, which can often mean a number of private keys need to be revoked. I think the ideal is still to have unique key pairs for each client-server combination.