cryptolect

I prefer https://github.com/triclops200/quickapp/

In case nobody has pointed it out yet.

By default, with Ubuntu's dnscrypt-proxy package - the resolver is "cisco".

That's right, you're encrypting your DNS traffic just so Cisco can read it...

There are alternate resolvers but most people wouldn't change it out of the box.

I was really hopeful for a ChromeOS competitor. Guess I'll have to wait. Maybe Ubuntu's mobile OS?

What's unclear is how the BeagleBone Black Wireless compares to the SeeedStudio BeagleBone Green Wireless: https://beagleboard.org/blog/2016-07-07-seeedstudio-beaglebo...

It looks like the Green wireless has more USB ports, but aside from that, I'm not sure why you'd choose the BBB Wireless vs BBG Wireless?

Interesting to see that "end-to-end crypto" is becoming a frontpage feature for messaging apps.

Maybe an NFC implementation would be more acceptable.

Amusing to note that a site hosting a detailed article on the "cypherpunk revolution" doesn't support https.

Ever since I realized there will be a persistent log of my browsing history maintained by one or more government agencies, I have mentally-marked http as risky. I cannot wait for something like this to happen, and encourage the wider less-informed community that TLS is critical for both trust (properly implemented, TLS will provide protection against tampering and data leakage) and to provide a minimum level of privacy (I can see you visited site x, but not what sections of it). Bring it on.

Considering the functionality that wasn't reviewed, I don't think it should be advertised as "A".

It might be "A" for the expected permissions, but if there's extra permissions which haven't been investigated, these should be marked down until explained. This would encourage app owners to work with whoever maintains the database to get accurate ratings. If Whatsapp is an A today, there's no incentive for the developers to justify / assist with anything unexplained permissions remaining.

In it's current state, if it's awarding A scores while significant permissions are unexplained, it doesn't help the end user.

This is a wonderful example of NSA meddling. With one hand, Microsoft gives everyone out-of-box encryption, which it can use to demonstrate how well it's protecting consumers. With the other hand, by virtue of a 'feature' to assist consumers, it's providing access to the NSA via SkyDrive copies of encryption keys. Everyone's happy!

Best of all, enterprise customers don't have a reason to complain, because the SkyDrive backup 'feature' shouldn't apply to their deployment scenarios. The only people with a complain are those that use the default option.

We should keep vigilant for these security 'features' that are undermined by implementation. The NSA has years of practice at this, and we're playing catchup.

I'm happy to see that some new 'modern lisp on x' projects are taking design cues from Clojure (See Rhine and now Pixie).

There's a disconnect between the people who develop policy, and those who enact it. One group is elected, the other is not.

So subtlety and obfuscation to make good ideas sound bad (serpent), and bad ideas attractive (in the interest of performance and practicality).

So when any standards body recommends a particular cryptographic approach, we should ask why, and then why again.

I've been looking into ocaml, and was wondering what to do once my programs grow beyond a single file. Unfortunately it doesn't have the equivalent of 'lein new' (Clojure tool for creating a new, empty project skeleton), so I'd welcome a repository of best practice examples like skeleton.io.

To me, this explains why the five eyes nations are pushing for (meta)data retention legislation. It's a condition of participating in the scheme.

I'm sick of knowing about things and not jumping in early. So rather than brag that I knew about Ethereum before everyone else did, yet not have any, I figured I'd get some to play with.

I would guess that they want the default behaviour and user experience different to OpenWRT's goals.

Apparently they made the SafeCoin IPO (safecoin being the altcoin/blockchain that powers MaidSafe) available to purchase with both MasterCoin and Bitcoin. Based on exchange rates at the time, it was possible to get more SafeCoins if you purchased with MasterCoin, than if you used Bitcoin (since MasterCoin was so cheap).

Some people thought they could take advantage of the situation, and bought up MasterCoin to purchase SafeCoin. However it sounded like the IPO purchase cap for MasterCoin purchases was filled quickly, meaning a lot of people were left holding near-worthless MasterCoin. Thus began the cries of "Mastercoin pump and dump", which the IPO had (inadvertently?) caused.

MaidSafe sounds intriguing, but the one thing that gives me pause is their licensing page (http://maidsafe.net/developers-licensing), which says that any non-GPL MaidSafe codebases requires 1% revenue fee. I still dont know if that means I can or can't create my own MaidSafe application from MaidSafe compatible libraries that I've written myself, without having to pay them. I also don't know if they have some sort of central enforcement mechanism to prevent such an Application from working on the MaidSafe network. I can only hope they start releasing example code and applications soon to clear up the confusion.

I don't know about corrupt and incompetent... maybe under-resourced and apathetic babysitters of a legacy-ridden codebase.

I looked at this with interest, and it's just a showcase page with a "contact us" button. I don't click on showcases, I click on documentation, getting started, and pricing links.

Just have to wait for India to copy it, then visit India for medical tourism. They are one of the few countries standing up against big pharmaceuticals when important medicine is priced out of the reach of average citizens.

I second this question. If you can make Bitcoins out of thin air, then why are you selling it. How do you make more profit selling it than doing it yourself? Is there anything shady or risky about your process?

Take a look here: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/HttpOnly

There's a really informative presentation from Jay Fields who successfully introduced Clojure to his company: http://yow.eventer.com/yow-2013-1080/lessons-learned-from-ad...

How big/complex were your functions? Have you seen the style guide? It's easy to write really powerful, nested functions in Clojure, which are damn hard to read the next morning. Taking advantage of thread-first and thread-last macros can really help here. I've finally started to use them heavily. For instance, you could do the following to read a file, parse it from json, and retrieve somekey:

  (:somekey (cheshire/parse-string 
              (slurp "/tmp/somefile.json") true)

Or

  (-> "/tmp/somefile.json" 
      (slurp)
      (cheshire/parse-string true)
      (get :somekey))

In other words, there's much nicer ways to write maintainable, readable code that you can still understand in the morning.

Your "jumping around" comment also makes me wonder how you were laying out your functions? My advice is to go through the libraries of the popular Clojure libraries, you will discover a lot of good practices. It's taken me a few months of Clojure to start writing cleaner, readable code.

I use prismatic/schema which can be used to define schemas and either validate on demand, or always-validate function inputs. Very useful and easy to add.

I thought Erlang was already fast? Are there any before/after benchmarks available post-LLVM?

I'm so glad I moved on from them a few months ago. Now, to make sure I only have my minimum funds on the current exchanges I use...

I suppose I should also delete my Vircurex api library while at it.

Coming from Ruby, when I last looked at Go about 5 months ago, I was dismayed at the package management state. My specific concern was around version pinning. I'll be excited to try out Cargo when it launches.