eeks

57 user on OpenBSD here. No extension installed (at least to my knowledge ;)), no crash to report. It has been a pretty smooth experience so far.

I almost stopped reading at “google loaner“, and should have. It feels so much like a biased hit piece it could be ironic.

RPL is a fine language. System RPL gave me Tourette’s syndrome.

That’s exactly the point I understood, too. But for some people we are all equivalent so it’s a non-issue; for some others it’s an edulcorated form of ethnic cleansing. There are rarely be topics of greater divide where these two opposite ends cannot debate without feelings.

<quote> My goals are pretty easy to understand, but grand in scope (more fun that way, eh?): to build a global, multilingual, high quality, neutral news service. </quote>

There is no such things as neutral news. But you can strive for some good, honest reporting with high journalistic standards.

That’s also my experience. I do a lot of Thai boxing and I need to control my weight to maintain my weight class. I switched from a balanced diet to a keto diet hoping for change but at the end both averaged the same. The only difference was that with the balanced diet I had to eat twice as much food to actually feel full and work out without being dizzy. Now I am walking down the path of strict calorie intake control, trying to better understand my metabolism tipping point. Working out more has no effect if it does not come with some form of caloric restriction.

I don't know about easier, but it's certainly more efficient.

My sentiment exactly.

Ahh, nothing like a good rant with my morning coffee !

Mail server, web server, CalDAV and CardDAV server, and development laptop. Never looked back.

Your are not really versed in computer science literature, are you?

I work in systems and no, I went back to industrial research.

I cut my salary in half going back to research after some years in a HFT gig. I'm gaining quality of work (wider breadth of topics), quality of people (world class researchers) and quality of life (office 10 min from home instead of 90, travel to conferences, ...).

This is a dangerous argument. The government censors this or that site. But wait, you have a VPN? Then your rights are respected. Oh, the government forbids VPN. But wait, you have Tor? Then you rights are respected. Making one particular medium more difficult to access than other comparable medium is one kind of censorship and threatens the first amendment.

I'm glad to see the EFF making the point I'be been trying to make all week; at the cost of multiple downvotes: "Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world."

I truly wonder when we, as a society, started to grow so fragile. So brittle that the slightest exposure to disagreeable ideas would make us shatter and lose ground. Education is supposed to give us tools to make us intellectually stronger. To give us enough critical sense to understand and confront. But all we can do is ignore and retreat. The fact that most triggered people are highly educated (cf. the safe spaces in colleges) looks like an indictment of our modern education system. Is it because we are bred by so much tittytainment that we cannot face displeasing thoughts or situations? Or because we are so strongly formatted to see the world in one shade that we feel threatened when we are confronted to other shades. Or are we simply so bored of being content and fed that as a result we are becoming intellectual hypochondriacs? Regardless of the cause, I am not hopeful for the future of our intellectual elite.

Tor does not support any vile things. It's a freedom platform. A tool. Honor is not in the blade but in the hand that holds it.

Exactly the comment I was about to make. Cannot agree more.

It's not unreasonable. The point I am trying to make (and at which I am obviously failing) is that it's not because Nazis carry one kind of flag, perform one kind of salute and chant one kind of chant, that people doing the same things are Nazis.

Historically, all this folklore was a mean to an end. But the end came first. There was a plan to overthrow the government, a failed coup d'état, an relatable ideology, a strong, trained and motivated leadership, a propaganda, active enrollments and daily militia marching. In two words, actual politics.

Given their complete lack of all these, it seems to me very hasty and politically motivated to call these morons Nazis. Instead of dealing with these people for what there are - lunatics, it creates a fear for something that simply does not exists.

Right. Nothing like these fucks. What you are showing me are boy-scouts. Cosplay enthusiasts. I am talking about this: http://bit.ly/2fKTuib. And this: http://bit.ly/2i6UZrK. And this: http://bit.ly/2fLS46Y. One of us is being purposely dense. I am probably biased but I don't think it's me. Get real.

EDIT This is not a qualitative comparison especially since my point is that both instances are not comparable.

What he means is all this is a far cry from an actual Nazi movement. I don't think you really appreciate what the NSDAP was. The NSDAP was build on a very strong military base (disenchanted veterans) and was using very strict military rules. They were not fat morons parading with tiki torches, but trained assassins organized in armed militia used to impose their order through authority and fear. Labeling a bunch of morons Nazi because they are white, they chant and they have a Swastika flag is a moral fallacy, an insult to all the people that suffered actual Nazism, and a gross oversimplification.

Some years ago, an engineer gave a talk at the French National Assembly to a workgroup debating on sustainable energy. His point was that, by comparing the average yearly energy consumption of an occidental 1st-world person to the mechanical energy production of an average human being, each occidental would need about 200 slaves to maintain the same lifestyle. This is obviously not an qualitative equivalence but it helps put our way of life in perspective.

The issue at hand is not about serving the DNS but registering a DNS. One could serve its own domain name server as long as they have been able to register it first. Unfortunately, not everyone can become a registrar. And if all registrar refuse to register you, you don't have a domain name.

Those are real questions to which I don't have an answer.

Although I don't believe web hosting is the problem here. Anyone can build a server and have it accessed using his own IP. So censorship (by design or as a byproduct) would be hard to achieve (except DDoS obviously).

Registrar are a lot more relevant because they are a service that make internet addresses intelligible to humans. So preventing one from accessing this service (either by design or as a byproduct) is an hindrance to their ability to communicate more broadly the content of their server. Same goes with search engines BTW.

Also, there is another solutions worth exploring: decentralized DNS registration.

That is not my point.

I do not see a problem with Google refusing service to the Daily Stormer. However, the story started with GoDaddy kicking them out then Google refusing their services.

Two occurrences are too few to infer a trend, but enough for me to start wondering: DNS providers are all private companies.

So what would happen if provider after provider the site goes after denies them their services? Does the union of the these refusals amount to censorship?

In principle, it's only the union of individual private refusal. But in effect the Daily Stormer is barred from DNS service access.

Also, I did not think that I would need to clarify, but this is a legitimate, non-partisan question. The arguments are still valid regardless of the object of the topic.

It becomes censorship when all accesses to a medium (ie. DNS resolvers) are privatized. In other words, if all private providers refuse them access to a medium and if we agree this people still have rights, there is nothing in place to defend these rights. The collective action to refuse them access is therefore censorship.

Regardless of the topic, censorship (private or public) can never be an acceptable reaction. To quote Louis Brandeis (Supreme Court Justice): "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

EDIT: I was not expecting to be downvoted when quoting a SCOTUS Justice arguing for openness of debates, education and spreading of knowledge. I'm savoring the irony.

So now sociability is a negative trait? I for one would be delighted to find an efficient way to make coding more social. Many a reason why software design is so hard is exactly because most programmers are autistic nerds that tend to produce opinionated, hard to maintain code. Pair programming with someone that tends to think more in breadth than in depth sounds like one way of improving that situation.

Huge memory BW, CAPI2, 8-way SMT, 120MB L3 cache, L4 cache, compression and crypto coprocessor, etc...

Not quite sure why this comment is being downvoted. +1'ed to compensate :)