snakeanus

> Now urandom is based on chacha

Did Linux follow the example set by OpenBSD?

Also an interesting and related article https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2014/02/25/safely-generate-rando...

How about authentication with public keys? You can store them encrypted in a smartcard, on your computer, on your phone, or even write them down.

Isn't viewing child porn also a thoughtcrime? Obviously this would apply only to viewing it and not creating it.

If I am not mistaken Japan illegalised viewing CP in ~2009 but distributing it was illegal beforehand.

He did say that the list is endless.

> I don't think Cloudflare is providing the DDOS part

I did not claim that they did.

> Their involvement is limited to serving the web sites i.e. speech

I guess so.

Free speech harms nobody. DOS attacks harm the people whose service is denied to.

> Discriminatory hateful speech absolutely limits the freedom of the discriminated group

How so? Speech is just speech.

> I don't allow white nationalists into my house.

That reminds me a joke that someone made during a family meeting. It was something along the lines of "What? You are going to marry a COMMUNIST?" and "I don't want loyalists in my house!", both of which are outdated concepts nowadays.

While you are free to refuse entry to your house to anyone that you want, it doesn't change the fact that refusing access to someone who would otherwise be allowed in just for their political beliefs is a jerk thing to do.

> and ISPs are free to cut off my internet service if they don't like what I'm hosting

The solution for this kind of thing would be using something like tor or i2p. However, if these companies start banning these services as well that would be a problem.

The Pirate Bay is fine. DDOS gangs however? I would argue that they are worse than people who express a fascist ideology online.

> That's a fallacy because "free speech" is not unlimited - every civilization recognizes its existence is the result of limiting specific freedoms in order to guarantee everyone other freedoms.

Speech can't limit anyone else's freedom however.

> Germany, among others, outlaw this kind of content

Leading to multiple wwii games having a different version for Germany and for the rest of the world due to the censorship that they apply.

> Perhaps the US should learn from them.

Why should it?

> The distinction is that neo-nazis chose to follow a hateful ideology

Did they?

You don't choose to have a certain ideology.

If you use a mode like CTR you just flip the corresponding ciphertext bit. As for CBC there are padding-oracle attacks.

I just see a "CALCULATING...."

Draw a girl, call it a boy.

Sure, this might be a private business and they might be free not to deliver certain content but this does not exempt them from criticism. Just like they are free not to map the address to the ip of that site so are people free to criticise them for this kind of censorship.

> Do terrorist organizations deserve a place on the internet where like-minded people can communicate and meet each other?

Everyone does.

They wouldn't have to deal with that if they used tor/i2p instead.

Under CC-SA nonetheless. In fact, Hal Abelson (one of the authors of SICP) was also one of the founders of Creative Commons. Moreover the other author (Gerald J. Sussman) is in the board of directors of the FSF.

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs - 2nd Edition

Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming

And the books in the "The Little Schemer" series.

I would also suggest "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach" but this is not from MIT Press.

Archive.org is one of the greatest sites in the world right now. The only negative thing that I have to say about it is the retroactive removal of sites that have a anti-bot stance on robots.txt (even if it does not ban archive.org specifically). I would understand if they did not crawl sites that had such a robots.txt but I find the retroactive removal a dangerous policy.

To be frank these videos should be public.

I wonder, why is it an extension for a specific browser instead of a blacklist that can be used in any browser that has a blocker?

It seems that we really need to find a new distributed/decentralised censorship-resistant way to distribute videos.

If you have mpv with youtube-dl installed then you can watch the video without using anything non-free.

I would argue that you are evil if you do not allow the user to use for any propose, distribute, and modify the software.

And this is a good thing.

libgit2 depends on libssh2 actually.