I shall now interpret the opening sentence to mean "any Dao whose rules can be enumerated is either inconsistent or incomplete." Thanks, that's a fun connection.
It's not about having nothing to hide. It's about fighting for what is right. Homosexuality would probably not be so tolerated today if it was easy to hide.
You have to realize that you can't please everyone. And you certainly can't expect to live your whole life anonymously. You have to make decisions, and you have to accept that someone, somewhere, is going to be unhappy about it.
What if you were/are gay? Would you hide it from your parent all your life? Probably not (I hope). Why do you expect something different with the causes you support?
Does anyone blame Facebook for making Likes public? Probably some, but they're the tinfoil hat kind. Your support has no real weight unless your identity is known.
Should we ask Google to lower their standards, to match a culture of privacy that is both unsustainable and dying?
My suggestion, don't +1 anything until you're ready to accept the benefits/consequences. Doing otherwise is unresponsible.
Somehow for many years we've lived as a society with anonymous reviews counting for something. We've lived without each individual broadcasting everything we buy and use to the world.
Your view is the minority here. Why don't you go ask a random sampling of people if they want their choices in underwear broadcast to the world?
It's time you looked beyond yourself and realized that people don't have the same preferences regarding privacy as you, nor should they.
You... really are making quite a botched job of this.
1) You should be very, very careful about having a public opinion on coming out if you do not have personal (or more importantly relevant) experience.
2) We're in an era where the fears of tinfoil hats seem more and more reasonable. For you to write concerns off derisively in such a manner is completely out of touch.
3) Perhaps there is, in and of itself, nothing terribly surprising or intrusive about Google using +1s in advertisements. Focusing on that innocuousness is obtuse. It is as if you are pointedly ignoring the context of the privacy debate.
>a culture of privacy that is both unsustainable and dying?
This privacy culture is very alive. It is under great stress, but it is alive. What makes your viewpoint insufferable is that you don't seem to see the value in fighting for it.
I don't see the long term value in fighting for it. I publicly criticized privacy many times before. Everything has been said, now we just wait for the unavoidable obsolescence of privacy.
Could your parents see this +1 before? Then they can see it now, besides an advert(although id think that unlikely). Could they NOT see it? Then they'll STILL not see it. Not besides an ad or anywhere else. RTFA
I think being excited for colored enclosures is Gruberian fanboyism.
But I will say buying an overpriced iPhone is 1. kind of a status symbol, and that 2. for most people it is safer to have an iPhone because they don't know (and don't care to deal with) policing every single Android app's permission settings. So it's not like Apple's making a fool out of them (even though I see it that way and you seem to also).
I'll be excited about an iPhone as soon as I am able to sideload an app, install a white/blacklist. I'd be quite excited if I were also allowed to run arbitrary apps in the background (listening to sockets even when not VoIP), and add arbitrary interactive views to the Notification Center.
A plastic colored body does not appeal to me in the least.
Congratulations, you are not the target market! You may now choose from the many available models of android and windows phones instead of making impotent comments on social networks. :)
No, I like making comments about it on social networks. If I get even one person on board with freedom it's a win. If I get enough people on board that Apple feels pressure and I can use unjailbroken iOS without these restrictions that would be great, I actually like iOS when it's jailbroken. I know that's a pipe dream but whatever.
Inform enough people and Apple will be forced to open up or go out of business, with either being an acceptable option. A couple of more years the way the market is going and they're going to be driven to irrelevance, which is also acceptable.
I think your point is muddied by "celebratory" and "special occasions", which is too bad because it's a good point; but it's going to be lost on people who have a beer or glass of wine with dinner, even though we probably all agree that drinking a "big gulp" beer at work is inappropriate and maybe we should feel that way about colas too.
You're probably right. Dinner to me falls into the same category. Just as there's nothing wrong with a beer or a glass of wine with dinner, there's nothing wrong with a cold glass of Coke by the pool. It's the failure to socially recognize the dangers of excess in sugary drinks that's problematic.
I vote yes. Formal verification has great benefits for software security and it's the "final form" (if you will pardon a redditism) of unit testing. It's one of the top skills I would like to learn.
You might be interested in L4; there's a variant that has been formally verified (but I think it's closed source?).
Formal verification allows you to prove that an implementation faithfully implements its specification. What does the formal specification for a web browser look like? I'm guessing that we're talking about thousands of pages of extremely dense math and code. How do you know that that specification is correct, or reasonable or what the user wants?
Now, maybe we don't want to do formal verification for correctness because it is too hard. So we settle for formally verifying that a program has some property of interest, like memory safety. But if you want memory safety, it is a lot cheaper to just use a language that gives you memory safety for free (haskell/scala/go/python) rather than trying to formally verify that your C++ program is memory safe.
> You might be interested in L4; there's a variant that has been formally verified (but I think it's closed source?).
You are probably thinking of seL4[1] unless there's another I don't know about. I believe you are correct that it's closed-source. That always bugged me though, since it seems to defeat the whole purpose of verifying such a critical part of a system's TCB. In my mind, the whole point is that I as a user don't need to just take anyone's word for it.
Unless I'm mistaken (and I'd love to find out that I am!), what we have with seL4 is a commercial vendor handing out an opaque binary blob and saying "we proved it's correct!" but providing no way for the user to verify that they really did prove anything. Frankly, these days I just don't trust any organization's assertions on such things no matter how thoroughly they claim they have proved it _to themselves_. It's certainly better than "we hit it with a hammer and it didn't break, most of the time!", but it still leaves open the possibility that the person asserting it's proved is lying, or that they did prove it's correct _except for the backdoor the NSA secretly coerced them into adding to the version they released_.
I wish I had the time to tackle something similar for the open-source world, but with 2 small kids around I barely have time for the small open-source projects I do manage. It's very cool too see this article's work being released in source form, and I really hope some open-source devs pick it up and run with it. I for one hope to be able to contribute in what time I do have.
They sure scope creeped with the CFAA, though. Downloading too many PDFs is a felony. Changing your user agent is a felony.
And then against the First; sharing links to websites that stream videos is a crime once we get you extradited here. Writing a tasteless joke online is a felony that warrants half a million for bail. Sharing a link to documents we don't want you to see is a felony.
Maybe they're not always oppressive. But it's reasonable for us to assume the possibility of scope creep. And it's reasonable to not want them to have all our communications stored against the event.
It's fine to link to your stuff especially if it's useful/educational/etc.