/tech/ - Technology

[cont] Europeans might have had a more subtle understanding of gold than did good honorable soldier and officer class as Sherman did.  But was he a rube?  An unsophisticated dummy?  No because he knew iron and steel and alloys and metals.  But gold was not an implement of war at that time.  In California it wasn't legal tender or money.  One then wonders, can some class of people, coin living blood, into gold itself?  The blood inside you, animating and making you what you are, is it worth something precious to you?  And if so, will we eventually be using blood as money as the last line of "the safety of markets"?  Maybe you can see an horrific place in that line of questioning?

 >>/12630/
 >>/12631/
 >>/12632/
So very much concentrated hatred and tension, the sign of one at war with themselves internally, sorrow instilled within them by their own perception of the world and an existence revolving around it. I agree that many events have occurred throughout history as a result of the malicious intentions of those who care not for others, but the very fact you are capable of broadcasting this message to us, the very fact that at the press of a button you can access seemingly endless troves of information that our ancestors would have killed to obtain, is this not evidence of the greatness that is the internet, a medium which contains the information gathered over centuries to be accessed by anyone anywhere in the planet?
Humans are quite foolish creatures, greedy for naturally occurring metals and dominion over others, but never desiring to be dominated themselves. The society which many yearn for is a society which firstly fulfills the basic needs for human life, and only then can one explore themselves and the world to grow themselves and learn.
This is all I shall write for now, I could write a book on such thoughts, but it does not suit me at the moment.

"This is all I shall write 
for now, 
I could write a book 
on such thoughts, 
but it does not suit me 
at the moment."

Well said.  I parsed it out like meaningful prose.  But is the age of books going to last?  Amazon has a great used book business going tho, I buy used books there all the time.  However, some of my friends do use kindle device.  I could write a book on having lady who uses kindle device but there is no need for such a book.  Fact is: People had been preconditioned to expect a "Star Trek" world, i.e. tablets we swipe and so forth.  AND YET Star Trek itself presumes total nuke war and destruction, for us, by 2100 AD I think.  And if you take note of TNG they view people from our time as basically diseased crap.  Yes I know it is just a TV show but it is also powerful somnambulist program that makes generations, expect certain things.

If they showed the kindle device, in ST as what it is: just some book reading gadget, enabling someone like Bezos (and his chums), we wouldn't like it.  We wanted the Trek thing from 1968 to become a great thing.  But the kindle is not well suited for battle, I would only deploy it to rear echelon units.

TL;DR

The Adventures of... jpg
(217.6 KB, 1366x768)

This is an issue that was explored extensively in the anime sci-fi classic, Zero Kara Hajimeru Mahou no Sho.

This would mean little to nothing if only Putin would arrange a faster transition away from Windows, Intel, Apple, and the like for its infrastructure. As it stands, he does not seem to take technology seriously enough; but this is a perpetual Russian leadership problem.

 >>/12636/
A complete transition from x86 would take years to be done. Also, if some bunch of people from internet get to reverse engineer intel's microcode, don't you think military security agency wouldn't have this capability? They do. They probably don't run on x86 anyway, not the stuff that needs to be secure, anyway.

 >>/12616/
> firejail is mostly for firefox

u wut m8

1521060413987 jpg
(34.5 KB, 400x326)

 >>/12616/
 >>/12620/
Yeah, I remember Firejail being non-application specific. I'm pretty sure it's a play on words for Firewall and Jail.

> incapable of secure virtualization
Not true.

> firefox itself is not secure
that is true insofar as you use no security enhancing extensions or patches, and it's irrelevant if you put it in a jail.

Theres some other infos here that may be useful for this list:
http://archive.is/6DPqO

 >>/12621/
> Not true

Explain.

 >>/12622/
> secure
Define.

 >>/12635/
> Define

Verifiable separation.

Haven't head about this, but Bruce Schenider has already said that IPsec was manipulated to be weak. Also, @ioerror said on CCC that SSL and SSH has been broken by NSA already.
Even if they don't, on the best of hypothesis, the processors are already fucked (x86 and ARM, in particular). Nowhere to hide. I ask myself what computing tech will USA military guys use on war with Russia...

OP here. Posted this on 8tech too. Someone posted this link.
https://boingboing.net/2016/04/07/a-perfect-storm-of-broken-busi.html
Still, the points are valid.
 >>/12618/
Nowhere to hide indeed.

 >>/11380/
See  >>/10695/

 >>/11377/
> unless they spread Jammers through the country or remove every single hardware

They could also cut the power. In this case, the device should have a solar powered battery...

ardunel dongle

Wifi is a really bad idea for a large-scale mesh. High latencies, interference resulting in speed drops, power hog, jewish microwaves. On the other hand, all high-speed wired solutions have no libre firmware or drivers. Everything above 1Gbit or optical is fucking proprietary. But at least optical wires don't radiate shit in all directions so CIA niggers can't find them easily.

14774716779... jpg
(16.4 KB, 318x480)

 >>/11226/
Well the issue is more like the standards of the web have gotten out of hand. New standards need to be spread and upheld. Imagine it like this: we could either fork existing browsers or webengines and add more functionality, like supporting FLIF and animated SVGs and other goodies they currently don't deem necessary, or we remove and replace functionality, like taking out Javascript support and only allowed for scripting using LISP dialects. But you need webpages and websites that are going to conform to that new standard, and the only way that's going to happen is if it's small fansites or homepages that can leverage an alternative search index besides Google (who is heavily biased toward big-name websites that can pay for positioning).

It's not a problem that can be solved just by introducing new web browsers. It'd be better to just support a fork that already exists.

 >>/11592/
> inane questions
yeah i see you guys just solved the mystery of hurd with your superior questions

> Great job bumping an old thread
every thread here is ancient
> You're real /g/ material.
Great anon, thanks

 >>/11593/
yeah, i am so used to linux i mix that stuff

Make USE flags a thing on GuixSD NOW!

image png
(29.95 KB, 633x758)

 >>/11115/
> You and I and everyone else in the world could burn to a crisp in a fucking inferno for all he cares as long as he has access to the code he wants.
> There's nothing altruistic about the man. He has the self-centeredness common among the autistic. You're not a real person to him. Deal with it.

Ah fuck this is too close to home. Does this mean I'm an autist?

aa jpg
(56.35 KB, 1000x800)

 >>/11797/

1472346805... jpg
(741.29 KB, 1800x2744)

The_Free_Software_Cre... jpg
(108.73 KB, 500x375)

1472329388420 jpg
(148.54 KB, 939x626)

14703126398730 png
(77.7 KB, 441x495)

1466517784610 png
(43.51 KB, 661x716)

 >>/11081/
I'm very sceptical that HURD is developed enough to be released by the end of this year. Does GuixSD even have a newbie-friendly installer yet, like the major distributions?

Anyway, let's assume that the world is perfect. HURD is completed by the end of the year. Then what? Now you have Linux and GNU as two distinct entities, distinct operating systems. Now third party developers might have to develop for one additional system; lots of developers don't even port their software to BSD, as far as I've seen. How would they deal with the threat of incompatibility with software originally designed to run with the Linux kernel? Maybe that so many developers use glibc will mean that this is not a big issue at all. I don't know.

Okay, what if it wasn't an issue? What incentive would people have to adopt the GNU operating system, instead of or in addition to Linux? The BSDs already operate according to a centralized development model that is its prime distinction from Linux. GNU would be either be moving toward that model or it could be like Linux and allow for distributions of the GNU operating system built upon HURD. But what would GNU have to offer? Obviously, completely, 100% free software. Ideologically, that's a big win, but this wouldn't translate necessarily to practical benefits for the user. The driver support would be worse, the software repository smaller. The only way it could grow would be to convince would be Linux users, and even would be BSD users, to develop for GNU; but aside from the free software philosophy, which is not exclusive to but only purer in the GNU OS, what would be the draw?

With that question in mind, I just don't see HURD ever taking off even if it finally makes it out of the hangar and unto the airstrip.

Even if it's vector they would still see the pixels, because all the technology was build in this concept, a matrix of square dots. We would need to rebuild the display tech to fit the "meta-model" of vector graphics first and I have no idea how we could do that. Maybe holographic, as the other anon said, but that's too futuristic for our primitive society. Also, holographics would have density issues, as external light would not offer enough contrast for the human vision.
Maybe look into bioengeneering would be better, like a brain-computer interface that can send signals to human optics or something.
Again, too futuristic, and there's no research investiments enough for that. Maybe there's some guys on Cambridge, Berkeley or Stanford, for meh, not really.

> Going backwards in technology is not an option.
> too futuristic
I'm happy to see "too big to fail" ideology coming from the consumer rather than the government, it only shows that culture is being cohesive and bailouts have the blessing of the public. Going by the success of 3DS and Shovel Knight, some of those allegations are patently false, however. The amount of fun is clearly scalable to the reach of the production, while lowering prices are much more heavily influenced by increasing the reach to secondary and tertiary markets. To put it short, first people to buy Shovel Knight were happy to pay $100 in Kickstarter, the second people $20 in early adoption and now $30 on Nintendo Switch. Calling this "unaccepatble" is clearly ideological and false in real world terms.

A game as much fun as Shovel Knight is produceable in primitive technology that resembles the early Vectrex, with the addition of modern computing power. On the other hand, such a device is liable to crash and burn as well like the Virtual Boy. These are however mere indicators and not gospel. A viable new vector technology would need a few bottom lines fulfilled, one is to be able to mimic raster graphics in an inferior way the same way raster graphics are able to mimic vectors in an inferior way, where they get pixelated but are not unuseable. One other is to support an universal standard of vectorization so that any method of greating a vector algorithm is transferable directly into the device without going through the process of re-encoding the same collection of shapes in a different way to no further benefit.

I do not imagine to pointlessly throw out raster graphics just to accommodate vectors. What would need to happen is to introduce another element of interface next to raster visuals and audio, which are already succesfully merged into one experience, so we can enjoy an effective use of vectors, rasters and audio. This is not an unforeseen concept, as Apple did introduce a touch interface even though we already have a good touch interface in mouse and keyboard, and Wii was succesfully sold on motion controls despite being clearly inferior to the single-plane motion control found on the mouse.

While it's important to first discover a viabilty for pure vector displays, or else well never get to the point where the following is possible, I imagine there comes a point where a screen monitor can display both vector graphics and raster graphics. How I imagine this to work is that there should be a layer of screen that can produce rasters, and onto that a vectorized line can be projected, from a board that is flat but can mimic tubular monitors. Similar technology already exists where touch screens can receive input in analog shapes and digitize it in raster form. Also rasters in see-through materials already exist in a primitive form, that's another thing that is absolutely a step "backwards" yet plenty of hard money sees potential in it.

The way I imagine it it might be something that recognizes which colors are intended as lines and which are intended as solid colors, and the graphics controller chip within the monitor itself would know what lines to produce in scalable rasters while the rest of the colors would get as pixelated as the definition allows, but perhaps be written over by any vector lines drawn over the jagged edges. It's highly hypothetical until the early forms of flat vector displays exist to start indicating what direction the technology can possibly go to, depending on the exact workings.

What exists now is at least QR codes, which can mimic vector equations if being put up to task. I can hardly imagine a QR code reader doing 10 000 calculations every second, though, if they were to perform the task of a vector display controller chip.

 >>/12603/
I don't quite get how your Shovel Knight example ties into the ideas of your first paragraph. Are you accusing us of preferring the status quo; are you suggesting that older technology actually does have a place in the contemporary world, and that it is not true that the only direction possible to go in is strictly forward? I'm having trouble understanding your post, but don't feel obliged to spell it out.

 >>/12604/
I would have an easier time getting it if you had an illustration/diagram of what you're talking about.

 >>/12606/
Probably a bot, I don't know. I don't understand what he's writing too.

 >>/12592/
quick response for now: I'm not talking about those cases where no https version exists.

 >>/12594/
The more security you have, the more layers of obfuscation you have, the more points of failure, the more maintenance required. Some security is necessary for some privacy at a certain layer to deliver certain private information to other systems or people using the same protocols, but it's just to assure a certain level of communication that one trusts and feels that it is necessary to hide private information from those that look for it. Online privacy is information that's to be separated from the public that you don't want to be accessed by the public but only a secure connection between one or more people that nobody else knows about. If those that you privately contact chose to betray you, they can leak confidential private information to the public or to others privately. One can use a secure channel but say nothing of private confidential information. The front end of a website is what's publicly accessible which should never have private confidential information that shouldn't be publicly accessed. Security is a means for privacy but is not privacy in and of itself. Using a VPN for example hides what you do from your ISP but it doesn't hide what you from the ISP of what the VPN uses, so even securing the VPN connection doesn't mean privacy, just a layer of security. Let's say the FBI goes to your home and asks you to decrypt your hard drive or else they'll break your bones. You are the ultimate key to all of your data that's at least accessible by you. Multi signing is a higher level of security, but if some secret or public organization gets the private keys of all of the people responsible for its creation, it's compromised. Privacy deals with trust management which uses security but is not merely security. True anonymity probably doesn't truly exist online, only obfuscation of identity is real.

 >>/12595/
Just because some websites have https doesn't mean it's properly implemented https and so doesn't redirect its users to its https site but instead its http site because that's what the people running the site wants you to use their site the way they want you to. If you refuse, go complain to the people running that website without accessing it's http website somehow. Poorly implemented https sites are all over the place, and if they really properly set up https, they will redirect all http requests to https because most people that set up https tend to also care about SEO scores.

1521318969907 jpg
(407.08 KB, 1000x625)

 >>/12592/
 >>/12593/
 >>/12596/
Yeah, I stand by my response here  >>/12595/

I'm not saying never share or visit HTTP links. I'm saying that HTTPS is better than HTTP when available (and that means, taking into account also your countercase, you aren't just being redirected away from the HTTPS site). Your response doesn't say anything against that.

On using a VPN, you need to distinguish between using a home VPN and commercial VPN. Commercial VPN is better for privacy than a home VPN when you trust the provider, because they give you an IP Address that isn't your own.
HTTPS is better than HTTP because the data is encrypted, can't be easily snooped on.

So, obviously, HTTPS with VPN would be best from a privacy and security standpoint, but this isn't what I was talking about.

 >>/12594/
Alright, alright. Going off your conception of this then, let's look again at your setup.
 >>/12587/
> I use HTTPS everywhere, noscript (manually re-configured for my browsing habits), Random Agent Spoofer, Tin Foil (well some of the options, not in full mode), disabled most chromium vulnerabilities with about:config and also use a private VPN (w/ encryption), and I use a Linux OS... am I safe at this point?
I'll need to break it down.
> Chromium
What you want is for it to be as stripped down as ungoogled-chromium, which is a distribution of chromium with anti-google patchsets from Iridium and Inox applied, as well as eloston (the founder's) own fixes, if you aren't just going to use ungoogled-chromium itself. I don't think anybody is quite sure to what extent Chromium is Googled, so removing as much as you can from what has been found out is good practice. Just fiddling with about:config is not enough.
> Private VPN
A home VPN? You want a commercial VPN like AirVPN which is going to give you a different IP address than your own, is highly unlikely to divulge your data to 3rd parties, and in fact keeps little to no data about you at all. Paid VPN is the only way to go if you care about the Government spying on you.
> Linux OS
Depends on which one. Better than Windows, surely, but that's a low bar. Ubuntu has recently started data collection, and they had that Amazon integration; Mint is a hack of different pieces that would be easy to exploit; systemd hasn't been audited and its development has been driven by a company which receives funding from the NSA, and for some strange reason unknown to me, has even become a dependency for TOR (to be more specific, lib-systemd). Systemd has now become the standard init+ system in most of the major distributions, so if this is concerning, then a lot of those, including Debian and Fedora, are off the table as far as being "safe" or trustworthy.
All this to say, it depends on which distribution of Linux you're using.
> noscript
uMatrix is strictly better if you know how to use it, but Noscript is eh, better than nothing.

One thing to be aware with browsers is that there is this mechanism, Canvas fingerprinting, by which sites can identify you. They can use the data of how your browser responds to page request to determine which browser you are actually using, even if you spoof the user agent; I've also heard that how many extensions you have or what extensions are installed could also be used to identify you. /g/ used to have threads about it, and link to fingerprinting websites that show you whether you are safe or not, and how so. I'd look up 'browser fingerprinting test' and see whether you can be identified with your setup (like it tells you how unique your browser is compared to the millions of other users out there).

> TL;DR
Not quite safe, there's more to consider and to do if you treat Privacy+Security+Anonymity as the end-all-be-all.

 >>/12520/
"cloud"
syncthing

 >>/12605/
There's some websites that improperly loads from a http site into the https front end, not truly secure, AKA: mixed content. Websites that are slower when using https instead of it's regular http site has more often than not mixed content not from same origin.

Your so called argument has to take into multiple variables, it was a loaded question and so there's no simple yes or no answer to it and so there's no definitive "yes" or "no", it must consider all of the variables, while your loaded question was used in response to my previous points like how the ISP (any ISP) will know what links you've clicked and the various concerns in using a third party between you, the web host, and the domain host (if they're not one and the same) that can at any moment revoke certificates willingly or unwillingly from the web browser side or the certificate issuers which sometimes try to mess with the certificates used by the web browser, making certain websites inaccessible that way.

If an https site has the locked green padlock it's safer than https site without the padlock. https://www.whynopadlock.com/

Even assuming a website has some A+ score on observatory.mozilla.org (which mind you, my own personal website has an A+ score), absolutely any layer of security isn't guaranteed privacy. Your nit picking on about me not specifying specific types of VPNs is avoiding the core failure of you needing to trust protocols upon protocols yet my point is that any layer of security opens up more variable points of failure that you merely assume that you can circumvent before it is exploited when really that can't be done, nobody knows the future. Securing the most direct path from point A to B is better than securing point A-Z, while there's more trust in the information the less filters it has to go through. Have you ever played telephone or chinese whispers? The more people that have to pass the message verbally, the more distorted the original message becomes until it's totally indecipherable at the end of the chain.

All I'm saying is that no single protocol should ever gain 100% of your trust, neither one or the other, so everyone is wrong if they answer yes or no to the whole trusting https over http thing because that's not how it works in real life. I would trust a letter with a tamper evident seal on the envelope more than I trust any protocol that connects me to the internet.

As i understand that term came with smartphones and popularization of mobile apps. An app on a smartphone is basically a webpage adjusted for mobile use (twitter, google docs, ebay). And since we started to call all of those services "apps" - because of smartphones - we now call everything an "app". So today you can't go wrong with saying something's an app, be it a webpage, executable, mobile app or something else. 

And acording to wikipedia, that's not wrong:
   -Mobile app, software designed to run on smartphones and other mobile devices
   -Application, software that causes a computer to perform tasks for computer users
   -Web application or web app, software designed to run inside a web browser

IT'S ALL AN APP ALFER ALL

 >>/12507/
I'VE GOT AN APP FOR THAT!

 >>/12508/
> As i understand that term came with smartphones and popularization of mobile apps. 
People were saying things like "desktop app" long before smartphones existed