falien

That just added the ability to save a copy of the encrypted database. It did not remove the encryption.

Correct. That is often referred to as literally a "Source available" license which is common from entities such as Microsoft.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition for what qualifies as "Open Source"

No they wont (and don't) but it's possible they will choose to not sign these extensions, probably depending on their lawyers.

The blog post this was based on (http://www.matthewjockers.net/2014/06/05/a-novel-method-for-...) which is from 2014 was widely panned when it was first publicized, and some of the many problems with the methodology pointed out by scholars with more experience and competence with the statistical methods involved. That's how scholarship is supposed to work. However, it will never stop media from seizing on a great click-baity headline.

It's a fig leaf they can point to when lobbying to avoid stricter regulation in any jurisdiction that hasn't yet enacted new rules.

Thanks.

I figured it was likely in the app, but for an experiment like this, that appeals to many of the ideals of an open source philosophy, I'm less likely to bother installing it if I'm unaware that it's an open source project.

Obviously the appeal ultimately needs to be greater than just being open source, but that initial bump can't hurt the outcome of the experiment.

This seems buried. Is there a reason it's not mentioned or linked on the kloak page? I actually went looking for the code and couldn't find that repository.

IE8 has the 32k limitation. I don't think anything else does.

Additional data point for all the people arguing about it deeper in comments: Firefox 3.6 had its last security update 9 months ago (2012-03-13) and hit official end of life from Mozilla a month later.

I prefer to let people read into the original as much as they choose, since it is fairly clear by the third introductory paragraph that the reporter misrepresented what was at issue in the case.

>That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

That ruling. I don't think it says what you think it says.

I wish I could say this was some of the worst reporting I've ever seen, but alas.

edit: for anyone who wants to read it http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1577369.html

(not associated in any way with tent.io)

1. Just because it is allowed by the protocol doesn't mean any given client needs to pay any attention. Just like email, I can filter out any messages from people not in my contacts. I may choose not to and instead run each one of those messages through a spam filter. In this respect it really seems no different than email. Individual clients/servers can choose to be as strict as they like (but servers are servers, and they are sitting on the internet, so spammers can see them and send messages that will be ignored if they like).

2. Since connections with most of your contacts are theoretically maintained so you can push out new data, updating is more akin to propagating a new ip through the DNS system than using a redirect. Yes a DNS server can misbehave, but that can only screw up a network of well behaved servers for so long.

Your blog post suggests using MsgPack as a drop in replacement for JSON for client-server communications. In that context every encode/decode operation on the server would be matched by one in the client browser. The <5% gain in performance on the server (and I think that is generous) cannot possibly make up for the performance hit of a javascript implementation of MsgPack.

When MsgPack was written a lot of JSON in the browser was still not native so an argument could be made if you desperately needed that bandwidth and it worked better than average for your specific workload. That is simply not true anymore.

My point was that you can't install a c extension in a browser. I assumed that all the MsgPack libraries would be C or equivalent performance-wise.

As to text vs binary, I'll just leave this link here: http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/textualitychapter.h...

But you can install a c extension implementation for ruby (or pretty much any other language that doesn't already have native JSON built in) on your server fixing that performance gap. That's exactly what you can't do on the browser JS side for MsgPack.

You are reading it correctly. This is a horribly link-baiting title.

This is against many consumer ISP ToS and they can/will arbitrarily start blocking traffic on certain default ports depending on how draconian they are about it. I agree that hosting on a home server is an option (even a good one) for some people and usecases, but you are still subject to the whims of someone else, and in this case you often have no recourse as you are violating the ToS.

I disagree with your interpretation. The collection of expressive elements such as icons seems copyrightable in aggregate as much as any of the individual elements. What that decision says is not copyrightable is an organization of data (including choice of words that would struggle to qualify as expressive). If they had allowed the copyright on that then things like logical taxonomies would also be copyrightable. User interfaces not built with a platform's standard interface elements are more akin to works of art and can be expressive and assuming it was copyrightable then determining if a clone was infringing would depend on if it was a true clone or if there was some transformative change.

I'm not sure what is accepted case law, but the cited case seems much narrower to me than you are implying.

um, that is not what that decision says. It says the interface may be covered by copyright to the extent that it contains expression. That would seem to me to have a large overlap with look and feel patents.

Yeah, but by then we'll be able to build everything with 3d printers, so all they'll need is the specs.

I wonder if anyone has actually attempted this and seen how dense you can pack it and reliably recover. I imagine you would need measures to counter small misalignments when rescanning and imperfections in the physical media.

Even if its not well liked in the most tech forward circles that may be the most desirable audience for google, there should at least be familiarity with it. And I don't know about you but I can't think of any even halfway decent and plausible alternative google could have chosen.

My point was that your substitution changes the meaning too. Special interest is a well understood term, and Nation in this context is defined. While its true in this scenario some special interests could end up being nations, nations are a superset of special interest nations. The difference I perceive in this terminology is between "special interest groups" and "interest groups". AARP is an interest group (and more, while they are a powerful lobbying group, that is only one of their stated purposes, just as a labor union's only function is not political lobbying). The tea part is an interest group filled with crazy people. Marijuana legalization groups, pro-life/pro-choice groups, and the american corn farming lobbying group are special interest groups. Interest groups have a wide swath of generally shared interests and views. Most old people share certain interests and AARP caters to those. In other interest areas old people's views/concerns are as disparate as the general population's. The AARP does not in general pay attention to those. By contrast a special interest group has a single or narrowly defined set of issues they care about, and they care a great deal about that tiny part of life.

Taking this into the context of the proposed nations. Some people care about a single issue enough to be single issue voters and join a special interest nation. The majority of people could find a community that shares their views on a wide swath of issues of varying priority to them.

I don't really think this idea would actually get the desired effect of having general interest groups be effective in counteracting special interest groups if they aren't already passionately concerned with the issue, but effectiveness is not an argument for/against underlying motives.

edit: oh, and I have seen AARP literature trying to inform members about political issues, as well as informing them of benefits of being a member. AARP shouldn't be trying to sell its members on any view, AARP is supposed to find out what its members care about and what can benefit them and lobby the government for those things.

I didn't blip over your argument, I rejected your premise. Economies of scale mean it works better the bigger it gets (up to a certain point in most cases which I already said, whether that point in this case is greater than a state or less than a country I'm not going to make any sort of claim on). If I'm manufacturing a widget my fixed costs aggregate over all widgets produced. A prototype is extremely expensive. The first 10 million are much cheaper. The next 90 million are even cheaper than that. Yes the benefits get less drastic on a per unit basis, but the total savings for that last 90 million could still be extremely significant. Whether this actually applies to health care I'm not about to say because its incredibly complex, but the idea that it would work is not an outrageous one.

Now that I'm done defining what scaling means... I think it would be great if the states could actually get it done, but the lower the office the less scrutiny is placed on an elected official and the more influence insurance companies can exert on them.

>The alternative isn't "Federal plan or nothing"

I'm well aware that federal action is not the only possibility, but I and many other people think it is the best one which is why we support it.

>you shouldn't need to force people to take advantage of them at the point of a gun

Who is advocating this? I would support single payer despite being in the class with incredibly low health care costs, but I know thats not going to happen any time soon so I advocate a public option. As the name implies, it is an option, not mandatory (as opposed to the boondoggle that actually got passed which I'm only okay with because it does have redeeming qualities that make up for the corporate handout). I believe state governments simply don't have the resources to set a system like this up.

Other arguments for federal action on this issue:

- it is a fundamental human right that must be protected at the highest levels. States protecting free speech doesn't mean federal doesn't need to.

- a uniform minimal baseline is desirable, on top of which the states can build how they choose.

>Big Medicine is pretty Big already.

Its objective is not to provide health care. Its objective is to generate profit. It is extremely good at generating profit, but not as good at providing quality health care for anyone who needs it.

>It's never a choice between "the Feds do it" or "we sit on our hands"

Who has ever said that it was? It may be the best choice we can get done.

Now you're talking. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

Imagine if, as soon as someone started robbing a bank, the police showed up and stopped them.

The second one I like to an extent. Its true if you have a government whose objective is to protect its citizens and nothing else. Democrats want a government that actively helps people. If implemented correctly I'd want that government's attention. As with most things, ideas are easy, good implementation is hard.

>what benefit would there be to them becoming "ACLU Nation"?

I don't think there is one. The idea is to get far more people to join something similar and get them engaged (which I see as the biggest problem. Shallow engagement requiring no effort is easy, getting people to actually vote is apparently incredibly difficult).

The problem I see with this entire notion is that groups have to do something to make themselves a political force. AARP is powerful because it has a huge audience of high turnout voters to wield. Likewise for certain unions in particular areas.

Facebook groups have no power because they're full of people who waste their time on social networks playing farmville.

I'm all for getting people to engage in the political process somehow, but I fear the people who would take this seriously and use it to motivate their voting are already voting. Injecting ideas only works if you have a credible (or at least powerful) voice.

I'm pretty sure the promised savings were over private health care options. And the reasoning was that despite their incredible expense, the existing government systems for limited classes are more efficient than the private companies are. So give him a limited trial adding people to a government health care option for a few years and see if it is also more efficient.

Only 22 states have more than 5 million people. They have even fewer households. The whole idea of economies of scale is that they work better the bigger they are. Depending on the application there will usually be an equilibrium point, but your definition seems to be inverted. (And what serious politician was arguing for an immediate single payer system? Public option is just a government competitor to private companies)