daten

Good point with broadcast TV. For shows I enjoy on Netflix, I'll usually miss the latest season on live broadcast if I forget to set the DVR to catch the series. If I wait until episode 3, I've already missed 1 & 2. So I can hope for enough re-runs to catch them all or wait longer for the series to migrate to Netflix where I can watch on my own schedule.

I also find entertainment in watching game streamers, but I catch them on Youtube at my own schedule as well. I've never attempted to subscribe to Twitch and watch live.

They're also contributing to traffic congestion and pollution. Does that also make them sadists?

That's a very vague anecdote. If someone affected by mental illness is prepared to harm themselves or others in the process, including "mass shooters", then police being prepared to respond in a way that minimizes overall harm may be appropriate. Saying it "played a role" in 25% of a number of killings, could easily include a set of completely unrelated types of situations and mental illnesses. It also doesn't begin to describe how many lives may have been saved in each of those situations, or countless others that didn't involve "killings". Finally, do you have any idea how many deaths, people we can reasonably call "terrorists", are responsible for throughout the world? Including conflicts throughout the middle east with nearly daily bombings? Or are you only counting a few high-profile incidents in the United States?

As the OP explains, the knives in question are not illegal and not in violation of Google's policies. Additionally, other vendors selling the same items are not being banned.

I think the "evil" part relates to discriminating against certain vendors instead of treating all vendors equally and consistently.

I worry that most of the opposition to this bill is based on FUD that EFF is spreading. Having experience actually working in the security industry and knowing the limitations that this bill is trying to address, the ability of the government and private sector to work together to keep malicious groups out of their networks, I recognize the necessity and intentions of this bill.

This isn't about spying on Americans. This isn't SOPA with a new name. This isn't about stopping piracy or spying on your facebook profile. This bill is about letting government agencies share intelligence on network threats with private companies so those companies can protect their customers information. None of the agencies or companies involved want to share any private information about their citizens or customers. There are lots of lawyers involved in the process to ensure that doesn't happen.

I wonder if some of that exhaustion is also what leads people to not read the bill or understand the context and just assume it's another anti-piracy bill.

Many places encourage the kids to pledge allegiance to the country carrying out those strikes. It seams like that talk should happen before they're taught the pledge.

I personally liked how the examples seamed to start with worst-cast and progress toward their new possibly "best case" method.

What do you think is gained by starting with the new result?

The admin should be logging in as a standard user with sudo access and using sudo for any administrative tasks anyway. This minimizes how much code is running priviledged, it also allows his actions to be audited because they're all logged.

Additionally, if he's using key-based authentication, that key should still be encrypted so it can't be stolen and used by someone with unauthorised access to his filesystem. So he still has to remember the password to unlock his key when he fires up ssh-agent.

This reminds me of anicechat.net but it looks like it uses sound?

If your path requires a participating station for the proxy-connection to succeed, just measure successful and unsuccessful proxy-connections against different network paths and logically determine which paths have participating nodes and which don't. Compare the results and expand your search until you narrow down which hops in your path are required for a success.

My concerns:

* "proxy-less" is a bad term, it sounds like they're still using a proxy, it's just using https encapsulation along the way to hide this from the first few hops.

* The participating entry-nodes (proxies?) could be systematically determined with a scanner for future blacklisting or investigation by someone trying to stop this circumvention of censorship.

* You have to trust the people running the entry nodes, if they have the key to decrypt your traffic. This sounds like a design that governments can use for monitoring.