Re: Works fine...
"no scripting and no CSS"
My hat is off to you, good sir, for carrying on the noble fight!
3431 posts • joined 20 Feb 2015
Not to take away from your point (which is valid, although an edge case), but...
if the payee is willing to cooperate (and payees always have to cooperate for any payment method, anonymous or not) then there are several mostly anonymous options including the use of prepaid debit cards, using masked virtual credit cards, or even using PayPal, if you're careful (there are a few considerations to take into account to do this, but the most important are to make a PayPal account that is only used for this, access it only through a VPN that hides your real IP, and to link your account to a prepaid debit card so that it is not associated with a bank account that can be traced to you.)
"It can't be robbed from you: Without the encryption code for the device, the robber has only gotten your phone/computer."
It only solves the problem if you restrict the problem space to burglary. It doesn't solve the problem of getting mugged. The mugger would just do what muggers do with ATM cards: force you to do the transaction yourself.
"that's a huge boost to fact checking."
How so?
I don't understand how knowing the full provenance of a given story helps with fact-checking. Whether you know path the story has traveled or not, the fact-checking process is exactly the same: you read the story, and every time it asserts a fact, you check to see if that fact can be substantiated.
"You can't send cash remotely other than by courier or mail service."
Sure you can. I've done it. There are several methods available, but prepaid debit cards are the easiest (you can load the card from anywhere, without having to physically possess the card).
That's not entirely anonymous, as the card company knows when and where you withdraw the money, but you can, at least, load the card anonymously.
But that isn't some sort of differentiator that explains what problem blockchain solves in this space. Public audit trails have been possible and used from long before computers existed, after all. How, taking into account all of the benefits and drawbacks of each, is using blockchain better than the existing methods?
"it can end up in a war of escalation if you are using BYOD software that refuses to run on a rooted device."
I strongly recommend against running such software on your own devices (they tend to be frighteningly intrusive). It's much more secure to simply not allow your personal devices to connect to your employer's systems at all. That's better for your both you and your employer. If a device is required at work, your employer should provide it.
Do you want a system that is powerful and allows remarkable capabilities and experiences (many of which haven't been invented yet), or do you want a system where you don't have to remain constantly vigilant and constantly maintain good security practices?
Because you can't have both at the same time.
"it is that this is both a symptom and a cause of Linux's problems"
What problems are you talking about, though?
"Because Linux is not popular, common mainstream name brand apps don't get ported / developed for it. "
I don't see that as a problem. You do, and that's fair, but not everyone agrees with you.
"stop trying to push it towards that desktop usage in order to only see it fail due to its under-addressed desktop deficiencies."
This is where I get confused -- Linux is perfectly fine for the desktop right now, for a huge number of people. I don't see any serious deficiency there at all.
"Do or Do Not, there is no Try."
And it already does, quite successfully.
Perhaps what you're talking about is trying to make Linux the most popular desktop OS? Personally, I'm not on board with that, because the way to do that is to make it a clone of what most people already know well: Windows. And if we're going there, then we may as well just use Windows.
Linux already has (and has had for years) what it needs in order to be a successful and useful desktop OS -- enough users to make serious development worthwhile. It doesn't need the majority of computer users.
"I'm sick of getting downvotes from Linux fans who can't admit an UNDENIABLE truth"
I haven't downvoted you, but could it be you're not getting downvotes because people can't admit that Linux isn't the most popular desktop OS (that's not exactly a controversial assertion, after all), but because that's not an important point?
My objection to SystemD is neither the quality of its implementation, nor that Poettering is an ass -- both of those are just aggravating factors. My objection is the fundamental design concept of the thing.It inherently destroys much of what makes Unix great, and brings in much of what makes Windows not great.
Even worse, it doesn't even bring much in terms of benefits unless you are a distro manufacturer or are deploying in container form.
So, for literally every use case I have, SystemD is a net negative.
I don't know the details of the law, but even the explainer that Sajjad Karim gave in this article certainly makes it sound like this is highly likely to suppress legitimate speech and data sharing. On the surface, this sounds like a terrible idea to me.
But I don't live there and this isn't likely to affect me, so my opinion doesn't actually mean anything.
As an American, what I find amazing about the US government's campaign against Huawei is that they have yet to offer any real justification for it. Yes, they've made general accusations, but where are the specifics? Where is the evidence? Are they really thinking that "trust us" is an argument that works anymore?
So looking at stuff "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" is forbidden? I'm sure the law must be more specific than this, but summarized like that, wouldn't just about anything qualify? Information about where tourist destinations are located, information about how to take public transportation or to drive, even just plain reading and writing itself would all be useful in committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism, for example.
"I will consider sharing data with Google, Facebook and all the other grubby e-stalkers (not allow, mind, just think about it) if their executives make all their own personal data available publicly"
Not me. They can all fuck right off. I have no interest in seeing their personal data. I just want them to stop spying on me.