The Lounge - CodeProject

Kent Sharkey wrote:
they do promise not to look at it

Try telling you SO that you have bought a very expensive gift for her, you haven't wrapped it yet and it's under the bed, but promise not to peek.

Let me know how that works for you! Smile | :)

As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate

How do they know what they haven't seen if they haven't seen it?
E.g. "That E-mail contained a password, but we didn't look at it."

We have a similar situation in Norway: The security services want the right to inspect the contents of information transmitted across the border (and lots of traffic between south and north Norway goes through Sweden) - but only where at least one of the correspondents is not a Norwegian citizen. How would they know the sender and the recipient? They must open it and look at the message!

During the Cold War, one of the jokes (of course it was manufactured in the West, but part of the cold war was claiming that it was popular behind the iron curtain) went like

- I hear that you brother Ivan has been deported to Siberia. Why was that?
- He was slandering the authorities. In a letter to his friend Boris, he claimed that personal letters were opened and read by the authorities.

There is so much in today's society that I recognize from the Cold War - those shocking stories about authorities keeping tabs on all citizens. When we experience the same in our society today, it is of course completely different: We must fight the enemies of our society.

Which is completely different from the explanations given by the communist country authorities during the Cold War, isn't it?

I hate the federal government. Crap, I hate almost all government, I just want to be left alone. But this bs needs to be nuked.

A new version of the rail barons.

Charlie Gilley

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759

Has never been more appropriate.

charlieg wrote:
I hate the federal government. Crap, I hate almost all government, I just want to be left alone.

As long as you can do that without using any kind of force over any other human, that is perfectly fine with me.

My problem is that most people using such arguments, really want to say: I don't want anyone to limit my use of economic power over other humans to earn myself even more economic power. I don't want anyone to limit my pollution of air and drinking water that is consumed by thousands of other people. I want no restrictions on my right to fight down and exterminate any opinion or statement that conflicts with my religious or moral beliefs. I want the full right to behave exactly the way I want, say, in my driving of a car, even though it puts a lot of other people's life in danger. I want the full right to live my life in the way I want, even in a way that is a threat to me, and in case it threatens to destroy me, I expect all those around me to pay up for my treatment.

And so on.

If you really want to live completely unaffected by anyone else, in such a way that your life affects noone else (at least not in any negative / restrictive way), you probably can find ways to achieve it. I can't see how that would be possible with you continuing to make postings to CP.

Freedom can be 'freedom from' or 'freedom to'. Freedom from pollution, regligious powers, economical powers, dangers of all kinds. Freedom to pollute, enforce religious restrictions on the life of others, use my economic power, live my life without concern for my own dangers and the dangers of others.

If you really want all the 'freedom from' without any of the 'freedoms to', then you have my respect. Most others are first and foremost requesting 'freedom to'.

And even if they do just want be 'left alone,' what if they want to visit their family far away? It sure is nice to have roads that OTHER PEOPLE built, and cars that OTHER PEOPLE built, and gas that OTHER PEOPLE drilled and refined and transported, and electricity that OTHER PEOPLE created the infrastructure and mechanisms for. We are all in this together, whether we recognize it or not. Except for that indigenous tribe that kills foreigners off the coast of Africa or wherever...

Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver

Upon reading the subject line I was reminded of our buddy from a few weeks ago, who was claiming here in the lounge that Microsoft sends every set of credentials your browser knows about to all servers you connect to, because he couldn't comprehend that the passwords being offered to auto-fill a password box were coming from (and being managed entirely by) the browser, and not the remote site...

To me it sounded like more of the same. If you grant the Outlook client permission to fetch your Gmail data so it's all available within the same client...how is that supported to work without access? It needs the credentials. You provide them to it, so it acts on your behalf. That's how it works.

I'm pretty sure MS is extremely familiar with GDPR laws (which the article brings up), and wouldn't intentionally place itself in a position where they'd be blatantly violating them. That page hasn't offered any evidence that MS was sending, to itself, anything it doesn't absolutely need. They're just making the claim.

There are lots of cases were information peddlers can wash their hands. Yet a lot is leaked.

A couple years ago, journalists from NRK (Norway's major broadcaster) made a series of reports on what they could deduce from "anonymized" tracking information from mobile phones, sold openly. They received no information to identify the persons, but they could see that a mobile phone stayed every night in one specific house, and at 7:30 every weekday went to an office building. They could read that this mobile phone a couple of times during lunch break moved to another office building where a competing company had their offices, and they saw how, after a few weeks, the mobile started going to that other office building every morning.

They also could see the movements of mobile phones usually located at 'Stortinget' (our parliament), and then went on a tour to visit secret military installations. From earlier tracking of where they phone usually spent nights, they could deduce who uses which mobile, so they knew who visited these secret installations. They met secret officers, who were similarly identified by where the mobile spent nights. They tracked which parts of the military installation the parliament representative had been taken, and by whom.

But all the information had been anonymized before being sold. There was nothing in it to identify the owner of the phone. Those collecting the information washed their hands.

I am quite sure that MS will, too. I might trust that they will do everything in good will. But that good will also includes protecting American High Morals, regardless of culture and morals in other countries. If there is something perfectly acceptable and respectable here in Norway - politically, religious, moral - but frowned upon in GOC, I am not going to risk problems by exposing it to neither MS nor any other organization under US control. Even if I may have some archives currently void of US-offensive material, I might add such contents any day. So I keep them all out the hands of any US based organization.

jschell wrote:
Only possible option otherwise would be if the originating user encrypted the email and the receiver (the person) decrypted it using a key that is only shared by both.

Protonmail.

..and I don't trust them either. The alternative is snail mail, and I like it still Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The alternative is snail mail, and I like it still

Someone actually stopped, chuckled and asked "do people still use that thing?", as I was dropping letter in a mailbox. A quick " Elephant | [mastadon]

off" ended that conversation.

"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

Well, it works, doesn't it?

I still seal some letters with that red stuff that one melts, and I press a my ring in it. It may be low tech, but it works, and no one ever sent me an Ad based on whats' in there.

Sometimes the seal is broken in modern mail, but never enough to open the envelope. Of course you're not supposed to do that, but it works.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Well, it works, doesn't it?

I'd say that it works for sending, but not for receiving. When I write (that would be 'wrote') a letter to a friend an they answer by returning (that would be 'returned') a phone call, and today you have no response at all but when you meet them, they might (if they still remember you) ask 'Why are you not on FaceBook? It is impossible to reach you! ... Well, then I am not sure that I would agree to 'It works'.

trønderen wrote:
Why are you not on FaceBook? It is impossible to reach you!

Not impossibru; just appropriately hard $Shucks | :-\$

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

trønderen wrote:
'Why are you not on FaceBook? It is impossible to reach you!

How did these people ever reach anyone else before Facebook, would be my first question...

I don't miss anyone who thinks the only way to reach someone is by looking them up on Facebook.

About a decade ago I was told "we" had a 20-year high school reunion (a few years prior), and I had not been made aware of it because whoever organized it only bothered to look up and send invites to people on Facebook...

If anyone who knows anything about me searches for my name on the internet at large, they'll only find stuff from a few people who I know happen to share my name and surname, but clearly don't share any hobbies or interests (anyone who knows me would not mistaken me for someone else who posts anything anywhere using my name).

And frankly I'd rather have it that way.

Could not have said it better! Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I still seal some letters with that red stuff that one melts

Now that's old school, I like it! Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

Safety deposit boxes come to mind. MS is allowing only "their devices" to connect to XBox. Most see it as an issue. I think it's to exclude cheats as much as possible. It may all be about security and less nonsense (user handling). Time sharing.

"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I

Gerry Schmitz wrote:
I think it's to exclude cheats as much as possible.

Hmmm...

I suspect that although that might be true the real driver is money.

Marketing looks better if you can say "it is safer for you" versus "we make more money this way"

"On this day in 1990, CERN's Tim Berners-Lee laid the foundations for the modern World Wide Web, writing the first web page on a NeXT workstation. Who knew how far it would come? And how much further you might help it go?": O'Reilly

Who? Me?

>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.

theoldfool wrote:
O'Reilly

Oh really?

No, O'Reilly

>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.

No, O'Reilly.

Well done, only a day late.

The beginning of his work that gave us the first HTML page begins with Vannevar Bush's "memex", from a 1945 article he wrote.

I was teaching computer networking at a tech. college when WWW appeared. Gopher had been in the curriculum for a few years (and the students actually found a lot of useful information on various Gopher sites). We went into all sorts of protocol details - layout of protocol units, exchange procedures etc.

So I presented WWW as an augmented Gopher protocol, and not even very much augmented. The big thing was a new type of content (Gopher already had a few), which required a more fancy presentation. Gopher had facilities for linking from one page to another, but with the 'old' content types, a page would either have a list of annotated links, or informative text. An HTML page could intermix links and information; we did not view it as any earth shaking generalization (which it turned out to be!).

Gopher also allowed user data to be supplied with the request. HTTP POST defined a standard format for this information, which was good thing, making it a lot more useful. Yet we saw it as not that much more than a far more complete specification of the Gopher selector. At the technical level, the differences between Gopher and HTTP 1.0 are surprisingly small - so small that HTTP could, at the functional level, be seen as a Gopher update (although a major one).

If Gopher has been extended with a new 'HTML' page type, alongside with plain text pages, lists of links pages, file transfer, information search functions, ... and the selector format standardized to something like what POST uses, the Gopher protocol could have provided something very WWW-like.

In other words: We were not that greatly impressed by WWW when it arrived to replace Gopher.

We underestimated the effect of the (technically speaking) minor extensions, by orders of magnitude! But for a long time (and I would say that it partially holds even today), the WWW revolution was not on the technical side, but how it is used.

If you read between the lines - to help you a bit, I will drag it up on the the line: The success of HTTP/HTML has a lot to do with promotion. Marketing. CERN was a lot better than U of Minn in their marketing of HTTP/HTML. If they had made it as an extension of Gopher, rather than creating a new protocol, they could probably have succeeded, too. Presenting sa new name sometimes is essential in marketing. (Unless you have invested a lot in the old name - CERN had not. Look at e.g. ethernet or USB - they each cover several more or less completely different protocols, but the standard developers have succeeded in hiding the differences.)

Welcome to the Lounge