Join us now at the IRC channel.
| -->rianne (~liberty@host81-152-238-248.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Dec 07 00:53 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9pgdUEjfyXsScU6qkS | Dec 07 03:08 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | " | Dec 07 03:08 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Dec 07 03:08 | |
| schestowitz | you know, instead of accusing us from being lobied, you could also just join the conversation and ask for more clarification. Im a team member as well and i do not think we should re list it. Its just a discussion point. We show all our income and outcome on opencollective, so i don't know where you would see that we are being lobbied. | Dec 07 03:08 |
| schestowitz | Again, Please just ask for a clarification next time instead of making random accusations. | Dec 07 03:08 |
| schestowitz | :) | Dec 07 03:08 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 07 03:08 |
| schestowitz | Who contacted who and why? | Dec 07 03:09 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9phGtNv6rTokYZRL4S | Dec 07 03:09 |
| schestowitz | "Thanks, that was a great read." | Dec 07 03:09 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Dec 07 03:09 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9phU5pOLqaoKdaNh2m | Dec 07 03:10 |
| schestowitz | "I don't know. Even as a German I sort of partly support Brexit, though... At least threatening to leave the EU seems like a valid counterstrategy to the democracy deficit of the EU and centralization tendencies..." | Dec 07 03:10 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Dec 07 03:10 | |
| schestowitz | But has that worked? Our influences in the Union only diminished. | Dec 07 03:10 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9phWItsefYPiERut60 | Dec 07 03:11 |
| schestowitz | "Nice QWERTZ APL keyboard!" | Dec 07 03:11 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Dec 07 03:11 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/9phqM92kkTflD8SqrQ | Dec 07 03:11 |
| schestowitz | "@schestowitz that's too cute." | Dec 07 03:11 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-pleroma.site | Pleroma | Dec 07 03:11 | |
| schestowitz | >>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/05/conman-sets-fake-russia-border-finland-trick-migrants/ | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | >>> | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | >>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-finland-border-eu-immigration-arrest-europe-fraud-charge-a9234521.html | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | >>> | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | >>> https://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-detains-conman-built-fake-border-finland-trick/story?id=67526621 | Dec 07 03:18 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.telegraph.co.uk | Conman sets up fake Russia border with Finland to trick migrants | Dec 07 03:18 | |
| schestowitz | >> I know it's 'wrong', but I actually find this hilarious. | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | >> | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | > Yes, there is fraud, human trafficking, illegal immigration, border | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | > violations, and so on. Yet it is truly hilarious. I hope they let him | Dec 07 03:18 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.independent.co.uk | Man builds fake EU border and charges desperate people thousands to cross | The Independent | Dec 07 03:18 | |
| schestowitz | > off with very strict probation and threat of jail if he tries again. | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | > the creativity warrants at least some recognition. | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | This is the kind of thing they do comedy skits about... | Dec 07 03:18 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-abcnews.go.com | Russia detains conman who built fake border with Finland to trick migrants - ABC News | Dec 07 03:18 | |
| schestowitz | The Monty Python kinds... | Dec 07 03:18 |
| schestowitz | > He only had to lie blatantly, repeating it enough times, on enough occasions, to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that I was dealing with a Judas and a shill, not a fool. | Dec 07 03:20 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:20 |
| schestowitz | > With some people it takes A LOT of proof to be sure. They're too good, too innocent, too unlikely a culprit. But with time and great care, it's possible to become 99% sure. Many mysteries will solve themselves if you let them. | Dec 07 03:20 |
| schestowitz | This message completely lacks context. | Dec 07 03:20 |
| schestowitz | > already sent: | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > the free software force wants the fsf to possibly revise the free software definition. i realise it isnt etched in stone, but i told them to tread with caution. unlike with the u.s. constitution or the universal declaration of human rights. i think it is quite difficult to amend the four freedoms without a real danger of diminishing one or more of them as a side effect. freedom 0 managed well enough, but there was only one freedom 0. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > instead i have proposed that they create a second list of items, which is of lesser importance (lower priority) than the four freedoms. this way the four remain unchallenged, but we can still talk about other important goals related to software freedom. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > of the names we came up with, the one that seems most promising is "the four pillars." these provide support to the four freedoms, but they are not things we can promise in every situation. when they are abandoned completely, free software suffers. but they are not as vital as freedom itself. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > modularity is the one that keeps coming up. the modularity of unix made it much easier to produce and maintain the gnu system. we cant promise modularity in every single design of every aspect of everything. but when we abandon modularity entirely, free software almost undoubtedly suffers for it. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > this idea may well be shot down-- if so, i am eager to find out what issue you may have with it. but, if you have any ideas for this, id like to hear those as well. personally i feel like if this isnt done, that eventually people will meddle with the free software definition, rather than amend it. this creates a safer way for the fsd to be amended, while staying intact and retaining the same level of priority and authoritative relevance. i | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | dont expect the four pillars to be as good as the four freedoms. i dont intend to write them unless i think they will help, and im already getting feedback. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > many people i know-- loosely speaking, probably hundreds-- feel that freedom is suffering on a fundamental level-- like there was something intrinsic to free software that is being lost, abandoned or forgotten. all i want for this project is a way to reinforce what we as free software users and developers-- already had. a way to support and reinforce whatever has diminished. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > if youve ever had a thought about how to augment the fsd further, i hope youll share it so it can be taken into consideration. whatever you may think we think of you, i still dont think you should have left the board, and many of us consider your relationship to free software similar to einsteins relationship to relativity. so thats who we are going to with this request for comments. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > im glad that roy schestowitz says youre doing well. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > happy hacking, | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > already sent: | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > the free software force wants the fsf to possibly revise the free software definition. i realise it isnt etched in stone, but i told them to tread with caution. unlike with the u.s. constitution or the universal declaration of human rights. i think it is quite difficult to amend the four freedoms without a real danger of diminishing one or more of them as a side effect. freedom 0 managed well enough, but there was only one freedom 0. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > instead i have proposed that they create a second list of items, which is of lesser importance (lower priority) than the four freedoms. this way the four remain unchallenged, but we can still talk about other important goals related to software freedom. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > of the names we came up with, the one that seems most promising is "the four pillars." these provide support to the four freedoms, but they are not things we can promise in every situation. when they are abandoned completely, free software suffers. but they are not as vital as freedom itself. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > modularity is the one that keeps coming up. the modularity of unix made it much easier to produce and maintain the gnu system. we cant promise modularity in every single design of every aspect of everything. but when we abandon modularity entirely, free software almost undoubtedly suffers for it. | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:22 |
| schestowitz | > this idea may well be shot down-- if so, i am eager to find out what issue you may have with it. but, if you have any ideas for this, id like to hear those as well. personally i feel like if this isnt done, that eventually people will meddle with the free software definition, rather than amend it. this creates a safer way for the fsd to be amended, while staying intact and retaining the same level of priority and authoritative relevance. i | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | dont expect the four pillars to be as good as the four freedoms. i dont intend to write them unless i think they will help, and im already getting feedback. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > many people i know-- loosely speaking, probably hundreds-- feel that freedom is suffering on a fundamental level-- like there was something intrinsic to free software that is being lost, abandoned or forgotten. all i want for this project is a way to reinforce what we as free software users and developers-- already had. a way to support and reinforce whatever has diminished. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > if youve ever had a thought about how to augment the fsd further, i hope youll share it so it can be taken into consideration. whatever you may think we think of you, i still dont think you should have left the board, and many of us consider your relationship to free software similar to einsteins relationship to relativity. so thats who we are going to with this request for comments. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > im glad that roy schestowitz says youre doing well. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > happy hacking, | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | ' | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > already sent: | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > the free software force wants the fsf to possibly revise the free software definition. i realise it isnt etched in stone, but i told them to tread with caution. unlike with the u.s. constitution or the universal declaration of human rights. i think it is quite difficult to amend the four freedoms without a real danger of diminishing one or more of them as a side effect. freedom 0 managed well enough, but there was only one freedom 0. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > instead i have proposed that they create a second list of items, which is of lesser importance (lower priority) than the four freedoms. this way the four remain unchallenged, but we can still talk about other important goals related to software freedom. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > of the names we came up with, the one that seems most promising is "the four pillars." these provide support to the four freedoms, but they are not things we can promise in every situation. when they are abandoned completely, free software suffers. but they are not as vital as freedom itself. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > modularity is the one that keeps coming up. the modularity of unix made it much easier to produce and maintain the gnu system. we cant promise modularity in every single design of every aspect of everything. but when we abandon modularity entirely, free software almost undoubtedly suffers for it. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > this idea may well be shot down-- if so, i am eager to find out what issue you may have with it. but, if you have any ideas for this, id like to hear those as well. personally i feel like if this isnt done, that eventually people will meddle with the free software definition, rather than amend it. this creates a safer way for the fsd to be amended, while staying intact and retaining the same level of priority and authoritative relevance. i | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | dont expect the four pillars to be as good as the four freedoms. i dont intend to write them unless i think they will help, and im already getting feedback. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > many people i know-- loosely speaking, probably hundreds-- feel that freedom is suffering on a fundamental level-- like there was something intrinsic to free software that is being lost, abandoned or forgotten. all i want for this project is a way to reinforce what we as free software users and developers-- already had. a way to support and reinforce whatever has diminished. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > if youve ever had a thought about how to augment the fsd further, i hope youll share it so it can be taken into consideration. whatever you may think we think of you, i still dont think you should have left the board, and many of us consider your relationship to free software similar to einsteins relationship to relativity. so thats who we are going to with this request for comments. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > im glad that roy schestowitz says youre doing well. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > happy hacking, | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | Re: Get a load of this anti Apple propaganda from the Microsoft Register | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > They manage to inject the NORK hacker bogeyman into the story and - get | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > this - the so-called method of injection is to install a fake bitcoin | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > app, as if there were any other kind. | Dec 07 03:23 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:24 |
| schestowitz | > "Lazarus group goes back to the Apple orchard with new macOS trojan" | Dec 07 03:24 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:24 |
| schestowitz | > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/12/05/lazarus_group_macos_malware/ | Dec 07 03:24 |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:24 |
| schestowitz | > "Alternatively, you can find me on IRC, under the Freenode network at | Dec 07 03:24 |
| schestowitz | > channel #techrights" | Dec 07 03:24 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theregister.co.uk | Lazarus group goes back to the Apple orchard with new macOS trojan • The Register | Dec 07 03:24 | |
| schestowitz | > | Dec 07 03:24 |
| schestowitz | > That IRC channel is virtually defunct | Dec 07 03:24 |
| -->rianne__ (~rianne@host81-152-238-248.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Dec 07 04:14 | |
| <--rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Dec 07 04:17 | |
| -->pidgin_log (~roy@host81-152-238-248.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Dec 07 04:27 | |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/guest-post-when-you-own-artwork-you.html?showComment=1575663465191#c3161992917711206661 | Dec 07 05:19 |
| schestowitz | "I’m no legal expert, but this seems like a deeply flawed decision in some respects. Although it is very hard to have any admiration or sympathy for Kanske, the law should protect them in this instance. Given that the proposed transformation of Tal R’s work was substantial (both in terms of size and context) and that Kanske were careful not to imply an official collaboration with Tal R or to suggest that their watches were in any way new | Dec 07 05:19 |
| schestowitz | works by the Artist, that ought to be sufficient as a defence. Additionally, in this context, and considering the limited edition and craftsmanship, the claim by Kanske that they themselves are artists forming new works with the aim of querying the nature of artistic rights, holds even more weight. Their artistic process does not have to be admirable to warrant protection. This is an area of the law that can clearly become difficult to apply | Dec 07 05:19 |
| schestowitz | equitably at times, but it is not, and should not, be the role of a judge to decide the finer points of who is an artist. Their judgement must instead remain on what constitutes fair use. There is substantial jurisprudence supporting exactly this point. It would be interesting to get further details as to how exactly Kanske were planning to use Tal R’s name in relation to their new creations. " | Dec 07 05:19 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [Guest Post] When you own an artwork, you don’t own the copyright: Danish artist wins injunction against watchmakers planning to cut up painting - The IPKat | Dec 07 05:19 | |
| schestowitz | > TM was down some time around 2019-12-06 21:23:27 UTC according to my | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | > monitoring script. However, by the time I got to the computer, it was | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | > back up again. I presume you rebooted it since the outage was short, | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | > probably less than 5 to 8 minutes. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | Yes, I noticed that shortly before going to bed. It's good to know that had I missed it, somebody else would notice and find remedy. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | The affected DB tables were the usual transient ones, access_log, caches etc. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | I only fear the day downtime happens when something important like node is written to the DB. It's then that we might need to restore from backup unless we're rollback gurus. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | At the moment both local and remote TM backups are taken just an hour or so apart and I think that a 12-hour gap would work better if we even need to restore from backup. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | Back in the very old TR days I had a nightly job that wgeted the front page of BN (as it was known at the time). | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | I remember at least 2 incidents where we had to restore TR from an old backup, then rewrite or at least remerge the new (missing) posts. With TM it happened for the first time earlier this year, whereupon the remote backups started. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | I am going to make off-server backup to my external HDD now. DBs only, but we really ought to also save uploads (documents, images, leaks occasionally... RAID alone isn't fail-proof). | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | I will finish my last shift of many in 2 hours. Then I'm off work until next weekend (too time off to spend time with family). I should be able to do more articles. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | Oddly enough, TR traffic was high and IRC channels quite active... even though I barely wrote new article. I don't know what to make of it, but I count publication rather than traffic as achievement. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | We got 'knocked' again for no HTTPS: | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> off the xxxx: | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> xxxx is going after you and your recent blog post, writing at Github: | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> "That blog post is a disaster. Not to mention being served by a HTTP only site that focuses on security. But the entire thing relies on StartPage paying to be relisted and they have done nothing of the sort, and in fact we have turned over the possibility of being relisted to the community, based on the information we have. It seems the author cares more about clicks than facts." | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> xxxx has been really sensitive about anyone questioning his mission to relist Startpage. It's like he's obsessed. He mentions over and over how the Startpage CEO wrote to him personally so the company must be forthcoming and trustworthy. It's like he's been anointed to pave the way for the second coming of Startpage. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> In truth, System1 may *not* be paying to have Startpage relisted. Maybe all they have to do is give xxxx an attaboy and whisper sweet nothings in his ear. | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> Then again, System1 is in Southern California, right down the interstate from xxxx. Very convenient. Maybe there's work and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if he catches the leprechaun? | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> You have to admire xxxx's corporate boosterism. He's working away feverishly to proselytize anyone he can intimidate, even using this red herring argument to justify relisting the company: | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> "Given what we know about StartPage now, and it's ownership, not-relisting them means we have to take a look at DDG and Qwant as well because both receive large amounts of VC funding and have investors which would normally raise eyebrows." | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> Privacytools would have to reconsider other listings if Startpage isn't relisted! Ooooh. That's scary. Better relist. Quick! :-o | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> I was also contacted about this in Fediverse, but the responses lack any actual substance, which IMHO means we're on the right path and need to hit those same points harder. BTW, it's crazy to list DDG! I wrote so much about why they're phony 'privacy | Dec 07 07:09 |
| schestowitz | [03:31] <schestowitz> " | Dec 07 07:09 |
| <--pidgin_log has quit (Quit: Leaving.) | Dec 07 09:09 | |
| ---Condor is now known as ghnou | Dec 07 14:02 | |
| ---ghnou is now known as Condor | Dec 07 14:03 | |
| <--oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Dec 07 16:05 | |
| -->oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Dec 07 16:05 | |
| <--rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) | Dec 07 21:03 | |
| -->rianne (~liberty@host81-152-238-248.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Dec 07 22:46 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!