1010100101

13 ms·

1.
by 1010100101 15y ago
I'll throw in my .02. I see the context-switch as one between text and graphics. If I'm working on the command line, then most times I have no need to have X11 running. I'm working exclusively with text. I can boot to a command line and st
2.
by 1010100101 15y ago
Because it is tied to the checking system, where checks were routinely flown across the country from bank to bank before they could be settled? (Even after we had electronic systems that should make this unnecessary?)
3.
by 1010100101 15y ago
I'm curious, have you used Plan9? If yes, how long did you use it?
4.
by 1010100101 15y ago
Email is store and forward, not real-time. And all the mainstream messaging services to date have been centralised, at least in the sense that they involve interacting with a third party server. When each friend can be both a client and/or
5.
by 1010100101 15y ago
One of my favourite quotes. History is so easily ignored or forgotten.
6.
by 1010100101 15y ago
proper grammar: Are we next?
7.
by 1010100101 15y ago
I imagine there might be other software/consulting companies in the business of stealthily collecting GB and PB's of personal data about consumers using wired and mobile networks who are thinking "Am I next?" And I imagine some of their emp
8.
by 1010100101 15y ago
ramchip, you are correct. With respect to "telling something to some of your friends", and attempting to do so "privately", there are certainly ways to do this without using Facebook. However, that was only a specific example I chose, in li
9.
by 1010100101 15y ago
You said: "I think it has to be a part of a large _service_." My question was about the size of the _network_. In any event, following your line of thought, do you think it's possible to have a many _small_, separate networks that were some
10.
by 1010100101 15y ago
You said: "I don't think any large..." If someone only wants to tell something to some of their friends, and assuming "some" is not a large number, does the network have to be "large"? If so, why?
11.
by 1010100101 15y ago
"Then don't tell them through Facebook." And that's the point. If a current offering such as Facebook is "not a solution that people like", then that creates an opportunity for a solution that people _do_ like. Will that opportunity be expl
12.
by 1010100101 15y ago
What if someone wants to tell a few friends about something but doesn't want to tell all the people working at Facebook, all its clients and potentially any other Facebook user?
13.
by 1010100101 15y ago
As another commenter pointed out, Zuckerberg once called users "dumb fucks" for giving him their personal information. If he does not believe in privacy, as he now claims, why would he say that?
14.
by 1010100101 15y ago
"inherently public" Exactly. The ideas of a "Facebook" _as Zuckerberg has constructed it_, i.e. a website on the open internet, and "privacy" are incompatible.
15.
by 1010100101 15y ago
"Privacy is a matter of social responsibility." Privacy is a matter of not using Facebook.
16.
by 1010100101 15y ago
So where does the investor obtain the information to perform due diligence? Are companies required to file reports? If so, with whom do they file them?
17.
by 1010100101 15y ago
Interesting. So you think that with no SEC the public will be safer from people like Madoff? Do you think that investors would be able to make sound investment decisions without companies having any reporting requirements? Not every countr
18.
by 1010100101 15y ago
Is it unreasonable for a consumer to want complete control over a device from the moment she powers on? Is there a certain level beneath which it is not reasonable to give consumers (optional) access? (Should consumers be prevented from "r
19.
by 1010100101 15y ago
Yikes. The SEC certainly has its flaws, but if SEC regulations are stopping anyone from becoming more wealthy it's certainly not the small guy.
20.
by 1010100101 15y ago
I do not want a "smartphone". I want a "blank slate". With the right specs and form factor.
21.
by 1010100101 15y ago
There is no sense of humour on HN.
22.
by 1010100101 15y ago
This company just seems so over the top, it's surreal. There's probably plenty more like them that us plebes don't know about. What would we do without EFF?
23.
by 1010100101 15y ago
You got a problem with that? :)
24.
by 1010100101 15y ago
I got a -1 on this comment, my worst score ever, but I still stand by it. I simply do not believe that anything one voluntarily submits to Facebook can be kept "private". The value Facebook gets from the data is _sharing_ it with others: a
25.
by 1010100101 15y ago
"winding up fscked by their own creations" This would be easier to understand if you could provide an example. Do you think this is a problem that should be submitted to the market?
26.
by 1010100101 15y ago
So are you suggesting that despite FB's rather sizeable legal budget and level of investment they will _still_ not be able to bring themsleves into compliance and stay that way? At least until the IPO. If Facebook even exists 20 years let
27.
by 1010100101 15y ago
Ah, that's good to know. Now, sadly, I must ask, is someone going to try to make this proprietary and embedded, contained within hermetically sealed hardware enclosures, complete with convoluted bootloader and behavioural studies rootkit, t
28.
by 1010100101 15y ago
Do you think they will resist the order in this case? Why or why not?
29.
by 1010100101 15y ago
There are some people who consider low-level to be sexy.
30.
by 1010100101 15y ago
Could it be that some or all of these things either already exist or are possible using existing "tools", but are simply not widely known nor in widespread use? However statements like "all the features that we need or want" are troublesome

More ›