I understand that systemd is a done deal for most and many know my position.
But.... this "Open Letter to Linux" back from August 2014, really hits
the spot in so many ways; I could not have put it better.
I'm happily using Devuan these days as a replacement myself.
Yes you read right… Desktop Mood, not mode.
I was pondering if anyone has done, or more likely aware of some good research, on how the computer or tablet or phone background can have on a persons mood.
The colours, the pattern, or picture, etc.
Does having a picture of loved ones^^ make a difference? ^^Can include pets.
Does an outdoor scene do it for you? And how close to reality does it have to be? i.e. Do Mountain scenes cut the mustard for you, or does it have to be your local park?
Or you could be like me… Boring :)
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Rohan McLeod via luv-talk
> “We have to find ways to protect not only the content of the text message or
> the phone call, but to disguise the fact that the communication
> happened at all,” (Ed Snowden quote)
Well..a kind of Tor for mobile devices?
Imagine many people are running something like Asterisk, at home or as a VM.
Your phone is looking up the "nearest" server, establishes a secured
connection and uses the server to call.
Does it work in principle? What are the challenges?
I would also think of a 'web of trust', maybe using PGP to chose and
So I am storing well-known PGP keys which identify friends; servers I trust.
I can chose to trust friends' friends - maybe the degree of trust
(level of separation).
BTW: I have interest in it, if there are others who think it is a good
idea, and worth to do some serious brainstorming to figure out a good
solution.. I am up for it.
I have the feeling a lot of the technologies are out there, it is just
a matter of getting the plumbing right.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:48 PM, David Tulloh <david(a)tulloh.id.au> wrote:
> No, each client communicates with an Open Whisper server. The call
> initiation data is all encrypted.
> Open Whisper knows who is talking to who, but doesn't record it, there
> have been US court proceedings to back that up. Your telco knows that
> you are using Signal and when, but nothing further.
that is true. I should have double-checked and re-read instead of
relying on my faulty memory. Sorry about it.
What I do not like, though, is the centralized approach. As soon as
you take that one down, it is gone. Worse if you can compromise it
(and the users still trust it)
Besides, it is only affecting parts of your communication.
I would prefer an approach which is holistic (protecting all data) and
Privacy of communication should be the normal, not the exception.
E.g. the German constitution has an Article 10: Privacy of
correspondence, posts and telecommunications.
(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall
These days, it is practically gone, and it starts with the new
"normal" of OS providers to send all kind of data to their servers
(Microsoft, Apple, Google)
The only right people get furious about seems to be an outdated
article of an ancient American constitution so that people keep
shooting each other.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, David Tulloh <david(a)tulloh.id.au> wrote:
> Install Signal by Open Whisper Systems
> It solves the original problem posed and is easy to use.
It only encrypts the phone conversation, nothing else, I believe.
All phone conversation metadata is visible for the telco, if I am not mistaken.
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com> -----
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 22:56:53 -0800
From: Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com>
Subject: [skeptic] On the art of becoming an uncarved rock (was: Please
allow me to introduce myself...)
Organization: If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Quoting Eva Durant (durant.eva(a)gmail.com):
> what can I say? Maybe the unwashed were a tad disappointed with Obama?
> Remember, he was elected twice... Just doing a Futurelearn course on "The
> mind is flat" - we are very fickle us humans - maybe in the US even more
> never mind. He won't be able to do much either.
> Unless that 0.1% really got madly panicky and ready for a 1984.
There's a perceptual bias that people unfortunately labour under, that
says that definitive election results can be expected the same day, and
that whatever's available the same day needs to be considered the
outcome. This attitude of impatience doesn't mislead people 95% of the
time -- the times when the margin of victory is clear, early on.
In the other 5% of cases, there's really no alternative but to wait --
and people really don't want to hear that. They want elections to be
settled on Internet time. When elections are close, or when elections
are atypical and difficult to model, this bias leads people into
adopting early, shaky guesses as if they were fact.
Here in most-placid, Democratic Party-dominated California, it's been
obvious all along that the state's bloc of 55 Electoral College votes
would go to the Democratic Party ticket (which ended up being
Clinton/Kaine). But even here, it's actually not even remotely possible
to fully model and predict the statewide vote on Election Day -- if only
because of the several categories of ballots that are counted only
slowly _after_ Election day: all mailed-in ballots, all provisional
ballots, and all early-voting ballots.
To picked mailed-in ballots as an example: As long as a mail-in ballot
has been postmarked by election day and received within three days, it
must be counted, by state law. However, as it happens, the third day
will be Veterans' Day, a Federal holiday with no mail delivery, with the
effect that mail-in ballots received even by Monday, November 14, 2016
are valid and must be counted. So, California's Secretary of State
cannot even in principle know fully what the results of the election are
until _six days_ after Election Day.
I'm really not familiar with the specific situation in the other 49
states plus District of Columbia, but I'll bet there are similar
problems everywhere else -- and this is not what those of us conditioned
to a 24-hour news cycle and instant Internet-timescale results want to
hear. But it's the cold, hard, unpleasant truth:
In a close election, you just have to wait. Days, maybe even weeks.
It _is_ apparently a close election. The interim results are (mostly,
in many places) all we have yet, and are at best poorly reliable and
subject to upset by later, better data. Maybe the smartest thing to do
is to take go on holiday and wait for futher developments, remembering
that nothing actually need be settled until Monday, December 19th, when
the Electoral College casts its votes.
Meanwhile, I'm going to resume watching 'Borgen', the Danish show about
the story of an effective, powerful, rational, intelligent female head
Catch y'all on the other side.
Cheers, A woman's place is in the House,
Rick Moen the Senate, and the White House.
skeptic mailing list
To reach the listadmin, mail rick(a)linuxmafia.com
----- End forwarded message -----
Opinion: Wikileaks has lost my respect, as they backing Julian Assange's revenge attack on the USA. Not that I favour either candidate.
Opinion: I have to think this was Julian Assange's plan all along?
The FBI's review of new emails did not uncover any wrongdoing by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the bureau has not changed its July recommendation not to charge her, Director James Comey has said.
Julian Assange's Most Incendiary Interview: "Hillary Clinton Is The Central Cog Of The Establishment" | Zero Hedge
Opinion: It seems his plan is just to destabilise USA politics full stop.
EMMA ALBERICI: So just back to the FBI, it says it hasn't found anything, obviously, that troubles them in particular. But a number of Hillary Clinton's email had been leaked through Wikileaks and we hear most recently suggestions that Chelsea Clinton's $3 million wedding was paid for at least in part from the Clinton charitable foundation, presumably revelations like that will hurt as well?
KIM BEAZLEY: White noise really now in that part of the debate. I think one of the countervailing effects of the leaks as a source, it is quite clear, according to the heads of all 17 American intelligence agencies, that this is a product of penetration of the system by a Russian hackers and then distributed, probably with the Kremlin support.
And Americans do not like being manipulated by foreigners, and particularly Russians. So that at least has had some degree of an offset, so when people come out with statements about Chelsea's wedding or whatever, then they say, well, do you want to dance for the Russians?
That is the sort of countervailing pressure on that. But talking about unprecedented things, the unprecedented presidential element of the campaign, and the unprecedented involvement of Russia in domestic American politics.
EMMA ALBERICI: Over the weekend you said that Wikileaks was leaking on behalf of Putin. Did you mean they were somehow in cahoots?
KIM BEAZLEY: Well, I think the materials were placed in their hands clearly by a leak from the Russians. The decision as to how to deploy it would have been calculated by them too.
Contrary to the claims of what they are about as whistle blowing and, and, and transparency, these haven't been dumped, you know, one could believe that if the day they received, they dumped it, which is what they normally do.
Instead it has been parcelled out tactically. And in the parcelling out of it tactically is what lends voracity to that claim.
Opinion: Yes I have seen Wikileaks media report from this morning, and I’m still not convinced.
With 92 percent of the vote tallied, Secretary Clinton leads Trump in
the popular vote by 230,000 votes, and that gap is expected to widen.
That doesn't change the outcome, but proves that the inevitable talk
about a 'historic mandate' from that sleazemeister campaign director
Kellyanne Conway and others is just more Trumpian bullshit.
Clinton, not Trump, was the American people's actual pick -- but that's
just not the way the electoral mechanics works.
As always, ending the recurring embarrassment of the Electoral College
putting into office someone who was not the nation's majority or
-=even=- plurality choice will not happen, because the prevailing
faction always feels an incentive to preserve and perpetuate the
election mechanisms that put them there.