This kind of poll needs at least one other axis if not more.
Like this? http://www.politicalcompass.org/
There is a left/right axis, and a libertarian/authoritarian axis.
So you can be left/libertarian (Gandhi), or right/libertarian (Friedman), for example.
Steady on, that sounds suspiciously like common sense. If you start applying that to narcotics control, who knows what might happen?
1. Malicious exit nodes can correlate your BT streams to your Tor web browsing, and learn your real IP.
How exactly can they do this? Why would your web browsing have any correlation to your BT streams?
Sorry, should have been more clear. Because Tor conserves circuits for reasons of efficiency, it is possible for an exit node to build a profile of the activity of a circuit by inspecting the data leaving that circuit. If you are browsing via Tor while running a BT session, the data from the two sessions can be sent over the same circuit. The exit node can learn your IP from the BT stream (BT client tells tracker what unique random port it's listening on, exit node sees connection to tracker at unique port number, faulty BT client sends IP to tracker) and correlate that to the web traffic on the same circuit. They now know what you're browsing, and what your IP is. Anonymity broken. It's explained in the post I linked to.
Like you say, if your BT client doesn't know its real IP (NAT etc), then you're OK. It's a question of all the lemons lining up.
Assuming you don't want to actually download anything. What is actually available on I2P? How does its library compare with any of the trackers on the internet at large? The reason people use tor isn't because it is more secure, but because it lets you browse the internet that you already use.
Chicken and egg problem. If more people used I2P for their filesharing, then there would be more files available over I2P. A few benevolent individuals are seeding more and more. But yes, I understand that people prefer to proxy their normal things over Tor rather than switch entirely to new networks. It's just a shame that in doing so they hurt the Tor network.
There was a suggestion a while ago that someone ought to make a bitTORrent client which ran a Tor relay on every BT peer. This would solve the bandwidth problem. Don't know if any work was ever done on it.
Ha! Like any hidden service has enough bandwidth to stream anything.
Tor is used by many people who want anonymity. The fact that CP enthusiasts and other criminals use it is testament to the robustness of the anonymity it provides.
Running BitTorrent over Tor is stupid:
1. Malicious exit nodes can correlate your BT streams to your Tor web browsing, and learn your real IP.
2. The high bandwidth used by BT cripples the Tor network for everyone else
3. Most popular BT clients send the tracker your IP anyway.
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/bittorrent-over-tor-isnt-good-idea
If you want anonymous P2P, then I2P is a much better option.
Using Tor or being an intermediate relay poses no such risk.
Correct. Running an exit node is for the brave or those who live in countries with sensible laws. The rest of us can contribute by running relay nodes, and not allowing exit traffic.
But if everybody's TV was a Tor relay node, then it would be way fast. This is why Tor-on-TV (or Tor-on-toaster) is a Good Thing. These relays don't need to be exit nodes.
Read what you quoted.
Maybe you have not converted to metrics. Your society has, and it's judging you. Take a look at the writing on the wall...
And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
This is the interpretation of the thing:
Why do ACs insist on remaining anonymous while coming up with gems like this? This is good writing, funny and insightful. But anonymous.
Yeah, too bad none of that is documented in a place which is easily discoverable by reading the release notes, or using google. It's a shame people have to brute force everything about the learning curve instead of reading a manual or something like this:
Hey thanks.. I don't know about it
Gnome should publish this and other features so user know what they are getting.
They did, a long time ago: https://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/CheatSheet
Also because several people high in the SA government, including the president, Thabo Mbeki, promoted "vitamin cures" over the genuine medicine offered by doctors, and even denied that HIV caused AIDS. There was no shortage of NGOs willing to subsidise provision of ARVs to AIDS sufferers, but they found that obstruction and misinformation made it difficult for their programmes to function effectively. At least a third of a million people died unnecessarily because of the nonsense peddled by quacks in South Africa in the early part of the last decade.
This is a worthwhile but very depressing read: http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/
That would make sense, unfortunately I do not see many human who strive to improve anything.
Except for the millions of medical researchers, epidemiologists, charitable organisations, their donors, social workers, support staff etc etc around the world, who spend a vast amount of time and money doing just that. In fact, all of the bloggers criticising Byrzinski are striving to improve things, by pointing out a sub-optimal "treatment" and hopefully directing people in need of help to more effective (and cheaper) therapies.
Because testing requires manpower and money, both of which, sadly, are in short supply in medical research (or any research, for that matter). Wasting money on the claims of a quack means that some legitimate avenue of research either gets deprived or cut off.
If you want to pay to have his claims tested, you go right ahead.
Burzynski's research seems to be unconvincing: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/11/a-look-at-the-burzynski-clinics-publications/
His patients are definitely paying for the research though: tens of thousands of dollars each. After 30 years, and millions of dollars, he really ought to have produced better results than a couple of conference presentations and a few papers in poor journals.
Medical science is not certain at all that drinking cranberry juice helps with UTIs: http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/011011.htm
Cranberry juice salespeople are very certain of it, though. They have done very well at spreading the meme to medical professionals. Vitamin pill salespeople still do very well from Vit C sales, despite Vit C supplementation being shown to have no effect on the incidence or duration of colds.
I like this as a representation of the utility of various supplements and other dietary interventions: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplements/
..., and drinking 8 cups of water per day is generally considered to be enough to avoid stressing your body unnecessarily (and thus enough to avoid increasing your cancer risk).
Every time I see "8 cups a day", I think "why that number? Why not 4, or 26.3?" How much is a cup, anyway? Is it 33cl? 50cl? 20cl?
"8 cups a day"? Citation needed.
Also note that the amount of water that people need varies according to your build, your level of exercise, the temperature of your environment, etc. The whole eight cups thing is just a first approximation, not a hard and fast rule. What matters is not the amount, but rather whether the amount you drink is enough to avoid chronic dehydration.
... for precisely this reason.
Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.
