I'm just judging the book by its cover. It looks like it's design to lure people with flashy but cheap looking animations.

Anyway, changing your browser string won't make you less trackable. They don't use those for tracking individual users.

Uhm, heh...

No. Sorry.

From the look of that website, you probably have some nice tracking installed now though.

He did claim early on that he did this because he didn't want any personal information about any NSA agents getting out, and I bet the papers are full of them.

It is, however, a pretty lame excuse IMHO. But I'm not the one with a government agency after me.

Interesting. If I worked for NSA, I would try to. It would give some more information. Though on the other hand, they may just as well run their own nodes to get that information (oh yes, they do this already), and hacking 'normal' people just for the lulz always increases the chance of information about your operations getting out.

In short: It would be stupid to hack you just because you're running a node, unless you're their target in some other way.

I think it's because Snowden didn't release it all, like Manning, but just released a small part of it, and only to a newspaper. He claimed to have his reasons for this, not that I agree with them. Something about how the Manning files identified some people, and that Snowden didn't want that to happen.

Of course they are watching exit nodes. Everybody should assume they do (also the person running the node will watch, and that person's ISP).

However, I have never heard anyone claiming they can tie the traffic back by watching the traffic, other by the well know timing attacks that they *do* talk about in the article. Basically, they see some traffic exit the node at the same time as they see similar traffic at some completely unrelated place in the network, building up statistics which can identify a suspect over time. This is why they say they have limited success.

What do you mean by this? If you operate a node, your computer is simply a passive router of traffic. I'm not sure what you mean by "safety" here.

Tell me more about how Valve developed this new "Linux" operating system.

Ironic that the Swiss are doing this, one of the few landlocked countries in the world.

Maybe they already sound very similar to the sounds whales make, and maybe that's why the whales get disoriented and stranded.

And if it's not obvious (mainly for our SI-challenged readers), 10 micrometers equals 0.01 mm.

Not sure what you mean by this. OS9 and anything previous to that has nothing to do with BSD.

OSX was a completely new start. "Virtually all old devices and OS's ever" is most definitely not BSD.

The important thing that the Amiga OS lacked, when compared to a more "modern" operating system was memory protection. Simply because it lacked the necessary hardware to enforce it.

Sadly, there was no provision for implementing any separation even when the necessary hardware was available, which it was on some of the later/high-end models.

I'm not so sure about this. If an important userspace application, or actually any application, has been hacked, I consider the machine tainted for all future. I'm not going to patch the holes up and keep running, because any file could have been modified and finding out which ones is just much more work than to fire up a new clean machine. If you're running a webserver and it's broken, you have in fact a fully compromised system since the only thing running on that virtual machine is the webserver.

I can see many reasons not to run this OS, but the kernel/userspace separation is not necessarily the big deal.

Though in 1996 we didn't actually have tons of free operating systems. Linux added something that was missing.

Then again, this release is hopefully nothing serious, other than a way to say that he's abandoned the project and doesn't really care if people use it or not.