Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Duh (Score 1) 470

by marcobat (#34916064) Attached to: Bill Gates Is More Admired Than the Pope
Actually the 2000 years old code was already very well tested and had been shared by all the mystics of previous times. With recurring small updates it is still used by mystics of current times. That code has little to do with the catholic church code that entered early alpha stage a few hundred years later when the religion was instituted. At that time the catholics used the original code (which, i'm sure, was open source) and branch it into a close source project diverting the original goal of the program (seek good for all people), into a new goal (good for us and that's it)!

Comment: i very much dubt wikileads is coordinating it (Score 1) 715

by marcobat (#34487462) Attached to: MasterCard Hit By WikiLeaks Payback Attacks
I really don't think the folks at wikileaks are coordinating the attach, probably some low brain supporter or someone trying to discredit wikileads. Best action for supporters of wikileaks is to cancel or stop using their mastercard, their paypal and their amazon account.

Comment: Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score 1) 333

by marcobat (#34419260) Attached to: Wikileaks Competitor In the Works
I don't know Assange nor I know much about him so i can't comment on the person but the information that is circulating from wikileaks is nothing new or odd or unexpected, anyone paying attention to international politics knew the substance of these documents if not the actual words used by such and such. What i find new and unexpected is that, possibly because of the way the materials were released, the mainstream press decided to publish and write long commentaries on them. Now that's new.

Comment: Re:"Because we say so" (Score 1) 169

by marcobat (#34335986) Attached to: Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use
I'm not that sure, does the posting of the article to the non-profit website means that people that would have otherwise read it at the copyright owner site will go to the non-profit instead? Or does it mean that people that would have not been exposed to the article are going to be able to read it and learn something new? I think it would have been more polite to write one or two paragraphs about the article, post that in the non-profit site with a link to the full one, but i'm not sure that impolite is the same as breaking copyright law.

Comment: Re:TRUSTe all over again? (Score 1) 81

by marcobat (#33787918) Attached to: Privacy Option Proposed To Control Behavioral Ads
While i agree with you, looking from another perspective there could be a old man sitting on a chair just in front of his house, he spends his time looking at the people passing by. Noting the time, the recurrence, the way they are dressed, who do they walk by with, etc... He could infer a great lot of information about them. He never asked them for the permission to look at them or to gather information about them, but should he? Is this information theirs or his? Maybe both? I don't have a solution but I think the problem is that i (like you probably) don't trust what these company are going to do with the information they gather. I have the intuition (i say intuition because i can't pinpoint the reasons) that the amount of information collected and interpreted corresponds to the amount of power that company will have and i'm not happy to give it away that way... But the problem is not only one of personal privacy, it is one of social privacy.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...