I ended up with Duplicity. It does locally encrypted difftars, versioning and relatively easy retention policy stuff so that I can keep i.e. two full backups and incremental on top of the last one.

Backend? Just choose the one with best price/performance for you. I do the AWS S3 Service from Wasabi, because it has so far served me well and is the cheapest S3-compatible service I have found so far. But Duplicity in itself is quite flexible, so you might find storage solutions that suit you better.

You are correct, when on an exchange your bitcoins is just a number in their database - of course depending on their implementation, but you only have their word that they actually have the bitcoins to send you. That's why you wouldn't want to *keep* your bitcoins on an exchange...except for the purpose of exchanging them, of course. When you have bought bitcoins, you transfer them to *your* wallet, and they are yours. Noone but you can spend them...or lose them!

DDOS is vandalism, simply. We'd cover it if a mob was throwing rocks at Microsoft, RedHat og IBMs head quarters, would we not? This is just as much vandalism, and there *is* no justification for vandalism.

This is actually why I am no fan of groups like Anonymous, and do not cheer when they for example hit ISIS targets. There's bound to be a lot of collateral damage, and a lot of innocent people will be targeted.

As for Linode? God knows what they or some of their customers have done. But this time - like a lot of other innocent people - it actually hit *me* too. I got tired of running a physical machine at home just so I could run all my services, so I got myself a server at Linode. It has a lot better WAF, too.

So am I satisfied with Linode? You bet. This is not their fault. I am sure they are bound to learn from it, to quicker stop this in the future. But it is not easy, to stop mobs. Because DDOS groups are just that: Mobs! No matter how much you sympatize with a cause, a mob is never justified.

Period.

Address space is large enough unless we do something seriously fucked up. The IPv6 adress space has enough Ip-adresses that every atom of the surface of the earth can have 40.000 adresses.

Or, to divide it up a bit:

A "local network" will probably get a /64. This is *enough*, trust me, it's so much addresses that it can comtain the entire ipv4 address space - SQUARED. Noone will ever need more adresses than that in a local network.
A typical "end site" (a company, or even maybe a home user) would probably get a /48, or 65536 local networks. Again, *enough*.
An ISP would very often have one or perhaps several /32s. That means it can have 2^16 = 65536 "customers" who each have enough ip-adresses.

However, there are recommendations to limit the assignments for "home" users to /56. This makes for only 256 local networks in your home.

So if an ISP has a /32, we can imagine the following example:
Half of it, that is a /49, is allocated in /48 networks, allowing for 32768 corporate customers.
The other half of it is allocated in /56s, allowing for 32768*256 = 196608 home users.

Currently, one /3 is allocated to global unicast adress space. This gives space for 2^(32-3)=2^29 = roughly 534 million ISP allocations. Or, in another word, approximately one ISP per 10th of todays inhabitants in the world.

There are several /3s not yet allocated.

I guess there is enough.

Or, if you live in a country which still haven't protected DRM by law, you should always remove DRM as part of your buying process.

Well. That's not *exaclty* what I meant.

But the actual particiants were known, so to test the post-election part of the system, all you need to do is to mock together some results.

Again: That might be a plausible, though slightly more boring explanation :)

Then again, it could also be a test of the procedures for reporting faked results...we'lll probably never know :)

I'm in IT myself, and I know how difficult it is to come up with good test-data for your testing...so what's better than production data?

I'm not saying it is so, but it could very well be that the testers have loaded into it this years candidates, made up some likely result, and run the software to see that it works...

And apparently it did! ;)

1) Discover that the turkey that was supposed to be cooked at home by one of us is still raw upon arriving at the cabin. Remember, if it's frozen, this needs to happen a day or two before the turkey dinner! In hour case, that was the key to success.
2) On the morning of the dinner, stuff the sauna oven full of wood. Apply match, and heat.
3) Repeat 2 until you are beyond the useful range of the thermometer - for example 150 deg C/300 deg F (testet values)
4) To keep turkey from getting dry, apply water as normally. Dress in tin-foil (no idea if it helps...but it didn't hurt!)
5) Cover every bit of your skin. Take a deep breath, enter the sauna with the turkey, put it on the topmost seat of the sauna. Remember - breathing too deaply can burn your lungs!
6) About every halp hour, again cover every bit of your skin, enter your large oven (eh, the sauna), unwrap tin-foil, add water, wrap again in tin-foil. Warning: Spilling water on the sauna oven will create dangerous water vapour that could again burn your lungs!
6) Refill wood whenever the thermometer drops towards the useful range again.
7) Wait an appropriate amount of time. Example: 8-9 hours with a 9 kg/20 lb turkey.
8) Bon appetit!

I have seen the same happen with SVN. Trust me, people who don't understand version control systems will *always* find a way to fuck up! :)

0-click-shopping: Buy something *unless* you press a button :)

might not be able to *write* the entire collection of Shakespeare, but with this setup, I'm quite sure that they would be able to digitize it!

Yah. The real heros bringing us the PC revolution was the guys reverse engineering the hardware/BIOS, and made cheap clones. The OS was just what became the de facto standard.

As we all know, DOS won over CP/M. CP/M was technically superior at the time, but lost for political and/or contract reasons, whatever.

Digital Research then went on to create a better DOS to compete. MS fought it with all means it could, and it went into oblivition.

At early stages, MS Windows was just a graphical shell on top of DOS. It wasn't particulary good either. There were competing graphical shells, for example Digital Research' GEM. Digital Research lost the patent lawsuit that MS essentially won, and GEM was limited to have only two windows simultaneously...who knows what it could have been.

MS has not had the technical best/superior solutions at any time. It was just better at legal and marketing stuff than anyone else.

The PC revolution would have come with or without MS. We'll never know how much innovation MS have killed on its way where it is, so to hail it as a savior is just plain stupid.