Slashdot Mirror

Here's a quote from Mark Zuckerberg:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks

> In order to build a large, powerful organization you can't have a larger, more powerful organization trying stop you.

/sarcastic What do you think governments are?

/me ducks

--
" Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex"
  -- Frank Zappa

> These literal fascists can't be "debated", they can't be coddled, they must be beaten and when they try to act they must be shot without mercy.

An odd statement. If you go back to read up on Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" he justified his intolerance of intolerance by pointing out the fear that such people would resort to "fists or pistols" instead of debate. And so he justified his idea by the right of self-defense.

In other words, anyone who is inciting or committing violence should not be tolerated.

Source

Until that time, what I've tried to suggest -- both to the American people, but also to the world -- is that we do have to balance this issue of privacy and security.

Anyone who says such things is a traitor to America, plain and simple.

When they say such things, what they are really saying is that they believe the people should be willing to give up (some of, or all of) their Fourth Amendment right to privacy for the sake of increased security against a risk that has always been, and will likely always be, with us from now until the end of time. It's a blatant power grab, pure and simple.

They're trying to "balance" the privacy and security scales by removing weight from the privacy side and adding weight to the security side, so that the scale is thus "balanced". That's what they mean by "balancing": taking away our rights. Our liberties. For the sake of safety.

Well excuse the crap out of me but the Constitution of the United States of America DOES NOT NEED BALANCING! They're just fine where they're at on the scale thankyouverymuch.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin/:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase
a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

This isn't the first ever account Twitter has suspended either. They suspend accounts DAILY for being abusive to others, or for advocating morally repugnant things. I know of one account that got deleted merely for sharing the same last name as the leader of ISIS (it eventually got reinstated). So rather than incorrectly asking why "only right wing accounts get targeted", why don't we instead ask "Why only when it happens to right-wingers does /. care, and all kinds of people come out of the woodwork to defend their right to be abusive?"

And no, defending abusive speech is no more "defending free speech" than defending a person's right to own another human being would be "defending freedom". There have to be some restrictions somewhere, or there won't be any freedom for anyone but the biggest bullies. As ardent Free Speech defender, Justice Learned Hand said back during WWII:

What is this liberty that must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not the freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few — as we have learned to our sorrow.

Actually, it's rather ironic. You see, we're often told about the Paradox of Tolerance formulated by Karl Popper, essentially that intolerance is the one thing one cannot tolerate. However, how does one decide what "intolerance" is and by what right is it suppressed? Well, just look at what Popper wrote:

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

From this we can see that the moral justification is based on dealing with those who "answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." So it's ultimately justified by means of the right of self-defense and anyone using Popper to justify going on the attack has it completely backwards. It's a shield, not a sword.

Instead, it should properly be used against the intolerance and criminal behavior of those particular individual people who promote or are involved in things like large riots or attacking and nearly killing an old man in the street (as well as stealing his car) after a fender-bender when they believed he supported the other political party.

Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnÃte homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.

        If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
                As quoted in The Cyclopedia of Practical Quotations (1896) by Jehiel KÌeeler Hoyt, p. 763

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu

Where I work, sometimes you want it on-the-record. I want proof I said something, or did something, far more often than I'd ever want to be able to deny such actions later on.

That's because you're a peon. Perhaps well-paid and well-respected, but a peon nonetheless, compared with those who effectively run the world. The farther up people are on the ladder of power, the harder it tends to be to tell the difference between them, and the criminals recognized as such by the justice system. Most of them cover their tracks, live substantially covert lives, and have adopted 'plausible deniability' as a second-nature practice. It might simply be prudence, or it might be the vestige of a guilty conscience in an otherwise sociopathic makeup. Whatever it is, it seems to go with the territory.

Less conspiratorially if you're a peon no one cares enough to go looking through your emails for dirt. If you are important then people will actively go digging for anything with which to remove you as an obstacle.

As was once written: Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him.

Richelieu was guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but with thousands of emails to choose from there's bound to be something with which to hang you.

The moral thing to do is pay your fair share of taxes.

But instead Apple feels entitled to pay as little as possible (wether the tricks they used are illegal or not remains to be seen, I guess).

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands" — Judge Learned Hand

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." - Judge Learned Hand

Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934).

Anyone with half a brain knows HRC is corrupt as fuck, and Trump is 100% unsuited for the office.

Indeed, anyone with half a brain "knows" this. Somebody with a fully functional brain though realizes that the two candidates aren't remotely comparable. While Trump is narcissistic, incompetent, and unbalanced, Hillary seems a reasonably competent candidate, intelligent and well seasoned. I'd have preferred somebody like Sanders, but on the whole she has the makings of a president. The corruption allegations against Hillary could be an issue if true, but if one tries to look into any of those claims, they evaporate into the void. Indeed, on examination, they are mostly Republican slander, channeled through echo chambers like Fox News, or other Republican outlets. This is indeed the standard Republican modus operandi - keep smearing and smearing, something will stick (not even a Republican innovation, Beaumarchais wrote Calomniez, calomniez; il en reste toujours quelque chose in The Barber of Seville, back in 1773).

The problem with the Republican party is that it has no ideas, no vision, and no plans. It also has no good intentions towards normal folks (that is, the 99%), and they don't even bother trying to hide this very well. This was painfully obvious during the debates - the Democratic ones discussed mostly ideas and goals, the Republican debates focused on the size of Trump's hands. Since Republicans can't win by presenting a better alternative, the only way left is to attack the opponents, and Republicans have been doing nothing else for years. They slander, lie, make mountains out of molehills, lie, waste taxpayer money on "special investigators" and congressional inquests, then they lie, lie, and lie again. They bring in "swift boats", keep loudly yelling bullshit slogans/accusations like "Benghazi!" Pelosi!" "e-mails!" "Clinton foundation!". None of those hold any water, but Republicans don't apologize for their slanders (looking at McCain, for example), and by the time inquests shows there was no substance in accusations, the loyal republican supporters have already swallowed the bait.

Here's the real risk. We are allowing the globalists and ex-Nazis who run this country to set policy based on emotion, rather than logic and sound, limited governance. We are losing many of our liberties, and I can't help but wonder what kind of contortions corporations will need to go to to meet this obligation. But, it stifles true economic freedom (most likely, those entrenched players have some experts within their company which can turn this into some sort of regulatory capture in the near future). Our very way of life in this country is under attack, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

I'm not a total libertarian who wants to remove the minimum wage (although, that's probably better left to the states). However, these emotion driven, well intentioned but poorly thought out ideas always seem to have hidden side effects. And, some of us believe there is a more sinister element which continues to find any excuse to erode our personal and economic liberties. Both of which are pretty banged up right now. This is definitely not the right way to handle the problem. One way to handle this problem would for salaries to be public. Then, economic models can apply much better, because the consumers and producers of labor both have access to the necessary data. We already know that asymmetric information distorts economic models. Why doesn't the government ask these companies to open up salary data? It's just like Obamacare. The biggest problem is that the consumer does not have access to the data he/she needs for a functioning free market economic model to work. So, we get absolutely raped by the insurers and providers. The solution is not a gigantic piece of shit law which forces people to buy certain products. The solution is to open up the information. That's still pretty heavy handed, but less heavy-handed than Obamacare, an obvious handout to the entrenched insurers and providers. Legally, an auto repair shop has to give you an estimate of the cost, and they can't charge more than 10% in the end without giving a new estimate. Why couldn't health care work the same way? Of course it could. Hospitals already have price lists, they just don't want to share them, because sharing them means competing. Just like this stupid agreement, Obamacare is much nicer to the entrenched players like hospitals and insurers. It makes it harder for smaller players to compete; it's regulatory capture. The real solution, opening up the books, and requiring estimates in all non-emergency situations (although, emergency price lists should be open too) would encourage competition. In salary data, too, the solution is to open up the books and let the market function. But, nobody in government or industry wants that. They want to push regulatory capture for their buddies instead, all under the guise of whatever liberal cause is hot right now.

The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.

- Milton Friedman

Disney's parent owns Vice Media. Domestic propaganda is legal in the USA again. The rich and powerful people are spending time and money manufacturing consent on sites just like this. Meanwhile, the US government is literally sending supplies to ISIS under our noses. I wonder why this piece is coming out of vice right now.

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

- David Rockefeller's[p]urported remarks at a Bilderberg Group meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in June 1991, The remarks are said to have been printed in several right-wing French publications shortly thereafter; as quoted in Programming, Pitfalls and Puppy-Dog Tales (1993) by Gyeorgos C. Hatonn, p. 65. Skepticism is in order for the accuracy or attribution of alleged remarks from these exclusive meetings, particularly those which could be manifestations of either satire, sarcasm — or outright fraudulence.

25 years and they couldn't even include some of the best quotes by Linus over the years?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

* Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)
* If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won.
* In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people.
* My name is Linus Torvalds and I am your god.
* Dijkstra probably hates me.
* This is why we don't compile with "-W". Gcc is crap
* GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken
* (the spill is insane, btw, since it's spilling a constant value!)

No mention of how Linux used to be stuck with gcc 2.7.2 for years until egcs became stable?

Pfft, kids. :-)

Pfft, jealousy. When (if) you accomplish something grand, then anyone will care about digging up various quotations of yours without full context. Until then, understand that there's a reason why you are posting this about Torvalds while he likely has no idea that you exist.

25 years and they couldn't even include some of the best quotes by Linus over the years?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

* Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)
* If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won.
* In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people.
* My name is Linus Torvalds and I am your god.
* Dijkstra probably hates me.
* This is why we don't compile with "-W". Gcc is crap
* GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken
* (the spill is insane, btw, since it's spilling a constant value!)

No mention of how Linux used to be stuck with gcc 2.7.2 for years until egcs became stable?

Pfft, kids. :-)

The War on Drugs is a globalist plot to erode American civil liberties, control global drug supply (for example, the US military is protecting the Afghan poppy fields which generate over 80% of the world's opium, a very profitable crop), and imprision vast numbers of otherwise non-criminals, particularly brown ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

The globalists tried to assassinate both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Afterwards, both presidents were much more compliant to the globalist agenda to erode civil liberties and create a more docile populace, ready to embrace control over their lives in exchange for control of some vague threat of "drugs" or "terrorism" (that happened later, of course).

Step out of line and they will kill you today as always.

> Presidents are selected, not elected.

  Franklin D. Roosevelt

> Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

  Woodrow Wilson

> The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of diversity. It is more despotic then monarchy. More insolent than autocracy. More selfish then bureaucracy. I see the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned. An era of corruption will follow and the money power of the country, will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people. Until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

  Abraham Lincoln

Any better offering for this famous mistranslation:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Set us up the bomb

All your base are belong to us!

It makes for hilarious memes, but I am guessing it is supposed to be arm the bomb, and we will destroy you (or something like that).

Javascript is terrible, but it does not hold a candle to how bad PHP really is. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rasmus_Lerdorf

Reminds me of Pelosi: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..."

It reminds you of quote-mining?

The relevant CS Lewis quote:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Lol there still has only been 1 working day since the vote, we have not left the EU yet and you're already calling a stock market and currency fluctuation 'economic meltdown'. Perhaps you should be blaming the real culprits - financial speculators. And the FTSE100 ended the week UP on the previous week by the way, hardly a stock market crash.

Most people that voted to leave were concerned about democratic accountability - it was their number one concern.

It was certainly my biggest reason for leaving. 6 months after we've left and if the rest of the western world is isn't also suffering from a recession then you might be able to say brexit has caused a recession. But, I honestly don't give a 4star because I understand that some things in life are more important than money. And I also understand that whether or not the UK economy succeeds is down to whether or businesses invest in themselves and whether or not banks choose to lend to them. Banks are primarily the cause of any recession de facto when they stop lending.

Do you know what a quango is? The Commission is 100% quango. They gave us TTIP and ACTA.

Do you recall France rejecting the EU consitution, same for the netherlands, what happened? Read what the Commission president had to say on matters of democracy:
Jean-Claude Juncker - Wikiquote

We just escaped a dangerous bureacracy, you should be celebrating.

The commission is unelected that makes it undemocratic.

You come up with all kinds of funny excuses but if we don't elect the commission then it is not democratic.

The Commission is a quango, quangos are we can all agree not democratic bodies. You can't say X, Y or Z picked the Commission therefore it is democratic if X, y or Z are not the EU citizens.

Jean-Claude Juncker is the EU president, he picks the Commissioners, we did not vote for him.

You should read some of the things he has said, he shows complete disdain for democracy:
Jean-Claude Juncker - Wikiquote

Gilmore famously said "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Extend that concept a little to "... and Orwellian monitoring and social control", and we can talk about it.

Gilmore may have been correct... at the time he said it. But that was in an era of the net being dominated by technically astute people, rather than the Facebookian masses, who appear perfectly happy to tolerate any degree of central control and monitoring.

The internet no longer interprets these things as any sort of problem, and that allows nations like Russia, China, and many in the Middle East to use it as a tool of oppression, spying on their population, and trying to influence human behaviors. Also the US to use it as a means of constant surveillance of everyone, at all times.

So where is the "circumvention" now? It's absent. Sure, you can find the occasional neckbeard bemoaning the state of things, but those people are one in tens of thousands. Slashdotters like to say, "But GPG through TOR relays through VPNS!!!one!!" as if that is something that 99.999% of the world even understands. Face it, the voice of people wanting an open and free internet is a drop in the ocean of people who Just Don't Care, or actively Want That Control because terrorists.

So little by little, the walls close in. Each country is emboldened by the successes of the last who tried. Each step is not that big. Each little increment is tolerable. But in the end? The Internet That Was is destroyed, and the Internet That Is becomes more about being the ultimate tool of authoritarians.

I don't live in Russia. I have several Russian friends in Moscow. I am sad for them, just like they are for me RE: NSA. And we're both powerless to do much but watch.

The root problem is that the construction is taking months to complete.

It does not matter. The point remains — we have a network of public roads. If the Internet can, famously, "route around damage" why should other networks' attempts to do the same raise any controversy?

If some pipe between two ISPs went down, would there even be an argument on /. over whether it is Ok for folks to sabotage rerouting by publishing bogus routing data? Would the posts with suggestions on how to best do it achieve "+5 Interesting"? What's wrong with you, people?

Highly unlikely.

Why?

Ok, so it's "Disputed". Doesn't mean it DEFINITELY wasn't him.

But I'll tell you what: There are a LOT more sources (and even ones like the IEEE, that attribute that quote to Diijkstra than not). So if I'm wrong, I'm in some pretty good company... ;-)

Actually, the place I first saw that particular quote was several years ago, on Slashdot's QOTD feature at the bottom of each page. So I blame Slashdot.

Highly unlikely.

"Free comes with a dick up your ass." - Future (8 Mile)

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."
(Attributed to Susan Ertz)

I imagine that immortality would become quite a bore unless there were things to do in the eternal digital afterlife. Hopefully there would be some cool VR games that would be worth playing for a century or two.

What would be great is to be able to put your consciousness into a drone-body or something where you could go off and do something useful and/or interesting, ala the Iain Banks uber-powerful and capable drone entities.

drown you in a toilet

There's no need to be vulgar. It will be acceptable for DX12 to be drowned in a bathtub

Except he may not have said it. Mussolini's corporatism was more guildlike: a sort of authoritarian version of collective bargaining under the power of the state.

Actually it should be "Hail Eris, hail Discordia!" or something similar ;D

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

I don't remember how the original novels are called in english, though.

That is, in fact, how it works today. You pay corporate profits taxes at the rate of the country in which you earned those profits. High-tax jurisdictions don't like this, though, because companies will shift their profit centers to those low-tax jurisdictions. And somehow that's "not fair".

I wonder how many of those bureaucrats clammoring for "fair share" tax payments refuse to take deductions on their own personal income, and ensure they pay at least 64% to match the highest personal income tax rate in the EU - all in the name of equality and fairness, of course.

I think Judge Billings Learned Hand said it best:

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

You might be interested to know that there were some on the original Macintosh team (notably, the late, great Jef Raskin) that were lobbying (hard!) for an up to FIVE button-mouse.

I highly doubt that. Raskin didn't want a mouse on the Mac at all:

He was dead set against the mouse as well, preferring dedicated meta-keys to do the pointing.

I hate mice. The mouse involves you in arm motions that slow you down. I didn't want it on the Macintosh, but Jobs insisted. In those days, what he said went, good idea or not.

If that article you linked didn't purport to be written by Andy Hertzfeld, I would have immediately thought it was b.s.

I couldn't find a reference that agreed with my memory, true; but I do offer this Slashdot thread on the subject of "Why Apple makes a 1 button mouse". There are several references to the "Left/Right Click confusion", and other posts that generally support what I was saying (nevermind the possibly misremembered Raskin reference. my brain is old and grizzled...)

You might be interested to know that there were some on the original Macintosh team (notably, the late, great Jef Raskin) that were lobbying (hard!) for an up to FIVE button-mouse.

I highly doubt that. Raskin didn't want a mouse on the Mac at all:

He was dead set against the mouse as well, preferring dedicated meta-keys to do the pointing.

I hate mice. The mouse involves you in arm motions that slow you down. I didn't want it on the Macintosh, but Jobs insisted. In those days, what he said went, good idea or not.

Let's not give Mr. Stallman too much credit, here. I believe George Orwell thought of it first:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

For example, it's a pretty short trip from Orwell's "Freedom is Slavery" to Stallman's "Freedom means not using proprietary software." For many more such gems, search for the word "freedom" on his Wikiquote page.

If this is a highly vetted population, it won't take into account the grifters, criminals, mentally incompetent and others which make up the tapestry of society. It's like testing a chemical reaction but not adding all the chemicals.

The nice thing about social science studies (and studies in general) is you can make them say just about anything to advance your cause. Just massage the incoming data, in any number of ways, and it will say what you want it to say. "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."

I think you meant:

There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.

They've certainly gone out of their way to mask what those updates really are ... "this update addresses issues in Windows" ... like, injecting telemetry they won't ask your permission for or care even if you say no.

So many of their updates are entirely self serving to try to force you to upgrade. I'm not sure they can regain that much lost goodwill.

"The very attitudes you are trying to squash out can become even more focused and harmful".

Maybe that's because "trying to squash out... attitudes" is a thoroughly bad idea - and probably impossible. Remember those little toys that babies are given to help them master spatial ideas? There might be a triangular piece, a circular piece, and a hexagonal piece, and a base with holes of the same shapes. A smart kid (whoops, off I go to PC jail) quickly sees that the circular piece will only fit into the circular hole, and so on.

It seems to me that trying to squash out attitudes is a lot like trying to pound the triangular piece into the circular hole. It might be very annoying and frustrating that it is so uncooperative, but no matter how much force you apply it really won't go in. Unless you use so much force you smash the whole thing to pieces.

If you are absolutely certain that different races or sexes do not have different abilities (in any way at all), what should you do when you come across someone who disagrees? Perhaps a bit of listening might come in handy; after all, can you really be sure that you are absolutely right? If so, how can you be so sure? Maybe your interlocutor will tell you something you hadn't known, or hadn't fully understood, that might change your mind - or at least open it a crack.

'In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion'.
- Carl Sagan, Keynote address at CSICOP conference (1987), as quoted in Do Science and the Bible Conflict? (2003) by Judson Poling, p. 30
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Why should it ever "meet the designs that the public wants?" Seriously, why would anyone consider that as a goal?

You could ask Linus Torvalds:

Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.

--"The Way We Live Now: Questions for Linus Torvalds". New York Times. 2003-09-28.

A lott of OSS people seem to have thinly veiled closed source penis envy.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but that is an old A. Whitney Brown joke

Funny thing about the Libertarian right. They loudly espouse the views that the only true rights are property rights, that contracts (backed by government power) are sacred, and that everything can be reduced to financial considerations.

But if anyone not of a member of their socioeconomic cohort shows a trace of being concerned about their property rights, about the violation of contractual terms, if seeking compensation in the only available way; then venom and mockery gush forth. How dare they!

What a load of crap.

Posters mocking the native Hawaiians for selling out for money are mocking the fact that despite all their protestations about violating a sacred mountain, they hypocritically sold out for more money.

So "sacred" was for sale.

As the GP poster alluded to, we have now established what those native Hawaiians are, we're just haggling over the price.

(Different A/C)

Just because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean you get to censor it.

Says who?

Evelyn Beatrice Hall:
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire:
"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write"

The writers of the US constitution seemed to think freedom of speech was worth mentioning, as did the framers of the ECHR, though they called it freedom of expression.
So quite a few people actually.

Once you've pondered the concept of where rights (and morality) come from then maybe you'll be a little slower to heap scorn on institutions that generally espouse such.

I have and still pour scorn on such institutions.

Don't throw bricks at glass houses.

Well that would be a bit mean. Presumably you meant "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". However this wouldn't apply in this case as I'm not saying that people shouldn't be free to express such views. I am however equally free to criticise them.

(Different A/C)

Just because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean you get to censor it.

Says who?

Evelyn Beatrice Hall:
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire:
"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write"

The writers of the US constitution seemed to think freedom of speech was worth mentioning, as did the framers of the ECHR, though they called it freedom of expression.
So quite a few people actually.

Once you've pondered the concept of where rights (and morality) come from then maybe you'll be a little slower to heap scorn on institutions that generally espouse such.

I have and still pour scorn on such institutions.

Don't throw bricks at glass houses.

Well that would be a bit mean. Presumably you meant "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". However this wouldn't apply in this case as I'm not saying that people shouldn't be free to express such views. I am however equally free to criticise them.

3) Cut the cord, Great Firewall of America. We stop routing traffic to and from unfriendly parts of the world. For this work we have be willing to cast a broad net. You can't say lets cut off Afghanistan and Syria but let Pakistan and Iraq stay connected. After all the boarders weak and ISIS/Taliban/What have you will use the coffee shot the next town over if that is what they have to do. We would need to consider cutting off 'allies' (I use the term loosely) like Turkey and Saudi Arabia in regions know to be terror hot beds as well unless they are prepared to police things somewhat like option (2) although that is more practical in their societies.

That's Trump-level stupid. It's not remotely going to work without completely abolishing freedom of speech (one of the things the US does get right). "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it". You cannot stop a one-way flow of information. You cannot even stop routing unless you forbid VPNs. In a pinch, I'm sure the EFF, the ACLU, or even Anonymous will provide anonymous routing. Good luck shutting them down without going all the way to Big Brother.

Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.

- Che Guevara. Close enough to the GP's post...

So many things wrong with what little you've said:
A) While you, myself, and the esteemed Mr. Jay may each have a difference in opinion, the one thing we all have in common is that none of our opinions are law. Setting aside for the moment that his words don't mean what you think, his words hold no more bearing in matters of law than yours, mine, or anyone else's.

B) Two minutes of searching made it clear to me that you've taken Jay's words well outside the context in which they were offered. The full passage from which your quote was taken is:

By this [1777 New York State] constitution the right of suffrage was, in several instances, restricted to freeholders; it being a favourite maxim with Mr. Jay, that those who own the country ought to govern it.

I.e. John Jay was--at the time that the America was beginning to fight for independence--asserting the right of the people who live on the land to govern the land, which stood in sharp contrast with the notion that a country should be ruled by people from a distant land.

C) "Big business", as we think of it today, simply didn't exist at America's beginning, so saying that "[b]ig business has always ruled [A]merica" is quite an overreach. One might successfully argue that big business has ruled since the time of the robber barons, but even that may be a bit of a stretch.

Thirdly, the API design is so bad it practically pushes unsuspecting developers into the wrong solution. addslashes()? No, use mysql_escape_string(). Oh wait, wasn't that mysql_real_escape_string()? Or perhaps mysql_really_really_i_promise_to_do_it_right_this_time_escape_string()?

To be fair to PHP here, the mysql_escape_string vs mysql_real_escape_string is mostly MySQLs fault (watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... if you want an insight into how screwed up MySQLs development was). It's one of their old C libraries that added the mysql_real_escape_string function.

PHP is not entirely blameless on this front; back in the early days of PHP Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP's creator - read and weep) thought the best way to design an API is to just expose PHP's internal libraries' headers to PHP code, consistency be damned. That's how we got mysql_real_escape_string; Rasmus was just following past form.

PHP has had SQL injection licked for at least the past 10 years (literally every database driver except the deprecated mysql_* one supports binding values to a query), it's just that all of the tutorials are utter, utter garbage and STILL use mysql_* functions.

mysql_* is dead as of PHP 7 (which is pretty imminent now), thank god.

Finally, the PHP community right from the very top embraces shitty practices, like ignoring failing tests in a release build. Again, a source of security vulnerabilities that simply doesn't need to happen.

It comes from the top down. Try running PHP's own tests some time. You'll be utterly unsurprised by the result. They're also written in PHP, which I feel is perhaps something of a design flaw.

As William F. Buckley famously said, "Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view."

Leaders need legitimacy, and businesses can't afford to have people get into steel cage matches to let a boss prove their dominance via trial by combat.

You confuse legitimacy with power. Those are not the same, which is a point someone else is making upthread. Even Bakunin acknowledged that specialist knowledge can confer authority, in his famous bootmaker quote.

Reading between the lines, you sure seem to be insinuating that "computer as appliance" was Jobs's idea. It didn't just come to him, he had to be sold on it.

"What I proposed was a computer that would be easy to use, mix text and graphics, and sell for about $1,000. Steve Jobs said that it was a crazy idea, that it would never sell, and we didn't want anything like it. He tried to shoot the project down. ...For the first two years, Jobs wanted to kill the project because he didn't understand what it was really all about."

Raskin did indeed want the Mac to be a "black box" with peripherals but no slots.

If the computer must be opened for any reason other than repair (for which our prospective user must be assumed incompetent) even at the dealer's, then it does not meet our requirements. Seeing the guts is taboo. Things in sockets is taboo (unless to make servicing cheaper without imposing too large an initial cost).