Slashdot Mirror
Blue Security Gives up the Fight
bblboy54 writes "According to The Washington Post, Blue Security has closed its doors, which can be confirmed by the Blue Security application failing to work today and their domain no longer resolving. Blue Security's CEO is quoted in the article: "It's clear to us that [quitting] would be the only thing to prevent a full-scale cyber-war that we just don't have the authority to start," Reshef said. "Our users never signed up for this kind of thing." You have to wonder where it goes from here. It seems an effective method has been found but more than a small private company could handle. Will someone else adapt this concept, or does the internet world give up?"
Will someone else adapt this concept, or does the internet world give up?
/. (not hiding behind childish obfuscation), yet I only get one Spam per week that actually makes it into my inbox! I know the flip side of the spam problem is bandwidth wastage, but anyone who's still getting spam in their inbox should install some nice filtering software.
How about a third choice - will the internet world try a different method that doesn't involve vigilantism? (and the inevitable chaos that follows a war)
Slightly Offtopic: My email (whineymacfanboy@gmail.com) is in clear text on
Completely Offtopic: Has anyone else noticed the "Compare prices on YRO Products" link in the "Related links" sidebar? WTF is a YRO product?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Yes indeed, if you correct your child, then you have a point. If you'll reread my above post, you'll find that I have no problem with god correcting someone's misunderstandings.
My problem is with people who think they understand god's mind better than god does. Who are they to judge? Are they not mortal and falliable? In their own minds, the answer is clearly no, which is all kinds of pride and hubris.
(Sorry for the OT thread hijack, but I've got Karma to burn, and I don't feel like letting this one pass)
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
You both have a point. If you're talking Old Testament Bible-based God, he loves people. He generally doesn't tolerate destructive actions, however. It's the old "Hate the sin, not the sinner" attitude. This is the same God that commanded the nation of Israel to commit genocide on more than one occasion, so it kind of makes you re-evaluate the Western humanist concept of "love" in this context. The nation of Israel was almost wiped out itself for refusing to commit the genocide commanded. If you're talking about a Trinitarian-post-Christ God, you're talking about the same God... however, he loved people enough to give them one way out of the retribution if they were willing to humble themselves and take it. In this situation, NOT telling others about this one way would be an unforgivable sin, as you'd be saying "I don't care that you don't know." In such a situation, the person isn't saying they know God's mind better than he does, they're saying they're willing to follow explicit instructions from God. This being said, judging is not one of the things they've been commanded to do. Judging in this situation would be hypocritical; sharing information however, would be required.
I couldn't let this one pass either, as it seemed to be assuming too much on both sides of the argument :)
You got my point exactly. I was assuming he was able to figure this out from my original post ;)