I want to live in a world where *everything* that makes me uncomfortable or might cause pain or conflict is excised from history. After all, if it never happened, no one can be pissed off about it--and we can all get along fine.
Denying that conflict has happened does nothing to address the root causes of that conflict. Simply stating by fiat, for example, that the Israelis and Palestinians have always gotten along will not in fact induce them to get along. Erasing the history of racism will not suddenly make people think differently about race. There are real conflicts of personality, culture, and philosophy at the root of most if not all of these conflicts, and they won't go away just because "they never happened."
Put another way, a racist is a racist because he is ignorant, hateful, and/or fearful, not because history has convinced him to be a racist.
Sounds to me in your case is not a case of not being free , its a case of having no initiative.
I concede that anyone could learn these things, but it's fact that many don't. And because they don't, they rely on others. And in relying on others, the GP states, they are less "free."
I don't think that this is a matter of "no initiative" -- just because self-sufficiency is low on my priorities doesn't mean I have no drive or ambition.
You refuse to accept that "allowed to" and "able to" could be different measures of "free," so I'm done arguing someone else's point.
We're both allowed to do and able to do more than ever before. If you disagree give examples to support your case.
I do disagree. I can not build a house. I can not raise livestock. If lost in the woods I would have few if any survival skills. This is not true of all men, granted, depending on their professions and hobbies, but I hold that it is more true now than it was in the relatively recent past. Modern man, in general, can not claim self-sufficiency.
The GP proposes that this situation is evil, and I will say I'm not convinced of that. There are benefits to the way life is, and to having both specilized experts and the added leisure that our lives afford us. As a computer guy, my skills and interests would have be wholly without merit in the past, but they let me live comfortably in the present; I think that's a Good Thing.
But I also hold that, from one angle and in a very real way, modern men are not as "free" as we might have once been because our modern lives rely so heavily on others to provide basic necessities.
Feudal strawman? Its was a fact of life for 95% of the population of medieval europe you idiot. Or am I only supposed to compare with small select parts of history where people were more free and had more rights than today? If so please fill us in on the exact locations and dates of these idylic times.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about how peoplwe in the West "have never been as free as they are now."
If you're going to cherry-pick a span of 400 years (the period when feudalism was dominant in Europe) and then berate me for comparing small, select parts of history, I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion.
My actual point was to note that the differences between your definition of freedom ("allowed to do things") and the GP's definition of freedom ("able to do things") are the real root of your disagreement.
"Meanwhile we have turned the majority of Western humans from independent men into chair-warming consumers singing in lockstep for trinkets."
I suggest you take off your rose coloured glasses and go read some history, in particular just how "free" your average serf was in feudal times and even later. Don't like what your overload or king does? Tough. Complain and you'll probably at best end up homeless or at worst end up swinging from a tree.
People in the west have NEVER been as free as they are now.
So get yourself a fucking clue!
Compare if you will modern man versus colonial man (rather than your feudal strawman). While it may be true that we're more free in the sense of "allowed to do more" (though I'm not sure that holds in this new comparison), the argument that the GP was making was that we're less free in the sense of "we rely on others for more of our basic necessities." A man in colonial times was much more self-suficient than a man in modern times.
A man who is not allowed to build a house and a man who can not build a house are similarly restricted.
The winners write the history books.
Still, I disagree; winning can white-wash pretty much anything, but in-the-moment your methods and targets are the difference between Terrorist and Freedom Fighters.
I CAN make and sell a fucking refrigerated console for a 2011 Ford Mustang and say so right in the product description and Ford cannot do a fucking thing about it.
You can do absolutely anything you want and sell anything you want for the Xbox, if you develop it from scratch yourself. Good luck with that, by the way. I hear that graphics stack is a bitch to rewrite.
Honestly curious: how is this different from saying he needs to rebuild, say, the Mustang engine if he wants to sell his refrigerated console?
The point he's making is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. He's questioning the objectivity of such sujective terms used in laws. "It's OK to quash them, they're just Terrorists."
If you're concerned about them blocking porn and copyrighted material, you're thinking too small. The real concern is that once this kind of a system is in place, it becomes trivial to expand it to other content you don't like, such as Wikileaks or political dissidents or anything else that goes contrary to the Government-approved worldview.
Keeping logs isn't as damaging as blocking access. You may know who the informed people are, and can take negative actions against them, but they're still informed and can still cause you problems.
If you get it to the point where no one is even SEEING content you dislike, you don't have to worry about taking negative actions OR having anyone cause you problems.
Of course, that's not really all that a modern firewall does.
And this is why the original poster is wrong.
If you're just relying on a Firewall to block access to ports you shouldn't have open anyways, then yeah, you don't need the firewall: just close the ports. But in that scenario, it's really just a misapplication of an otherwise useful security device.
A Firewall can be useful, as you said, to proxy various protocols or block certain outgoing (or unsolicited incoming) traffic. It can also be used if potentially-harmful traffic belongs on the network, but not going to or from certain hosts (ie, remote administration of servers might be desirable, but only from certain hosts).
The point is, yes a Firewall isn't The Solution to all security problems, and it can be misapplied, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful device in the right situation.
If "strong" is defined as "this cracking software takes an ungodly amount of time to guess it," it's possible that a plurality of some tech-savvy community could have the same otherwise-random string of characters. Unlikely, but possible.
If only 200k of 1000k passwords were cracked, there's still the potential of some strong password being the most popular.
Really just meant "Netflix" to be a place-holder for "any Internet content that is forced through congested links." I don't know details on how Netflix, specifically, delivers their content.
Can't this backfire on Comcast? I mean, if a Comcast customer tried watching Netflix and they can't get a good connection because of congested links, the user isn't going to think "Netflix is crappy" they're going to complain aboyt how they've got such a crap connection through Comcast.
That's only meaningful if there are alternatives/competition in the area, and there might be an argument that Comcast wants to push it's own video streaming service (which wouldn't crap out).
There are two ways to get content to Comcast subscribers -- peer with them directly, or send your traffic through some other network that's connected to them. The graphs in the article show the "other network" links, and show that they're almost always running at capacity. if a link is running full, you can't get your bits through and that means packet loss. Peering directly to Comcast gets you uncongested links, which means you won't be dropping packets and your services will run as-intended, but it also means paying Comcast for the priviledge.
I've had very few problems with my Verizon access -- it's possible that their Customer Service is as bad or worse than Comcast, but I've never needed to use them.
Your argument isn't that this doesn't "rewire" the brain, but that everything does. Which would be a valid point to make (even if it doesn't really refute the claim) except for that fact that this apparently has added benefit to stroke victims that instruments, sporting equipment, and even traditional therapy doesn't. To be fair, it's still an unproven benefit in that there doesn't seem to be and hard research to back it up, but I don't think it's enough to warrant pulling the thread of "everything rewires the brain." That smells of just being pedantic.
Is there really a significant difference between "bionic leg rewires brain" and "bionic leg provides feedback that allowes the brain to rewire itself"? Aside from brevity.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to live in a world where *everything* that makes me uncomfortable or might cause pain or conflict is excised from history. After all, if it never happened, no one can be pissed off about it--and we can all get along fine.
Denying that conflict has happened does nothing to address the root causes of that conflict. Simply stating by fiat, for example, that the Israelis and Palestinians have always gotten along will not in fact induce them to get along. Erasing the history of racism will not suddenly make people think differently about race. There are real conflicts of personality, culture, and philosophy at the root of most if not all of these conflicts, and they won't go away just because "they never happened."
Put another way, a racist is a racist because he is ignorant, hateful, and/or fearful, not because history has convinced him to be a racist.
Sounds to me in your case is not a case of not being free , its a case of having no initiative.
I concede that anyone could learn these things, but it's fact that many don't. And because they don't, they rely on others. And in relying on others, the GP states, they are less "free."
I don't think that this is a matter of "no initiative" -- just because self-sufficiency is low on my priorities doesn't mean I have no drive or ambition.
You refuse to accept that "allowed to" and "able to" could be different measures of "free," so I'm done arguing someone else's point.
We're both allowed to do and able to do more than ever before. If you disagree give examples to support your case.
I do disagree. I can not build a house. I can not raise livestock. If lost in the woods I would have few if any survival skills. This is not true of all men, granted, depending on their professions and hobbies, but I hold that it is more true now than it was in the relatively recent past. Modern man, in general, can not claim self-sufficiency.
The GP proposes that this situation is evil, and I will say I'm not convinced of that. There are benefits to the way life is, and to having both specilized experts and the added leisure that our lives afford us. As a computer guy, my skills and interests would have be wholly without merit in the past, but they let me live comfortably in the present; I think that's a Good Thing.
But I also hold that, from one angle and in a very real way, modern men are not as "free" as we might have once been because our modern lives rely so heavily on others to provide basic necessities.
Feudal strawman? Its was a fact of life for 95% of the population of medieval europe you idiot. Or am I only supposed to compare with small select parts of history where people were more free and had more rights than today? If so please fill us in on the exact locations and dates of these idylic times.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about how peoplwe in the West "have never been as free as they are now."
If you're going to cherry-pick a span of 400 years (the period when feudalism was dominant in Europe) and then berate me for comparing small, select parts of history, I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion.
My actual point was to note that the differences between your definition of freedom ("allowed to do things") and the GP's definition of freedom ("able to do things") are the real root of your disagreement.
Philosophy asks the questions. Math, Logic, Physics, Sociology, etc. try to find the answers.
"Meanwhile we have turned the majority of Western humans from independent men into chair-warming consumers singing in lockstep for trinkets."
I suggest you take off your rose coloured glasses and go read some history, in particular just how "free" your average serf was in feudal times and even later. Don't like what your overload or king does? Tough. Complain and you'll probably at best end up homeless or at worst end up swinging from a tree.
People in the west have NEVER been as free as they are now.
So get yourself a fucking clue!
Compare if you will modern man versus colonial man (rather than your feudal strawman). While it may be true that we're more free in the sense of "allowed to do more" (though I'm not sure that holds in this new comparison), the argument that the GP was making was that we're less free in the sense of "we rely on others for more of our basic necessities." A man in colonial times was much more self-suficient than a man in modern times.
A man who is not allowed to build a house and a man who can not build a house are similarly restricted.
The winners write the history books. Still, I disagree; winning can white-wash pretty much anything, but in-the-moment your methods and targets are the difference between Terrorist and Freedom Fighters.
I CAN make and sell a fucking refrigerated console for a 2011 Ford Mustang and say so right in the product description and Ford cannot do a fucking thing about it.
You can do absolutely anything you want and sell anything you want for the Xbox, if you develop it from scratch yourself. Good luck with that, by the way. I hear that graphics stack is a bitch to rewrite.
Honestly curious: how is this different from saying he needs to rebuild, say, the Mustang engine if he wants to sell his refrigerated console?
Afghan people who kill Americans in America == Terrorists Afghan people who kill Americans in Afghanistan == Freedom fighters
I don't think it's that simple; there's a line that you cross in your methods and targets that takes you from "freedom fighter" to "terrorist."
The point he's making is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. He's questioning the objectivity of such sujective terms used in laws. "It's OK to quash them, they're just Terrorists."
If you're concerned about them blocking porn and copyrighted material, you're thinking too small. The real concern is that once this kind of a system is in place, it becomes trivial to expand it to other content you don't like, such as Wikileaks or political dissidents or anything else that goes contrary to the Government-approved worldview.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Keeping logs isn't as damaging as blocking access. You may know who the informed people are, and can take negative actions against them, but they're still informed and can still cause you problems.
If you get it to the point where no one is even SEEING content you dislike, you don't have to worry about taking negative actions OR having anyone cause you problems.
Good point; I retract the overly-broad assertion.
If full transparency works wonderfully in the coding world, why would it not work in the realm of the government...
The Coding World is concerned with internal actors whose impact (malicious code insertion) can easily be corrected.
National defense is concerned with external actors whose impact (casualties, property damage, etc) can not be corrected.
Of course, that's not really all that a modern firewall does.
And this is why the original poster is wrong.
If you're just relying on a Firewall to block access to ports you shouldn't have open anyways, then yeah, you don't need the firewall: just close the ports. But in that scenario, it's really just a misapplication of an otherwise useful security device.
A Firewall can be useful, as you said, to proxy various protocols or block certain outgoing (or unsolicited incoming) traffic. It can also be used if potentially-harmful traffic belongs on the network, but not going to or from certain hosts (ie, remote administration of servers might be desirable, but only from certain hosts).
The point is, yes a Firewall isn't The Solution to all security problems, and it can be misapplied, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful device in the right situation.
I'm not sure that follows.
If "strong" is defined as "this cracking software takes an ungodly amount of time to guess it," it's possible that a plurality of some tech-savvy community could have the same otherwise-random string of characters. Unlikely, but possible.
If only 200k of 1000k passwords were cracked, there's still the potential of some strong password being the most popular.
Really just meant "Netflix" to be a place-holder for "any Internet content that is forced through congested links." I don't know details on how Netflix, specifically, delivers their content.
It's Jeopardy -- the question must be given in the form of an answer.
Can't this backfire on Comcast? I mean, if a Comcast customer tried watching Netflix and they can't get a good connection because of congested links, the user isn't going to think "Netflix is crappy" they're going to complain aboyt how they've got such a crap connection through Comcast.
That's only meaningful if there are alternatives/competition in the area, and there might be an argument that Comcast wants to push it's own video streaming service (which wouldn't crap out).
There are two ways to get content to Comcast subscribers -- peer with them directly, or send your traffic through some other network that's connected to them. The graphs in the article show the "other network" links, and show that they're almost always running at capacity. if a link is running full, you can't get your bits through and that means packet loss. Peering directly to Comcast gets you uncongested links, which means you won't be dropping packets and your services will run as-intended, but it also means paying Comcast for the priviledge.
I've had very few problems with my Verizon access -- it's possible that their Customer Service is as bad or worse than Comcast, but I've never needed to use them.
Your argument isn't that this doesn't "rewire" the brain, but that everything does. Which would be a valid point to make (even if it doesn't really refute the claim) except for that fact that this apparently has added benefit to stroke victims that instruments, sporting equipment, and even traditional therapy doesn't. To be fair, it's still an unproven benefit in that there doesn't seem to be and hard research to back it up, but I don't think it's enough to warrant pulling the thread of "everything rewires the brain." That smells of just being pedantic.
Is there really a significant difference between "bionic leg rewires brain" and "bionic leg provides feedback that allowes the brain to rewire itself"? Aside from brevity.
that wouldn't be a problem for me.
Obviously, you aren't a Completionist.
You could take every key but "a" away and websites/services will still be filled with denizens sporting aol email addressees posting:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
If you took every key but 'a' away, wouldn't EVERY post just be "aaaaaaaaaaaaaa"?