It is impossible for me to disagree with this. Have several dozen tracking/market intelligence/stat gathering firms blackholed in DNS where creative use of DNS to implement tracking cookies do not work.
Let me get this straight: You think it a good idea to attempt to subvert a standard to make it incredibly difficult for the biggest users of said standard to use it?
Yea, let me know how that turns out.
people looking to solve problems without consideration of second order effects of their solutions.
Attempting to solve the so called "privacy issue" when A) the primary users of the standards will reject your solution; B) the primary consumers do not care; and C) this is a political, not a technical, problem; all demonstrates pretty neatly the issue you describe. You're going to end up with another massive failure like the "Do Not Track" fiasco, that just about everyone with a clue predicted would fail from the moment there was a clamor to make it on-by-default.
I'm personally creeped out by hoards of stalkers following me everywhere I go
If you're visiting websites with trackers, and youre upset that they are tracking you, I have bad news: Nothing will change the fact that the webhost has logs of your visit, and no standard can fix that. If you dont trust the webhost not to track you, stop visiting them.
I dont think you need to be deeply familiar with the issue to recognize his complaints as rubbish. Hes basically saying "what we have now isnt perfect, so we should go back to committee for about 15 years before issuing a new spec rather than using what we have that works right now."
Yea, thats a great idea. Is this guy a career bureaucrat?
I Googled Trifigura and nothing relevant came up. Perhaps you can let me know what you're talking about there.
If you're in Europe, thats not terribly surprising: There was a superinjunction gag order issued to keep the whole thing under wraps, but the general fuzzy details were reported by the Guardian. Famously, a member of parliament tried to sidestep the superinjunction with parliamentary privilege, but IIRC that somehow got shut down.
Basically, Trifigura has been dumping some fairly toxic stuff illegally in Africa, and severely understating the risks to the locals there who they are paying for the privilege. All of that is generally a matter of fact, and isnt really disputed (perhaps Trifigura would?). The kicker is that Trifigura is claiming defamation (or slander or libel-- not clear which), and they won their case; so because reporting real world facts could cause "damage", it is illegal.
This isnt isolated, either; it is (AFAIK) not legal to host a default router passwords site in germany because that, too, could be damaging, so a fairly famous default passwords sites a number of years ago had to relocate. There was even a case recently where a judge ruled that, the mere fact that a statement is true does not defend against a defamation claim. As I recall there was a fairly major court case a number of years ago as well regarding a full disclosure of security issues in the underground of one of the EU countries.
So, speaking truth is now illegal in parts of Europe if it happens to be uncomfortable to various parties. That is what
which is a far cry from "a man can be imprisoned for saying anything on twitter that offends someone else".
and I didn't receive ONE ounce of support, only mocking for not having the right equipment for their software.
Sounds like you had an unsupported graphics card.
A lot of these programs have a "supported configs" list. Very often they will involve workstation graphics cards, which have a different set of drivers which the software is targetted at. That would explain why theyre giving you a hard time: you're not meeting their minimum supported configuration, and then complaining that they arent supporting it.
Not all situations are the same. "Not dropping a baby" isnt hard and doesnt require perfect knowledge. Landing a plane requires a certain level of skill.
Passing a judgement requires knowing what happened when there are often imperfect witnesses who may or may not be lying. It ends up being a judgement call, and a 4% error rate on judgement calls is actually pretty darn good.
To put it another way, a 1% error rate in TCP communication is phenomenally bad. A 1% error rate in diagnosing diseases is phenomenally good. A 1% error rate in settling small claims court issues is incredible.
I think it is a much more severe punishment to have a guilty person rot in jail for the rest of their life without the possibility of release.
Im not clear I understand you. If you are saying that killing is too brutal, but that rotting in prison is both worse and preferable, how is that justice?
If a man kills another in cold blood, killing him is as proprotional as you can get; and proportionality is the backbone of any working justice system. "Injustice" is when you go from "punishment fitting the crime" to "my emotional response demands a more severe punishment".
The US, as usual, is a social backwater. Canada and Mexico have both gotten rid of the death penalty and won't extradite to us if the accused might face it. Western Europe has eliminated it
Double posting, because I cant let this slide.
You're calling us a social backwater, and then comparing us to a country that has roaming drug cartels killing reporters at every turn? You're comparing us to europe, where no less than 4 authoritarian states have taken over in the last 70 years, where a man can be thrown in prison for exposing the crimes of Trifigura, and Political Correctness is at such an absurd level that a man can be imprisoned for saying anything on twitter that offends someone else?
Yea thats real forward thinking. And you wonder how those authoritarian states came to be. Forgive me, but if thats what constitutes "enlightenment" Im happy to stay in a "social backwater" where the government doesnt have veto power over my political ideology.
Words like "government" have meaning because a large number of people understand that meaning. You seem to have your own definition where the state does not have the right to enforce proportional punishment; thats good for you, but that doesnt mean you set the definition of the word.
Capital punishment isnt murder, in any dictionary you will find. If you want to write your own definition you can hardly complain when others misunderstand you.
The definition of what a government is includes its sovereignty-- that is, its ability to enforce its will within an area. That includes its laws, and the right of capital punishment.
'Mathematically-proven" is like using the word "clinical" in front of a toothpaste...means nothing other than to hype a product...
Er, no. Thats not what it means.
It means someone did an audit of something, and proved that that one piece does what its supposed to. Theyre probably talking about the crypto or comms bits.
Perhaps what theyre getting at is that there is a very limited network exposed portion of the software that is isolated from everything else, and is simply responsible for the creation of a control channel-- basically, a chip that just handles establishing the VPN, and allowing VPN'd comms in and nothing else.
It may be possible, in such a situation, to perform an audit which establishes that that code does exactly what it says it does, and nothing else. I understand such audits are possible, but generally very difficult with anything more complex than "hello world". Perhaps thats what they did here.
You're gonna have to accept that we live in an imperfect world with imperfect justice systems.
4% innocents on death row isnt great in absolute terms, but in relative terms, given how screwed up most things humans get involved with are, its pretty darn good.
1) murder refers to unlawful killing. The sovereign government of a state has the legal right to execute those who break its laws; this goes back to time immemorial.
2) Justice will necessarily involve "retribution" if it is to fit the crime. Anything along the lines of "rehabilitation" or "deterrence" stops being justice, because the length and severity of the "cure" will depend on its efficiacy-- wholly removing the concept of proportionality from the equation. Thus, if you could show that a shoplifter were still not rehabilitated after 20 years in a mental ward, or that your punishment were not an effective deterrent, you could rightly claim that more time was required. Justice, on the other hand, requires that there be a relationship between the crime committed and the punishment meted out.
3) We do it because there is a concept of "right" and "wrong", and those who violate that deserve a punishment. That it tends to deter others is icing on the cake.
The term "murder" has a very specific linguistic, and a very specific legal, meaning.
Neither of which you have expressed here. The state has always wielded the power of capital punishment in order to mete out retribution to those who break its rules. The term "murder" is reserved for the unlawful killing of one by another.
t's more that we don't want to be associated with people who insist that beheading is justice.
If the man has done crimes to deserve it, then its a lot more "justice" than consigning him to the mental health ward for time indeterminate until the state determines his thought processes are more "acceptable".
Something straight out of 1984, actually. You should read up on the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment; its always relevant in these discussions when it comes up every week or so.
TL;DR "punishment" is justice, "rehabilitation" turns a person with rights into a medical case with no rights.
You make the mistake of thinking that capital punishment is deterrence.
Our legal system is deterrence. Capital punishment is retributive punishment. Thats why its called a "penal system", a "justice system", "capital PUNISHMENT", etc.
There aren't a lot of ways to kill a man without significant pain. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or ignorant.
You ARE killing the person, presumably for some fairly heinous crime.
I guess Im not clear why "some degree of suffering" is considered an insurmountable problem. Obviously dont stretch it out, but this isnt supposed to be a picnic.
Any hard numbers on how much skirts would help? Because when I check how much "opening windows @ 55mph" vs "closed windows" affects my mileage, I cannot find any measurable difference (as measured my an OBD2 scanner). I get the impression that there just arent that many significant gains to be had in aerodynamics.
Slashdot Mirror
So the bible doesnt claim that all men are liars, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, there is noone righteous, not even one?
Thats an interesting theory you have, but-- as we're discussing evidence based beliefs here-- it has a surprising lack of evidence.
It is impossible for me to disagree with this. Have several dozen tracking/market intelligence/stat gathering firms blackholed in DNS where creative use of DNS to implement tracking cookies do not work.
Let me get this straight: You think it a good idea to attempt to subvert a standard to make it incredibly difficult for the biggest users of said standard to use it?
Yea, let me know how that turns out.
people looking to solve problems without consideration of second order effects of their solutions.
Attempting to solve the so called "privacy issue" when A) the primary users of the standards will reject your solution; B) the primary consumers do not care; and C) this is a political, not a technical, problem; all demonstrates pretty neatly the issue you describe. You're going to end up with another massive failure like the "Do Not Track" fiasco, that just about everyone with a clue predicted would fail from the moment there was a clamor to make it on-by-default.
I'm personally creeped out by hoards of stalkers following me everywhere I go
If you're visiting websites with trackers, and youre upset that they are tracking you, I have bad news: Nothing will change the fact that the webhost has logs of your visit, and no standard can fix that. If you dont trust the webhost not to track you, stop visiting them.
I dont think you need to be deeply familiar with the issue to recognize his complaints as rubbish. Hes basically saying "what we have now isnt perfect, so we should go back to committee for about 15 years before issuing a new spec rather than using what we have that works right now."
Yea, thats a great idea. Is this guy a career bureaucrat?
If you can passively listen, you can almost certainly insert stuff into the stream.
Its unfortunate that slashdot doesnt allow editing or deletion of posts, because I jumped the gun and posted without reading your full post.
I Googled Trifigura and nothing relevant came up. Perhaps you can let me know what you're talking about there.
If you're in Europe, thats not terribly surprising: There was a superinjunction gag order issued to keep the whole thing under wraps, but the general fuzzy details were reported by the Guardian. Famously, a member of parliament tried to sidestep the superinjunction with parliamentary privilege, but IIRC that somehow got shut down.
Basically, Trifigura has been dumping some fairly toxic stuff illegally in Africa, and severely understating the risks to the locals there who they are paying for the privilege. All of that is generally a matter of fact, and isnt really disputed (perhaps Trifigura would?). The kicker is that Trifigura is claiming defamation (or slander or libel-- not clear which), and they won their case; so because reporting real world facts could cause "damage", it is illegal.
This isnt isolated, either; it is (AFAIK) not legal to host a default router passwords site in germany because that, too, could be damaging, so a fairly famous default passwords sites a number of years ago had to relocate. There was even a case recently where a judge ruled that, the mere fact that a statement is true does not defend against a defamation claim. As I recall there was a fairly major court case a number of years ago as well regarding a full disclosure of security issues in the underground of one of the EU countries.
So, speaking truth is now illegal in parts of Europe if it happens to be uncomfortable to various parties. That is what
which is a far cry from "a man can be imprisoned for saying anything on twitter that offends someone else".
2012, UK Teens Arrested, jailed
2013, 2 arrested for "suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred"
2014, Teens arrested, placed on bail for "racist" tweets
Im afraid I am not as hopeful as you regarding European free speech. The push to "PC" seems just too strong.
and I didn't receive ONE ounce of support, only mocking for not having the right equipment for their software.
Sounds like you had an unsupported graphics card.
A lot of these programs have a "supported configs" list. Very often they will involve workstation graphics cards, which have a different set of drivers which the software is targetted at. That would explain why theyre giving you a hard time: you're not meeting their minimum supported configuration, and then complaining that they arent supporting it.
Not all situations are the same. "Not dropping a baby" isnt hard and doesnt require perfect knowledge. Landing a plane requires a certain level of skill.
Passing a judgement requires knowing what happened when there are often imperfect witnesses who may or may not be lying. It ends up being a judgement call, and a 4% error rate on judgement calls is actually pretty darn good.
To put it another way, a 1% error rate in TCP communication is phenomenally bad. A 1% error rate in diagnosing diseases is phenomenally good. A 1% error rate in settling small claims court issues is incredible.
I think it is a much more severe punishment to have a guilty person rot in jail for the rest of their life without the possibility of release.
Im not clear I understand you. If you are saying that killing is too brutal, but that rotting in prison is both worse and preferable, how is that justice?
If a man kills another in cold blood, killing him is as proprotional as you can get; and proportionality is the backbone of any working justice system. "Injustice" is when you go from "punishment fitting the crime" to "my emotional response demands a more severe punishment".
The US, as usual, is a social backwater. Canada and Mexico have both gotten rid of the death penalty and won't extradite to us if the accused might face it. Western Europe has eliminated it
Double posting, because I cant let this slide.
You're calling us a social backwater, and then comparing us to a country that has roaming drug cartels killing reporters at every turn? You're comparing us to europe, where no less than 4 authoritarian states have taken over in the last 70 years, where a man can be thrown in prison for exposing the crimes of Trifigura, and Political Correctness is at such an absurd level that a man can be imprisoned for saying anything on twitter that offends someone else?
Yea thats real forward thinking. And you wonder how those authoritarian states came to be. Forgive me, but if thats what constitutes "enlightenment" Im happy to stay in a "social backwater" where the government doesnt have veto power over my political ideology.
Words like "government" have meaning because a large number of people understand that meaning. You seem to have your own definition where the state does not have the right to enforce proportional punishment; thats good for you, but that doesnt mean you set the definition of the word.
Capital punishment isnt murder, in any dictionary you will find. If you want to write your own definition you can hardly complain when others misunderstand you.
The definition of what a government is includes its sovereignty-- that is, its ability to enforce its will within an area. That includes its laws, and the right of capital punishment.
'Mathematically-proven" is like using the word "clinical" in front of a toothpaste...means nothing other than to hype a product...
Er, no. Thats not what it means.
It means someone did an audit of something, and proved that that one piece does what its supposed to. Theyre probably talking about the crypto or comms bits.
Perhaps what theyre getting at is that there is a very limited network exposed portion of the software that is isolated from everything else, and is simply responsible for the creation of a control channel-- basically, a chip that just handles establishing the VPN, and allowing VPN'd comms in and nothing else.
It may be possible, in such a situation, to perform an audit which establishes that that code does exactly what it says it does, and nothing else. I understand such audits are possible, but generally very difficult with anything more complex than "hello world". Perhaps thats what they did here.
If you think it's anywhere near 10%, you are deluding yourself. But as I said, even one is too many.
Better close all of the jails then. We're never going to get 0% false positives because we dont have omniscient judges or honest criminals.
You're gonna have to accept that we live in an imperfect world with imperfect justice systems.
4% innocents on death row isnt great in absolute terms, but in relative terms, given how screwed up most things humans get involved with are, its pretty darn good.
1) murder refers to unlawful killing. The sovereign government of a state has the legal right to execute those who break its laws; this goes back to time immemorial.
2) Justice will necessarily involve "retribution" if it is to fit the crime. Anything along the lines of "rehabilitation" or "deterrence" stops being justice, because the length and severity of the "cure" will depend on its efficiacy-- wholly removing the concept of proportionality from the equation. Thus, if you could show that a shoplifter were still not rehabilitated after 20 years in a mental ward, or that your punishment were not an effective deterrent, you could rightly claim that more time was required. Justice, on the other hand, requires that there be a relationship between the crime committed and the punishment meted out.
3) We do it because there is a concept of "right" and "wrong", and those who violate that deserve a punishment. That it tends to deter others is icing on the cake.
The term "murder" has a very specific linguistic, and a very specific legal, meaning.
Neither of which you have expressed here. The state has always wielded the power of capital punishment in order to mete out retribution to those who break its rules. The term "murder" is reserved for the unlawful killing of one by another.
t's more that we don't want to be associated with people who insist that beheading is justice.
If the man has done crimes to deserve it, then its a lot more "justice" than consigning him to the mental health ward for time indeterminate until the state determines his thought processes are more "acceptable".
Something straight out of 1984, actually. You should read up on the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment; its always relevant in these discussions when it comes up every week or so.
TL;DR "punishment" is justice, "rehabilitation" turns a person with rights into a medical case with no rights.
You make the mistake of thinking that capital punishment is deterrence.
Our legal system is deterrence. Capital punishment is retributive punishment. Thats why its called a "penal system", a "justice system", "capital PUNISHMENT", etc.
There aren't a lot of ways to kill a man without significant pain. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or ignorant.
You ARE killing the person, presumably for some fairly heinous crime.
I guess Im not clear why "some degree of suffering" is considered an insurmountable problem. Obviously dont stretch it out, but this isnt supposed to be a picnic.
Any hard numbers on how much skirts would help? Because when I check how much "opening windows @ 55mph" vs "closed windows" affects my mileage, I cannot find any measurable difference (as measured my an OBD2 scanner). I get the impression that there just arent that many significant gains to be had in aerodynamics.
It just wouldnt be slashdot without all of the armchair lawyers. Which bar did you pass, again?
Ah, my mistake. Its still quite a remarkable operational service record.
Capitalism sucks, until you look at all of the attempts to replace it.