It depends on how you present that list. Spamhaus isn't saying "this is a list of people we don't like". They're saying, "this is a list of people engaged in sending spam". Spamming is a negative and sometimes criminal behavior. If you're going to publish a list of people and accuse them of something criminal you'd better be prepared to defend that list.
I see, so if they described it differently you'd be okay with that? What if they use spamming in the "negative" and not the "sometimes criminal" way? How do you know the difference?
The answer is that you don't, and it's retarded to suggest that the judgement would not have come down if they merely changed the wording so that the list is of "suspected" spammers.
It's a strawman because the original poster was neither talking about people who want e-voting, nor was he "defending" it, as you ascribed to him in your reply. You then go on to posit a hypothetical "What if the advocacy you are not actually standing up for was practiced by the majority party in the state (or the non-incumbent party, you don't really specify). You turn it into a Republican vs. Democrat argument that the original poster never asserted, then ask him to respond to the reversal of an imaginary position that he didn't take until you baited him with your reply. He fell for it, but your arguments had nothing to do with the original post.
You bring up a strawman hypothetical and then get all huffed up when someone takes your bait.
Sociopath much?
Believing people who you don't agree with are literally out to get you and will do anything at all costs, no matter how immoral or illegal or unethical, is not healthy for our political system as a whole.
This is pretty much the nutshell modus operandi of the GOP of late.
What a scary world we live in when I am frightened to even click on your link for fear of seeing pictures, which despite my total lack of sexual interest in, could still land me in prison, just for having viewed them on my computer.
I appreciate your comments explaining another perspective on this issue. It's always good to have as many angles represented on contentious issues. However, your points are not really germane to the story.
What Danese Cooper says is wrong. I and many other members of the OpenSolaris project know for certain that SUN did not create the CDDL to be purposefully incompatible with the GPL.
This does not contradict the stance holding that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL.
In addition, what the maintainers have failed to mention is that they have repatedly introduced patches to the codebase that have broken or otherwise caused problems in the cdrtools codebase.
This has nothing to do with the license.
In addition, there are currently problems with Debian's Free Software Guidelines. Notably that the project does not consistently enforce them because many rules are not explicitly written, instead each software is judged on a case-by-case interpretation making it difficult for upstream developers to comply and those interpretations themselves are not always consistent.
In light of this, it would be an act in the name of consistency to further exclude other CDDL projects. It seems you are arguing for the inconsistency to be applied to cdrtools rather than fighting for greater consistency. A predictable reaction to the situation you describe could be to acknowledge the problems between the CDDL and the GPL and frame the controversy in this way, but when projects with incompatible licenses point to other problems in Debians inclusion choices in order to slip themselves through the gate it just poisons the well further rather than attempting to help satisfy Debian's goals.
I don't know what bulletin boards have to do with this. I figure you're specifically talking about single-factor authorization. Whether the no-username-password is encrypted or the no-password-username is encrypted (or kept in the clear as with passworded usernames) is irrelevant. One piece of information for login is what you're talking about and it is well-established that this is not as secure as methods involving more elements of information being used to identify the user.
How many Google Maps mashups have you made if any? They are not as easy as you think.
Well aren't we aggressive today. In fact I am working on a "Where to refill your bike's water bottle in San Francisco" mashup as I type. I haven't found that I need 11 chapters to get as far as I have.
But then again, you already know how easy I think they are so I'll probably not get very far anyway, since I obviously think they're easy and I am obviously mistaken, dick.
AJAX, a new combination of technologies that allows Web pages to be refreshed asynchronously, providing a faster user interface.
This is pretty much the same as every other AJAX definition. I prefer something that touches on pages refreshing in the background, but I'm given to simpler terminology than the too-nerdy "asynchronously." YMMV.
For example, cable companies get paid to carry the home shopping channel and if you drop it you will end up paying more for the other chans.
And the cable company making more money off of certain customers is a bad idea why? Look at what you wrote and tell me there's not something else going on, because if the alternative is more revenue then there's no economic benefit for the cable companies not to offer a la carte. Surely you're not suggesting they're holding it back as a favor to their customers' wallets, are you?
The number of "highbrow" people has been in steady decline since the fifties. What we called high culture then has been becoming less and less popular concurrently. The modern man does not go to museums, listen to operas, read poetry or serious fiction, or, for that matter, read much of anything at all. He has replaced it with television, its reality shows and Fox news; he buys widescreen sets, useless (but entertaining) gadgets, and ugly comfortable couches upon which to sit and drink beer on sundays. Most don't own any books, paintings, or musical instruments.
Who are all of those people I see lined up at the symphony, bookstores and museums, Mario Mushrooms?
On the job, they should have *zero* right to privacy.
Not only that, but every law broken by a police officer should carry special enhancements for occurring under the color of authority. If sentencing minimums happen to survive their current challenges they should reserve some extra time in the clink for cops who go bad. But then again, I think any crime committed by a cop should be an automatic felony.
But apparently, the sticker was too small to be reasonably noticable.
Right, yet if someone were holding a piece of floppy asparagus they'd have their head shot off for threatening the po-po with what "looked like a gun." The police are eminently capable of noticing small things, except perhaps when it works against them.
There's a statement of fact; it might pass as a premise. From there you jump to a conclusion: I'm an idiot. Where's your argument??? I know step 1, and step 3 is profit, but you left out step 2 again.
Hey now, it was submitted by "A Reader," which we all know is a codeword for a paid submission. Likely by Parexel? It'd sure be a new frontier in astroturfing if so.
If you want to bike competitivly and leverage technology, you need to learn to swim and run, too, because it's traithlon (USAT) that lets you do pretty much anything.
There's nothing wrong with MS bidding, just like everyone else.
Right, fine. In the equally hypothetical world where Microsoft doesn't make these threats when negotiating partnerships. Keep in mind while you're haughtily praising your own objectivity that they've been found to negotiate in bad faith more than not. Y'know...in the unhypothetical world.
Preventing Microsoft from being one of the bidders only hurts OEMs, as a smaller bidder pool results in smaller bids. You would have Dell settle for 5 million from Google, when they could've gotten 6 million from Microsoft, or 7 million from Google having to outbid Microsoft (for example).
Since we're talking about the hypothetical benefit of Microsoft being able to bid here, let's consider the hypothetical harm. If Dell would have gotten 5mil from Google, or 6mil from Ask.com, why would they consider those when they could accept Microsoft's bid of $2mil under a threat to renegotiate their per-copy fee for pre-installed copies of Windows? So who's benefitting again?
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on how you present that list. Spamhaus isn't saying "this is a list of people we don't like". They're saying, "this is a list of people engaged in sending spam". Spamming is a negative and sometimes criminal behavior. If you're going to publish a list of people and accuse them of something criminal you'd better be prepared to defend that list.
I see, so if they described it differently you'd be okay with that? What if they use spamming in the "negative" and not the "sometimes criminal" way? How do you know the difference?
The answer is that you don't, and it's retarded to suggest that the judgement would not have come down if they merely changed the wording so that the list is of "suspected" spammers.
There's the guy who took the money out of Jimi's mouth!
Well obviously the story was submitted by an envious UGA student or alum!
The torture one is. The sad thing is it may be too late as it is about to be passed into law (Only Bush has to sign it).
And straight away it'll be challenged in court. It ain't over yet.
It's a strawman because the original poster was neither talking about people who want e-voting, nor was he "defending" it, as you ascribed to him in your reply. You then go on to posit a hypothetical "What if the advocacy you are not actually standing up for was practiced by the majority party in the state (or the non-incumbent party, you don't really specify). You turn it into a Republican vs. Democrat argument that the original poster never asserted, then ask him to respond to the reversal of an imaginary position that he didn't take until you baited him with your reply. He fell for it, but your arguments had nothing to do with the original post.
You bring up a strawman hypothetical and then get all huffed up when someone takes your bait.
Sociopath much?
Believing people who you don't agree with are literally out to get you and will do anything at all costs, no matter how immoral or illegal or unethical, is not healthy for our political system as a whole.
This is pretty much the nutshell modus operandi of the GOP of late.
What a scary world we live in when I am frightened to even click on your link for fear of seeing pictures, which despite my total lack of sexual interest in, could still land me in prison, just for having viewed them on my computer.
Land of the free, home of the brave.
Capitalism has never been anything to do with right, wrong, good or evil, it's about self interest.
Self-interest does not eliminate "right, wrong, good or evil."
Capitalism is a religion just like any other.
I appreciate your comments explaining another perspective on this issue. It's always good to have as many angles represented on contentious issues. However, your points are not really germane to the story.
What Danese Cooper says is wrong. I and many other members of the OpenSolaris project know for certain that SUN did not create the CDDL to be purposefully incompatible with the GPL.
This does not contradict the stance holding that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL.
In addition, what the maintainers have failed to mention is that they have repatedly introduced patches to the codebase that have broken or otherwise caused problems in the cdrtools codebase.
This has nothing to do with the license.
In addition, there are currently problems with Debian's Free Software Guidelines. Notably that the project does not consistently enforce them because many rules are not explicitly written, instead each software is judged on a case-by-case interpretation making it difficult for upstream developers to comply and those interpretations themselves are not always consistent.
In light of this, it would be an act in the name of consistency to further exclude other CDDL projects. It seems you are arguing for the inconsistency to be applied to cdrtools rather than fighting for greater consistency. A predictable reaction to the situation you describe could be to acknowledge the problems between the CDDL and the GPL and frame the controversy in this way, but when projects with incompatible licenses point to other problems in Debians inclusion choices in order to slip themselves through the gate it just poisons the well further rather than attempting to help satisfy Debian's goals.
Usernames are public (say it's a bulletin board).
I don't know what bulletin boards have to do with this. I figure you're specifically talking about single-factor authorization. Whether the no-username-password is encrypted or the no-password-username is encrypted (or kept in the clear as with passworded usernames) is irrelevant. One piece of information for login is what you're talking about and it is well-established that this is not as secure as methods involving more elements of information being used to identify the user.
In a recent job I asked why we stick to login/password? Why not have just passwords?
So...what's the difference between this and having only usernames?
How many Google Maps mashups have you made if any? They are not as easy as you think.
Well aren't we aggressive today. In fact I am working on a "Where to refill your bike's water bottle in San Francisco" mashup as I type. I haven't found that I need 11 chapters to get as far as I have.
But then again, you already know how easy I think they are so I'll probably not get very far anyway, since I obviously think they're easy and I am obviously mistaken, dick.
AJAX, a new combination of technologies that allows Web pages to be refreshed asynchronously, providing a faster user interface.
This is pretty much the same as every other AJAX definition. I prefer something that touches on pages refreshing in the background, but I'm given to simpler terminology than the too-nerdy "asynchronously." YMMV.
There's a whole book for this?
For example, cable companies get paid to carry the home shopping channel and if you drop it you will end up paying more for the other chans.
And the cable company making more money off of certain customers is a bad idea why? Look at what you wrote and tell me there's not something else going on, because if the alternative is more revenue then there's no economic benefit for the cable companies not to offer a la carte. Surely you're not suggesting they're holding it back as a favor to their customers' wallets, are you?
The number of "highbrow" people has been in steady decline since the fifties. What we called high culture then has been becoming less and less popular concurrently. The modern man does not go to museums, listen to operas, read poetry or serious fiction, or, for that matter, read much of anything at all. He has replaced it with television, its reality shows and Fox news; he buys widescreen sets, useless (but entertaining) gadgets, and ugly comfortable couches upon which to sit and drink beer on sundays. Most don't own any books, paintings, or musical instruments.
Who are all of those people I see lined up at the symphony, bookstores and museums, Mario Mushrooms?
On the job, they should have *zero* right to privacy.
Not only that, but every law broken by a police officer should carry special enhancements for occurring under the color of authority. If sentencing minimums happen to survive their current challenges they should reserve some extra time in the clink for cops who go bad. But then again, I think any crime committed by a cop should be an automatic felony.
But apparently, the sticker was too small to be reasonably noticable.
Right, yet if someone were holding a piece of floppy asparagus they'd have their head shot off for threatening the po-po with what "looked like a gun." The police are eminently capable of noticing small things, except perhaps when it works against them.
There's a statement of fact; it might pass as a premise. From there you jump to a conclusion: I'm an idiot. Where's your argument??? I know step 1, and step 3 is profit, but you left out step 2 again.
Pot is fun!
>>Police had charged that Gannon violated state wiretap laws by recording officers without their knowledge while they were standing on his front porch
>I think they do not even want to go down that road of reasoning.
Remember, in most parts of the US you only need a high school diploma to become a police officer.
Hey now, it was submitted by "A Reader," which we all know is a codeword for a paid submission. Likely by Parexel? It'd sure be a new frontier in astroturfing if so.
Did you even bother to read the Wikipedia article you're linking to?
No, I've been too busy celebrating the US's 750th Birthday.
If you want to bike competitivly and leverage technology, you need to learn to swim and run, too, because it's traithlon (USAT) that lets you do pretty much anything.
Except ride in a pack and draft other racers.
There's nothing wrong with MS bidding, just like everyone else.
Right, fine. In the equally hypothetical world where Microsoft doesn't make these threats when negotiating partnerships. Keep in mind while you're haughtily praising your own objectivity that they've been found to negotiate in bad faith more than not. Y'know...in the unhypothetical world.
I'd ban the advertising company from my site after a stunt like this, no matter how much money they bring in.
Let me guess, you generally don't receive advertising money.
Preventing Microsoft from being one of the bidders only hurts OEMs, as a smaller bidder pool results in smaller bids. You would have Dell settle for 5 million from Google, when they could've gotten 6 million from Microsoft, or 7 million from Google having to outbid Microsoft (for example).
Since we're talking about the hypothetical benefit of Microsoft being able to bid here, let's consider the hypothetical harm. If Dell would have gotten 5mil from Google, or 6mil from Ask.com, why would they consider those when they could accept Microsoft's bid of $2mil under a threat to renegotiate their per-copy fee for pre-installed copies of Windows? So who's benefitting again?