Yes I can see what your saying and I would have to add that trust usually involves some sort of experience.
If I was acquainted with someone who lied all the time ( and I was aware they were lying ), I wouldn't trust them ( obviously ). Likewise, if I've never found a Wikipedia article to be wrong, I would trust future ones I read. ( Not absolute trust, I always consider the possibility of incorrectness, whatever the source )
Your list is accurate, I can't argue with that. What I gripe with is that people seem to presume that various things ( like sources being anonymous, for example ) makes the entire thing untrustworthy.
One example is when people use Wikipedia during research and are marked down on it. If they used only Wikipedia then sure, that's bad research technique. But I've heard about it happening even if Wikipedia was only a starting point..
A case in point, perhaps, was when a family member refused to accept the definition of a word purely because it was "off the internet", despite the fact the exact same wording was used in our hardback dictionary.
I'm not being hypocritical and I fail to see how you could think I am.
You and my friend are sources of information. I would trust my friend more as he has a record of being honest. I wouldn't dismiss what he said on the sole basis of having read it on a Wiki ( whether I knew it was him or not ) just like I wouldn't take what you said as gospel if it was written in a book.
Wiki, website, books, TV.. the air. They are all just mediums in which information is shared. Why do you ( and others.. ) seem to think they one is more trustworthy than another?
is that it will mean 3 ( or more? ) distros being released at the same time, thinning out the potential test-bed. People will either have to start looking at only one distro or provide late reviews of the new distros.
What do they do if one isn't ready? Delay the others? If not, surely it would go 'out of sync'..?
As someone else said. Distros will ( and should in my opinion ) do whatever they want to do, pertaining to their configuration, release cycle, whatever..
In that, you can fight drunk ( it's one of the fighting styles ). [sarcasm]Of course, this promotes getting drunk and beating up people, demons and spirits. This is not acceptable.[/sarcasm]
I would imagine that people who would copy such dangerous things of games ( "Hey, let's go drink driving just like on GTA" ) are pre-disposed to do such things from any influence. Be it a game, television, book, imagination or even dreams. I am guessing these people are in the minority by a long shot and as such, punishing everyone is not the appropriate action.
imagine what you would have to go through to prove that it wasn't you with the illegal files. Would I need to do anything? Innocent until proven guilty, right? It would have to be down to them to prove I did download the files otherwise it would kind of be like someone going to jail because they had the same name as the criminal. An IP address is not unique to a person or device so I personally do not regard it as tangible evidence. Law/judge/jury/your opinion, of course, may vary.
machines on the local network are less of a threat because you can trust them Unfortunately, I only administer 3 of the 5 active machines on my network and the other two? Well.. one is used by someone who will open absolutely anything without question and runs in the administrator group ( Windows XP ) and the other is constantly plagued by malware/viruses/etc. despite various protection applications ( also Windows XP ).
In addition, only myself and my other half ( to some degree ) are concerned with such things as security and Net Neutrality, but I am not in control of all the computers on the network. So you can see, not being in control of + being operated by people who don't care = lack of trust of other locally networked computers:)
If you were to follow that route, i.e. you are ultimately responsible for your connection and everything that passes through it, is it possible to sue the owner of every machine an e-mail passes through for damages if a virus contained in that email infects your machine? I can't say this with any authority or solid knowldege but.. I don't think so.
What about things such as botnets? Can the owners of zombie machines be prosecuted? Again, I don't think they can.
The way I see it, the only people who are guilty of anything in the case of downloading illegal material are those that provide it or acquire it. Though I suppose one could argue that you facilitated it by providing a connection. My response to that however would be: But was that an intent?
I think it is safe to say I would mind unauthorised access to my machine or being infected with a virus/worm but what you say sounds like ( to me ) a machine is more vulnerable to machines on the local network than the wide network. I've always believed that a machine on the other side of the world is as much a threat to mine as any other, even on my local network.
I can see your point, it could cost you money ( if you get charged for usage over your cap ) or even your connection.
Would it be possible to identify "outside" usage and have the router throttle the speed to, say, 5kbs and cap it at 25% of your maximum usage? Then it would be there, albeit slowly and limited, for others to use if needed, but not to have any significant impact on the owner of the connection ( or the ISP? )
The key difference being that those are all tangible items which suffer from a detrimental effect when they are used ( wear and tear, decrease in amount etc. ) while bandwidth is not tangible and does not suffer a detrimental effect. In other words, someone using your car costs you money, someone using your bandwidth costs you nothing ( monetary anyway, please note my last point in this post )
If everyone/most people shared their wireless, the ability to access the internet from anywhere would increase substantially. Yes, there would be free-loaders and there probably always will be but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make something better in my opinion.
Though I don't use Wi-Fi, if I did, my main reason for having it secured would be that if someone used my connection to do something illegal, I am not confident it would not be me that gets blamed.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I can see what your saying and I would have to add that trust usually involves some sort of experience.
If I was acquainted with someone who lied all the time ( and I was aware they were lying ), I wouldn't trust them ( obviously ). Likewise, if I've never found a Wikipedia article to be wrong, I would trust future ones I read. ( Not absolute trust, I always consider the possibility of incorrectness, whatever the source )
Your list is accurate, I can't argue with that. What I gripe with is that people seem to presume that various things ( like sources being anonymous, for example ) makes the entire thing untrustworthy.
One example is when people use Wikipedia during research and are marked down on it. If they used only Wikipedia then sure, that's bad research technique. But I've heard about it happening even if Wikipedia was only a starting point..
A case in point, perhaps, was when a family member refused to accept the definition of a word purely because it was "off the internet", despite the fact the exact same wording was used in our hardback dictionary.
.. the fact it wouldn't affect people who already hear voices.
I fail to see why they would need to know who watched the videos.. uploader? Maybe, but viewers?
I'm not being hypocritical and I fail to see how you could think I am.
You and my friend are sources of information. I would trust my friend more as he has a record of being honest. I wouldn't dismiss what he said on the sole basis of having read it on a Wiki ( whether I knew it was him or not ) just like I wouldn't take what you said as gospel if it was written in a book.
Wiki, website, books, TV.. the air. They are all just mediums in which information is shared. Why do you ( and others.. ) seem to think they one is more trustworthy than another?
I thought it was innocent until proven guilty?
And if you get the pirated/cracked version, you won't have to activate it.. ever.
AKA Babies?
iUniverse? :)
is that it will mean 3 ( or more? ) distros being released at the same time, thinning out the potential test-bed. People will either have to start looking at only one distro or provide late reviews of the new distros.
What do they do if one isn't ready? Delay the others? If not, surely it would go 'out of sync'..?
As someone else said. Distros will ( and should in my opinion ) do whatever they want to do, pertaining to their configuration, release cycle, whatever..
At least that kept me reading from start to finish. In some books the first 2 paragraphs nearly force you to put the book down.
Oops.. $Post =~ s/importance/important/;
I feel the same way. There is a very importance distinction between the two, duration.
Fear lasts longer than a second.
.. at the release of Jade Empire?
In that, you can fight drunk ( it's one of the fighting styles ). [sarcasm]Of course, this promotes getting drunk and beating up people, demons and spirits. This is not acceptable.[/sarcasm]
I would imagine that people who would copy such dangerous things of games ( "Hey, let's go drink driving just like on GTA" ) are pre-disposed to do such things from any influence. Be it a game, television, book, imagination or even dreams. I am guessing these people are in the minority by a long shot and as such, punishing everyone is not the appropriate action.
I see your sarcastic tone and raise you a witty reply.
...
No, honestly, it is around here somewhere. I think my girlfriend has it..
In addition, only myself and my other half ( to some degree ) are concerned with such things as security and Net Neutrality, but I am not in control of all the computers on the network. So you can see, not being in control of + being operated by people who don't care = lack of trust of other locally networked computers
If you were to follow that route, i.e. you are ultimately responsible for your connection and everything that passes through it, is it possible to sue the owner of every machine an e-mail passes through for damages if a virus contained in that email infects your machine? I can't say this with any authority or solid knowldege but.. I don't think so.
What about things such as botnets? Can the owners of zombie machines be prosecuted? Again, I don't think they can.
The way I see it, the only people who are guilty of anything in the case of downloading illegal material are those that provide it or acquire it. Though I suppose one could argue that you facilitated it by providing a connection. My response to that however would be:
But was that an intent?
I think it is safe to say I would mind unauthorised access to my machine or being infected with a virus/worm but what you say sounds like ( to me ) a machine is more vulnerable to machines on the local network than the wide network. I've always believed that a machine on the other side of the world is as much a threat to mine as any other, even on my local network.
I can see your point, it could cost you money ( if you get charged for usage over your cap ) or even your connection.
Would it be possible to identify "outside" usage and have the router throttle the speed to, say, 5kbs and cap it at 25% of your maximum usage? Then it would be there, albeit slowly and limited, for others to use if needed, but not to have any significant impact on the owner of the connection ( or the ISP? )
Note to self:
:)
Don't forget wallet at this persons house or let my girlfriend visit it alone.
The key difference being that those are all tangible items which suffer from a detrimental effect when they are used ( wear and tear, decrease in amount etc. ) while bandwidth is not tangible and does not suffer a detrimental effect. In other words, someone using your car costs you money, someone using your bandwidth costs you nothing ( monetary anyway, please note my last point in this post )
If everyone/most people shared their wireless, the ability to access the internet from anywhere would increase substantially. Yes, there would be free-loaders and there probably always will be but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make something better in my opinion.
Though I don't use Wi-Fi, if I did, my main reason for having it secured would be that if someone used my connection to do something illegal, I am not confident it would not be me that gets blamed.