The point actually is: Facebook (and/or other such sites) gives you three basic privacy settings:
- No one can see it (private) - Some people can see it (friends only, friends and friends of friends only, etc: semi-private) - Everyone can see it (public)
When you configure your data to "semi-private", you're expecting the site to bind to that setting. But Facebook is full of such configurations, separated from eachother, where:
- You configure it on the most visible part (your profile), but it doesn't affect all categories (ads, apps, etc.) - The default is public
Hence you expect that the privacy settings in such sites would be actually very well defined.
Note that the point is _not_ if you configure your data to be semi-private then one of your friends sell it to the news at 11. It's about Facebook respecting it.
I'm sorry about your bad experience. I've known someone like that.
But I disagree that it relates to the main subject. It's not that the girl/woman doesn't feel the pain. Most likely, it's just that she doesn't care when it isn't *her* pain. Her asking you why you stopped calling claiming that it hurt is an indication of that. Maybe the subject lacks the ability to abstract that would allow her to think something like:
"I didn't like when it happened to me, so I won't do it to people".
Or she just partakes on the kind of people that think:
"I didn't like when it happened to me, so I'll do it first".
Or even more likely, she considers having a nice guy, say like you, on her phonebook as more important than telling that guy that she got someone more interesting at the moment and lose him as a potential pair for the future.
I don't think that Microsoft would be that happy with a rogue version of WinXP for the following reasons:
1. Microsoft already have the huge majority of the PC market (not to mention Windows based market : ), they don't need piracy to expand it. They're more likely eager to capitalize on the market they already have, and piracy doesn't return them any money. 2. They have sufficiently demonstrated in the past 10 years that they were looking to hurt piracy by trying successive types of anti-piracy code in their software and insisting in anti-piracy campaigns. 3. They're eager to get rid of WinXP to sell Windows 7, and a rogue version of WinXP would have a fair chance of becoming a new competitor and steal the users that should have migrated and paid for their new shiny OS version.
So they're probably actually applauding the chinese gov. initiative.
Lovely speech, hereby resumed for the sake of any incautious reader: impossible to reason with you unless there's a gun on your head (and even that is not guaranteed).
Since I don't have any intention of doing that to anyone, go skin another cat in peace. With some luck you'll get to your senses before being arrested.
Now back to the topic, the technician who installed a database for police records and did not set something as basic as a root password may have to accept his destiny as a fair stock clerk, or he could provide itinerant speeches of how important it is to be more careful.
The responsible for choosing that technician should at least lose his bonus.
Not punishing such lack of responsibility only favors more sloppiness.
Michael Vick paid for his crime and is about to get back to his life. I hope he learned the lesson and I wish him welcome back in that case. I'd love to see him advocating against cruelty to animals.
Sorry, I didn't put enough emphasis in what I was stressing. My point is not to avoid harm to whatever living beings at any cost, but to not accept such harm when it comes simply and merely from cruelty.
Following one of your counter-examples, when you wash your hands you're not doing it merely to make the bacteria suffer (I hope!) but to avoid getting ill and possibly dying yourself.
It's cruelty that I'm targeting, and that's the kind of action which yes, must be taught to be avoided and punished with increasing severity.
But I get really worried when you say "pretend that pet animals have some sort of intellect". If you said "pretend that they understand every word we say", I'd nod. But you're simply negating the various levels of intelligence found in every animal. As if intelligence was something that is or is not... That's SO much like the "similar cases"!
Speaking of which, when you dismiss my "similar cases" because they all involve humans, maybe you ignore that people who apply those arguments could care less about that "coincidence" and some wouldn't even agree to that statement (that they're all humans). You set your bar on "humans", I'm telling you to set your bar on "sentient beings".
But don't forget: all that is to go together, so it's a no no to use examples like washing hands or killing to not starve.
I sincerely hope that you're not trying to justify being one of the 1 out of 10 or half of the adolescents you cited.
Cruelty is unacceptable, unethical and unjustifiable.
This looks dangerously OT, but here it goes anyway.
Your point: that's because they're just animals, while we are humans.
I'll make you the favor of transposing your argument to some other similar cases: - They're just slaves, while we are their masters. - They're just savages, while we are civilized. - They're just jews, while we are.. not? - They're just palestines, while we are jews. - They're just black/asian/whatever, while we are white.... My point: cruelty is bad. You should avoid it regardless of who or what's the target. Don't take any past events as proof that it's ok to repeat them. Someone's ego should never have priority over the well being of anything with a clear identifiable level of sentience.
I went to read the thread from around the message pointed by the article.
What I saw was a nervous breakdown from Mr. Cox because he had too much pressure on him and wasn't able to accept that his proposal was less optimal than that from others. See: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/28/612
Sorry for your bad experience, but it's a bit OT. Opera was doing a tender for new hardware. Applying companies with a minimum level of reason wouldn't apply with interfaces intentionally negating Opera Browser unless they had spare budget for pranks, which seems unlikely.
There are many, many levels of ignorance. Everyone with no exception is victim of many of them at once. I, for instance, ignored many of the mentioned Gecko-based browsers. You, for instance, ignore that corporate costs with Customer Care are not only based on a browser using the same rendering engine, but also on how padronized the browser interfaces can be so that the Customer Care Agent can guide a less clued user through a set of predefined steps.
Because a reasonable site owner may not want to spend money on Customer Service for browsers that have less than 1% market share. It's cheaper to push the cost to the consumer telling him to install one of the supported browsers.
And it looks like the article also missed your point, since it says how intercepting packets in public internet is not the problem, but infecting your machine to sniff them from the source.
But isn't the point about usefulness of Copyright itself, not the GPL?
If I'm not mistaken, the justification for Copyright is to protect the wishes of whoever make something.
If Copyright is abolished completely, only some (minority? of) people will still be motivated to produce whatsoever, given that their wishes match a reality where Copyright cannot be protected. The rest of the people may just decide that having their wishes disrespected is too much a hassle.
Among such wishes we could list:
- Making a living out of the inventions: disrespected when inventions are copied and hurts the inventor's income. - Making fame out of the inventions: disrespected when inventions are copied and renamed so that the original inventor's name is replaced by another.
My ideal world is one where Copyright and things like the GPL exist together and where particularly restrictive Copyrights never last more than the inventor's life span, when whatever was copyrighted would fall into a state of GPL-ness or something alike: no more money owned, do whatever you like with it, but preserve the memory of the inventor.
Loved the punch line, but I guess I can't read either. I went to check BSD but failed to find the motive of comparison to the "including neighbour murdering". Care to cite some examples?
Slashdot Mirror
Here, one more to your list: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1340361&cid=29125983
The point actually is: Facebook (and/or other such sites) gives you three basic privacy settings:
- No one can see it (private)
- Some people can see it (friends only, friends and friends of friends only, etc: semi-private)
- Everyone can see it (public)
When you configure your data to "semi-private", you're expecting the site to bind to that setting. But Facebook is full of such configurations, separated from eachother, where:
- You configure it on the most visible part (your profile), but it doesn't affect all categories (ads, apps, etc.)
- The default is public
Hence you expect that the privacy settings in such sites would be actually very well defined.
Note that the point is _not_ if you configure your data to be semi-private then one of your friends sell it to the news at 11. It's about Facebook respecting it.
I'm sorry about your bad experience. I've known someone like that.
But I disagree that it relates to the main subject. It's not that the girl/woman doesn't feel the pain. Most likely, it's just that she doesn't care when it isn't *her* pain. Her asking you why you stopped calling claiming that it hurt is an indication of that. Maybe the subject lacks the ability to abstract that would allow her to think something like:
"I didn't like when it happened to me, so I won't do it to people".
Or she just partakes on the kind of people that think:
"I didn't like when it happened to me, so I'll do it first".
Or even more likely, she considers having a nice guy, say like you, on her phonebook as more important than telling that guy that she got someone more interesting at the moment and lose him as a potential pair for the future.
I don't think that Microsoft would be that happy with a rogue version of WinXP for the following reasons:
1. Microsoft already have the huge majority of the PC market (not to mention Windows based market : ), they don't need piracy to expand it. They're more likely eager to capitalize on the market they already have, and piracy doesn't return them any money.
2. They have sufficiently demonstrated in the past 10 years that they were looking to hurt piracy by trying successive types of anti-piracy code in their software and insisting in anti-piracy campaigns.
3. They're eager to get rid of WinXP to sell Windows 7, and a rogue version of WinXP would have a fair chance of becoming a new competitor and steal the users that should have migrated and paid for their new shiny OS version.
So they're probably actually applauding the chinese gov. initiative.
Maybe only losing his bonus isn't enough a punishment. A small suspension may be due.
But I'm not sure I'd go as far as firing the guy, unless it's not his first goof.
Lovely speech, hereby resumed for the sake of any incautious reader: impossible to reason with you unless there's a gun on your head (and even that is not guaranteed).
Since I don't have any intention of doing that to anyone, go skin another cat in peace. With some luck you'll get to your senses before being arrested.
Now back to the topic, the technician who installed a database for police records and did not set something as basic as a root password may have to accept his destiny as a fair stock clerk, or he could provide itinerant speeches of how important it is to be more careful.
The responsible for choosing that technician should at least lose his bonus.
Not punishing such lack of responsibility only favors more sloppiness.
Michael Vick paid for his crime and is about to get back to his life. I hope he learned the lesson and I wish him welcome back in that case. I'd love to see him advocating against cruelty to animals.
Sorry, I didn't put enough emphasis in what I was stressing. My point is not to avoid harm to whatever living beings at any cost, but to not accept such harm when it comes simply and merely from cruelty.
Following one of your counter-examples, when you wash your hands you're not doing it merely to make the bacteria suffer (I hope!) but to avoid getting ill and possibly dying yourself.
It's cruelty that I'm targeting, and that's the kind of action which yes, must be taught to be avoided and punished with increasing severity.
But I get really worried when you say "pretend that pet animals have some sort of intellect". If you said "pretend that they understand every word we say", I'd nod. But you're simply negating the various levels of intelligence found in every animal. As if intelligence was something that is or is not... That's SO much like the "similar cases"!
Speaking of which, when you dismiss my "similar cases" because they all involve humans, maybe you ignore that people who apply those arguments could care less about that "coincidence" and some wouldn't even agree to that statement (that they're all humans). You set your bar on "humans", I'm telling you to set your bar on "sentient beings".
But don't forget: all that is to go together, so it's a no no to use examples like washing hands or killing to not starve.
I sincerely hope that you're not trying to justify being one of the 1 out of 10 or half of the adolescents you cited.
Cruelty is unacceptable, unethical and unjustifiable.
This looks dangerously OT, but here it goes anyway.
Your point: that's because they're just animals, while we are humans.
I'll make you the favor of transposing your argument to some other similar cases: ...
- They're just slaves, while we are their masters.
- They're just savages, while we are civilized.
- They're just jews, while we are.. not?
- They're just palestines, while we are jews.
- They're just black/asian/whatever, while we are white.
My point: cruelty is bad. You should avoid it regardless of who or what's the target.
Don't take any past events as proof that it's ok to repeat them.
Someone's ego should never have priority over the well being of anything with a clear identifiable level of sentience.
I went to read the thread from around the message pointed by the article.
What I saw was a nervous breakdown from Mr. Cox because he had too much pressure on him and wasn't able to accept that his proposal was less optimal than that from others. See: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/28/612
Mr. Cox finally comes to reason: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/29/108
Considering the discussion going on from http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/29/276 , maybe Mr. Cox will reconsider.
I don't know about other issues, but I wouldn't be too fast to point the finger at Mr. Torvalds in this case.
Agreed, but my point is that your third answer doesn't apply.
Gimme his number, maybe he'll hand me the hefty check for coming up with a solution to his problem : D
Sorry for your bad experience, but it's a bit OT. Opera was doing a tender for new hardware. Applying companies with a minimum level of reason wouldn't apply with interfaces intentionally negating Opera Browser unless they had spare budget for pranks, which seems unlikely.
That may be why they explicitly decided to support IE >= 6.0.
There are many, many levels of ignorance. Everyone with no exception is victim of many of them at once. I, for instance, ignored many of the mentioned Gecko-based browsers. You, for instance, ignore that corporate costs with Customer Care are not only based on a browser using the same rendering engine, but also on how padronized the browser interfaces can be so that the Customer Care Agent can guide a less clued user through a set of predefined steps.
Because a reasonable site owner may not want to spend money on Customer Service for browsers that have less than 1% market share. It's cheaper to push the cost to the consumer telling him to install one of the supported browsers.
You should try a management interface that requires a 13Mb Java Applet to load the login page like some of the old WebSpheres...
So basically you're saying that people can install MS Office or Dreamweaver, but not FileZilla?
Microsoft doesn't ship with Word unless it's a trial or you buy it. That doesn't change the fact that MS Office still has a market share of 95%.
It's not my case. My cheap web host simply charges for SSH setup which seems to affect SFTP, since it requires SSH to be set up.
So much misdirected anger... it has nothing to do with the parent.
And it looks like the article also missed your point, since it says how intercepting packets in public internet is not the problem, but infecting your machine to sniff them from the source.
Really. I'm surprised at the bad ratio between size and content really related to the topic in the original article.
Basically, not much has changed. It would be sufficient to say that without mentioning all the new, shiny Microsoft products.
4 pages felt like a waste of time. I wonder if the writer is paid to write things like that, and if so, in a per-thousand-words base.
But isn't the point about usefulness of Copyright itself, not the GPL?
If I'm not mistaken, the justification for Copyright is to protect the wishes of whoever make something.
If Copyright is abolished completely, only some (minority? of) people will still be motivated to produce whatsoever, given that their wishes match a reality where Copyright cannot be protected. The rest of the people may just decide that having their wishes disrespected is too much a hassle.
Among such wishes we could list:
- Making a living out of the inventions: disrespected when inventions are copied and hurts the inventor's income.
- Making fame out of the inventions: disrespected when inventions are copied and renamed so that the original inventor's name is replaced by another.
My ideal world is one where Copyright and things like the GPL exist together and where particularly restrictive Copyrights never last more than the inventor's life span, when whatever was copyrighted would fall into a state of GPL-ness or something alike: no more money owned, do whatever you like with it, but preserve the memory of the inventor.
I take out my imaginary hat and bow to you, sir. You just stated my own thoughts.
By the way, since they were mine, please add the appropriate credit : D
What is this about again?
Loved the punch line, but I guess I can't read either. I went to check BSD but failed to find the motive of comparison to the "including neighbour murdering". Care to cite some examples?