You are recommending violence as an answer to violence.
Damn straight.
Do you have any thought that this might be a mistake, and just invite further violence?
Appeasement did a lot of good before World War II, didn't it?
You can't cower in fear when faced with aggressive scum like this. Look at what happened when Khadafi was bombed back in the 80s by good ol' Ronald Reagan. Terrorists didn't screw with us for years after that. They understand power.
Yeah, but in those days Democrats had some guts, but to tell you the truth, I agree with you. I shouldn't have pulled in Democrat or Republican. I don't take back what I said about Gore, though.:)
I believe retailation in the highest order is needed, but with religious zealots willing to carry out kamakazi attacks, I fear there will be two more for every one we kill.
It's tempting to believe that, but remember a couple of things. First, the amount of terrorism reduced dramatically after the US bombed Khadafi in the 80s. These people are fundamentally cowards. and 2) there aren't that many terrorists that can carry out missions like this. It was incredibly well coordinated. You don't have to cut off many heads to keep things like this from happening.
Thank God we have a Texan in the white house who will know how to handle this. There is only one appropriate response to this: All out war. Some country either sponsored this, or allowed terrorists to live in their country (e.g., Afghanistan). Same thing, as far as I'm concerned. That country needs to be immediately taught what happens when you fuck with the United State of America.
The full might and power of the US must be demonstrated to ensure this NEVER happens again. At least full invasion force, and in my current mood I'm not sure I'm even ruling out a nuclear response.
I hate to put it this way, but thank God we have a Republican and a Texan in the White House. This was not an act of terrorism, this was an act of war. There needs to be some serious payment. I shudder to think what would happen if we had mamby-pamby Al Gore in the white house. Probably would call for "talks" with the terrorists to work out our differences.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pissed. Time to rally around W. It's time to for the full power of the United State of America to show what happens when you "awaken the sleeping giant".
you end up with the worst form of mob rule, where a conservative status quo is achieved, and nobody will do anything that could concievably cause waves, as they don't want to rock the boat and be judged themselves.
Certainly it is possible for that to happen, but on balance, I think we would have a stronger and better society when everyone is open game.
The prototype example from my life is that I used to have a very good friend who flat-out cheated on his wife. As far as I was concerned, he showed himself to be unworthy of my friendship. What was incredible to me was that all of his other friends rallied around him, and "supported him" through his "trying time". The man was total scum! I pretty much let him know what I thought, and told him that he should clean up his act and beg forgiveness. But he didn't, and destroyed his marriage.
I couldn't believe his so-called "friends" made it so easy for him to be a total asshole. I believe that being a true friend is steering them away from bad decisions, not enabling them. If all his friends and family totally ostracized him until he owned up to his responsibility, he would have been much better off, and learned a valuable lesson.
And yes, it is "his business" if he wants to cheat on his wife. But it is my business how I react to it, and whether I tolerate that behavior around me.
Make no mistake -- most of evil happens because it's tolerated. On a slightly different subject, I detest the word "tolerance" as its used today, as in we need to "tolerate" other minorities. The is the absolute worst word the PC crowd could pick. It should be "coexist with" or something similar. Preaching "tolerance" enforces the notion that I'm supposed "tolerate" bad behavior, because "who am I to judge". Argh!
How about starting a head hunting service linked to the/. amount of people in the techincal field.
Available for hire: Perl, Apache, Linux programmer. Have only built l33t sites of a few thousand lines of spaghetti code. Will only work for "free" software company. Company must not use any Microsoft software. Regular Quake breaks a plus. Minimum salary requirement: $150K/year.
But don't you think that there are better ways of teaching programming than encouraging unnecessary violence?
Violence is not intrinsically immoral. For example, using violence to defend my home against a criminal is absolutely morally justified on the small scale, and similiarly defending the country during WW/II on the large scale.
It's how violence is used that determines whether it is appropriate or not, and games can help reinforce these lessons. For example, "Doom" was a positive game because you were defending the world against invading demons. On the other hand, "Postal" was probably a bad game for kids, because it was encouraging running down innocent pedestrians.
Violence is intrinsic to our nature, and just ignoring natural impulses is not the way to teach morality. The morality of when violence is appropriate should be taught.
And yes, I believe Ghandi and similar pacifists are idiots. Just because Ghandi was lucky doesn't mean his philosophy was any good. Passive resistance would have done the jews a lot of good against the Nazis.
I'll tell you what there is enough of though, self-righteous pricks who think they should be the thought police, and that they have the magical rules as to how everybody should raise their own children.
While I disagree with the poster's hand-wringing about violence, I have to defend his right to judge others. The biggest problem with society today is not sex, violence, the DMCA or any of that: It's the "who am I to judge" crap. It's everyone's responsibility to judge EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in society, but be willing and prepared to be judged by others.
Notice that the poster was not calling for laws to be passed, but it is his absolute right and responsibility to judge on a personal basis what he feels is right and wrong. When enough people feel the same way, society can be transformed.
You're missing an important point: how do you know that a given closed-source email encryption/decryption engine does not "leak" keys?
Well, this is the first reasonable point I've seen about this, and it's theoretically possible, I suppose.
But it still comes down to "who do you trust". Either you trust that someone "somwhere" has certified an open source program, or you trust that some well-known company with a good reputation has certified the program. Either way, unless you are a security expert and can verify it yourself, you are going by blind trust.
Actually, good encrypttion is rather trying to produce anything but a well-defined output.
It is extremely well defined. It's just not easily readable.
Remember what we're talking about here... sending a message from person to another. Unless you think the mail program is going to change the content of the message, and no one is going to notice that their messages are getting changed, then there isn't much wiggle room if the message is going to be successfully decrypted by the recipient.
but if it RSA encrypts your message in the FBI's public key, and mails it to them (as well as encrypting as it should be and mailing to your friend), then it isn't exactly a secure email program.
You don't think anyone is going to notice that their e-mail queue is getting twice as many messages as it should? Or that logs aren't going to anything strange? That's absurd.
If your goal is encrypted e-mail, what does the source code have to do with anything? As long as it follows published encryption algorithms, that's all that matters. After all, if it doesn't follow the standard, then it's kind of hard to decrypt it.
I think it's a tad more important for the underlying mathematics to be tight, than to be able to view the source code implementation of an inferior algorithm.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by the Bush Administration...
OK, this is blatent flamebait, but I don't care. This is slightly better than the previous "instructed by Bush" (Michael apparently added the "administration" part).
But it's still bad. Michael, why do you think people hate you and think your a total biased fool? For your information, the DOJ is part of the Bush Administration, so phrasing it this way is out and out biased bullshit. It's like saying, "The Bush Administration instructed the Bush Administration".
The decision came from within the DOJ. If you have proof otherwise, then post it. Otherwise, get rid of that total biased bullshit and grow up.
On a different note, this is why I voted for Bush. Finally, rational decisions in government.
The basis of this lawsuit is Microsoft "bundling" their browser. Let me ask a question from the opposite angle: What should Microsoft have done differently?
It seems to me that, especially from the vantage point of today, it's pretty obvious that a browser is an integral tool in an OS's toolkit. KDE has a built-in browser. The Mac ships with a browser (if it wasn't IE, it would have been Netscape). Hell, even various Unix flavors ship with a browser.
And yes -- the browser should NOT be able to be de-installed. If your going to use a browser as a tool of the OS (say, to display error messages), then you need to know that your going to have a consistent tool there to use. Nothing stops you from installing another browser and deleting the icon -- just like having KDE's browser doesn't stop you from using Netscape.
Of course, we will also have all the Pro-linux people who never use a shred of Microsoft software tell us that they have a clear monopoly.
Nothing like sorting through 20-30 identical resumes when searching for a creative, motivated, unique applicant to a position.
What? Why do you care? All resumes look the same anyway, if you follow the "standard conventions". All I ask is that a resume is neat, well presented, and spelling and grammar is correct.
In fact, I could argue its better to find people who will not waste time laying out a resume and will save time with a tool instead.
Does StarOffice have tracking of revisions yet? That was one of the features that I noticed it lacked last time I looked at it (a while ago, admittedly). Without that feature, they might as well well forget any serious usage.
Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa
on
Chief Lizard Wrangler axed
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Or maybe you give Bugzilla users an alternate forum rather putting that crap in the bug database?
Cure the disease, rather than bitch about the symptoms.
I'm sure Miguel fully understands discounting and that Microsoft would nearly give it away to prevent a Linux infiltration. It's called lying with statistics, and no one should be above it.
You can only lie with statistics if you have stats that are not easily verified (e.g., piracy costs). In this case, it's laughably simple to figure out his numbers are grossly inflated.
So either he is a fool for not understanding discounts, or he is a bigger fool for trying to lie to his President with transparent lies. Yeah, that's really going to convince the Pres to see his view.
Slashdot Mirror
You are recommending violence as an answer to violence.
Damn straight.
Do you have any thought that this might be a mistake, and just invite further violence?
Appeasement did a lot of good before World War II, didn't it?
You can't cower in fear when faced with aggressive scum like this. Look at what happened when Khadafi was bombed back in the 80s by good ol' Ronald Reagan. Terrorists didn't screw with us for years after that. They understand power.
This requires a HUGE response.
Yeah, but in those days Democrats had some guts, but to tell you the truth, I agree with you. I shouldn't have pulled in Democrat or Republican. I don't take back what I said about Gore, though. :)
I believe retailation in the highest order is needed, but with religious zealots willing to carry out kamakazi attacks, I fear there will be two more for every one we kill.
It's tempting to believe that, but remember a couple of things. First, the amount of terrorism reduced dramatically after the US bombed Khadafi in the 80s. These people are fundamentally cowards. and 2) there aren't that many terrorists that can carry out missions like this. It was incredibly well coordinated. You don't have to cut off many heads to keep things like this from happening.
This requires a HUGE payback.
Thank God we have a Texan in the white house who will know how to handle this. There is only one appropriate response to this: All out war. Some country either sponsored this, or allowed terrorists to live in their country (e.g., Afghanistan). Same thing, as far as I'm concerned. That country needs to be immediately taught what happens when you fuck with the United State of America.
The full might and power of the US must be demonstrated to ensure this NEVER happens again. At least full invasion force, and in my current mood I'm not sure I'm even ruling out a nuclear response.
This is war. Innocent people get killed in war. There is only one response that can be made to something like this: All out war.
I hate to be unsympathetic, but quite frankly, I don't give a shit. This requires an awesome display of power to ensure it NEVER happens again.
I hate to put it this way, but thank God we have a Republican and a Texan in the White House. This was not an act of terrorism, this was an act of war. There needs to be some serious payment. I shudder to think what would happen if we had mamby-pamby Al Gore in the white house. Probably would call for "talks" with the terrorists to work out our differences.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pissed. Time to rally around W. It's time to for the full power of the United State of America to show what happens when you "awaken the sleeping giant".
you end up with the worst form of mob rule, where a conservative status quo is achieved, and nobody will do anything that could concievably cause waves, as they don't want to rock the boat and be judged themselves.
Certainly it is possible for that to happen, but on balance, I think we would have a stronger and better society when everyone is open game.
The prototype example from my life is that I used to have a very good friend who flat-out cheated on his wife. As far as I was concerned, he showed himself to be unworthy of my friendship. What was incredible to me was that all of his other friends rallied around him, and "supported him" through his "trying time". The man was total scum! I pretty much let him know what I thought, and told him that he should clean up his act and beg forgiveness. But he didn't, and destroyed his marriage.
I couldn't believe his so-called "friends" made it so easy for him to be a total asshole. I believe that being a true friend is steering them away from bad decisions, not enabling them. If all his friends and family totally ostracized him until he owned up to his responsibility, he would have been much better off, and learned a valuable lesson.
And yes, it is "his business" if he wants to cheat on his wife. But it is my business how I react to it, and whether I tolerate that behavior around me.
Make no mistake -- most of evil happens because it's tolerated. On a slightly different subject, I detest the word "tolerance" as its used today, as in we need to "tolerate" other minorities. The is the absolute worst word the PC crowd could pick. It should be "coexist with" or something similar. Preaching "tolerance" enforces the notion that I'm supposed "tolerate" bad behavior, because "who am I to judge". Argh!
How about starting a head hunting service linked to the /. amount of people in the techincal field.
Available for hire: Perl, Apache, Linux programmer. Have only built l33t sites of a few thousand lines of spaghetti code. Will only work for "free" software company. Company must not use any Microsoft software. Regular Quake breaks a plus. Minimum salary requirement: $150K/year.
I think I'm going to make this my new sig.
But don't you think that there are better ways of teaching programming than encouraging unnecessary violence?
Violence is not intrinsically immoral. For example, using violence to defend my home against a criminal is absolutely morally justified on the small scale, and similiarly defending the country during WW/II on the large scale.
It's how violence is used that determines whether it is appropriate or not, and games can help reinforce these lessons. For example, "Doom" was a positive game because you were defending the world against invading demons. On the other hand, "Postal" was probably a bad game for kids, because it was encouraging running down innocent pedestrians.
Violence is intrinsic to our nature, and just ignoring natural impulses is not the way to teach morality. The morality of when violence is appropriate should be taught.
And yes, I believe Ghandi and similar pacifists are idiots. Just because Ghandi was lucky doesn't mean his philosophy was any good. Passive resistance would have done the jews a lot of good against the Nazis.
I'll tell you what there is enough of though, self-righteous pricks who think they should be the thought police, and that they have the magical rules as to how everybody should raise their own children.
While I disagree with the poster's hand-wringing about violence, I have to defend his right to judge others. The biggest problem with society today is not sex, violence, the DMCA or any of that: It's the "who am I to judge" crap. It's everyone's responsibility to judge EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in society, but be willing and prepared to be judged by others.
Notice that the poster was not calling for laws to be passed, but it is his absolute right and responsibility to judge on a personal basis what he feels is right and wrong. When enough people feel the same way, society can be transformed.
RM101: Self righteous, and proud of it.
You're missing an important point: how do you know that a given closed-source email encryption/decryption engine does not "leak" keys?
Well, this is the first reasonable point I've seen about this, and it's theoretically possible, I suppose.
But it still comes down to "who do you trust". Either you trust that someone "somwhere" has certified an open source program, or you trust that some well-known company with a good reputation has certified the program. Either way, unless you are a security expert and can verify it yourself, you are going by blind trust.
Actually, good encrypttion is rather trying to produce anything but a well-defined output.
It is extremely well defined. It's just not easily readable.
Remember what we're talking about here... sending a message from person to another. Unless you think the mail program is going to change the content of the message, and no one is going to notice that their messages are getting changed, then there isn't much wiggle room if the message is going to be successfully decrypted by the recipient.
Without scrutiny, how do you know it's safe?
Because, duh, it has a well-defined input, and a well-defined output. Tell me how anything in the middle matters.
but if it RSA encrypts your message in the FBI's public key, and mails it to them (as well as encrypting as it should be and mailing to your friend), then it isn't exactly a secure email program.
You don't think anyone is going to notice that their e-mail queue is getting twice as many messages as it should? Or that logs aren't going to anything strange? That's absurd.
If your goal is encrypted e-mail, what does the source code have to do with anything? As long as it follows published encryption algorithms, that's all that matters. After all, if it doesn't follow the standard, then it's kind of hard to decrypt it.
I think it's a tad more important for the underlying mathematics to be tight, than to be able to view the source code implementation of an inferior algorithm.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by the Bush Administration...
OK, this is blatent flamebait, but I don't care. This is slightly better than the previous "instructed by Bush" (Michael apparently added the "administration" part).
But it's still bad. Michael, why do you think people hate you and think your a total biased fool? For your information, the DOJ is part of the Bush Administration, so phrasing it this way is out and out biased bullshit. It's like saying, "The Bush Administration instructed the Bush Administration".
The decision came from within the DOJ. If you have proof otherwise, then post it. Otherwise, get rid of that total biased bullshit and grow up.
On a different note, this is why I voted for Bush. Finally, rational decisions in government.
The basis of this lawsuit is Microsoft "bundling" their browser. Let me ask a question from the opposite angle: What should Microsoft have done differently?
It seems to me that, especially from the vantage point of today, it's pretty obvious that a browser is an integral tool in an OS's toolkit. KDE has a built-in browser. The Mac ships with a browser (if it wasn't IE, it would have been Netscape). Hell, even various Unix flavors ship with a browser.
And yes -- the browser should NOT be able to be de-installed. If your going to use a browser as a tool of the OS (say, to display error messages), then you need to know that your going to have a consistent tool there to use. Nothing stops you from installing another browser and deleting the icon -- just like having KDE's browser doesn't stop you from using Netscape.
Of course, we will also have all the Pro-linux people who never use a shred of Microsoft software tell us that they have a clear monopoly.
Revision tracking. StarOffice is almost worthless in business environment without it.
Nothing like sorting through 20-30 identical resumes when searching for a creative, motivated, unique applicant to a position.
What? Why do you care? All resumes look the same anyway, if you follow the "standard conventions". All I ask is that a resume is neat, well presented, and spelling and grammar is correct.
In fact, I could argue its better to find people who will not waste time laying out a resume and will save time with a tool instead.
Who cares if it lacks some whiz-bang feature that most people hardly use, if it costs nothing?
Where does this myth come from that Office is loaded with features no one uses? Please name me some features that "no one" uses.
Guess what? Almost every feature in Office was created from actual needs within companies.
Does StarOffice have tracking of revisions yet? That was one of the features that I noticed it lacked last time I looked at it (a while ago, admittedly). Without that feature, they might as well well forget any serious usage.
Or maybe you give Bugzilla users an alternate forum rather putting that crap in the bug database?
Cure the disease, rather than bitch about the symptoms.
I'm sure Miguel fully understands discounting and that Microsoft would nearly give it away to prevent a Linux infiltration. It's called lying with statistics, and no one should be above it.
You can only lie with statistics if you have stats that are not easily verified (e.g., piracy costs). In this case, it's laughably simple to figure out his numbers are grossly inflated.
So either he is a fool for not understanding discounts, or he is a bigger fool for trying to lie to his President with transparent lies. Yeah, that's really going to convince the Pres to see his view.
I have to stop what I'm doing, pick up the bloody mouse, and select 'paste special' in order to paste text as text into the document.
And another thing -- instead of grabbing the mouse, why don't you type Alt-E, S?