"One of the primary drivers behind free software is to put users in control,"
This is okay, depending on the user. NOT all users should be in control of the software. Sometimes, just sometimes you have to protect your users from themselves.
An idealist is merely a pragmatist who cares about the future.
Do you disagree and if so, why?
An Idealist is just another word for tyrant (benevolent or otherwise). Pragmatist (in this case) just want to get stuff done, and uses the best tool regardless of cost (beer / speech) and uses it until it becomes untenable and then uses another tool.
Idealists are not satisfied with themselves being ideal, they want to make everyone else around them exactly the same, and often become the very people they abhor. Pragmatists use whatever tool is around.
Think of it this way, you're starving on an island, and Idealist (vegan) is starving because they won't fish. Pragamtist likes the idea of being a vegan but is willing to fish to feed themselves.
Do you oppose Corporate welfare in general, or just (R) supported corporate welfare? How do you feel about bailouts and loan giveaways to failing businesses (Solyndra) (true government welfare) that is all the rage among (D) people?
Simple version is, SOME people are the problem, and SOME people are the solution. Some of the people that are the problem were previously the solution to a previous people problem. People are the problem, and the solution.
I'm calling it the Bush / Obama economy And I don't see any real improvement coming either. I haven't seen a COLA in years, but on the other hand, I'm grateful I have a job when so many people don't.
486s in remote offices? How did you support that. Almost nothing today will function properly on 486 (lemme guss, 256 MB ram, 12" CRT), and If I had to support it, it would be cheaper to replace the unit than send ANY tech out to fix anything wrong with it. Basically, I call BS.
And I can do password strength training in about 5 minutes. I explain it two ways, how to secure a password and make it easy to remember (see above) and asking them to hand me their ATM card and Pin, "trust me". The last one gets the point across nicely. Don't give out your password, not even to the "trust me" guy.
Liberal Bias has a liberal bias. Facts don't have a bias. Unreported facts are still facts. Liberals like yourself claim things like Bengazi are minor events, and not worthy of national attention, yet you promote stupid shit Sarah Palin says as if it is threatening our country on every news and talking head show. Even in your post, you still mention Sarah Palin, and ignore Pelosi, Reid and Jesse Jackson Jr just getting elected, despite being locked up in a loony bin. Imagine the fun Comedy Central guys would have if that was an (R).
No, facts don't have a liberal bias, liberals have a bias to what "facts" they think are important.
Sorry? I missed something jumping from one topic to another. Narco Terrorism is ruining Mexico (among other things). Regulating Narcs and not making them illegal would eliminate profit motive of the narco terrorists, and they would disappear. The drug market is very very lucrative because it is illegal, just like Prohibition created a huge blackmarket that lead to the rise of people like Capone and the gangs around him.
Slim is not a nice guy, but he is Mexico's problem. I have plenty of legitimate competition this side of the boarder for telecommunications.
My comment was more about the (D) party and how the press ignores the foibles and follies of the (D) people, much more than the (R) people. Hell, just look at all the comments about Palin and how nutty she is and what not. I don't know ANYTHING about her, but I can be reasonably sure that it isn't nearly as bad as they make it out to be (bat shit crazy cunt), while people like Nancy Pelosi are given a pass at the truly BAT SHIT CRAZY stuff she says.
Pelosi talking about Fiscal Cliff Deadline, "It's January 1. But December 15 is when we do our Hanukkah and Christmas shopping. And we want that to be - the new income tax cut to be a Christmas and Hanukkah, every possible phase, a celebration of their religion or none."
I mean if this was said by a (R) it would be run as headlines as batshit crazy talk on all the talking head shows and Comedy Central. Just imagine if Palin had said this?
I always thought that using a one time pad could use something like a simplified key. Take a irrational number like Pi, and then use an offset and size (length) for the pad instead of the whole key.
Pi offset 5,340,590,934,232,301 Length 2^19
Of course, it may be just that kind of setup is just as easy to crack as double ROT 13.
"average person can't create and maintain secure passwords."
This is utterly false. The average, even Dumb people CAN create and maintain secure passwords. The problem is, that what was once considered "secure" is 1) hard to remember meaningless letters, numbers and symbols (some of which can't be used on some systems), and 2) limited to 8 characters, and 3) easy for computers to crack using brute force.
If we changed short hard to remember passwords with longer easier to remember passwords, they become much harder to brute force.
Pa55W0rD! Hard to remember (did I use a o or O or 0)? was it d or D?), easy for computer RockylovesEmily3Ninjas (22 characters) is much easier to remember, and nearly impossible to brute force crack using today's technology.
Your average person can easily think of a phrase that has meaning to them, that is long, secure and hard to crack, IF they are taught how to, and IF the systems allowed really long passwords. Changing how we think of passwords is key.
You cannot stop an idea except by discrediting it. Period. Censorship doesn't and cannot work in today's world.
In a world where almost all cell phones have cameras, everyone is a reporter. Where most smartphones have better movie cameras than news crews of 30 years ago, everyone is a reporter. When people can tweet, facebook, blog, everyone can be a reporter. With email, communication cannot be stopped.
The only thing tyrants can do now, is cut off their people completely from the modern world, and even that doesn't really work very well.
In my world, you would be able to buy drugs, legally. I'd also regulate and tax them and require sellers to be registered and buyers to present ID to buy it much like alcohol and cigarettes are regulated and controlled. Think about the terrorism caused by the "war on drugs", and realize that narco terrorism is ruining Mexico (and other Latin countries).
Liberties are being sacrificed because we are sacrificing liberties to gain safety and not getting any safer. The better option is to realize that in a free state of liberty, bad stuff happens, and deal with the bad stuff as it happens, rather than restricting things and having bad stuff still happen, which leads to the increasing tyranny of trying to prevent bad stuff from happening.
Liberty is not for the faint of heart, and those people (fainthearted) are running the country. Ergo, Liberty is threatened. And it is much worse under the (D) party because the complicity of the media's failure to report anything negative about them.
Then vaccinate your kids. Requiring it is tyranny. Getting AIDS is pretty serious too, but we don't lock people up or even stop them from having sex because they have it. Are you suggesting that maybe we should? I'd suggest that we put people with AIDS in special cities and not let them out, seems reasonable to me! (please note, extreme sarcasm)
The question is, how much "protection" is enough, and who gets to draw the line?
You can yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Nobody is stopping you, there is no law against yelling "FIRE" in a theater. Else, yelling "READY, AIM, FIRE" in a play would be illegal.
What Freedom and Liberty loving people do, is look at what the results are. Yelling "FIRE" in a theater and causing a panic where people die, well that is frowned upon and people doing it should be tried (and convicted) of murder, and held civilly responsible (tort) for harm caused to others. I am not restricting speech, just the results of that speech. See the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
But,but,but,but ....
(D) gooder (R) badder so that makes it okay.
"One of the primary drivers behind free software is to put users in control,"
This is okay, depending on the user. NOT all users should be in control of the software. Sometimes, just sometimes you have to protect your users from themselves.
An idealist is merely a pragmatist who cares about the future.
Do you disagree and if so, why?
An Idealist is just another word for tyrant (benevolent or otherwise). Pragmatist (in this case) just want to get stuff done, and uses the best tool regardless of cost (beer / speech) and uses it until it becomes untenable and then uses another tool.
Idealists are not satisfied with themselves being ideal, they want to make everyone else around them exactly the same, and often become the very people they abhor. Pragmatists use whatever tool is around.
Think of it this way, you're starving on an island, and Idealist (vegan) is starving because they won't fish. Pragamtist likes the idea of being a vegan but is willing to fish to feed themselves.
So, basically, you're wasting energy. I'm not impressed.
Do you oppose Corporate welfare in general, or just (R) supported corporate welfare? How do you feel about bailouts and loan giveaways to failing businesses (Solyndra) (true government welfare) that is all the rage among (D) people?
"people are a problem."
True enough. But also, People are the solution.
Simple version is, SOME people are the problem, and SOME people are the solution. Some of the people that are the problem were previously the solution to a previous people problem. People are the problem, and the solution.
MSNBC reports that Republicans are blocking UN, and Democrats support Freedom!
I'm calling it the Bush / Obama economy And I don't see any real improvement coming either. I haven't seen a COLA in years, but on the other hand, I'm grateful I have a job when so many people don't.
486s in remote offices? How did you support that. Almost nothing today will function properly on 486 (lemme guss, 256 MB ram, 12" CRT), and If I had to support it, it would be cheaper to replace the unit than send ANY tech out to fix anything wrong with it. Basically, I call BS.
And I can do password strength training in about 5 minutes. I explain it two ways, how to secure a password and make it easy to remember (see above) and asking them to hand me their ATM card and Pin, "trust me". The last one gets the point across nicely. Don't give out your password, not even to the "trust me" guy.
Liberal Bias has a liberal bias. Facts don't have a bias. Unreported facts are still facts. Liberals like yourself claim things like Bengazi are minor events, and not worthy of national attention, yet you promote stupid shit Sarah Palin says as if it is threatening our country on every news and talking head show. Even in your post, you still mention Sarah Palin, and ignore Pelosi, Reid and Jesse Jackson Jr just getting elected, despite being locked up in a loony bin. Imagine the fun Comedy Central guys would have if that was an (R).
No, facts don't have a liberal bias, liberals have a bias to what "facts" they think are important.
Sorry? I missed something jumping from one topic to another. Narco Terrorism is ruining Mexico (among other things). Regulating Narcs and not making them illegal would eliminate profit motive of the narco terrorists, and they would disappear. The drug market is very very lucrative because it is illegal, just like Prohibition created a huge blackmarket that lead to the rise of people like Capone and the gangs around him.
Slim is not a nice guy, but he is Mexico's problem. I have plenty of legitimate competition this side of the boarder for telecommunications.
My comment was more about the (D) party and how the press ignores the foibles and follies of the (D) people, much more than the (R) people. Hell, just look at all the comments about Palin and how nutty she is and what not. I don't know ANYTHING about her, but I can be reasonably sure that it isn't nearly as bad as they make it out to be (bat shit crazy cunt), while people like Nancy Pelosi are given a pass at the truly BAT SHIT CRAZY stuff she says.
Pelosi talking about Fiscal Cliff Deadline, "It's January 1. But December 15 is when we do our Hanukkah and Christmas shopping. And we want that to be - the new income tax cut to be a Christmas and Hanukkah, every possible phase, a celebration of their religion or none."
I mean if this was said by a (R) it would be run as headlines as batshit crazy talk on all the talking head shows and Comedy Central. Just imagine if Palin had said this?
In Backwoods Tennessee, Log on = More wood on the fire. Log off = fire too hot. I see your point ;)
I always thought that using a one time pad could use something like a simplified key. Take a irrational number like Pi, and then use an offset and size (length) for the pad instead of the whole key.
Pi offset 5,340,590,934,232,301 Length 2^19
Of course, it may be just that kind of setup is just as easy to crack as double ROT 13.
"average person can't create and maintain secure passwords."
This is utterly false. The average, even Dumb people CAN create and maintain secure passwords. The problem is, that what was once considered "secure" is 1) hard to remember meaningless letters, numbers and symbols (some of which can't be used on some systems), and 2) limited to 8 characters, and 3) easy for computers to crack using brute force.
If we changed short hard to remember passwords with longer easier to remember passwords, they become much harder to brute force.
Pa55W0rD! Hard to remember (did I use a o or O or 0)? was it d or D?), easy for computer
RockylovesEmily3Ninjas (22 characters) is much easier to remember, and nearly impossible to brute force crack using today's technology.
Your average person can easily think of a phrase that has meaning to them, that is long, secure and hard to crack, IF they are taught how to, and IF the systems allowed really long passwords. Changing how we think of passwords is key.
You cannot stop an idea except by discrediting it. Period. Censorship doesn't and cannot work in today's world.
In a world where almost all cell phones have cameras, everyone is a reporter. Where most smartphones have better movie cameras than news crews of 30 years ago, everyone is a reporter. When people can tweet, facebook, blog, everyone can be a reporter. With email, communication cannot be stopped.
The only thing tyrants can do now, is cut off their people completely from the modern world, and even that doesn't really work very well.
In my world, you would be able to buy drugs, legally. I'd also regulate and tax them and require sellers to be registered and buyers to present ID to buy it much like alcohol and cigarettes are regulated and controlled. Think about the terrorism caused by the "war on drugs", and realize that narco terrorism is ruining Mexico (and other Latin countries).
Liberties are being sacrificed because we are sacrificing liberties to gain safety and not getting any safer. The better option is to realize that in a free state of liberty, bad stuff happens, and deal with the bad stuff as it happens, rather than restricting things and having bad stuff still happen, which leads to the increasing tyranny of trying to prevent bad stuff from happening.
Liberty is not for the faint of heart, and those people (fainthearted) are running the country. Ergo, Liberty is threatened. And it is much worse under the (D) party because the complicity of the media's failure to report anything negative about them.
Horse's Mouth: http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825.htm
Better?
Ahh yes, the ridiculous counter example! Works every time!
Then vaccinate your kids. Requiring it is tyranny. Getting AIDS is pretty serious too, but we don't lock people up or even stop them from having sex because they have it. Are you suggesting that maybe we should? I'd suggest that we put people with AIDS in special cities and not let them out, seems reasonable to me! (please note, extreme sarcasm)
The question is, how much "protection" is enough, and who gets to draw the line?
You can yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Nobody is stopping you, there is no law against yelling "FIRE" in a theater. Else, yelling "READY, AIM, FIRE" in a play would be illegal.
What Freedom and Liberty loving people do, is look at what the results are. Yelling "FIRE" in a theater and causing a panic where people die, well that is frowned upon and people doing it should be tried (and convicted) of murder, and held civilly responsible (tort) for harm caused to others. I am not restricting speech, just the results of that speech. See the difference?
I'm Libertarian, and I find retarded people on every side, including my own. Some people even claim I am retarded ;)
We will have rationing one way or another. What you are proposing is bureaucrats do the rationing. Healthcare with the grace of DMV. Next!
"are NOW considered" ... doooh