Assumptions:
1. People aren't very good at choosing hard-to-guess passwords
2. Complexity (Case, numerics, special characters) don't significantly add to entropy
3. Password managers can create and store high-entropy passwords
4. Password managers must be secured with extremely strong, crack resistant passwords
5. People need to set the passwords for (4). See (1) above
And there's the rub with TFA's assertion that password managers are the band-aid to help us past the era of passwords. If we can educate people to create strong, memorable passwords/passphrases for the password manager, then people can do the same for other passwords. Which makes a password manager redundant.
If we cannot educate people to create strong, memorable passwords, then the likelihood is that password manager passwords will be just as weak as those the TFA is decrying, rendering password managers just one big target.
And since a password manager presumably contains lots of passwords for a variety of logins (including sensitive accounts), it becomes a much better target (especially when you can steal the password DB and perform offline cracking activities) than trying to crack passwords online.
The author of TFA is correct that there are issues with passwords, but his recommendation is poorly thought out and might be even more hazardous than the problem it purports to mitigate.
BSD Unix was born on the PDP-11; the VAX-based Unix OSes started being available in June 1979, whilst the first VAX (VAX-11/780) was released in October 1977, with VMS as the OS. VMUNIX (the Unix OS kernel that supported the VAX's virtual memory capabilities) came out at the end of 1979.
That is correct. It was based on Bell Labs v7 Unix, which DEC ported to PDP-11 and VAX, and renamed V7M. Ultrix was the follow on to V7M and was first released five years later, in 1984.
Ken Olsen expounded on the DEC's relationship with loved UNIX:
One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How
enthusiastic is our support for UNIX?
Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many
years ago. Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines.
Ten percent of our VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple
language, easy to understand, easy to get started with. It's great for
students, great for somewhat casual users, and it's great for
interchanging programs between different machines. And so, because of
its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have good UNIX on
VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s.
It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will
run out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and
will end up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and
quickly check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With
VMS, no matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of
documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the
difference -- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS
is that it's all there. [emphasis added]
-- Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984
BSD Unix was born on the PDP-11; the VAX-based Unix OSes started being available in June 1979, whilst the first VAX (VAX-11/780) was released in October 1977, with VMS as the OS. VMUNIX (the Unix OS kernel that supported the VAX's virtual memory capabilities) came out at the end of 1979.
That is correct. It was based on Bell Labs v7 Unix, which DEC ported to PDP-11 and VAX, and renamed V7M. Ultrix was the follow on to V7M and was first released five years later, in 1984.
Ken Olsen expounded on the DEC's relationship with loved UNIX:
One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How
enthusiastic is our support for UNIX?
Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many
years ago. Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines.
Ten percent of our VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple
language, easy to understand, easy to get started with. It's great for
students, great for somewhat casual users, and it's great for
interchanging programs between different machines. And so, because of
its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have good UNIX on
VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s.
It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will
run out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and
will end up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and
quickly check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With
VMS, no matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of
documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the
difference -- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS
is that it's all there. [emphasis added]
-- Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984
Good grief, the most significant point gets over-run by religionists.
But seriously, WHERE, exactly, did this water exist in the time BEFORE the sun existed???
In interstellar space and the stellar nebula where our sun formed.
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides. Apparently, less than a fifth (18%) of respondents claimed to experience something rather than nothing during a period when they were experiencing a loss of blood flow to the brain. How those experiences were formed, and what their objective significance was, is not addressed at all. Not moving the goalposts here at all. There is absolutely zero data in that study which indicates the existence of anything resembling whatever it is that you're referring to.
I did not mean to cast any aspersions on your belief system. If you felt I did, please accept my apologies. However, while I hold no malice toward you personally, I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion. And I'm certainly not trying to shout you down or censor you.
Out of curiosity, how, for the purposes of discussion and meeting your request, would you define these terms, specifically:
To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions. However, just as we can infer the existence of black holes due to their effects on other celestial objects, there should be at least *some* empirical evidence, somewhere that points to that. Oh, and by the way, which one is the one you say is the real one?
"Proof"
As for proof There is no such thing as absolute proof. At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!
"Evidence proving"
As Carl Sagan (and quite correctly, IMHO) pointed out, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." A claim that some vast, timeless, humani-form diety exists and takes an interest in the life on this planet, is quite an extraordinary claim. All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.
You can keep trying if you like, but unless you can produce scientific evidence of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created the cosmos, I'm not bu
You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish.
But here's something peer-reviewed for you.
No intellectual dishonesty here, friend. That's the beauty of having an open mind: when new evidence is presented, I can use that information to expand my understanding of the universe around me. I am completely open to new ideas and understandings of the universe. However, I take empiricism very seriously. As such, for evidence to be valid, it must be identifiable, classifiable, and most of all, when identical methodologies are applied, repeatable.
From my perspective, those goalposts have never, and will never move.
I will go on to say that "religious" perspectives have often been used to popularize various life patterns or paths. *Sometimes*, they've even been useful, and could (in certain cases, i.e., buddhism) even be reasonably argued to be, a "good thing."(TM) That said, the creation myths of the belief systems generally referred to as "religions" do not jibe with the evidence collected, quite painstakingly, in our objective reality and do nothing to increase our understanding of the universe around us.
Science is a methodology and has exactly zero to do with metaphysical questions of existence and meaning. If you get your meaning from one bunch of stories, who am I to say they are meaningless? They mean something to you. That doesn't mean they have any relevance to me.
I have no issue with alternate belief systems per se, but for me to subscribe to one or more of those, the belief system must be self-consistent and not contradict the evidence we have explaining why the world is the way it is.
I see we have Slashdot's typical systematic "overrated" downvoting of religion posts in lieu of an actual counterargument again.
Don't be shy, mods. You can share it with us, if you have it. You know I'll be asking you about it again much later anyway.
Here's the deal I made with all the "Jews For Jesus" folks who accosted me while commuting back when I was a teenager: "I'm an empiricist. If you can provide me with one, just one, verifiable piece of actual evidence proving the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent 'thing' you call 'god' I will drop everything and join you." I make the same offer to you, Empiric. Are you up to it?
PassTime, the manufacturer of the ignition disabling device released a statement today, citing new features in their devices: "Our new video linkages allow you to watch the driver as you disable their car. Now with 50% more Schadenfreude!"
PassTime, the manufacturer of the ignition disabling device released a statement today stating, "Our new video linkages allow you to watch the driver as you disable their car. Now with 50% more Schedenfreude!"
As have I. I have several Debian based routers and KVM servers that are out pure CLI. I have no idea what the writer is taking air. And neither does the writer, methinks.
Paul Venezia is not worth reading, let alone discussing, IMHO.
Well he normally does the same thing that you do- resorting to random ad homs about how stupid the other person is because they don't get it, kant reed, or is some kind of psychopath.
I'm sorry. Please point out where I made any remarks that could be considered to be ad hominem attacks. My point about reading comprehension was *not* irrelevant to the discussion (and hence, not 'ad hominem'). In fact, It wasn't really even an attack, just an observation.
Also, I'm not sure who the "he" you're referring to might be. Please enlighten me.
I made i clear that I was expressing my opinion, not telling you what to do.
Telling me your opinion of what I should have done is still telling me what I should have done, because you telling me what I should have done is only ever going to be your opinion.
Does that mean you think I shouldn't express my opinion,
Nowhere did I say you didn't have the right to express your opinion. I was simply pointing out the irony of you telling me me what I should have said in the same article where you admit that telling other people what they should or should not do or say is beyond your control.
Splitting that hair pretty finely, eh? Please, if you so choose, carry on. Or not. Not my business or concern. Have a lovely day. or not. again, not my business or concern.
I can't think of a single profession which doesn't seem to have a "problem." Makes one wonder.
Makes you wonder what, exactly? That this is not a "problem", because "everybody's doing it?" WTF? Look pal, the "problem" is narrow-minded, clueless misogynist views like that.
Wow! Just wow! I was thinking the same thing myself, except I put "this is a societal problem, not one just in the academic community," after 'Makes one wonder'. Way to go in projecting your fears and negativity on others.
Um, no... Observing that the "problem" is indeed widespread (i.e. a "societal problem") and that this in no way excuses any single community's misogyny is hardly "projecting" anything.
True enough. But you jumped down OP's throat when he or she made a statement that supports your point of view. I'd hate to see how you deal with people who disagree with you.
I would say that it might have been more productive to more fully quote me:
Just as you admit that controlling what other people do or think is seldom within one's ability, so is telling other people what points they should be making and how broadly they ought to discuss things.
My point is, and remains, that the concept of "actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence" (the part I quoted) requires telling other people how to think and behave. It also requires a correct definition of "discrimination, abuse and violence", and one worker telling a blond joke within earshot of a woman just doesn't reach that level. Sending 50 people to a class to learn how not to "discriminate, abuse or be violent" when they aren't doing that to start with is still a waste of everyone's time. Sending them to a class to learn how not to violate some law that has ridiculous definitions of "discrimination, abuse and violence" is only slightly less a waste of time.
I made i clear that I was expressing my opinion, not telling you what to do. I have no expectation that you will feel that it's necessary to act on my opinion, nor should I. Does that mean you think I shouldn't express my opinion, since I have no way to force others to do as I suggest? I'm not being snarky here, but that's what I gleaned from your response. Perhaps I interpreted your statement incorrectly.
I don't disagree with your point, rather I felt that including the part about "reasoning with those who can be reasoned with" makes your argument stronger, which is why I suggested its inclusion.
> Both you and Jawnn seem to have that in spades. Geez Louise! get a grip.
When you make unexplained connections in your head, spouting nonsense, then rephrasing what you had posted in an attempt to make it appear as if you were really clever (if you had only explained your thought process), isn't a failure of comprehension on someone else's part.
My complaint about reading comprehension related to the initial post, not my post. One reacted with vitriol over some, as you eloquently put it, unexplained connections in their head. When I called that person it, some AC (perhaps you?) was annoyed that I was incredulous at the GP's (and the AC's) poor reading comprehension.
Does that help you? Or should I use smaller words, so you'll be sure to understand?
As one gets older, or if one obtains the help of any 12 step program, you learn that you have very little control over what other people do or think. Most of the efforts to fix these problems are a waste of energy. Sending 50 people to a workplace sexual harassment prevention seminar for the day will waste the time of all fifty people. It accomplishes two things: it satisfies legal requirements for such "training" to have been given, and it provides a better basis for firing someone who is actually causing a problem. Of course it doesn't look so good if the actual problem is counseled privately the first time and then fired the second, so 49 people have to be told not to do "horrible things" in the workplace when they are already not doing horrible things. But that seminar didn't fix anything.
I am, as you put it, older, and yes I have learned that there are very few things that are actually under our individual control -- and other people do not fit into those few things at all.
I would say that it might have been more productive to more fully quote me:
I'd go further and say that those who can be reasoned with, should be reasoned with. You'll catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Those who can't be reasoned with aren't going to suddenly see the light when you call them names. It's a waste of energy that could be used in actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence.
and make your comments with the broader point, IMHO.
We should all be working together to stop harassment and violence . Nerds have been subject to prejudicial sterotyping, too. That should (and I think does) make us more understanding of the problem, not less. Instead of sniping at each other, let's bury our hatchets and work the problem.
There. FTFY.
There are no hatchets to bury, IMHO. In my experience, reasonable, decent people all agree that harassment and violence are inappropriate. The horrible things a small minority of people do should be roundly criticized and much more aggressively prosecuted.
I get that people are mad about these issues. It makes me quite angry as well, At the same time, I agree with you that spewing vitriol at those who agree is counterproductive, I'd go further and say that those who can be reasoned with, should be reasoned with. You'll catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Those who can't be reasoned with aren't going to suddenly see the light when you call them names. It's a waste of energy that could be used in actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence.
That this is a widespread social problem and not something restricted to just the nerdy professions. Project much?
Insightful, my ass.
Thank you. Apparenlty, there aren't enough people who disagree with Jawnn, so he or she needs to attack someone who is making a reasonable and supportable claim which, based on Jawnn's rant, is in full support of what they believe. Sigh.
> Way to go in projecting your fears and negativity on others.
The GP didn't do that. They weren't responding to you. That evidence is an example of you projecting.
The OP (rinukuzu) made an excellent observation -- that this is not limited to a single profession. The obvious implication is that this is a problem with our whole society, yet Jawnn assumed the GP was somehow trying to claim the problem doesn't exist. That isn't supported by what was posted.
Yes, I know Jawnn wasn't responding to me -- I hadn't posted anything. I was just struck by the completely negative tone, with Jawnn making a failrly obvious faulty assumptions about what the OP said.
I'm not sure what I'm projecting. I say there's a big problem with violence against women and it's not limited to academia.
What I don't support is poor reading comprehension. Both you and Jawnn seem to have that in spades. Geez Louise! get a grip.
I can't think of a single profession which doesn't seem to have a "problem." Makes one wonder.
Makes you wonder what, exactly? That this is not a "problem", because "everybody's doing it?" WTF? Look pal, the "problem" is narrow-minded, clueless misogynist views like that.
Wow! Just wow! I was thinking the same thing myself, except I put "this is a societal problem, not one just in the academic community," after 'Makes one wonder'. Way to go in projecting your fears and negativity on others.
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution.
All of that being true, there is still no "right to know" when applied to "everything that everyone in the government knows". For example, there is no "right to know" that the ambassador from some certain country is a dick and the best way to deal with him is to scratch his back a lot before asking for anything. What do you learn from that, and what does it benefit you to know? On the other hand, the idea that he's a dick is really counterproductive to future negotiations but is good to know so those negotiations can be productive.
And that kind of information is some of the really secret stuff that we all had a "right to know" from the Wikileaks documents.
Point taken. However, as Americans, we do have a right to audit our government and the actions of its officials. Too much of what is being done in our names (and everything the US Government does is done in the name of US citizens) is hidden from us. Especially the power grabs by the government (including warrantless surveillance, secret courts and widespread curtailment of individual liberties), the gross incompetence of various public servants, and the lies and obfuscation used to cover them up.
As you pointed out, it probably isn't politic to reveal our foreign policy strategies and/or tactics for dealing with foreign governments. Despite that, on balance, I'm glad Snowden made these documents public, as they've clearly shown the disdain that our government has for its people and for the ideals and institutions that make us a nation.
I do believe that we have repeated history (in this case, history being the McCartney era nonsense with communists) and I think that lines were crossed using the new 'communist' (aka terrorist) threat as an excuse in exactly the same way that it happened during the McCartney era.
Slashdot Mirror
Assumptions:
1. People aren't very good at choosing hard-to-guess passwords
2. Complexity (Case, numerics, special characters) don't significantly add to entropy
3. Password managers can create and store high-entropy passwords
4. Password managers must be secured with extremely strong, crack resistant passwords
5. People need to set the passwords for (4). See (1) above
And there's the rub with TFA's assertion that password managers are the band-aid to help us past the era of passwords. If we can educate people to create strong, memorable passwords/passphrases for the password manager, then people can do the same for other passwords. Which makes a password manager redundant.
If we cannot educate people to create strong, memorable passwords, then the likelihood is that password manager passwords will be just as weak as those the TFA is decrying, rendering password managers just one big target.
And since a password manager presumably contains lots of passwords for a variety of logins (including sensitive accounts), it becomes a much better target (especially when you can steal the password DB and perform offline cracking activities) than trying to crack passwords online.
The author of TFA is correct that there are issues with passwords, but his recommendation is poorly thought out and might be even more hazardous than the problem it purports to mitigate.
Apologies. I messed up the link:
v7 Unix.
Incorrect.
BSD Unix was born on the PDP-11; the VAX-based Unix OSes started being available in June 1979, whilst the first VAX (VAX-11/780) was released in October 1977, with VMS as the OS. VMUNIX (the Unix OS kernel that supported the VAX's virtual memory capabilities) came out at the end of 1979.
That is correct. It was based on Bell Labs v7 Unix, which DEC ported to PDP-11 and VAX, and renamed V7M. Ultrix was the follow on to V7M and was first released five years later, in 1984.
Ken Olsen expounded on the DEC's relationship with loved UNIX:
Incorrect.
BSD Unix was born on the PDP-11; the VAX-based Unix OSes started being available in June 1979, whilst the first VAX (VAX-11/780) was released in October 1977, with VMS as the OS. VMUNIX (the Unix OS kernel that supported the VAX's virtual memory capabilities) came out at the end of 1979.
That is correct. It was based on Bell Labs v7 Unix, which DEC ported to PDP-11 and VAX, and renamed V7M. Ultrix was the follow on to V7M and was first released five years later, in 1984.
Ken Olsen expounded on the DEC's relationship with loved UNIX:
It will be more likely the Republicans will start saying they want a land war in Asia. Oh wait, that is what they want.
One of the classic blunders!
Good grief, the most significant point gets over-run by religionists. But seriously, WHERE, exactly, did this water exist in the time BEFORE the sun existed???
In interstellar space and the stellar nebula where our sun formed.
[A lot of rhetorical hand-waving and appeals to authority thankfully removed]
Nope. You're what Winston Churchill called a fanatic: One who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
I hope Azhura Mazda (or whatever fake deity you subscribe to) takes pity on you.
Oh, and have a great evening! Just, please, make it one that doesn't include me.
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides. Apparently, less than a fifth (18%) of respondents claimed to experience something rather than nothing during a period when they were experiencing a loss of blood flow to the brain. How those experiences were formed, and what their objective significance was, is not addressed at all. Not moving the goalposts here at all. There is absolutely zero data in that study which indicates the existence of anything resembling whatever it is that you're referring to.
I did not mean to cast any aspersions on your belief system. If you felt I did, please accept my apologies. However, while I hold no malice toward you personally, I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion. And I'm certainly not trying to shout you down or censor you.
Out of curiosity, how, for the purposes of discussion and meeting your request, would you define these terms, specifically:
"Evidence"
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Just to clarify, Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, (empeiría).
To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions. However, just as we can infer the existence of black holes due to their effects on other celestial objects, there should be at least *some* empirical evidence, somewhere that points to that. Oh, and by the way, which one is the one you say is the real one?
"Proof"
As for proof There is no such thing as absolute proof. At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!
"Evidence proving"
As Carl Sagan (and quite correctly, IMHO) pointed out, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." A claim that some vast, timeless, humani-form diety exists and takes an interest in the life on this planet, is quite an extraordinary claim. All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.
You can keep trying if you like, but unless you can produce scientific evidence of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created the cosmos, I'm not bu
You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish. But here's something peer-reviewed for you.
No intellectual dishonesty here, friend. That's the beauty of having an open mind: when new evidence is presented, I can use that information to expand my understanding of the universe around me. I am completely open to new ideas and understandings of the universe. However, I take empiricism very seriously. As such, for evidence to be valid, it must be identifiable, classifiable, and most of all, when identical methodologies are applied, repeatable.
From my perspective, those goalposts have never, and will never move.
I will go on to say that "religious" perspectives have often been used to popularize various life patterns or paths. *Sometimes*, they've even been useful, and could (in certain cases, i.e., buddhism) even be reasonably argued to be, a "good thing."(TM) That said, the creation myths of the belief systems generally referred to as "religions" do not jibe with the evidence collected, quite painstakingly, in our objective reality and do nothing to increase our understanding of the universe around us.
Science is a methodology and has exactly zero to do with metaphysical questions of existence and meaning. If you get your meaning from one bunch of stories, who am I to say they are meaningless? They mean something to you. That doesn't mean they have any relevance to me.
I have no issue with alternate belief systems per se, but for me to subscribe to one or more of those, the belief system must be self-consistent and not contradict the evidence we have explaining why the world is the way it is.
I see we have Slashdot's typical systematic "overrated" downvoting of religion posts in lieu of an actual counterargument again.
Don't be shy, mods. You can share it with us, if you have it. You know I'll be asking you about it again much later anyway.
Here's the deal I made with all the "Jews For Jesus" folks who accosted me while commuting back when I was a teenager: "I'm an empiricist. If you can provide me with one, just one, verifiable piece of actual evidence proving the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent 'thing' you call 'god' I will drop everything and join you." I make the same offer to you, Empiric. Are you up to it?
PassTime, the manufacturer of the ignition disabling device released a statement today, citing new features in their devices: "Our new video linkages allow you to watch the driver as you disable their car. Now with 50% more Schadenfreude!"
There. FTFM.
PassTime, the manufacturer of the ignition disabling device released a statement today stating, "Our new video linkages allow you to watch the driver as you disable their car. Now with 50% more Schedenfreude!"
As have I. I have several Debian based routers and KVM servers that are out pure CLI. I have no idea what the writer is taking air. And neither does the writer, methinks.
Paul Venezia is not worth reading, let alone discussing, IMHO.
Just like a lot of things. Here you go.
Well he normally does the same thing that you do- resorting to random ad homs about how stupid the other person is because they don't get it, kant reed, or is some kind of psychopath.
I'm sorry. Please point out where I made any remarks that could be considered to be ad hominem attacks. My point about reading comprehension was *not* irrelevant to the discussion (and hence, not 'ad hominem'). In fact, It wasn't really even an attack, just an observation.
Also, I'm not sure who the "he" you're referring to might be. Please enlighten me.
I made i clear that I was expressing my opinion, not telling you what to do.
Telling me your opinion of what I should have done is still telling me what I should have done, because you telling me what I should have done is only ever going to be your opinion.
Does that mean you think I shouldn't express my opinion,
Nowhere did I say you didn't have the right to express your opinion. I was simply pointing out the irony of you telling me me what I should have said in the same article where you admit that telling other people what they should or should not do or say is beyond your control.
Splitting that hair pretty finely, eh? Please, if you so choose, carry on. Or not. Not my business or concern. Have a lovely day. or not. again, not my business or concern.
I can't think of a single profession which doesn't seem to have a "problem." Makes one wonder.
Makes you wonder what, exactly? That this is not a "problem", because "everybody's doing it?" WTF? Look pal, the "problem" is narrow-minded, clueless misogynist views like that.
Wow! Just wow! I was thinking the same thing myself, except I put "this is a societal problem, not one just in the academic community," after 'Makes one wonder'. Way to go in projecting your fears and negativity on others.
Um, no... Observing that the "problem" is indeed widespread (i.e. a "societal problem") and that this in no way excuses any single community's misogyny is hardly "projecting" anything.
True enough. But you jumped down OP's throat when he or she made a statement that supports your point of view. I'd hate to see how you deal with people who disagree with you.
I would say that it might have been more productive to more fully quote me:
Just as you admit that controlling what other people do or think is seldom within one's ability, so is telling other people what points they should be making and how broadly they ought to discuss things.
My point is, and remains, that the concept of "actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence" (the part I quoted) requires telling other people how to think and behave. It also requires a correct definition of "discrimination, abuse and violence", and one worker telling a blond joke within earshot of a woman just doesn't reach that level. Sending 50 people to a class to learn how not to "discriminate, abuse or be violent" when they aren't doing that to start with is still a waste of everyone's time. Sending them to a class to learn how not to violate some law that has ridiculous definitions of "discrimination, abuse and violence" is only slightly less a waste of time.
I made i clear that I was expressing my opinion, not telling you what to do. I have no expectation that you will feel that it's necessary to act on my opinion, nor should I. Does that mean you think I shouldn't express my opinion, since I have no way to force others to do as I suggest? I'm not being snarky here, but that's what I gleaned from your response. Perhaps I interpreted your statement incorrectly.
I don't disagree with your point, rather I felt that including the part about "reasoning with those who can be reasoned with" makes your argument stronger, which is why I suggested its inclusion.
Have a lovely evening.
> Both you and Jawnn seem to have that in spades. Geez Louise! get a grip.
When you make unexplained connections in your head, spouting nonsense, then rephrasing what you had posted in an attempt to make it appear as if you were really clever (if you had only explained your thought process), isn't a failure of comprehension on someone else's part.
My complaint about reading comprehension related to the initial post, not my post. One reacted with vitriol over some, as you eloquently put it, unexplained connections in their head. When I called that person it, some AC (perhaps you?) was annoyed that I was incredulous at the GP's (and the AC's) poor reading comprehension.
Does that help you? Or should I use smaller words, so you'll be sure to understand?
As one gets older, or if one obtains the help of any 12 step program, you learn that you have very little control over what other people do or think. Most of the efforts to fix these problems are a waste of energy. Sending 50 people to a workplace sexual harassment prevention seminar for the day will waste the time of all fifty people. It accomplishes two things: it satisfies legal requirements for such "training" to have been given, and it provides a better basis for firing someone who is actually causing a problem. Of course it doesn't look so good if the actual problem is counseled privately the first time and then fired the second, so 49 people have to be told not to do "horrible things" in the workplace when they are already not doing horrible things. But that seminar didn't fix anything.
I am, as you put it, older, and yes I have learned that there are very few things that are actually under our individual control -- and other people do not fit into those few things at all.
I would say that it might have been more productive to more fully quote me:
and make your comments with the broader point, IMHO.
We should all be working together to stop harassment and violence . Nerds have been subject to prejudicial sterotyping, too. That should (and I think does) make us more understanding of the problem, not less. Instead of sniping at each other, let's bury our hatchets and work the problem.
There. FTFY.
There are no hatchets to bury, IMHO. In my experience, reasonable, decent people all agree that harassment and violence are inappropriate. The horrible things a small minority of people do should be roundly criticized and much more aggressively prosecuted.
I get that people are mad about these issues. It makes me quite angry as well, At the same time, I agree with you that spewing vitriol at those who agree is counterproductive, I'd go further and say that those who can be reasoned with, should be reasoned with. You'll catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Those who can't be reasoned with aren't going to suddenly see the light when you call them names. It's a waste of energy that could be used in actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence.
"Makes you wonder what, exactly?"
That this is a widespread social problem and not something restricted to just the nerdy professions. Project much?
Insightful, my ass.
Thank you. Apparenlty, there aren't enough people who disagree with Jawnn, so he or she needs to attack someone who is making a reasonable and supportable claim which, based on Jawnn's rant, is in full support of what they believe. Sigh.
> Way to go in projecting your fears and negativity on others.
The GP didn't do that. They weren't responding to you. That evidence is an example of you projecting.
The OP (rinukuzu) made an excellent observation -- that this is not limited to a single profession. The obvious implication is that this is a problem with our whole society, yet Jawnn assumed the GP was somehow trying to claim the problem doesn't exist. That isn't supported by what was posted.
Yes, I know Jawnn wasn't responding to me -- I hadn't posted anything. I was just struck by the completely negative tone, with Jawnn making a failrly obvious faulty assumptions about what the OP said.
I'm not sure what I'm projecting. I say there's a big problem with violence against women and it's not limited to academia.
What I don't support is poor reading comprehension. Both you and Jawnn seem to have that in spades. Geez Louise! get a grip.
I can't think of a single profession which doesn't seem to have a "problem." Makes one wonder.
Makes you wonder what, exactly? That this is not a "problem", because "everybody's doing it?" WTF? Look pal, the "problem" is narrow-minded, clueless misogynist views like that.
Wow! Just wow! I was thinking the same thing myself, except I put "this is a societal problem, not one just in the academic community," after 'Makes one wonder'. Way to go in projecting your fears and negativity on others.
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution.
All of that being true, there is still no "right to know" when applied to "everything that everyone in the government knows". For example, there is no "right to know" that the ambassador from some certain country is a dick and the best way to deal with him is to scratch his back a lot before asking for anything. What do you learn from that, and what does it benefit you to know? On the other hand, the idea that he's a dick is really counterproductive to future negotiations but is good to know so those negotiations can be productive.
And that kind of information is some of the really secret stuff that we all had a "right to know" from the Wikileaks documents.
Point taken. However, as Americans, we do have a right to audit our government and the actions of its officials. Too much of what is being done in our names (and everything the US Government does is done in the name of US citizens) is hidden from us. Especially the power grabs by the government (including warrantless surveillance, secret courts and widespread curtailment of individual liberties), the gross incompetence of various public servants, and the lies and obfuscation used to cover them up.
As you pointed out, it probably isn't politic to reveal our foreign policy strategies and/or tactics for dealing with foreign governments. Despite that, on balance, I'm glad Snowden made these documents public, as they've clearly shown the disdain that our government has for its people and for the ideals and institutions that make us a nation.
I do believe that we have repeated history (in this case, history being the McCartney era nonsense with communists) and I think that lines were crossed using the new 'communist' (aka terrorist) threat as an excuse in exactly the same way that it happened during the McCartney era.
Thanks! Now Band On The Run makes much more sense to me!