Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Karl Menger's Law Against Miserliness (anti-razor): "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy." A simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.
Hanlon's Bane: "To make full use of people who have submitted to Hanlon's Razor, never admit to malice which can be explained as stupidity."
Are you saying that because it's possible that someone's flawless record of integrity could be corrupted, we should just keep on voting for the already corrupt?
one falsehood in your post is enough to make the entire thing hogwash
Though I see this tried often, it just isn't true. Regardless of the merit of the specific post in question, you can't invalidate a post of any scope by invalidating a marginal point.
That's why it's good that people from "outside" (well, a shareholding company) sued. If only it wasn't such an idiotic case. I'm not saying Hurd was doing everything right, but there are far more people out there who did really, really bad things, and no one sued then.
Why doesn't this whole suing people who fucked over the shareholders, fucked over the company itself, fucked over customers, government, environment, basically fucked over everyone except their close circle of "friends", and then the company and shareholders again via severance package-- why doesn't it happen much more often, as in every single time it's clear they did something against the law and morality, and still walk away with remuneration and the next executive job already in their pocket?
I would consider it a courtesy if Canonical actually asked me.
I beg your pardon? Software that phones home without telling you, even if it's free, has been the source of all kinds of deserved geek rage over the decades. How is this suddenly different?
I appreciate exactitude. I was sloppy and own up to it. Please let's get back to things less related to a language I don't speak natively and more related to the content we ought to be discussing.
Why don't you take the conditional to be a form of emphasis as I intended it ("even if he was stupid and careless" in the sense of "it doesn't matter that he was stupid and careless")?
If you did that, maybe you'd realize this isn't "much ado about nothing" as whether he changed his password is totally irrelevant to those questions and besides the point.
What are you all on about? He said he disabled administrative access from outside. No matter the password, there's intrusion going on here, so there is something to talk about.
If a password was all there is to protect your router from outside, all hell would break loose for simple brute forcing. You also can't expect Aunt Irma to change her password first thing when she gets net access.
Finally, even disregarding all that, even if he was stupid and careless, they can't just access the router if he didn't explicitly give them the right in a contract somewhere. I get you're all supercomputerexperts, but maybe we could talk about what he's asking?
Why is there an open forced access port/back door?
Is that ok without telling the owner?
What security is in place that entities besides Verizon can't access it?
Commercially Canonical is proving that "Linux on the Desktop" is a failure.
It can't prove any such thing, as it isn't trying to be, yet. All it proves is that if you put enough marketing behind Linux and give your product away for free (to increase its adoption instead of your account balance), adoption does increase and your account balance doesn't.
What are you trying to do here? There still is no outright refusal to fix this.
Instead it says:
We will continue to investigate the vulnerability and, upon completion of that investigation, we will take appropriate action to protect our customers.
Damn Vulnerable Linux is "The most vulnerable and exploitable operating system ever" according to its Web site. It's designed for security training; it includes training material and exercises (as well as a whole bunch of flaws to exploit). As Mayank Sharma notes: "Damn Vulnerable Linux (DVL) is everything a good Linux distribution isn't. Its developers have spent hours stuffing it with broken, ill-configured, outdated, and exploitable software that makes it vulnerable to attacks."
I missed foobar2000 until I installed mpd, mpc and ncmpcpp. I missed ACDSee until I installed feh and imagemagick. I missed utorrent until I installed rtorrent (it goes up to 'r', that's two better).
A few keybindings and custom scripts using libnotify-bin and zenity later, I am much more happy with this setup.
"May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they [...] do not [...] harm [...] service quality."
That isn't a catch, it totally invalidates the entire thing. That is precisely the justification being used. Viz: "We can't allow you to use BitTorrent or other high data volume services because they harm service quality for other users."
This isn't a net neutrality law but a net neutrality except for services that don't deserve neutrality law.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, how people could think otherwise is beyond me.
then what good is it?
It's obviously still the best product in the world. Usually that's good enough for me.
Yes Prime Minister clip very much related.
Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Karl Menger's Law Against Miserliness (anti-razor): "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy."
A simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.
Hanlon's Bane: "To make full use of people who have submitted to Hanlon's Razor, never admit to malice which can be explained as stupidity."
But it should mean not choosing a gun as first resort.
Are you saying that because it's possible that someone's flawless record of integrity could be corrupted, we should just keep on voting for the already corrupt?
And all this assuming is why using either "he" or "she" is a bad idea. Singular they or neutral pronouns are the only available unambiguous options.
one falsehood in your post is enough to make the entire thing hogwash
Though I see this tried often, it just isn't true. Regardless of the merit of the specific post in question, you can't invalidate a post of any scope by invalidating a marginal point.
Easy workaround: Give them non-tradable stock?
That's why it's good that people from "outside" (well, a shareholding company) sued. If only it wasn't such an idiotic case. I'm not saying Hurd was doing everything right, but there are far more people out there who did really, really bad things, and no one sued then.
Why doesn't this whole suing people who fucked over the shareholders, fucked over the company itself, fucked over customers, government, environment, basically fucked over everyone except their close circle of "friends", and then the company and shareholders again via severance package-- why doesn't it happen much more often, as in every single time it's clear they did something against the law and morality, and still walk away with remuneration and the next executive job already in their pocket?
I would consider it a courtesy if Canonical actually asked me.
I beg your pardon? Software that phones home without telling you, even if it's free, has been the source of all kinds of deserved geek rage over the decades. How is this suddenly different?
The zero-fatality car is stationary and has no passenger or pilot space.
Oh, not only most Americans do that.
I agree about and welcome the impasse. The discussion happened elsewhere in the meantime. Another time, MacLeod!
I appreciate exactitude. I was sloppy and own up to it. Please let's get back to things less related to a language I don't speak natively and more related to the content we ought to be discussing.
Why don't you take the conditional to be a form of emphasis as I intended it ("even if he was stupid and careless" in the sense of "it doesn't matter that he was stupid and careless")?
If you did that, maybe you'd realize this isn't "much ado about nothing" as whether he changed his password is totally irrelevant to those questions and besides the point.
What are you all on about? He said he disabled administrative access from outside. No matter the password, there's intrusion going on here, so there is something to talk about.
If a password was all there is to protect your router from outside, all hell would break loose for simple brute forcing. You also can't expect Aunt Irma to change her password first thing when she gets net access.
Finally, even disregarding all that, even if he was stupid and careless, they can't just access the router if he didn't explicitly give them the right in a contract somewhere. I get you're all supercomputerexperts, but maybe we could talk about what he's asking?
Why is there an open forced access port/back door?
Is that ok without telling the owner?
What security is in place that entities besides Verizon can't access it?
You know, this isn't D&D. You can't just say you make an excellent point, you have to actually make one.
Oh, wait. Were you just being redundant?
In any case: "Useless reply."
It can't prove any such thing, as it isn't trying to be, yet. All it proves is that if you put enough marketing behind Linux and give your product away for free (to increase its adoption instead of your account balance), adoption does increase and your account balance doesn't.
Yeah, I think it's censored, though. Sorry.
Here's a picture of a pony:
http://babybird.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/pony.jpg
What are you trying to do here? There still is no outright refusal to fix this.
Instead it says:
I blithely expect them to fill in themselves the implied "a number of above zero and up to but probably below 100% of".
Basic knowledge for whom?
Slashdot readers, for example.
BRB finding a stone to crawl under. Please disregard the parenthesis.
I missed foobar2000 until I installed mpd, mpc and ncmpcpp. I missed ACDSee until I installed feh and imagemagick. I missed utorrent until I installed rtorrent (it goes up to 'r', that's two better).
A few keybindings and custom scripts using libnotify-bin and zenity later, I am much more happy with this setup.
"May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they [...] do not [...] harm [...] service quality."
That isn't a catch, it totally invalidates the entire thing. That is precisely the justification being used. Viz: "We can't allow you to use BitTorrent or other high data volume services because they harm service quality for other users."
This isn't a net neutrality law but a net neutrality except for services that don't deserve neutrality law.