It's even better than that. NASA in the sixties and seventies showed us just how powerful a robust process is.
A process is fragile if it attempts to solve a crisis by planning ahead for all contingencies. Inevitably an incident will happen that was not planned for, and the whole edifice will fail.
A robust process assumes something unforeseen will go wrong, and concentrate on making sure that there are adequate resources to respond in an ad-hoc manner.
NASA's processes in the Apollo project relied on a robust response: when anything went wrong, a highly qualified person was on the spot to think of a response and execute it. Sure they planned for incidents, but the final contingency plan was to have smart people with high stress tolerance to provide incident response 'on the ground'.
Armstrong was one of the exemplary examples of those people. He was by no means the only one though.
While it is possible to run a session by stringing together random encounters, and while that can be immensely fulfilling in its simplicity, it is by no means the only play style available.
A good GM has a storyline in their head, based on the characters available (both the non-player characters run by them and the player characters). Given a storyline and interactive characters, a good role-playing session is at least equivalent to a rousing pulp story.
There's of course extremes; pretentious games that pretend they're actually about storytelling art (and thus call their GM 'Storyteller'); the other side consists paradoxically of both the aforementioned random encounters and the dreaded 'GM railroad', where the GM has the story so planned out that player input becomes irrelevant.
Mate, you just have been given the exact words from a Japanese high-level bureaucrat saying the exact opposite, and you persist in saying "[they] did a good job"?
How much of your finances is tied up in nuclear energy?
Another part comes into play among the more fanatical Jews: the belief that they are the Chosen People of God, and that thus the belief of the goyim is irrelevant.
The good news is that even fanatical Jews, if they don't have the apparatus of the State behind them, tend to restrict this attitude to religion only. They may keep to themselves mostly, but on non-religious matters they deal with non-believers on an equal basis.
In places where they do form political parties, they are quite as scary as any other fanatic though. See how they manage to influence public policy in Israel.
Why should I be nice to someone who starts out as a condescending prick?
I've given you enough credit as it is. I do have little time for idiots, but as you may notice, both my previous posts in this thread were anything but antagonistic. One was based on a misunderstanding, one was a simple statement of perceived fact.
A good reason to abandon Ubuntu for Debian is that Ubuntu is fragile.
If you are used to the *nix way of doing things your way, you will soon find out that with all the Ubuntu-specific patches and scripts, you are bound to use the Ubuntu tools or break your system.
I'll give an example: a friend wanted to use an ath9k based WiFi chipset before support was mainstream. I checked and found that Ubuntu supported Debian's module-assistant to custom-build kernel modules. Great!
Until I found out that Ubuntu had patched the source package of the ath9k driver to put the sources in/usr/src, while nodule-assistant was still searching in/usr/src/modules.
That's only a minor example, but Ubuntu is full of these kind of quirks.
What are you talking about? Half a dozen packaging frameworks?
Here's how it works: there is the low-level package manger dpkg, which handles the installation of a package. Automatic dependency resolution is provided by libapt-pkg. That's it. That's the packaging system and framework.
Perhaps what confused you was the number of front-end tools built against libapt-pkg. Those are not frameworks; those are applications, and merely give you a choice of your favourite front-end.
Goal-post shift noted. The law discussed has huge exemptions for first-class cookies, and you mentioned nowhere in your original post that you were merely discussing first-class cookies. I, however, have mentioned elsewhere that I have no problem with first-class cookies.
So, explain to me what justification websites have for using cookies to track my browsing habits without permission? A straight answer this time, no equivocation.
Ooooohhh, you've added me to your signature. I'm terrified.
You do realise that those whose opinion is worth something, i.e. smart people, will see the context, don't you?
Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question. Of course you won't see that; and the only ones that care are the same sort of spotty bullying twerps that start whining for their Mum when they find their target doesn't meekly submits and hits back.
Sure, and women could be safer by not walking down certain streets in too sexy clothing.
I reiterate, it's up to you to prove to me why I should give something of mine up to you. All other public transactions work that way, and yet you want a blanket reversal for the personal info merchants. It is you who owes the public an explanation.
And behaving like a spotty twerp with a bully complex is not helping your case.
And if you had had the reading level of a twelve year old, you'd have seen that I didn't use 'anonymous coward' as a proper name, so I wasn't referring to the Slashdot usage, but simply to the inability to verify your imaginary expertise.
Which, apparently, is totally dependent on "Dick and Jane build a website".
Oh yeah, Hacker X did those posts full of invective, but now that you've thoroughly shown yourself up as an idiot, you're going to whine about a Bill Hicks quote.
No, you're an anonymous coward on Slashdot, and I am the Pope.
Seriously, do you think you impress anyone waving your imaginary dick around? Especially since we'd need a microscope to see it?
I don't need to brag to have the facts on my site. Cookies were invented to bypass HTTP's inability to track state across requests. Any use of cookies is to persist state across HTTP requests; since requests come from users, cookies ipso facto track users.
If you are disputing even that basic fact, then no list of imaginary credentials is capable of hiding who is the idiot here.
Yes, the world has to adapt to me, indeed. When it comes to my personal info, it's the same as regards my personal property: if you want it, you have to justify yourself.
That you are incapable of nothing but invective when asked to do so shows just what you are: one of those who thinks they are above common decency and even the law when it comes to making a buck, a huckster of dreaming becoming part of the 1% one day.
In other words, a fucking sociopath the world could do without. Kill yourself. This is not a joke, seriously, kill yourself.
I'm not the one scare-mongering. You are acting as if the WWW will collapse if you have to ask users for consent to track them.
Why are you so dead set on just being able to track me without asking me first? Have you no decency, or are you trying to hide what you want to do with my info?
All four of your examples are examples of user tracking.
Face it, cookies are a workaround for the stateless nature of HTTP. Cookies are meant for tracking by definition
And you know what? Numbers 1 and 2 are covered. Number 3 is covered once you asked for permission, which you can do using number 1. That leaves 'analytics', which is usually PR-speak for 'tracking user browsing and selling it to the highest bidder'.
So of your three examples, 2 of them are covered, one of them is covered by extension, and one of them can be done without. I'd say, no great loss.
You want to track me? You need my permission, and you don't get it by default.
What actual technical purposes for cookies are there?
I wish you apologists for the privacy-violators had a better grasp of the technology; the whole point of cookies is to track the user, that's what they were invented for.
Now, some kind of tracking, like session tracking, may be necessary for the functionality of your site, but if you'd done your homework, you know that the makers of the directive considered that, and gave a specific exemption.
In other words: shut up, you fucking shill for the tracking industry.
There's more to Socialism than state-imposed collectivism. If you don't see Brunner's outright attack on the corporate/state cooperation in Shockwave Rider, but instead focus on a minor detail like the 'delphi' trading, then yeah, I have the right to call you a libertard.
Suuure, the way the corporations and the politicians, with full collusion of the corporate press, keep telling the people in 'The Sheep Look Up' that everything is hunky-dory has absolutely been disproven by modern developments (*cough*Koch Brothers and AGW*cough* *cough*Cato Institute and smoking*cough*).
And I'm not even going into your obvious fixation on the few titillating scenes in Children while ignoring the very reason these children explicitly give us for using their powers.
Oh right, of course. 'The Sheep Look Up' and 'Children of the Thunder', to name just two, are not dystopian enough for Mr. I-feel-personally-insulted Slashdot Libertarian.
You realise that your libertard diatribe just proved my point, don't you? A point that was made in, of all things, a side remark.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even better than that. NASA in the sixties and seventies showed us just how powerful a robust process is.
A process is fragile if it attempts to solve a crisis by planning ahead for all contingencies. Inevitably an incident will happen that was not planned for, and the whole edifice will fail.
A robust process assumes something unforeseen will go wrong, and concentrate on making sure that there are adequate resources to respond in an ad-hoc manner.
NASA's processes in the Apollo project relied on a robust response: when anything went wrong, a highly qualified person was on the spot to think of a response and execute it. Sure they planned for incidents, but the final contingency plan was to have smart people with high stress tolerance to provide incident response 'on the ground'.
Armstrong was one of the exemplary examples of those people. He was by no means the only one though.
While it is possible to run a session by stringing together random encounters, and while that can be immensely fulfilling in its simplicity, it is by no means the only play style available.
A good GM has a storyline in their head, based on the characters available (both the non-player characters run by them and the player characters). Given a storyline and interactive characters, a good role-playing session is at least equivalent to a rousing pulp story.
There's of course extremes; pretentious games that pretend they're actually about storytelling art (and thus call their GM 'Storyteller'); the other side consists paradoxically of both the aforementioned random encounters and the dreaded 'GM railroad', where the GM has the story so planned out that player input becomes irrelevant.
Posted using HTTP over TCP/IP. Oh the irony.
Mate, you just have been given the exact words from a Japanese high-level bureaucrat saying the exact opposite, and you persist in saying "[they] did a good job"?
How much of your finances is tied up in nuclear energy?
Another part comes into play among the more fanatical Jews: the belief that they are the Chosen People of God, and that thus the belief of the goyim is irrelevant.
The good news is that even fanatical Jews, if they don't have the apparatus of the State behind them, tend to restrict this attitude to religion only. They may keep to themselves mostly, but on non-religious matters they deal with non-believers on an equal basis.
In places where they do form political parties, they are quite as scary as any other fanatic though. See how they manage to influence public policy in Israel.
Why should I be nice to someone who starts out as a condescending prick?
I've given you enough credit as it is. I do have little time for idiots, but as you may notice, both my previous posts in this thread were anything but antagonistic. One was based on a misunderstanding, one was a simple statement of perceived fact.
So stop whining and be a sodding adult, will you?
Mart
Ah, you meant frameworks for creating packages.
Unclear communication does not help your point.
A good reason to abandon Ubuntu for Debian is that Ubuntu is fragile.
If you are used to the *nix way of doing things your way, you will soon find out that with all the Ubuntu-specific patches and scripts, you are bound to use the Ubuntu tools or break your system.
I'll give an example: a friend wanted to use an ath9k based WiFi chipset before support was mainstream. I checked and found that Ubuntu supported Debian's module-assistant to custom-build kernel modules. Great!
Until I found out that Ubuntu had patched the source package of the ath9k driver to put the sources in /usr/src, while nodule-assistant was still searching in /usr/src/modules.
That's only a minor example, but Ubuntu is full of these kind of quirks.
What are you talking about? Half a dozen packaging frameworks?
Here's how it works: there is the low-level package manger dpkg, which handles the installation of a package. Automatic dependency resolution is provided by libapt-pkg. That's it. That's the packaging system and framework.
Perhaps what confused you was the number of front-end tools built against libapt-pkg. Those are not frameworks; those are applications, and merely give you a choice of your favourite front-end.
Mart
Goal-post shift noted. The law discussed has huge exemptions for first-class cookies, and you mentioned nowhere in your original post that you were merely discussing first-class cookies. I, however, have mentioned elsewhere that I have no problem with first-class cookies.
So, explain to me what justification websites have for using cookies to track my browsing habits without permission? A straight answer this time, no equivocation.
Mart
Ooooohhh, you've added me to your signature. I'm terrified.
You do realise that those whose opinion is worth something, i.e. smart people, will see the context, don't you?
Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question. Of course you won't see that; and the only ones that care are the same sort of spotty bullying twerps that start whining for their Mum when they find their target doesn't meekly submits and hits back.
Sure, and women could be safer by not walking down certain streets in too sexy clothing.
I reiterate, it's up to you to prove to me why I should give something of mine up to you. All other public transactions work that way, and yet you want a blanket reversal for the personal info merchants. It is you who owes the public an explanation.
And behaving like a spotty twerp with a bully complex is not helping your case.
Hmm, I don't see you attacking the original poster for his invective. No, a Bill Hicks quote gets you all hot and bothered.
Nice try, sockpuppet.
And if you had had the reading level of a twelve year old, you'd have seen that I didn't use 'anonymous coward' as a proper name, so I wasn't referring to the Slashdot usage, but simply to the inability to verify your imaginary expertise.
Which, apparently, is totally dependent on "Dick and Jane build a website".
Oh yeah, Hacker X did those posts full of invective, but now that you've thoroughly shown yourself up as an idiot, you're going to whine about a Bill Hicks quote.
Fuck off.
Fuck you and the false dichotomy you rode in on.
Why not do both?
And again, it's the websites that want my personal info (yes, my browsing habits are personal info), they should have to justify themselves, not me.
Mart
No, you're an anonymous coward on Slashdot, and I am the Pope.
Seriously, do you think you impress anyone waving your imaginary dick around? Especially since we'd need a microscope to see it?
I don't need to brag to have the facts on my site. Cookies were invented to bypass HTTP's inability to track state across requests. Any use of cookies is to persist state across HTTP requests; since requests come from users, cookies ipso facto track users.
If you are disputing even that basic fact, then no list of imaginary credentials is capable of hiding who is the idiot here.
Mart
Yes, the world has to adapt to me, indeed. When it comes to my personal info, it's the same as regards my personal property: if you want it, you have to justify yourself.
That you are incapable of nothing but invective when asked to do so shows just what you are: one of those who thinks they are above common decency and even the law when it comes to making a buck, a huckster of dreaming becoming part of the 1% one day.
In other words, a fucking sociopath the world could do without. Kill yourself. This is not a joke, seriously, kill yourself.
I'm not the one scare-mongering. You are acting as if the WWW will collapse if you have to ask users for consent to track them.
Why are you so dead set on just being able to track me without asking me first? Have you no decency, or are you trying to hide what you want to do with my info?
Because the burden is on the one infringing on my right to privacy to prove necessity, not on me.
Given the loud whines of Facebook-wannabe's and their shills, one wonders what they have to hide about why they collect all that browsing information?
All four of your examples are examples of user tracking.
Face it, cookies are a workaround for the stateless nature of HTTP. Cookies are meant for tracking by definition
And you know what? Numbers 1 and 2 are covered. Number 3 is covered once you asked for permission, which you can do using number 1. That leaves 'analytics', which is usually PR-speak for 'tracking user browsing and selling it to the highest bidder'.
So of your three examples, 2 of them are covered, one of them is covered by extension, and one of them can be done without. I'd say, no great loss.
You want to track me? You need my permission, and you don't get it by default.
What actual technical purposes for cookies are there?
I wish you apologists for the privacy-violators had a better grasp of the technology; the whole point of cookies is to track the user, that's what they were invented for.
Now, some kind of tracking, like session tracking, may be necessary for the functionality of your site, but if you'd done your homework, you know that the makers of the directive considered that, and gave a specific exemption.
In other words: shut up, you fucking shill for the tracking industry.
Mart
BNP bashing?
Dear God, you have not even read anything by Brunner, have you? You're just spouting what Internet summaries tell you./p.
Yup, we have a real live libertard here.
Two points:
And I'm not even going into your obvious fixation on the few titillating scenes in Children while ignoring the very reason these children explicitly give us for using their powers.
Mart
Oh right, of course. 'The Sheep Look Up' and 'Children of the Thunder', to name just two, are not dystopian enough for Mr. I-feel-personally-insulted Slashdot Libertarian.
You realise that your libertard diatribe just proved my point, don't you? A point that was made in, of all things, a side remark.