And you need to get a thicker skin: RedBear's reply isn't any more rude or insulting than your post, which doesn't seem to meet your sudden criteria for "common courtesy".
Maybe you're right. I looked at the two and didn't see it that way, though. I replied to the person and didn't encourage third parties to mod him down. No sense in beating a dead horse, though.
No, it is an attack on your position, you see your position != you.
Go home and tell your wife that her dress is hideous and see if she sees that as an attack on her dress -- because her dress != her. I hope that you have a comfortable couch.
Just because somebody didn't start their comment with "humbly begging your pardon master maxwell, but I think you'll find that..." doesn't mean you can go off half cocked calling people idiots
You distort common courtesy into something absurd. Starting off with "I disagree" and directing the post the person to whom you are replying is hardly the same as kowtowing in the manner that you describe.
You see, whenever you explode into the discussion in your signature way ("Another Reason Why I Am Always Right" by fmaxwell),
Actually, I prefer to think of it as "Further Proof that I Continue to be Right", but why nit-pick over titles?;-)
you are giving us your point of view on the subject, not the gospel truth.
If I'm right, then it is the truth. If I'm wrong, then it's not.
Common courtesy tells us to attack the idea and not the person, and that should cut both ways: an attack on your position is not an attack on you! You seem to take any discussion of your point of view as a personal attack on yourself, and vehemently reply in kind with an enthusiasm that boggles the mind of all but the most immature amongst us.
I try to keep my replies appropriate based on what I am replying to. When someone states that my position is idiotic or "not insightful in the slightest", it is an attack on me. If they say "I disagree because...", that's a wholly different matter and elicits a different tone of response. If someone distorts my position to create a straw-man argument to shoot down, then I reply with vigor (an example of which can be seen in this thread).
By analogy, suppose someone told you that your shirt was hideous. I think that you would take offense at that because you chose that shirt. You chose to wear it. They are, in essence, telling you that you have bad taste. The same is true when someone dismisses your position as being idiotic, weak, "not insightful in the least", etc. It's the product of your intellect.
I will also admit that I took offense at the way he addressed his reply to "the mods" ("In other words, mods, the parent post is not insightful in the slightest.") rather than to me. He wanted his "point of view" be taken as the "gospel truth", dismissing everything I wrote without the courtesy of even discussing it with me in a public forum.
Yes, I am strongly opinionated and I will defend my positions vigorously. If you want to discuss your disagreement with my positions, I will try to show you the courtesy of continuing the discussion so long as we both are getting something from it. I will spend hours researching to support my positions as I feel that is being intellectually honest. If that offends you, I'm sorry.
You missed (or choose to be blind to) my entire point. There are already a dozen laws that make writing and distributing viruses illegal, so why do viruses still exist? Viruses are already illegal twelve times over, what good will it do to make them illegal thirteen times over? Very, very little, in the real world.
But you don't seem to understand that we are discussing spyware, not viruses, and that the law we are discussing would make illegal much of the spyware which is legal today. A major corporation might be willing to include clandestine spyware with their program now because it's legal and they believe that it will generate revenue. Make it illegal, and they won't include it. Virus writers rely on anonymity to avoid being caught. The publishers of major software packages don't have that option.
Oh, so it must be some other universe doing all that stuff.
No, people and corporations are doing it. Railing against the entire universe is absurd.
I guess it doesn't happen in this universe.
Why would you guess that?
You might want to think about this one for a while. Like a couple of decades. It's sort of a Zen koan type of thing. You'll figure it out eventually. Maybe.
No, it's not particulary insightful. It's simply blaming "the universe" for the actions of a few immoral corporations and individuals.
Uh, no, they will just make their spyware conform to the law so that it will be legal, but it will still be spyware, and ignorant people will still install it. They aren't making spyware illegal, they're just requiring it to have a slightly more informative installation process.
"Spyware" implies clandestine activity and it's not so clandestine when the user gives informed consent. If someone wants to install software on their computer which sends every keystroke back to some major corporation, I'm not about to call for laws making that illegal. What I, and the authors of the bill, object to is efforts to sneak spyware onto computers.
If the parents had done their job, either Microsoft's OS wouldn't be on the computer, or it would be a better OS.
[sarcasm]It would be impossible to write spyware for Linux. No way that anyone could do that.[/sarcasm] Quit blaming the OS for the malicious actions of spyware authors. There is nothing inherent in Linux or BSD that would prevent spyware from being installed on it.
The corollary to what you said is that we don't need to rely on self-defense or education, because we have these wonderful laws, you know.
Absolutely untrue. What I wrote:
Next, we can get rid of laws prohibiting muggings and
just teach everyone self-defense. We can make identity theft legal and just teach people how to prevent it.
See how I highlighted "just"? Notice that I did not say "instead" or imply, state, or hint that these things should not be taught now.
Wow. You truly are a god, sir. Am I to understand that you can dodge a bullet?
I thought that you understood the term "natural selection" when you used it. Natural selection is the process, described by Darwin, whereby desirable genetic traits are passed on because those posessing the traits survive longer and breed more successfully. For example, an early man who was stronger, faster, or more intelligent would be more likely to prosper and breed than his weaker, slower, or more feeble contemporaries. Introducing a gun into the mix could allow a individual with less desirable traits to survive and breed when natural selection would not have allowed it.
Oh, and making this insulting and personal really backs up your point well. Not.
Your entire post was aimed at convincing moderators that my post was not insightful, distorting what I wrote, and putting me in a bad light. Don't complain when my reply is not filled with warmth and good tidings.
Since it's obvious you haven't "met" fmaxwell before, let me tell you a little bit about this wee beastie. His specialty is issueing blanket statements in strong sounding language with little or no forethought, then blasting anyone who dares to disagree with his (obvious) genius as an idiot - unfit to share the same threads of discussion as the words which drop from his keyboard like pearls of golden wisdom.
Basically correct, except that there is plenty of forethought behind my posts.
I suspect some lasting effect of childhood trauma is responsible for his inability to grasp the concept of a "point of view"
"Point of view"... Right. Every time that someone says something absurd, we should just say it is their "point of view" rather than telling them that they are wrong.
You just keep missing my point, I'm not sure how you do it.
Let's just say that it could be at either end and I won't get nasty about that.
The point is (to spell it out): If you're going to make use of technology, you should learn the basic set of skills needed to do so, or pay someone else a great deal of money so that you do not have to learn those skills.
It's one thing to say that you should be willing to pay for an expert in any field where you lack expertise. I have no problem with that. What bothers me is the notion of treating repairs after spyware, worms, viruses, and other forms of digital vandalism as if they were routine maintenance like backups, deleting unwanted files, or installing OS patches. It's not.
My point (to spell it out): Spreading spyware, trojan horses, viruses, worms, and other malware should be illegal. When something like that infects someone's system, they have every right to be angry. They should not view it as a normal cost of having a computer. They should not blame themselves for not being more computer-savvy.
It would be great if everyone could develop the technical skills to be expert in every facet of their lives, be it digital television, computers, automobiles, or high-end audio. But that's just more and more unrealistic as technology marches onwards, becoming ever more pervasive and complex.
Oh, as for suing the kid, yeah right. If my Brother had that kind of money, he wouldn't be living next door to a crook.
You don't need to hire Perry Mason when the person has been caught by the police. He could go into court, no lawyer at all, and get a hefty judgement. Whether he could collect is another story, but he doesn't need to hire an attorney to sue someone for stealing his stuff.
The parent poster got +5, Insightful for this (at the moment), which makes me sad.
I got it because I deserved it. Now I'll give you the benefit of my insight and explain why.
Because he's missing something BIG here. This universe could care less what should be happening.
"The universe" isn't publishing filesharing apps loaded with spyware. It's not putting up online games in an effort to trick kids into putting spyware on the family computer.
If you (and those around you) are ignorant, no amount of laws will keep you from being victimized.
You are ignorant. You may not be ignorant about computers, but you are ignorant about many things. It should be illegal to victimize you based on your ignorance. I shouldn't be legally allowed to sell you breakfast cereal loaded with Ecstasy just because you don't know that "MDMA", shown in the list of ingredients, is the chemical name for Ecstacy -- or because you didn't carefully read that list of ingredients.
Laws don't keep anything from happening, except slightly, in a general way, sometimes.
Absolutely untrue. Laws shape decisions by individuals and corporations. A large corporation is probably not going to bundle spyware with their software if they know that there is a $1000 per copy penalty for doing so. Some guy who's thinking of trying to steal passwords to porn sites is likely to consider whether it's worth $1000/copy to trick people into putting his spyware on their system. He may be prepared for the minimal risks associated with using purloined passwords to access porn sites, but he may look at a large fine and/or jail time for releasing spyware and decide the risk is too great.
The parent poster seems to believe that no one should ever need to be taught self-defense or how to avoid identity theft simply because we have laws against those things.
You know damned well that is a vile distortion of what I wrote. I said that we should not abolish laws against muggings and identity theft and, instead, rely solely on self-defense classes and education about preventing identity theft.
So yes, get rid of the laws and become more self-reliant and this nation or any other would be better off in the short and long run.
"Get rid of the laws"? Get rid of laws against rape, burglary, murder, identity theft, robbery, child pornography, etc. and we'd be "better off in the short and long run"? Wow! You really are way out there, aren't you?
It is not insightful to say that people shouldn't have to know about their universe in order to live in it safely.
Again, another distortion about what I said. I said that "everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized." I did not say that people should not have to know anything. What do you know about chemistry and biology? If I put a list of ingredients in front of you, could you tell me, with certainty, if the product was safe to eat? Should I be legally permitted to poison you if you are ignorant about chemistry and biology?
Anyone smarter than a thumbtack has the potential of learning enough about their computer to realize that they are being victimized by these spyware companies, and subsequently to realize that they are being victimized by whoever designed the software they use that allows this spyware easy access to their computer.
So some ten year old kid who wants to access an online game on the family's computer should understand the ramifications of spyware, be making value decisions about privacy, and should send a message to Microsoft about his displeasure with their OS design? Don't waste our time with the tired 'kid's parents should be surgically attached to him 24/7' argument, because that's not reality.
This problem does not require legislation.
Yes, it does, or spyware would have ceased to exist long ago. It needs legislation because large corpor
computer != car. Computers are not as easy to use as cars. They're never going to be.
You are the one who came up with the flawed car analogy, not me. You're the one who likened repairing the damage done by some malicious spyware to routine oil changes, not me.
Not everyone who uses a computer is going to be a computer expert. Kids will use their parents' computers. Old people who just want to stay in touch with family members will use computers. I don't agree with blaming the victims and telling them to suck it up every time some prick convinces their 12 year old kid to download some online game loaded with spyware. Screw that. They should be pissed off and not be blaming themselves.
Oh, and when my brother's appartment got robbed, and they caught the guy, the police did _nothing_ (except for giving back those few posessions of my brother's the guy hadn't managed to sell, to wit: some old tapes).
That doesn't sound like the model for how the police should deal with all crimes.
When my brother moved out of the apartment, the guy was still living there. Little f**ker doesn't even have to pay back the money he made selling my brother's things.
Your brother had the opportunity to sue the kid for civil damages. If he had done so, the courts would probably have required that the kid/parents pay restitution. You can't expect the cops to play judge and jury, too. They have no power to make the kid pay money.
If you were right, then there would not be such a groundswell of opposition to spyware. But you aren't right. The problem is so bad that congress has had to get involved because of complaints from constituents.
You act like everyone on the planet should know what ActiveX is, whether it should be enabled or not, what Java does, what Javascript does, how to reverse engineer setup.exe programs, etc. That's just asinine. You don't allow people to legally exploit security flaws. That's like saying that it should be legal for someone to steal your car if you forget to lock the doors.
Users end up running programs that in effect accept commands from other people on the internet without any authentication or restriction.
Maybe someone will mail you a box of Anthrax. If you open it, then that's your choice, as uninformed as it may be, and when you are dying from it, you have no place to complain.
Without an operator's instructions a computer is just a hunk of metal. That a computer does something, installing a program or whatever, itself indicates that the operator has told the computer to do it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been carried out.
So fraud should be legal? I should be legally allowed to claim that setup.exe contains a fileshareing program when it really contains spyware? That's what you're telling all of us: It's always the user's fault, regardless of what he was told. I could sell anti-virus software that formats the hard drive and that would be the user's fault for running setup.exe.
Talk about blaming the victim! You should be a defense attorney for rapists with your attitude.
You choose to use MSIE, which is known for it's security holes. Even with Sasser, you chose to use windows, which opens up services to the internet by default. So yes, you chose to let the Sasser worm install itself because you ran an OS vulnerable to it.
No, most people did not "choose" anything. They got a computer with IE and Windows and used it. What is a typical person supposed to do? Figure out how to install and use OpenBSD? Learn how to use netfilter/iptables to create firewalls? Write their own OpenBSD equivalent to TaxCut before next April 15? Get the kids a copy of gcc instead of the PC video game that they wanted at CompUSA?
Most people who aren't on Slashdot 24/7 have lives. They don't have time to devote to studying their computer so that criminals can't damage it. They don't have time to become expert on computer technology. They aren't going to learn how to compile new kernels or type cryptic Unix command lines.
How about TAKING SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY.
How about TAKING SOME FUCKING VALIUM? There are plenty of things you don't know jack shit about, but you use them anyway, don't you? Should it be legal to fuck you over any time that you aren't an expert? Should a burglar be found not guilty because you chose to use cheap Yale locks? Should the police come over and tell you to "take some fucking responsibility" if it happens?
You DO instruct your computer to install this stuff.
What a load! People instruct their computer to install apps and the spyware comes along for the ride. How many people instructed their computers to install software that pops up porn ads every time they use the web? Do you think that they said "gee, that sounds like the software for me"?
People need to take responsibilty for their own computer usage. If they're not informed enough to use a computer then they need to not use it. It's that simple.
What makes you think that you know so damned much about computers that I or any other expert couldn't do damage to your system? Hell, you can't even enter a URL into your profile in Slashdot and have it work.
I'll make you a deal: I'll put you in a room with ten foods, each of which lists all ingredients. Five of them will include deadly poisons. You choose what to eat. If you die, tough. If you don't know enough about chemistry and biology to recognize deadly poisons, then you need to stop eating. It's that simple.
This law is no different from one that would make it illegal to format your own hard drive and delete your own files.
That is an incredibly stupid thing to say! How many people would reasonably expect that installing something called "Download Accelerator Plus" would put spyware or adware on their computer? Wouldn't most of them thing "that will make my downloads faster"? You act like people installed apps with names like "Fuck_Up_My_Computer.exe" and "I_Want_My_Computer_To_Tell_Some_Stranger_Every_Si te_That_I_Visit.exe."
Or he should stop bitching, take it to a shop and pay $60 dollars every 3 months when the computer becomes unusable.
And you can pay $60 every 3 months when I come by and put a brick through your window. Don't complain to the police because it's your fault for not learning enough about home security to prevent it.
If I can shell out $60 bucks for an oil change every 3 months (I'm lazy, and I like to use full synthetic), why the hell should a computer user who's willfully ignorant (i.e., he doesn't understand his computer, and he doesn't want to) get by paying $35 bucks once a year to some over worked tech, and never expect another problem a day in his life?
You don't understand the difference between regular maintenance and repairs necessitated by malicious acts (like the bundling of spyware)? Would you mind paying $60 to replace gas that I siphoned out? Are you going to push to have gasoline theft made legal and then blame the victims for not having locking gas caps?
Why is legislation necessary here? this is a problem that could be solved with just a little technical nous.
Fine. You go to 290 million people in the U.S. and educate them -- every man, woman, and child -- on how to deal-with, avoid, and remove spyware. God knows that learning about sypware should be the key goal in everyone's life. The guy investigating prostate cancer online after bad news from his doctor? He should stop what he's doing and take lessons from you about spyware.
Next, we can get rid of laws prohibiting muggings and just teach everyone self-defense. We can make identity theft legal and just teach people how to prevent it.
Everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized.
I've marked you as a friend as well, and if I view my postings from your viewpoint - I really cam off as a twit.
Don't worry about it. It's not like I was a model of decorum and politeness. Okay, I was hostile and unpleasant.
I have a little Velcro closured bag that you fill up with sand/pebbles at your destination; once you're done findings small rocks you place the new bean-bag on your knee while sitting Indian style.
Neat idea. When camping, you might be able to use a pillow for similar purpose as the friction and smooth motion, rather than the weight, may be more important.
The butt of the scope is a round - a chopped up Styrofoam ball, and the tube is a chopped up 4-liter Nalgene lab-bottle. The wide rim of the Nalgene bottle is left alone so the traditional Nalgene cap is the lens cap.
Very good idea!
Some thoughts: Paint the inside of the tube/Nalgene bottle with flat black paint. That will likely improve contrast a lot, especially when using it in the vicinity of bright light sources (the moon, street lights, Jupiter, etc.). You also may want to some day try your hand at fiberglassing and the styrofoam ball is a great place to start. I recommend West System Epoxy as the fiberglass resin.
All the bits have been epoxied/screwed into place, its field of view is narrow, the chromatic aberration is horrible, and the edge is quite dim.
If the primary is mirrored on the front surface, the chromatic abberation is probably from the eyepiece and/or secondary. Field of view may be an eyepiece issue and the dim edge may be due to vignetting caused by an undersized secondary. But, hey, if you use it, that's what matters.
I've fiutzed with the prisms/mirrors to make up-up and down-down (I think it's called a terrestrial prism).
You lose a good bit of light with a porro prism (or other erecting prism), so I'd only use that for non-astronomy stuff.
All said and done, I should have probably bought a set of binoculars - but it was a fun learning experiance, and it gets used so I can't complain too much.
Anyone can buy binoculars, but there's a pleasure to be had from building a telescope with your own hands that will never be known by someone who just buys a binocular.
I've sold the B&L a long time ago - I just wasn't getting any use from it, and grudgingly realized that I needed a really light scope for my woodland trips if I was to *actually* use it.
People think that 8" S/C scopes are really light and transportable -- until they have one. They are really about as big a scope as one would want to move in and out of a house regularly.
You might consider building a refractor -- using a purchased achromat. Here one that a friend showed me that looked promising for a small, inexpensive refractor:
http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l2160d.htm l
What do you know about rich field telescopes, acrylic primaries in Newtonians, grinding telescope mirrors, achromatic refractors, mirror cells, etc.? What do you know about B&L Schmidt-Cassegrain catadioptic scopes?
First you BOTH swap insults back and forth like a couple of junior high kids
And notice that you didn't chime in during that. Obviously, that's what you come to Slashdot to see.
then all of a sudden we're in the middle of some twisted parody of slashdot personals
So when two people discover common interests and hobbies that the whole thing goes south for you. You came here to see the equivalent of a playground fight and you lost interest when it ended.
Not if your conduct here is indication of your "professionalism."
We can't all be as professional and upstanding as you are on Slashdot.
Granted, my spelling may be atrociaous[sic] but lake[sic] of attention to detail is no indication of intelectual[sic] capacity.
I hope, for your sake, that you are right.
You have exactly 5 years on me, but I feel sad for you.
Actually, probably a bit more.
I bet your MCSE brings you a lot of joy.
I'm a software developer, not some guy trying to get hired at a help desk. I have no interest in the certification racket.
My PADI certification, Technician class HAM Radio (with code), any my (soon to be) private pilots license brings me joy.
I've got PADI Open Water and Equipment Specialist certifications. Fun sport. I also enjoy boating, fishing, motorcycling, woodworking, and RC aircraft. Work is something that I do to pay the bills.
BTW - Celestron does suck. Grind your own mirrors - it's a lot of fun. I've made a custom 4" Newtonian with an acrylic primary mirror - the whole scope only weighs 7 lbs. It's great for hiking - people who never seen a planet before really enjoy it on our climbs. It's a POS, but it's fun - I wouldn't cry if I dropped it.
I assume that, since it's an acrylic mirror, that it's being used as a rich-field scope. What kind of primary mount are you using to avoid distortion problems? I haven't ground my own mirrors yet as I lack the patience. I've built a few scopes using figured optics. I built a couple of 6" Newtonians and I've also built a 3" F6 refractor.
Of course, what do I know - I got suckered into buying an 8-inch Bauch-and-Lomb just before they stopped making scopes.
Baush & Lomb 8000 or 8001? As you probably know, the 8000 is one that they bought the rights to from Dynamax. The 8001 was intended to correct the shortcomings of the 8000.
P.S. I changed you to friend. We have too much in common (including being rude at times) to leave it any other way.
Go back to your junior high school and spend a little more time learning to spell before trying to convince us all about your "open-souse" software company that's "raking in" all of that money.
Unlike you, I'm a successful tech professional with over two decades of experience, so I'm not so easy to fool as your your little school buddies. Better luck next time.
meanwhile, your follow-up is at -1, Flamebait. Democracy cuts both ways.
+5 + -1 = +4 Sounds like I'm doing pretty well by the voters.
"Flamebait" on Slashdot often means that the post was mean. I'm not going to waste time mincing words with some kid who's making up stories about his imaginary "company." The kid can't even spell "open source" and he's claiming to be part of a business selling it to customers? Please!
Yes, it does imply consent, regardless of your protests to the contrary.
just that I prefer to tweak trolls like you in a more ad-hominum way.
You lack the ability and courage to debate intellectually so you concoct fictional companies and resort to name calling when you are caught. Pathetic.
As to "troll" comment, your initial post in this thread is moderated "troll" while my retort is a +5 insightful (at the time of this writing). The votes are in on that one -- and you lose.
As to your spelling, play all of the games that you want, but spelling "source" as "souse" and "sourse" is ignorant and directing insults at me doesn't change that fact.
I didn't know that you were into sucking stick-pussy... But I'm not surprised.
I'll take it from the lack of substantive answers that I hit the nail on the head -- that you are just some kid pretending to be in the computer business. Your "company..." What a hoot!
My company is clobering the competition by the judicious use of open souse products.
Perhaps you should obtain an "open souse" spelling checker.
Our bids are lower and our re-work costs are lower.
Your bids to do what? To rework what?
In fact, I hope the goodness of open-sourse doesen't come to light - it's a distinct competitive advantage that I don't want my competition to know about.
Please! You can't even spell "open source." You're some high-school or college kid trying to pretend to be in business.
Raking in the money with little effort is FUN.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say. All those customers just dying to pay your "firm" for your secret open source software. Here's a reality check for you: There have been numerous studies done regarding the use of open-source software for business and there is not some tremendous monetary advantage in most cases, so you are not "raking in the money with little effort."
Slashdot Mirror
You're just another asshole who lacks the courage to defend your ill-conceived position. Go away little boy. You've wasted enough of my time.
And you need to get a thicker skin: RedBear's reply isn't any more rude or insulting than your post, which doesn't seem to meet your sudden criteria for "common courtesy".
Maybe you're right. I looked at the two and didn't see it that way, though. I replied to the person and didn't encourage third parties to mod him down. No sense in beating a dead horse, though.
No, it is an attack on your position, you see your position != you.
Go home and tell your wife that her dress is hideous and see if she sees that as an attack on her dress -- because her dress != her. I hope that you have a comfortable couch.
Just because somebody didn't start their comment with "humbly begging your pardon master maxwell, but I think you'll find that..." doesn't mean you can go off half cocked calling people idiots
You distort common courtesy into something absurd. Starting off with "I disagree" and directing the post the person to whom you are replying is hardly the same as kowtowing in the manner that you describe.
You see, whenever you explode into the discussion in your signature way ("Another Reason Why I Am Always Right" by fmaxwell),
;-)
Actually, I prefer to think of it as "Further Proof that I Continue to be Right", but why nit-pick over titles?
you are giving us your point of view on the subject, not the gospel truth.
If I'm right, then it is the truth. If I'm wrong, then it's not.
Common courtesy tells us to attack the idea and not the person, and that should cut both ways: an attack on your position is not an attack on you! You seem to take any discussion of your point of view as a personal attack on yourself, and vehemently reply in kind with an enthusiasm that boggles the mind of all but the most immature amongst us.
I try to keep my replies appropriate based on what I am replying to. When someone states that my position is idiotic or "not insightful in the slightest", it is an attack on me. If they say "I disagree because...", that's a wholly different matter and elicits a different tone of response. If someone distorts my position to create a straw-man argument to shoot down, then I reply with vigor (an example of which can be seen in this thread).
By analogy, suppose someone told you that your shirt was hideous. I think that you would take offense at that because you chose that shirt. You chose to wear it. They are, in essence, telling you that you have bad taste. The same is true when someone dismisses your position as being idiotic, weak, "not insightful in the least", etc. It's the product of your intellect.
I will also admit that I took offense at the way he addressed his reply to "the mods" ("In other words, mods, the parent post is not insightful in the slightest.") rather than to me. He wanted his "point of view" be taken as the "gospel truth", dismissing everything I wrote without the courtesy of even discussing it with me in a public forum.
Yes, I am strongly opinionated and I will defend my positions vigorously. If you want to discuss your disagreement with my positions, I will try to show you the courtesy of continuing the discussion so long as we both are getting something from it. I will spend hours researching to support my positions as I feel that is being intellectually honest. If that offends you, I'm sorry.
But you don't seem to understand that we are discussing spyware, not viruses, and that the law we are discussing would make illegal much of the spyware which is legal today. A major corporation might be willing to include clandestine spyware with their program now because it's legal and they believe that it will generate revenue. Make it illegal, and they won't include it. Virus writers rely on anonymity to avoid being caught. The publishers of major software packages don't have that option.
Oh, so it must be some other universe doing all that stuff.
No, people and corporations are doing it. Railing against the entire universe is absurd.
I guess it doesn't happen in this universe.
Why would you guess that?
You might want to think about this one for a while. Like a couple of decades. It's sort of a Zen koan type of thing. You'll figure it out eventually. Maybe.
No, it's not particulary insightful. It's simply blaming "the universe" for the actions of a few immoral corporations and individuals.
Uh, no, they will just make their spyware conform to the law so that it will be legal, but it will still be spyware, and ignorant people will still install it. They aren't making spyware illegal, they're just requiring it to have a slightly more informative installation process.
"Spyware" implies clandestine activity and it's not so clandestine when the user gives informed consent. If someone wants to install software on their computer which sends every keystroke back to some major corporation, I'm not about to call for laws making that illegal. What I, and the authors of the bill, object to is efforts to sneak spyware onto computers.
If the parents had done their job, either Microsoft's OS wouldn't be on the computer, or it would be a better OS.
[sarcasm]It would be impossible to write spyware for Linux. No way that anyone could do that.[/sarcasm] Quit blaming the OS for the malicious actions of spyware authors. There is nothing inherent in Linux or BSD that would prevent spyware from being installed on it.
The corollary to what you said is that we don't need to rely on self-defense or education, because we have these wonderful laws, you know.
Absolutely untrue. What I wrote:See how I highlighted "just"? Notice that I did not say "instead" or imply, state, or hint that these things should not be taught now.
Wow. You truly are a god, sir. Am I to understand that you can dodge a bullet?
I thought that you understood the term "natural selection" when you used it. Natural selection is the process, described by Darwin, whereby desirable genetic traits are passed on because those posessing the traits survive longer and breed more successfully. For example, an early man who was stronger, faster, or more intelligent would be more likely to prosper and breed than his weaker, slower, or more feeble contemporaries. Introducing a gun into the mix could allow a individual with less desirable traits to survive and breed when natural selection would not have allowed it.
Oh, and making this insulting and personal really backs up your point well. Not.
Your entire post was aimed at convincing moderators that my post was not insightful, distorting what I wrote, and putting me in a bad light. Don't complain when my reply is not filled with warmth and good tidings.
Since it's obvious you haven't "met" fmaxwell before, let me tell you a little bit about this wee beastie. His specialty is issueing blanket statements in strong sounding language with little or no forethought, then blasting anyone who dares to disagree with his (obvious) genius as an idiot - unfit to share the same threads of discussion as the words which drop from his keyboard like pearls of golden wisdom.
Basically correct, except that there is plenty of forethought behind my posts.
I suspect some lasting effect of childhood trauma is responsible for his inability to grasp the concept of a "point of view"
"Point of view"... Right. Every time that someone says something absurd, we should just say it is their "point of view" rather than telling them that they are wrong.
You just keep missing my point, I'm not sure how you do it.
Let's just say that it could be at either end and I won't get nasty about that.
The point is (to spell it out): If you're going to make use of technology, you should learn the basic set of skills needed to do so, or pay someone else a great deal of money so that you do not have to learn those skills.
It's one thing to say that you should be willing to pay for an expert in any field where you lack expertise. I have no problem with that. What bothers me is the notion of treating repairs after spyware, worms, viruses, and other forms of digital vandalism as if they were routine maintenance like backups, deleting unwanted files, or installing OS patches. It's not.
My point (to spell it out): Spreading spyware, trojan horses, viruses, worms, and other malware should be illegal. When something like that infects someone's system, they have every right to be angry. They should not view it as a normal cost of having a computer. They should not blame themselves for not being more computer-savvy.
It would be great if everyone could develop the technical skills to be expert in every facet of their lives, be it digital television, computers, automobiles, or high-end audio. But that's just more and more unrealistic as technology marches onwards, becoming ever more pervasive and complex.
Oh, as for suing the kid, yeah right. If my Brother had that kind of money, he wouldn't be living next door to a crook.
You don't need to hire Perry Mason when the person has been caught by the police. He could go into court, no lawyer at all, and get a hefty judgement. Whether he could collect is another story, but he doesn't need to hire an attorney to sue someone for stealing his stuff.
The parent poster got +5, Insightful for this (at the moment), which makes me sad.
I got it because I deserved it. Now I'll give you the benefit of my insight and explain why.
Because he's missing something BIG here. This universe could care less what should be happening.
"The universe" isn't publishing filesharing apps loaded with spyware. It's not putting up online games in an effort to trick kids into putting spyware on the family computer.
If you (and those around you) are ignorant, no amount of laws will keep you from being victimized.
You are ignorant. You may not be ignorant about computers, but you are ignorant about many things. It should be illegal to victimize you based on your ignorance. I shouldn't be legally allowed to sell you breakfast cereal loaded with Ecstasy just because you don't know that "MDMA", shown in the list of ingredients, is the chemical name for Ecstacy -- or because you didn't carefully read that list of ingredients.
Laws don't keep anything from happening, except slightly, in a general way, sometimes.
Absolutely untrue. Laws shape decisions by individuals and corporations. A large corporation is probably not going to bundle spyware with their software if they know that there is a $1000 per copy penalty for doing so. Some guy who's thinking of trying to steal passwords to porn sites is likely to consider whether it's worth $1000/copy to trick people into putting his spyware on their system. He may be prepared for the minimal risks associated with using purloined passwords to access porn sites, but he may look at a large fine and/or jail time for releasing spyware and decide the risk is too great.
The parent poster seems to believe that no one should ever need to be taught self-defense or how to avoid identity theft simply because we have laws against those things.
You know damned well that is a vile distortion of what I wrote. I said that we should not abolish laws against muggings and identity theft and, instead, rely solely on self-defense classes and education about preventing identity theft.
So yes, get rid of the laws and become more self-reliant and this nation or any other would be better off in the short and long run.
"Get rid of the laws"? Get rid of laws against rape, burglary, murder, identity theft, robbery, child pornography, etc. and we'd be "better off in the short and long run"? Wow! You really are way out there, aren't you?
It is not insightful to say that people shouldn't have to know about their universe in order to live in it safely.
Again, another distortion about what I said. I said that "everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized." I did not say that people should not have to know anything. What do you know about chemistry and biology? If I put a list of ingredients in front of you, could you tell me, with certainty, if the product was safe to eat? Should I be legally permitted to poison you if you are ignorant about chemistry and biology?
Anyone smarter than a thumbtack has the potential of learning enough about their computer to realize that they are being victimized by these spyware companies, and subsequently to realize that they are being victimized by whoever designed the software they use that allows this spyware easy access to their computer.
So some ten year old kid who wants to access an online game on the family's computer should understand the ramifications of spyware, be making value decisions about privacy, and should send a message to Microsoft about his displeasure with their OS design? Don't waste our time with the tired 'kid's parents should be surgically attached to him 24/7' argument, because that's not reality.
This problem does not require legislation.
Yes, it does, or spyware would have ceased to exist long ago. It needs legislation because large corpor
computer != car. Computers are not as easy to use as cars. They're never going to be.
You are the one who came up with the flawed car analogy, not me. You're the one who likened repairing the damage done by some malicious spyware to routine oil changes, not me.
Not everyone who uses a computer is going to be a computer expert. Kids will use their parents' computers. Old people who just want to stay in touch with family members will use computers. I don't agree with blaming the victims and telling them to suck it up every time some prick convinces their 12 year old kid to download some online game loaded with spyware. Screw that. They should be pissed off and not be blaming themselves.
Oh, and when my brother's appartment got robbed, and they caught the guy, the police did _nothing_ (except for giving back those few posessions of my brother's the guy hadn't managed to sell, to wit: some old tapes).
That doesn't sound like the model for how the police should deal with all crimes.
When my brother moved out of the apartment, the guy was still living there. Little f**ker doesn't even have to pay back the money he made selling my brother's things.
Your brother had the opportunity to sue the kid for civil damages. If he had done so, the courts would probably have required that the kid/parents pay restitution. You can't expect the cops to play judge and jury, too. They have no power to make the kid pay money.
If you were right, then there would not be such a groundswell of opposition to spyware. But you aren't right. The problem is so bad that congress has had to get involved because of complaints from constituents.
You act like everyone on the planet should know what ActiveX is, whether it should be enabled or not, what Java does, what Javascript does, how to reverse engineer setup.exe programs, etc. That's just asinine. You don't allow people to legally exploit security flaws. That's like saying that it should be legal for someone to steal your car if you forget to lock the doors.
Users end up running programs that in effect accept commands from other people on the internet without any authentication or restriction.
Maybe someone will mail you a box of Anthrax. If you open it, then that's your choice, as uninformed as it may be, and when you are dying from it, you have no place to complain.
Without an operator's instructions a computer is just a hunk of metal. That a computer does something, installing a program or whatever, itself indicates that the operator has told the computer to do it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been carried out.
So fraud should be legal? I should be legally allowed to claim that setup.exe contains a fileshareing program when it really contains spyware? That's what you're telling all of us: It's always the user's fault, regardless of what he was told. I could sell anti-virus software that formats the hard drive and that would be the user's fault for running setup.exe.
Talk about blaming the victim! You should be a defense attorney for rapists with your attitude.
You choose to use MSIE, which is known for it's security holes. Even with Sasser, you chose to use windows, which opens up services to the internet by default. So yes, you chose to let the Sasser worm install itself because you ran an OS vulnerable to it.
No, most people did not "choose" anything. They got a computer with IE and Windows and used it. What is a typical person supposed to do? Figure out how to install and use OpenBSD? Learn how to use netfilter/iptables to create firewalls? Write their own OpenBSD equivalent to TaxCut before next April 15? Get the kids a copy of gcc instead of the PC video game that they wanted at CompUSA?
Most people who aren't on Slashdot 24/7 have lives. They don't have time to devote to studying their computer so that criminals can't damage it. They don't have time to become expert on computer technology. They aren't going to learn how to compile new kernels or type cryptic Unix command lines.
How about TAKING SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY.
How about TAKING SOME FUCKING VALIUM? There are plenty of things you don't know jack shit about, but you use them anyway, don't you? Should it be legal to fuck you over any time that you aren't an expert? Should a burglar be found not guilty because you chose to use cheap Yale locks? Should the police come over and tell you to "take some fucking responsibility" if it happens?
You DO instruct your computer to install this stuff.
i te_That_I_Visit.exe."
What a load! People instruct their computer to install apps and the spyware comes along for the ride. How many people instructed their computers to install software that pops up porn ads every time they use the web? Do you think that they said "gee, that sounds like the software for me"?
People need to take responsibilty for their own computer usage. If they're not informed enough to use a computer then they need to not use it. It's that simple.
What makes you think that you know so damned much about computers that I or any other expert couldn't do damage to your system? Hell, you can't even enter a URL into your profile in Slashdot and have it work.
I'll make you a deal: I'll put you in a room with ten foods, each of which lists all ingredients. Five of them will include deadly poisons. You choose what to eat. If you die, tough. If you don't know enough about chemistry and biology to recognize deadly poisons, then you need to stop eating. It's that simple.
This law is no different from one that would make it illegal to format your own hard drive and delete your own files.
That is an incredibly stupid thing to say! How many people would reasonably expect that installing something called "Download Accelerator Plus" would put spyware or adware on their computer? Wouldn't most of them thing "that will make my downloads faster"? You act like people installed apps with names like "Fuck_Up_My_Computer.exe" and "I_Want_My_Computer_To_Tell_Some_Stranger_Every_S
Or he should stop bitching, take it to a shop and pay $60 dollars every 3 months when the computer becomes unusable.
And you can pay $60 every 3 months when I come by and put a brick through your window. Don't complain to the police because it's your fault for not learning enough about home security to prevent it.
If I can shell out $60 bucks for an oil change every 3 months (I'm lazy, and I like to use full synthetic), why the hell should a computer user who's willfully ignorant (i.e., he doesn't understand his computer, and he doesn't want to) get by paying $35 bucks once a year to some over worked tech, and never expect another problem a day in his life?
You don't understand the difference between regular maintenance and repairs necessitated by malicious acts (like the bundling of spyware)? Would you mind paying $60 to replace gas that I siphoned out? Are you going to push to have gasoline theft made legal and then blame the victims for not having locking gas caps?
Why is legislation necessary here? this is a problem that could be solved with just a little technical nous.
Fine. You go to 290 million people in the U.S. and educate them -- every man, woman, and child -- on how to deal-with, avoid, and remove spyware. God knows that learning about sypware should be the key goal in everyone's life. The guy investigating prostate cancer online after bad news from his doctor? He should stop what he's doing and take lessons from you about spyware.
Next, we can get rid of laws prohibiting muggings and just teach everyone self-defense. We can make identity theft legal and just teach people how to prevent it.
Everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized.
I've marked you as a friend as well, and if I view my postings from your viewpoint - I really cam off as a twit.
m l
Don't worry about it. It's not like I was a model of decorum and politeness. Okay, I was hostile and unpleasant.
I have a little Velcro closured bag that you fill up with sand/pebbles at your destination; once you're done findings small rocks you place the new bean-bag on your knee while sitting Indian style.
Neat idea. When camping, you might be able to use a pillow for similar purpose as the friction and smooth motion, rather than the weight, may be more important.
The butt of the scope is a round - a chopped up Styrofoam ball, and the tube is a chopped up 4-liter Nalgene lab-bottle. The wide rim of the Nalgene bottle is left alone so the traditional Nalgene cap is the lens cap.
Very good idea!
Some thoughts: Paint the inside of the tube/Nalgene bottle with flat black paint. That will likely improve contrast a lot, especially when using it in the vicinity of bright light sources (the moon, street lights, Jupiter, etc.). You also may want to some day try your hand at fiberglassing and the styrofoam ball is a great place to start. I recommend West System Epoxy as the fiberglass resin.
All the bits have been epoxied/screwed into place, its field of view is narrow, the chromatic aberration is horrible, and the edge is quite dim.
If the primary is mirrored on the front surface, the chromatic abberation is probably from the eyepiece and/or secondary. Field of view may be an eyepiece issue and the dim edge may be due to vignetting caused by an undersized secondary. But, hey, if you use it, that's what matters.
I've fiutzed with the prisms/mirrors to make up-up and down-down (I think it's called a terrestrial prism).
You lose a good bit of light with a porro prism (or other erecting prism), so I'd only use that for non-astronomy stuff.
All said and done, I should have probably bought a set of binoculars - but it was a fun learning experiance, and it gets used so I can't complain too much.
Anyone can buy binoculars, but there's a pleasure to be had from building a telescope with your own hands that will never be known by someone who just buys a binocular.
I've sold the B&L a long time ago - I just wasn't getting any use from it, and grudgingly realized that I needed a really light scope for my woodland trips if I was to *actually* use it.
People think that 8" S/C scopes are really light and transportable -- until they have one. They are really about as big a scope as one would want to move in and out of a house regularly.
You might consider building a refractor -- using a purchased achromat. Here one that a friend showed me that looked promising for a small, inexpensive refractor:
http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l2160d.ht
And here's a great place to spend a fortune:
http://www.apogeeinc.com/scopeoptics.html
Oh please please Mr. Maxwell - can I be your friend?
No, but thank you for asking politely.
You must be joking fmaxwell.
What do you know about rich field telescopes, acrylic primaries in Newtonians, grinding telescope mirrors, achromatic refractors, mirror cells, etc.? What do you know about B&L Schmidt-Cassegrain catadioptic scopes?
First you BOTH swap insults back and forth like a couple of junior high kids
And notice that you didn't chime in during that. Obviously, that's what you come to Slashdot to see.
then all of a sudden we're in the middle of some twisted parody of slashdot personals
So when two people discover common interests and hobbies that the whole thing goes south for you. You came here to see the equivalent of a playground fight and you lost interest when it ended.
Nice try, Mr. Intellectual.
We gotta find the nest before your eggs hatch. The world can't take much more of this.
Yes, God knows we don't want intelligent conversation invading Slashdot!
Not if your conduct here is indication of your "professionalism."
We can't all be as professional and upstanding as you are on Slashdot.
Granted, my spelling may be atrociaous[sic] but lake[sic] of attention to detail is no indication of intelectual[sic] capacity.
I hope, for your sake, that you are right.
You have exactly 5 years on me, but I feel sad for you.
Actually, probably a bit more.
I bet your MCSE brings you a lot of joy.
I'm a software developer, not some guy trying to get hired at a help desk. I have no interest in the certification racket.
My PADI certification, Technician class HAM Radio (with code), any my (soon to be) private pilots license brings me joy.
I've got PADI Open Water and Equipment Specialist certifications. Fun sport. I also enjoy boating, fishing, motorcycling, woodworking, and RC aircraft. Work is something that I do to pay the bills.
BTW - Celestron does suck. Grind your own mirrors - it's a lot of fun. I've made a custom 4" Newtonian with an acrylic primary mirror - the whole scope only weighs 7 lbs. It's great for hiking - people who never seen a planet before really enjoy it on our climbs. It's a POS, but it's fun - I wouldn't cry if I dropped it.
I assume that, since it's an acrylic mirror, that it's being used as a rich-field scope. What kind of primary mount are you using to avoid distortion problems? I haven't ground my own mirrors yet as I lack the patience. I've built a few scopes using figured optics. I built a couple of 6" Newtonians and I've also built a 3" F6 refractor.
Of course, what do I know - I got suckered into buying an 8-inch Bauch-and-Lomb just before they stopped making scopes.
Baush & Lomb 8000 or 8001? As you probably know, the 8000 is one that they bought the rights to from Dynamax. The 8001 was intended to correct the shortcomings of the 8000.
P.S. I changed you to friend. We have too much in common (including being rude at times) to leave it any other way.
Keep wasting you time little troll.
Go back to your junior high school and spend a little more time learning to spell before trying to convince us all about your "open-souse" software company that's "raking in" all of that money.
Unlike you, I'm a successful tech professional with over two decades of experience, so I'm not so easy to fool as your your little school buddies. Better luck next time.
meanwhile, your follow-up is at -1, Flamebait. Democracy cuts both ways.
+5 + -1 = +4 Sounds like I'm doing pretty well by the voters.
"Flamebait" on Slashdot often means that the post was mean. I'm not going to waste time mincing words with some kid who's making up stories about his imaginary "company." The kid can't even spell "open source" and he's claiming to be part of a business selling it to customers? Please!
Lack of reply does not imply consent;
Yes, it does imply consent, regardless of your protests to the contrary.
just that I prefer to tweak trolls like you in a more ad-hominum way.
You lack the ability and courage to debate intellectually so you concoct fictional companies and resort to name calling when you are caught. Pathetic.
As to "troll" comment, your initial post in this thread is moderated "troll" while my retort is a +5 insightful (at the time of this writing). The votes are in on that one -- and you lose.
As to your spelling, play all of the games that you want, but spelling "source" as "souse" and "sourse" is ignorant and directing insults at me doesn't change that fact.
You make a good man-bitch.
I didn't know that you were into sucking stick-pussy... But I'm not surprised.
I'll take it from the lack of substantive answers that I hit the nail on the head -- that you are just some kid pretending to be in the computer business. Your "company..." What a hoot!
My company is clobering the competition by the judicious use of open souse products.
Perhaps you should obtain an "open souse" spelling checker.
Our bids are lower and our re-work costs are lower.
Your bids to do what? To rework what?
In fact, I hope the goodness of open-sourse doesen't come to light - it's a distinct competitive advantage that I don't want my competition to know about.
Please! You can't even spell "open source." You're some high-school or college kid trying to pretend to be in business.
Raking in the money with little effort is FUN.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say. All those customers just dying to pay your "firm" for your secret open source software. Here's a reality check for you: There have been numerous studies done regarding the use of open-source software for business and there is not some tremendous monetary advantage in most cases, so you are not "raking in the money with little effort."