You are changing the subject. I was referring to your complaint about "recent developments".
And I addressed your reference. In my opinion, you have mistaken a side effect (removing the tyrant) for the cause. The USA could smash Saddam decades ago, but instead supported him and done with him only recently, so the 'liberation' argument doesn't really applies here.
Remember, there was no single example in human history, when a person that started using, mmm, toilet paper, ceased such practice voluntarily.
And? Does it disproves my point somehow?
No state is using force just because they are inherently evil. They just find it to be the easiest and the most convenient way to deal with outside world. And once a government gets used to biggest-fist-on-the-block status it will never stop.
Yes, it is a dangerous slope and will require skill and wisdom not to slip down.
To this I wholeheartedly agree. However, the last thing I will rely in this world on is the wisdom or sincerity of politicians.
A blody dictator was ousted with remarkably little "collateral damage".
Sorry, but I don't buy this 'charity' argument. Why Saddam stayed in power for so long? Who supplied him with conventional weapons and WMDs in first place? Why Rumsfield has shaken his hand circa '83?
I can counter in a similar vain: "Last time Germany and Russia agreed on something, Poland disappeared".
No no. Last time Germany and Russia argeed on something, the Berlin wall disappeared.
The US currently has tremendously overwhelming advantage on the battlefield.
This one is hard to argue. But remember: there was no single example in human history when a state that started using military force outside its borders ceased such practice voluntarily.
And honestly I don't see any force that could counter US in observable future. So expect many more TV shows: Coalition of the Willing vs. Axis of Evil is just the first season.
But these are all simply cliches that do not and should not end the argument, and the people who use them, more often than not, are simply parroting something they heard someone else say to sound smart.
I haven't heard the phrase I used before, if it makes you feel better. Besides, your moralist p.o.v. is hardly any original too.
My point was that there aren't really many 'bad guys' around. Your average GI, if he happened to be born in North Korea, would defend their politics with the same self-righteousness and determination, and vice versa. Hate to tell you that, but usually Soviet people were sane, loved their parents, made occasional acts of heroism, didn't eat newborns for breakfast and sincerely believed they are doing their best for humanity.
And it does not change the fact that the USSR was much, much worse than the US in the the Cold War, and that the Cold War was right to fight.
Worse? Maybe. Much worse? Unlikely. Both sides exterminated millions. Kind of like saying that Pol Pot is better than Hitler.
What I was saying is, that the current situation is still flawed in a major way, and we should continue to look for better policies.
Sure, there is always place for improvement. I don't see the current development as an improvement though. Last time someone decided to screw the Nations, my home country lost quarter of its population in direct casualities, so pardon me my alertness.
Even if we assume, that we should be looking for inter-sovereign principles in the domain of the inter-individual ones, we should not be blindly trying to pick the same solutions for both.
Yes, there is a problem of scale at least, and the UN methods are sluggish and often incoherent. But I don't see that brute force/world policeman model is any better: face it, people generally hate cops.
It's excuse: We Cannot Violate The Sovereignty of Any Member of the International Community.
Alas, so far it was the best thing that people came up with. Because otherwise, you just have the rule of the strongest on the international scene. This time it is you, but next time the coin can flip the other side. Last two world wars are good enough arguments against Social Darwinism.
No, really, did you ever considered why Lynch law is outlawed? After all, there are lots of evil people who look guilty, but whose crimes can't be proved in courts?
But I keep hearing it will help oil companies or Bush's oil buddies. This couldn't be further from the truth since it will actually lower their profits if oil is cheap.
There is not just oil industry in the USA. Look at GM, Cadillac et al. macho toys from the last Detroit Motor Show. They are about to hit the market later this year. Why produce overcapacitated fuel-burning monsters which make battle tanks look underpowered in comparision?
It ain't WMD, 'terrorist links' and 'liberation' BS. It is oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, and more cheap oil that is already in corporate business plans.
IANAH, but I suppose one of the better methods would be double-blind security; one ex-hacker to design the system, one ex-hacker to try and defeat it, and never the twain shall meet.
1. We talk about crackers here, not hackers. 2. Crackers generally suck at system design.
Remember that in general any destructive activity is easier than constructive - that's a property of the Universe we live in. Building demolition, while requires some thinking to be done properly, tends to take much less time, thought and effort than building construction. There is strong similarity in other areas of human activity.
Most creative types in the industry - software architects, engineers, good sysadmins - could succeed tremendously in cracking if they wanted to, much better than an average script kiddie. However they fortunately have different priorities.
So while I agree that it might be useful to hire ex-cracker for a security audit, the design of security measures should be left to experts.
...the problems with the human body breaking down after extended weighlessness? Or of simply putting any more than 1 person in the same place for more than a month or two and not kill each other?
You do know that one Russian crew spent at Mir a year or so, right?
You can see the lights from space, but you can't see the starving children.
Come on, it wouldn't be that expensive. Just postpone bombing of a rouge state or two.
While junk email is surely annoying, it's also purely electronic, a simple press of the delete key and it's gone, you can continue with your work unencumbered.
This line suggests that you're not yet a victim of spam. We'll talk when you'll be getting a hundred of flashy, htmlized porn/penis enlargement/nigerian scam/cable descrambler/make$1000000@home crappy messages a day over a dialup line.
Just because you don't like someone or what they do, they still have rights.
Look, if someone deliberately pisses off millons of people worldwide by abusing their public addresses, and then complains about violation of his privacy - tough luck.
Spammers 'cross the line' everyday, and I am happy that at least one of them is forced to eat his own sh^Wdogfood. Kudos to Uy.
The paper is indeed very interesting and innovative, but keep in mind that it is very far from being suitable to embed into your next 802.11 adapter.
While this approach is indeed appealing, it has still some drawbacks, e.g: - generally, you can't tell what your topoligy your network will end up having, so forget about architecting one - it does not guarantee that all your nodes will end up being networked within a fixed number of attempts (see the fig. 3 in the paper) - it tends to require significant redundancy of interchangeable nodes to function well
Such approach can work well, say, for military field communications, but would be clearly suboptimal for building a corporate network.
And of course, as most of agent research, this is still too far from established technology ready for production.
Currently, mozilla -mail is not a good option for these users because link clicks and attachments end up going to mozilla browser windows instead of the preferred browser.
And that's it?
Wouldn't it be easier to add an option to specify preferred browser into Mozilla Mail preferences? I am not ranting - everyone is free to do whatever they want - but right now, when Mozilla Mail is finally stable and packed with some really good features, and at the same time many FS/OSS projects starve from lack of developers, what is the point of writing yet another MUA?
Aspect Oriented programming is a brand new programming paradign, kinda of like the switch you made when going from functional programming to object oriented programming.
Aspect-oriented programming is a castrated version of a moderately old reflective programming paradigm: Metaobject Protocols. I won't go into lengthy explanations of that; it is suffice to mention though that Kizales, the father of AOP, is coincidentially published a book called "The Art of Meta-Object Protocol" in early nineties, and that, say, Lisp programmers use MOP for about decade now. So AOP is just yet another toy replica for people in the sandbox:)
Note that the triumphs of NASA date from the era when engineers ran the programs, and not political hacks like now.
NASA was always run by politicians (remember what the space race was about?). It is mostly the difference in funding that makes current spaces program look miserable when compared to the glory past.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, someone made me interested in learning what Lisp is all about. ;)
:) Give it a try - Lisp is fun even if you'll never use it afterwards.
Thanks
RIAA> We've noticed that you host copyrighted material on your PC. You are not anonymous. Please cease and desist.
Eliza> What makes you think You are not anonymous?
RIAA> Eh?
Eliza> Please go on.
RIAA> Are you kidding me?
Elia> Has it something to do with your childhood?
RIAA> Oh.. now as you said that I recall my parents being very cruel to me. They refused to buy me a Walkman for my 13th birthday..
You are changing the subject. I was referring to your complaint about "recent developments".
And I addressed your reference. In my opinion, you have mistaken a side effect (removing the tyrant) for the cause. The USA could smash Saddam decades ago, but instead supported him and done with him only recently, so the 'liberation' argument doesn't really applies here.
Remember, there was no single example in human history, when a person that started using, mmm, toilet paper, ceased such practice voluntarily.
And? Does it disproves my point somehow?
No state is using force just because they are inherently evil. They just find it to be the easiest and the most convenient way to deal with outside world. And once a government gets used to biggest-fist-on-the-block status it will never stop.
Yes, it is a dangerous slope and will require skill and wisdom not to slip down.
To this I wholeheartedly agree. However, the last thing I will rely in this world on is the wisdom or sincerity of politicians.
A blody dictator was ousted with remarkably little "collateral damage".
Sorry, but I don't buy this 'charity' argument. Why Saddam stayed in power for so long? Who supplied him with conventional weapons and WMDs in first place? Why Rumsfield has shaken his hand circa '83?
I can counter in a similar vain: "Last time Germany and Russia agreed on something, Poland disappeared".
No no. Last time Germany and Russia argeed on something, the Berlin wall disappeared.
The US currently has tremendously overwhelming advantage on the battlefield.
This one is hard to argue. But remember: there was no single example in human history when a state that started using military force outside its borders ceased such practice voluntarily.
And honestly I don't see any force that could counter US in observable future. So expect many more TV shows: Coalition of the Willing vs. Axis of Evil is just the first season.
But these are all simply cliches that do not and should not end the argument, and the people who use them, more often than not, are simply parroting something they heard someone else say to sound smart.
I haven't heard the phrase I used before, if it makes you feel better. Besides, your moralist p.o.v. is hardly any original too.
My point was that there aren't really many 'bad guys' around. Your average GI, if he happened to be born in North Korea, would defend their politics with the same self-righteousness and determination, and vice versa. Hate to tell you that, but usually Soviet people were sane, loved their parents, made occasional acts of heroism, didn't eat newborns for breakfast and sincerely believed they are doing their best for humanity.
And it does not change the fact that the USSR was much, much worse than the US in the the Cold War, and that the Cold War was right to fight.
Worse? Maybe. Much worse? Unlikely. Both sides exterminated millions. Kind of like saying that Pol Pot is better than Hitler.
What I was saying is, that the current situation is still flawed in a major way, and we should continue to look for better policies.
Sure, there is always place for improvement. I don't see the current development as an improvement though. Last time someone decided to screw the Nations, my home country lost quarter of its population in direct casualities, so pardon me my alertness.
Even if we assume, that we should be looking for inter-sovereign principles in the domain of the inter-individual ones, we should not be blindly trying to pick the same solutions for both.
Yes, there is a problem of scale at least, and the UN methods are sluggish and often incoherent. But I don't see that brute force/world policeman model is any better: face it, people generally hate cops.
It's excuse: We Cannot Violate The Sovereignty of Any Member of the International Community.
Alas, so far it was the best thing that people came up with. Because otherwise, you just have the rule of the strongest on the international scene. This time it is you, but next time the coin can flip the other side. Last two world wars are good enough arguments against Social Darwinism.
No, really, did you ever considered why Lynch law is outlawed? After all, there are lots of evil people who look guilty, but whose crimes can't be proved in courts?
We were the good guys, they were the bad guys, they lost, end of story
The guys who win always say that.
However, should the Americans find water on the moon, we'll completely reverse our position.
Oh they will find it. After all, it was America who shipped the water to the moon some decades ago.
..and insinuate that it was somehow involved in 9/11.
Well.. the night before it was up there.
Boycott all French! Zap Sadda.. oh.. sorry.
But I keep hearing it will help oil companies or Bush's oil buddies. This couldn't be further from the truth since it will actually lower their profits if oil is cheap.
There is not just oil industry in the USA. Look at GM, Cadillac et al. macho toys from the last Detroit Motor Show. They are about to hit the market later this year. Why produce overcapacitated fuel-burning monsters which make battle tanks look underpowered in comparision?
It ain't WMD, 'terrorist links' and 'liberation' BS. It is oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, and more cheap oil that is already in corporate business plans.
If I re-post all the +5 comments on this issue from the previous article, am I more or less honest than a convicted cracker?
No, you'll be a DMCA violator.
IANAH, but I suppose one of the better methods would be double-blind security; one ex-hacker to design the system, one ex-hacker to try and defeat it, and never the twain shall meet.
1. We talk about crackers here, not hackers.
2. Crackers generally suck at system design.
Remember that in general any destructive activity is easier than constructive - that's a property of the Universe we live in. Building demolition, while requires some thinking to be done properly, tends to take much less time, thought and effort than building construction. There is strong similarity in other areas of human activity.
Most creative types in the industry - software architects, engineers, good sysadmins - could succeed tremendously in cracking if they wanted to, much better than an average script kiddie. However they fortunately have different priorities.
So while I agree that it might be useful to hire ex-cracker for a security audit, the design of security measures should be left to experts.
...the problems with the human body breaking down after extended weighlessness?
Or of simply putting any more than 1 person in the same place for more than a month or two and not kill each other?
You do know that one Russian crew spent at Mir a year or so, right?
You can see the lights from space, but you can't see the starving children.
Come on, it wouldn't be that expensive. Just postpone bombing of a rouge state or two.
"Enlarge your broadband now! No pills, no pumps! Up to 4 inches thick! Guaranteed!"
While junk email is surely annoying, it's also purely electronic, a simple press of the delete key and it's gone, you can continue with your work unencumbered.
This line suggests that you're not yet a victim of spam. We'll talk when you'll be getting a hundred of flashy, htmlized porn/penis enlargement/nigerian scam/cable descrambler/make$1000000@home crappy messages a day over a dialup line.
Just because you don't like someone or what they do, they still have rights.
Look, if someone deliberately pisses off millons of people worldwide by abusing their public addresses, and then complains about violation of his privacy - tough luck.
Spammers 'cross the line' everyday, and I am happy that at least one of them is forced to eat his own sh^Wdogfood. Kudos to Uy.
The paper is indeed very interesting and innovative, but keep in mind that it is very far from being suitable to embed into your next 802.11 adapter.
While this approach is indeed appealing, it has still some drawbacks, e.g:
- generally, you can't tell what your topoligy your network will end up having, so forget about architecting one
- it does not guarantee that all your nodes will end up being networked within a fixed number of attempts (see the fig. 3 in the paper)
- it tends to require significant redundancy of interchangeable nodes to function well
Such approach can work well, say, for military field communications, but would be clearly suboptimal for building a corporate network.
And of course, as most of agent research, this is still too far from established technology ready for production.
As it is, they don't work for you.
I am not complaining, nor do I ask them to work for me, as I explicitly mentioned. I was just wondering on rationale of the fork, may I?
Currently, mozilla -mail is not a good option for these users because link clicks and attachments end up going to mozilla browser windows instead of the preferred browser.
And that's it?
Wouldn't it be easier to add an option to specify preferred browser into Mozilla Mail preferences? I am not ranting - everyone is free to do whatever they want - but right now, when Mozilla Mail is finally stable and packed with some really good features, and at the same time many FS/OSS projects starve from lack of developers, what is the point of writing yet another MUA?
At the same time, civillian units had mapping capabilities, easy to use graphic displays, and were about 1/2 the size.
Were they able to sustain EMI of a nuclear bomb detonation? Parachute landing? A dip into mud? Continious vibration? An owner with IQ of 60?
There are reasons that all military equipment looks so dumb and rugged.
Aspect Oriented programming is a brand new programming paradign, kinda of like the switch you made when going from functional programming to object oriented programming.
:)
Aspect-oriented programming is a castrated version of a moderately old reflective programming paradigm: Metaobject Protocols. I won't go into lengthy explanations of that; it is suffice to mention though that Kizales, the father of AOP, is coincidentially published a book called "The Art of Meta-Object Protocol" in early nineties, and that, say, Lisp programmers use MOP for about decade now. So AOP is just yet another toy replica for people in the sandbox
Note that the triumphs of NASA date from the era when engineers ran the programs, and not political hacks like now.
NASA was always run by politicians (remember what the space race was about?). It is mostly the difference in funding that makes current spaces program look miserable when compared to the glory past.
Besides, who's to say God and evolution cannot coexist? What if that's the method He used?
It can't be done in six days.
I don't pay for either, and it costs me about 4 hours each month to keep each one useful. Fair trade.
..and that spiked necklace is not that much incovenient too.