But they replaced the board with a bunch of people that are well known proponents of privacy and not exactly friends of the federal government...
*IF* the cons are the government, cleaning up the board of directors with people that did not already had said "no" to their proposals is better than sticking up with people that did. At least there's a hope for change - and, believe me, this stunt was cheap for the government, they can repeat this ad nauseaum.
But perhaps the feds are not guilty this time, who knows?
What I don't understand about opinions like yours is, if it really is some kind of government setup, why did they pick Jacob Abelbaum? He is not even close to a crucial part of Tor. There are lots of more important developers that they could have targeted instead. Besides the scandal of it, losing his developer abilities barely effects Tor at all.
Because he was the weakest link.
Abelbaum was not the target, he was the means. Someone (or all) the board of directors was/were the target(s).
A "confirmation" from an internal corporate investigation is worth about as much as my toilet.
On the other hand, for a company/organisation to come out in public with a statement like this is very risky indeed, unless they are able to back it up with substantial evidence.
> Lot of us jumped ship from Linux at the Gnome Desktop 3 fiasco.
Did you never learn how to install and select KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Mint, Cinnamon, or others ?
Yes. I do it now and then on XQuartz to probe the scene and see if there's hope of coming back.;-)
Seriously, KDE is terrible - if I enjoyed Windows, I would use Windows, no need for a half-baked free clone (QT is nice, however, I give them that).
By Mint you mean MATE, right? Well... MATE was a short term solution, but since everything and the kitchen's sink are being ported to Gnome3, on the long term my desktop would be driven to irrelevance.
Cinnamon? Seriously? Why would I accept all the problems of the Gnome3 to get half the benefits from the Gnome 2?
On the long run, the fact is that my time is expensive nowadays, I'm not a Linux evangelist those bills were paid by my parents anymore.
There is a reason that scripting languages aren't normally used for large applications. After the initial "wow that was super simple to write", you get to the phase where debugging takes forever, and maintenance is a pain in the ass. Maintenance is always the major share of software cost, and the amount of time it takes to write the initial code should be a secondary consideration (IMHO). Anyone who thinks a strongly typed language is just a pain in the ass probably hasn't done much long-term maintenance on a large system.
And this is precisely the reason there're so much effort on "dynamic languages".
The ideal programmer nowadays are cheap and disposable as the code he writes. There's no money on fixing production code, everybody wants to throw everythig away and rewrite from scratch every couple of years.
Long term maintenance demands competent and experienced professionals - that costs more. Throw away code, written by throw-away programmers are cheaper on the short-run, leaving more money to be pocketed by the low and middle management.
Don't feel bad. I used SLS when Debian even didn't existed yet. Hell, I heard that Slackware born as a fork from SLS! (Kernel 0.99 or 0.98 I think, all was statically linked yet, IIRC)
I had to import it on CD-ROM, spent some serious money on it (more than a Windows 3.11 license fee).
Happily, however, I had an EGA card around so I could us X in full blown 16 colors.:-D
hey don't believe that they do not know? The do not believe what they believe. They do not believe that they do not know.
I fear that you are trying to apply different definitions to belief, in one case completely dismissing a belief because it is convenient for whatever you are trying to argue.
Nah. You are doing it for us. All I'm doing is taking some popcorn while wait for your next fallacy.:-)
The difference between knowledge and believing (creed) is common sense enough.
Except for the poor agnostics, who apparently cannot believe something that everyone else would declare as belief. Word smithing, nothing more.
I agree. I just can't understand why you are doing such fuss about. At least it's being fun.
And in the beginning, this was an attempt to claiim that atheism is a religion. It isn't, and when people try to turn it into "religion" they have to perform silly gyrations, like your claiming that agnostics don't believe what they believe.
No. *YOU* are claiming that I'm claiming - something totally different.:-) (this conversation is all about you, no?)
I'm stating that Agnostics don't know if there's a God - and that's all what I'm stating.
Which is all to say, I belive that there is no flying spaghetti moster is real, and that it is not deity. I suspect you don't ether. And that makes us atheists toward the FSM. But you apparently would call my atheism toward the FSM my religion? Weeeeoo - that makes both us us have thousands of religions.
I made no such affirmation.
I stated that Atheism is the belief that there's no God. You made the relation between belief (or perhaps "creed would be a better word?) and religion - not me.;-)
Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.
Wrong. What you described is Agnosticism.
Wrong, an agnostic, according to Merriam Webster, is:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
That is what the agnostic person believes. Their "view, as defined in the dictionary.
An atheist believes that a God does not exist. Also from Merriam Webster.
Which is the same thing as a lack of belief in a God.
Because to take your view, an atheist would have to believe in a God to not believe in.
Wrong again. The key word is "believe".
Agnostician don't know. Perhaps there's a god, perhaps there's not - anyway, it is pointless to discuss without evidences. There's no place for "believing" on agnosticism. Everybody will die someday, so everybody will see it (if it's true), or just ceasing to exist without knowing it (if it's not).
What's different from the view of the Atheists - these ones *do believe* that there's no God, even by not being able to prove it. It's exactly the same psychological posture from the Theists, the only difference is that these last ones do believe there's a God, even by not being able to prove it.
If something can not be proved, no one can know about it. Just believe on it. In this approach, Atheists and Theists are on the same side.
Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.
Wrong. What you described is Agnosticism.
There's a difference between stating "I don't know if there's a god" and "there's no god".
If you don't believe in any deity, you believe there's no deity. On the other hand, *not knowing" if there's a god is related about Agnosticism.
We probably would have a better communication if "Itheism" was an accepted word for people that believe that there's no god, while "Atheism" would describe people that don't even recognize the concept of a deity. I think that the current word for this is "Nontheism".
Anyway, the common and accepted use for Atheism don't corroborate what you says.
They already tried that. It was J2ME - and each mobile builder locked the thing the way they could in order to protect their lawn.
On the Desktop, J2SE and J2EE tried something like that, but the outcry from the userbase that suddenly saw they poorly configured servers breaking down, even after years of advices about what would be coming killed the concept.
The security problems we have nowadays are not a technical problem. It's a human problem. "We" *WANT* things as we have nowadays.
Why do browsers and email programs have -any- access to anything? Sandbox the fuckers and call it a day. The fact that they aren't is a sign that companies aren't concerned enough about the problem.
You missed the point. They *ARE|* concerned about the problem: they need to keep it a problem, so they can sell a solution to corporations.
Believe me, they are deeply concerned about the survival of their business model.
Sitting on old technology that still works is far from being a demerit.
Floppy disks had their days long gone, but optical disks are still the best option for some applications - you don't have to worry if your boot DVD "firmware" was hacked by pluging it on a infected machine. Given the relatively easy process to hack pendrives firmware, my DVD-ROMs are still around.
There's also a huge amount of still usable software around the web that lacks the resources to be updated and will simply be lost. For sure a lot of people don't care about this, but there's a lot that does. And I don't remember books being banned when PDFs came around.
It's a fact that HTML5 should be used for modern content - but banning old content (what appears the current trend on TI) is unfair to say the least.
The moral of the Microsoft AI fail is not about political correctness, etc. The moral is don't depend too much on artificial intelligence programmed by retards..
Slashdot Mirror
(better late than never)
But they replaced the board with a bunch of people that are well known proponents of privacy and not exactly friends of the federal government...
*IF* the cons are the government, cleaning up the board of directors with people that did not already had said "no" to their proposals is better than sticking up with people that did. At least there's a hope for change - and, believe me, this stunt was cheap for the government, they can repeat this ad nauseaum.
But perhaps the feds are not guilty this time, who knows?
What I don't understand about opinions like yours is, if it really is some kind of government setup, why did they pick Jacob Abelbaum? He is not even close to a crucial part of Tor. There are lots of more important developers that they could have targeted instead. Besides the scandal of it, losing his developer abilities barely effects Tor at all.
Because he was the weakest link.
Abelbaum was not the target, he was the means. Someone (or all) the board of directors was/were the target(s).
A "confirmation" from an internal corporate investigation is worth about as much as my toilet.
On the other hand, for a company/organisation to come out in public with a statement like this is very risky indeed, unless they are able to back it up with substantial evidence.
No, it's not risky. It's not risky at all.
> Lot of us jumped ship from Linux at the Gnome Desktop 3 fiasco.
Did you never learn how to install and select KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Mint, Cinnamon, or others ?
Yes. I do it now and then on XQuartz to probe the scene and see if there's hope of coming back. ;-)
Seriously, KDE is terrible - if I enjoyed Windows, I would use Windows, no need for a half-baked free clone (QT is nice, however, I give them that).
By Mint you mean MATE, right? Well... MATE was a short term solution, but since everything and the kitchen's sink are being ported to Gnome3, on the long term my desktop would be driven to irrelevance.
Cinnamon? Seriously? Why would I accept all the problems of the Gnome3 to get half the benefits from the Gnome 2?
On the long run, the fact is that my time is expensive nowadays, I'm not a Linux evangelist those bills were paid by my parents anymore.
There is a reason that scripting languages aren't normally used for large applications. After the initial "wow that was super simple to write", you get to the phase where debugging takes forever, and maintenance is a pain in the ass. Maintenance is always the major share of software cost, and the amount of time it takes to write the initial code should be a secondary consideration (IMHO). Anyone who thinks a strongly typed language is just a pain in the ass probably hasn't done much long-term maintenance on a large system.
And this is precisely the reason there're so much effort on "dynamic languages".
The ideal programmer nowadays are cheap and disposable as the code he writes. There's no money on fixing production code, everybody wants to throw everythig away and rewrite from scratch every couple of years.
Long term maintenance demands competent and experienced professionals - that costs more. Throw away code, written by throw-away programmers are cheaper on the short-run, leaving more money to be pocketed by the low and middle management.
So basically, Mac users can make fun of us now? How humiliating.
Surprised? Lot of us jumped ship from Linux at the Gnome Desktop 3 fiasco. =/
Don't feel bad. I used SLS when Debian even didn't existed yet. Hell, I heard that Slackware born as a fork from SLS! (Kernel 0.99 or 0.98 I think, all was statically linked yet, IIRC)
I had to import it on CD-ROM, spent some serious money on it (more than a Windows 3.11 license fee).
Happily, however, I had an EGA card around so I could us X in full blown 16 colors. :-D
hey don't believe that they do not know? The do not believe what they believe. They do not believe that they do not know.
I fear that you are trying to apply different definitions to belief, in one case completely dismissing a belief because it is convenient for whatever you are trying to argue.
Nah. You are doing it for us. All I'm doing is taking some popcorn while wait for your next fallacy. :-)
The difference between knowledge and believing (creed) is common sense enough.
Except for the poor agnostics, who apparently cannot believe something that everyone else would declare as belief. Word smithing, nothing more.
I agree. I just can't understand why you are doing such fuss about. At least it's being fun.
And in the beginning, this was an attempt to claiim that atheism is a religion. It isn't, and when people try to turn it into "religion" they have to perform silly gyrations, like your claiming that agnostics don't believe what they believe.
No. *YOU* are claiming that I'm claiming - something totally different. :-) (this conversation is all about you, no?)
I'm stating that Agnostics don't know if there's a God - and that's all what I'm stating.
Which is all to say, I belive that there is no flying spaghetti moster is real, and that it is not deity. I suspect you don't ether. And that makes us atheists toward the FSM. But you apparently would call my atheism toward the FSM my religion? Weeeeoo - that makes both us us have thousands of religions.
I made no such affirmation.
I stated that Atheism is the belief that there's no God. You made the relation between belief (or perhaps "creed would be a better word?) and religion - not me. ;-)
My posts are all above, anyone can read it.
no i mean fear mongering has made people not care about the issue at hand because they're all scared and stupid now
"Now" ?
Oh yes, protect against 3rd party exploits by installing a third party OS. Sounds like a GREAT solution!
It used to work very well.
I did it when I installed OS/2 on the nineties, and now when I install OpenSUSE.
Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.
Wrong. What you described is Agnosticism.
Wrong, an agnostic, according to Merriam Webster, is:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
That is what the agnostic person believes. Their "view, as defined in the dictionary.
An atheist believes that a God does not exist. Also from Merriam Webster.
Which is the same thing as a lack of belief in a God.
Because to take your view, an atheist would have to believe in a God to not believe in.
Wrong again. The key word is "believe".
Agnostician don't know. Perhaps there's a god, perhaps there's not - anyway, it is pointless to discuss without evidences. There's no place for "believing" on agnosticism. Everybody will die someday, so everybody will see it (if it's true), or just ceasing to exist without knowing it (if it's not).
What's different from the view of the Atheists - these ones *do believe* that there's no God, even by not being able to prove it. It's exactly the same psychological posture from the Theists, the only difference is that these last ones do believe there's a God, even by not being able to prove it.
If something can not be proved, no one can know about it. Just believe on it. In this approach, Atheists and Theists are on the same side.
Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.
Wrong. What you described is Agnosticism.
There's a difference between stating "I don't know if there's a god" and "there's no god".
If you don't believe in any deity, you believe there's no deity. On the other hand, *not knowing" if there's a god is related about Agnosticism.
We probably would have a better communication if "Itheism" was an accepted word for people that believe that there's no god, while "Atheism" would describe people that don't even recognize the concept of a deity. I think that the current word for this is "Nontheism".
Anyway, the common and accepted use for Atheism don't corroborate what you says.
If you don't believe that God exists, you believe that God don't exists.
No, atheism is the LACK of belief that there is a God.
No. This is agnosticism.
They already tried that. It was J2ME - and each mobile builder locked the thing the way they could in order to protect their lawn.
On the Desktop, J2SE and J2EE tried something like that, but the outcry from the userbase that suddenly saw they poorly configured servers breaking down, even after years of advices about what would be coming killed the concept.
The security problems we have nowadays are not a technical problem. It's a human problem. "We" *WANT* things as we have nowadays.
Why do browsers and email programs have -any- access to anything? Sandbox the fuckers and call it a day. The fact that they aren't is a sign that companies aren't concerned enough about the problem.
You missed the point. They *ARE|* concerned about the problem: they need to keep it a problem, so they can sell a solution to corporations.
Believe me, they are deeply concerned about the survival of their business model.
Nuff said.
Sitting on old technology that still works is far from being a demerit.
Floppy disks had their days long gone, but optical disks are still the best option for some applications - you don't have to worry if your boot DVD "firmware" was hacked by pluging it on a infected machine. Given the relatively easy process to hack pendrives firmware, my DVD-ROMs are still around.
There's also a huge amount of still usable software around the web that lacks the resources to be updated and will simply be lost. For sure a lot of people don't care about this, but there's a lot that does. And I don't remember books being banned when PDFs came around.
It's a fact that HTML5 should be used for modern content - but banning old content (what appears the current trend on TI) is unfair to say the least.
Here, I broke your crutches so you can focus on your leg recovering. =P
Seriously, this is a good thing - but the way it is advertised is, frankly, ridiculous.
Atheism is the *belief* that there's no God (or gods). So, it's a belief nevertheless.
That one where it's said that no one can be forced to provide evidences that would incriminate him/her ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Because corps wants to have locked in mindset developers tied to their solution.
no.
SCO, Santa Cruz Operation, was an UNIX vendor. They bought XENIX from Microsoft and rebranded it as SCO Unix.
kill -1 1
The moral of the Microsoft AI fail is not about political correctness, etc. The moral is don't depend too much on artificial intelligence programmed by retards..
Here, I fixed that for you.