Given that the developer involved agreed that this would be shoddy security if practiced on a regular basis, apologized, and has agreed not to make such a list any more, I'd say we're fine.
If anything, this should have been an uproar a year ago.
Until then, I'm gonna watch that page and its automated incarnation (if it occurs) very carefully.
I hope you watch carefully enough to discover that there is no automated incarnation, that the page is a year old, and that the developer involved agreed that there were security issues, apologized, and will not do it again.
You don't understand. This list is a year old. If there was anybody on it who wasn't a troll, that's been long since fixed.
My guess, since you seem so emotionally vested in this (judging by your multiple comments on this thread) is that you are one of the trolls in question. Of course, you already know this, so I'm just mentioning it for the other readers out there.
Why? An embryo hasn't got a developed enough neurological system to perceive anything, feel pain, or otherwise be even remotely similar to an average, fully-developed human. What grounds are there for treating it like a person?
DNA. The embryo possesses all the chromosomes of a unique human being, to the extent that its sex can be identified.
And I believe that we can't legislate that an embryo should be given all the same rights as a fully-developed human being just because some people believe it should.
I cannot believe that this quandry cannot be resolved. In a case where we literally cannot tell who is right or wrong, we absolutely must make sure that we do not kill a human being, and it is apparent that only one legal stance will accomplish that. Any other decision is analogous to depriving blacks of their rights in the 1800's, solely because some people felt that, "They are not human, and I don't see a reason to accept them as human and possessing rights just because some people believe they should."
Do you see any difference between somebody intentionally destroying an embryo and an event in nature resulting in that destruction?
Do you see any difference between me shooting a person and between a person dying in a hurricane?
I guess you'd say I'm "against hurricanes," but it'd be senseless to pass a law against them. In the same way your question doesn't prove anything to me. We pass laws against people killing people, and accept that we can't save every life.
I believe that an embryo is a human being and I accept all conclusions that follow from that fact.
And I do not believe that we can legislate that an embryo is not a human being simply because some people disagree than we can legislate that a black person is not a human being simply because some people believed so in the 1800's.
We have panels of scientists that can decide whether or not to approve Grants for medicinal and scientific research, we don't need totally unscientific neoconservatives doing it for us, thank you very much.
Actually, since this is a democracy, we should vote on it.
What you probably meant was that you are against destroying embroyes for scientific research purposes, you are most likely perfecty OK with destroying them as long as somebody is trying to have a baby.
No, I oppose destruction of embryoes in both of those cases.
Right. And there's only one logical legal conclusion to this issue based on the principle you have just stated. If we acknowledge that either side could be wrong, then we have just acknowledged that an embryo could be a person.
And what should the law do to protect a living being that could be a person?
Hint: what should you do when shooting into the woods if there could be a person there?
Neoconservative refers primarily to somebody's position on foreign policy.
Perhaps you meant, simply, "conservatives"? Or "social conservatives," as that viewpoint opposes destruction of embryoes? Or "fiscal conservatives," as that viewpoint opposes government funding of research?
Overuse of "neoconservative" has just about drained the meaning of this alleged insult.
how Bush was saying the existing stem cell lines would be enough.
Bush never said those lines would be enough. He simply said those lines had already been created through action objectionable to some (embryo destruction) and thus research on them could be funded without funding further objectionable action, and refused to fund research on lines created by embryo destruction in the future.
For the record, there was never any prohibition on private funding of embryonic stem cell research. And there was no federal funding before Bush chose to allow this limited funding.
Is an unrealized danger of OSS that others may take your project in a direction you didn't intend?
No, because that isn't a danger and doesn't hurt you in any way. If you're worried that your feelings might get hurt over something like this, though, perhaps open source isn't for you.
Linus should tell CA that businesses have gotten far far more -- just in dollars, I'm not talking intangibles -- from Linus than they can ever repay, and that he's going to go on doing what makes Linus happy. After all, that attitude worked out pretty well for the parasites last time around.
I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think Linus should tell them anything. They aren't paying him to waste his time explaining anything. He should just go on working as before and let them deduce that nothing they said made any difference. Then maybe they will realize that they don't get to call the shots. Maybe next time they will wave money or hire a developer if they want to get attention paid to their issues.
Then either somebody else will start up a competitor that will fare well by not following that inane strategy, or else we'll have to get rid of the government regulation that created the monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the developer involved agreed that this would be shoddy security if practiced on a regular basis, apologized, and has agreed not to make such a list any more, I'd say we're fine.
If anything, this should have been an uproar a year ago.
I can't believe you, either, but it has made for an enjoyable afternoon of entertainment.
Until then, I'm gonna watch that page and its automated incarnation (if it occurs) very carefully.
I hope you watch carefully enough to discover that there is no automated incarnation, that the page is a year old, and that the developer involved agreed that there were security issues, apologized, and will not do it again.
After that your watch may get somewhat boring.
You weren't on there, were you?
Name one innocent user whose password was compromised in that YEAR OLD list.
Perrak does not count as he is not an active user.
Get over yourself.
Why am I feeding the troll?
You don't understand. This list is a year old. If there was anybody on it who wasn't a troll, that's been long since fixed.
My guess, since you seem so emotionally vested in this (judging by your multiple comments on this thread) is that you are one of the trolls in question. Of course, you already know this, so I'm just mentioning it for the other readers out there.
Apparently this is over a year old and is being spun by the article submitter.
Plus, the Autobots and Decepticons finally get new leaders!
Pity about Prime, though.
Why? An embryo hasn't got a developed enough neurological system to perceive anything, feel pain, or otherwise be even remotely similar to an average, fully-developed human. What grounds are there for treating it like a person?
DNA. The embryo possesses all the chromosomes of a unique human being, to the extent that its sex can be identified.
And I believe that we can't legislate that an embryo should be given all the same rights as a fully-developed human being just because some people believe it should.
I cannot believe that this quandry cannot be resolved. In a case where we literally cannot tell who is right or wrong, we absolutely must make sure that we do not kill a human being, and it is apparent that only one legal stance will accomplish that. Any other decision is analogous to depriving blacks of their rights in the 1800's, solely because some people felt that, "They are not human, and I don't see a reason to accept them as human and possessing rights just because some people believe they should."
Therefore they have insufficient information to legally decide to allow the embryo to be deprived of life.
Do you see any difference between somebody intentionally destroying an embryo and an event in nature resulting in that destruction?
Do you see any difference between me shooting a person and between a person dying in a hurricane?
I guess you'd say I'm "against hurricanes," but it'd be senseless to pass a law against them. In the same way your question doesn't prove anything to me. We pass laws against people killing people, and accept that we can't save every life.
I believe that an embryo is a human being and I accept all conclusions that follow from that fact.
And I do not believe that we can legislate that an embryo is not a human being simply because some people disagree than we can legislate that a black person is not a human being simply because some people believed so in the 1800's.
We have panels of scientists that can decide whether or not to approve Grants for medicinal and scientific research, we don't need totally unscientific neoconservatives doing it for us, thank you very much.
Actually, since this is a democracy, we should vote on it.
What you probably meant was that you are against destroying embroyes for scientific research purposes, you are most likely perfecty OK with destroying them as long as somebody is trying to have a baby.
No, I oppose destruction of embryoes in both of those cases.
Right. And there's only one logical legal conclusion to this issue based on the principle you have just stated. If we acknowledge that either side could be wrong, then we have just acknowledged that an embryo could be a person.
And what should the law do to protect a living being that could be a person?
Hint: what should you do when shooting into the woods if there could be a person there?
Why would the President veto a Cord Blood research act? What's in the act?
I oppose destruction of embryoes, but my wife and I just donated the cord blood stem cells of our baby boy born last month.
neoconservatives
Neoconservative refers primarily to somebody's position on foreign policy.
Perhaps you meant, simply, "conservatives"? Or "social conservatives," as that viewpoint opposes destruction of embryoes? Or "fiscal conservatives," as that viewpoint opposes government funding of research?
Overuse of "neoconservative" has just about drained the meaning of this alleged insult.
how Bush was saying the existing stem cell lines would be enough.
Bush never said those lines would be enough. He simply said those lines had already been created through action objectionable to some (embryo destruction) and thus research on them could be funded without funding further objectionable action, and refused to fund research on lines created by embryo destruction in the future.
For the record, there was never any prohibition on private funding of embryonic stem cell research. And there was no federal funding before Bush chose to allow this limited funding.
Is an unrealized danger of OSS that others may take your project in a direction you didn't intend?
No, because that isn't a danger and doesn't hurt you in any way. If you're worried that your feelings might get hurt over something like this, though, perhaps open source isn't for you.
Er, is that a thousand million, or a million million?
Thank you. I wish they had made their icons into links.
Right! The new model is more efficient! :)
What is the "R" software they have there, after Thunderbird?
In that case, that changes everything. So instead, if CA funds OSDL, they should tell OSDL what to tell Linus to do.
Linus should tell CA that businesses have gotten far far more -- just in dollars, I'm not talking intangibles -- from Linus than they can ever repay, and that he's going to go on doing what makes Linus happy. After all, that attitude worked out pretty well for the parasites last time around.
I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think Linus should tell them anything. They aren't paying him to waste his time explaining anything. He should just go on working as before and let them deduce that nothing they said made any difference. Then maybe they will realize that they don't get to call the shots. Maybe next time they will wave money or hire a developer if they want to get attention paid to their issues.
Then either somebody else will start up a competitor that will fare well by not following that inane strategy, or else we'll have to get rid of the government regulation that created the monopoly.