I think this article would been much better if the author had not insisted using the term obscure too much. For example, while talking about passwords and keys he uses obscure when secret would have been more proper.
Security in the absence of obscurity is not strictly possible.
Well, it is actually, but I will agree that security in the absence of secrets is not strictly possible. There is a difference.
However, I feel that it would be useful if they woeked towards implementing extra functionality so that it could replace Netscape 4.6 for general webbrowsing.
Do you think they (AOL+Netscape) would really want that just yet? It wouldn't be a ready product still even with those features implement. Most people using it would come from current Netscape 4 users with probably relatively few IE immigrants. It also would immediatelly open up the question of comparing Mozilla with IE5, in which IE5 would fare much better then it deserves. Even worse then that few more Mindcraft-type test that could be staged, could be if multitudes of clueless users would try Mozilla without understanding what it is about. Their fustration could mean big problems for Mozilla. That could really hurt Mozilla's and Open Sources brandnames. I wonder if they have thought about this and aren't implementing usability features until the project is much more muture. Well, wouldn't hold it against them if they have.
A British inventor... of course it was British . Whose else could come up with something like that?
The best thing about the gadget is that it can probably be set to alert at lower heartbeats, thus alerting husbands or father when the woman gets excited... Can you say chastity bra? Wasn't chastity belt a British invetion too?
> no one outside the US is affected if the speed limits in the US are > in miles/hour instead of km/hour.
Except for a car manufacturer who has to have a speed meter in miles/hour for US markets and km/hour for almost everywhere else. Certainly the car manufacturer can afford to do this easily enough, but smaller companies do suffer from silly standards like this. Protectionism, and such things.
> The only way we can stamp out spam is by a combination of social, > legal, technical and economic pressure. But if we allow the legalisation > of spamming for the sake of some short term convenience (for the elite > who can create mail filters),then that destroys the legal argument and > weakens the effectiveness of the other three.
Excellent! I totally agree. I think this comment should have gotten higher score then 2. Most of the time I have time to read only the ones that scored 3 or more, so I could have easily missed this, even though it makes a very good point.
Apologizes for not having any input on the subject.
I find it really sad when smart people get out of their area of expertize and start talking out of their asses. Yes, yes it was a rant, and I suppose I should let it go, but what on earth has FSF/OSI have to do with 19th century sosio-economic theories? Metcalf called RMS a communist, so? That just shows that inventing something techical doesn't require very deep understanding of other fields. Communisism and capitalism, while being rather opposite to eachother, are not the whole extent of the possible variety and their differences are not very relevant in today's world in general or to the "Software with Full Rights Attached" movements. For example, neither deals with sub-societies nor gift cultures. FSF and OSI are about better software, software with source code, not having to invent the wheel again and intellectual property rights. Communisism and capitalism are about something else.
Isn't "private" email receiver's property? At least old fashioned mail is, at least in my neck of the woods (Finland).
I find it very hard to blame Mindcraft for netiquette violation if all they did was publish few pages of text they owned. Of course that might not be the extent of their actions, I for one think that this is another carefully thought-out attempt of promoting negative aspects of Linux's image and that of it's users.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it is actually, but I will agree that security in the absence of secrets is not strictly possible. There is a difference.
--Flam
Wow, you're a fascist.
No, unless he wants to "fix the society" by limiting individual rights and freedom of the society.
--Flam, who's being taxed to his eyeballs and is relatively happy about it.
However, I feel that it would be useful if they woeked towards implementing extra functionality so that it could replace Netscape 4.6 for general webbrowsing.
Do you think they (AOL+Netscape) would really want that just yet? It wouldn't be a ready product still even with those features implement. Most people using it would come from current Netscape 4 users with probably relatively few IE immigrants. It also would immediatelly open up the question of comparing Mozilla with IE5, in which IE5 would fare much better then it deserves.
Even worse then that few more Mindcraft-type test that could be staged, could be if multitudes of clueless users would try Mozilla without understanding what it is about. Their fustration could mean big problems for Mozilla. That could really hurt Mozilla's and Open Sources brandnames.
I wonder if they have thought about this and aren't implementing usability features until the project is much more muture. Well, wouldn't hold it against them if they have.
--Flam
A British inventor ... of course it was British . Whose else could come up with something like that?
... Can you say chastity bra? Wasn't chastity belt a British invetion too?
The best thing about the gadget is that it can probably be set to alert at lower heartbeats, thus alerting husbands or father when the woman gets excited
--Flam (It was the French Joke Day yesterday.)
> no one outside the US is affected if the speed limits in the US are
> in miles/hour instead of km/hour.
Except for a car manufacturer who has to have a speed meter in miles/hour for US markets and km/hour for almost everywhere else. Certainly the car manufacturer can afford to do this easily enough, but smaller companies do suffer from silly standards like this. Protectionism, and such things.
--Flam
> The only way we can stamp out spam is by a combination of social,
> legal, technical and economic pressure. But if we allow the legalisation
> of spamming for the sake of some short term convenience (for the elite
> who can create mail filters),then that destroys the legal argument and
> weakens the effectiveness of the other three.
Excellent! I totally agree. I think this comment should have gotten higher score then 2. Most of the time I have time to read only the ones that scored 3 or more, so I could have easily missed this, even though it makes a very good point.
Apologizes for not having any input on the subject.
--Flam
I find it really sad when smart people get out of their area of expertize and start talking out of their asses. Yes, yes it was a rant, and I suppose I should let it go, but what on earth has FSF/OSI have to do with 19th century sosio-economic theories? Metcalf called RMS a communist, so? That just shows that inventing something techical doesn't require very deep understanding of other fields.
Communisism and capitalism, while being rather opposite to eachother, are not the whole extent of the possible variety and their differences are not very relevant in today's world in general or to the "Software with Full Rights Attached" movements. For example, neither deals with sub-societies nor gift cultures.
FSF and OSI are about better software, software with source code, not having to invent the wheel again and intellectual property rights. Communisism and capitalism are about something else.
--Flam
I find it very hard to blame Mindcraft for netiquette violation if all they did was publish few pages of text they owned. Of course that might not be the extent of their actions, I for one think that this is another carefully thought-out attempt of promoting negative aspects of Linux's image and that of it's users.
--Flam