You have an important reply to a recent comment posted via AC. (in another thread) Look for it. This is to trigger your reply notification (because AC will not).
You misrepresented the grandparent's premise by implying that invasion (presumably in the formal military sense) is a prerequisite for retaliation. Your modification of the premise is, of course, absurd. 911 is an excellent exception to your "rule".
I think there's middle ground, especially when the cost of that freedom is the saving of human life.
I don't know about you, but I am tired of being held hostage by the words "If it could save just one life, it would be worth it."
Well, no, actually, it wouldn't. The idea of freedom, as it exists (however tenuously) in the United States, came about as a result of those willing to die for that freedom. I consider that principle one of the more noble and valuable in human history, and choose to reflect that in my own life, even if it affects my personal safety.
I don't think Occam's razor applies to a false dilemma. There are invasive and unreasonable things the government could do short of assassinating you using your Onstar system.
How is a user stored whitelist going to affect the operation of a SMTP level application? Do you really expect Bellsouth to do searches on the mailing lists of every single one of their users for whitelist hits before initiating the anti-spam protocol?
Ah, so, if I'm joe shmoe, and I don't control my own SMTP server (that's about 99.999% of all email users), I can't very damn well do anything to the whitelists for a program that operates at the SMTP level, can I?
So, if I have a mailing list about government secrecy or some such, I will have an artificial scarcity imposed upon me with regard to how much free speech I can have per day?
This is the problem with the economic approach to controlling spam. It is impossible to do that without restricting free speech.
A tactic that might have been better than what they did is harassment: hit and fade attacks that strike the beseigers from multiple sides, relieving pressure on the city.
Yes, indeed. That really is the best idea, but I agree it wouldn't have made a very interesting movie. I cede armchair generalship to you.
No, that's completely stupid. If the cavalry pull up short to play around like that, they've given up their speed advantage, and will die.
Yeah, you're probably right about that. At least in as much as it was not necessary for them to dismount. (What can I say, I just like heavy infantry!) A better tactic, given that the line was disorganized, would have been to take advantage of their speed and flank the line.
The thing to do, if they had shields of any quality and if their swords were short enough, would be to take the spears out Roman style. Jam the speartip with your shield, cut off the blade with the shortsword, and then play a little game I like to call whittle the pikemen.
I also had trouble with the tactics and groaned heavily at the cavalry charges. At least according to the movie, a castle is a structure defended by a single wall and a single exterior door, and its defense consists of standing full height on the walls and waiting to be shot down by crossbowmen. I laughed out loud when the ranger and dwarf came out the "secret door" with the orc hordes banging away on the main door only feet away! Like they wouldn't notice it!
These films, you may have noticed, all are built on old methods of warfare, back when the movies thought war was fun and heroic. No nukes, no M-16s, no RPGs, no complications of gender, ethnicity, creed or race, like our messy modern affairs. Also, no ambiguity, no peace marches, no talking heads or torrential blogs zigging this way and that ideologically. No sir. In those days, even if those days are set in an Oxford don's fantasy life, war was war, war was man's business, up was up, down was down, enemies were demons, and best of all, killing them was holy work about which no one had to be guilty.
I see he didn't watch LOTR, where much of the plot of the movie was convincing everyone to fight, not to mention that the single most important battlefield event in the movie took place outside the parameters established above.
The purpose of this one is to dispense opinion, not gather it:
What organizations would to recommend use Linux? Organizations who want to send a message to the greedy computer industry.
Score -1 (Troll) - We don't oppose the computer industry. We oppose Microsoft. We oppose Microsoft not because they are greedy, but because they are predatory, monopolistic, and actively restrict freedom of information to support their bottom line.
For what it's worth, my original question was rethorical.
This original question?: Why did you bring it up? You answered it:
What it suggests from glancing at the article is different from what it actually is saying when you read it
I noticed that, too, and thought it was worth discussing.
Discussing off-shore outsourcing as an objective topic of conversation would have very little to do with what I've said so far. I find that fact to be at once both hilarious and profound.
In fact, it could be argued that he's the most philanthrophic individual in history.
Well, he could be following in Rockefeller and/or Carnegie's footsteps of trying to pay for a philantrophic legacy after a lifetime of general evil. Carnegie advocated the violent resistance of a strike at one of his steel plants, and Rockefeller's Standard Oil is the modern blueprint of antitrust law.
Whereas Palladium alone may well be the cultural equivalent of burning the library at Alexandria, I'd say Bill has more to pay for than anyone in human history - as pseudo-philantropist plutocrats go.
Yet if one takes a minute to RTFA they see that it has nothing to off-shore outsourcing. Also, the part about working from home was part of Cliff's "commentary" not part of the original poster's message.
So, I was correct in pointing out the divergence between the article's acual content and what it appeared to be. I am also correct in pointing out that my original post demonstrated an understanding of the article, which means we can now begin an endless death spiral wherein you tell me to RTFA and I tell you to RTFC (as in my Comment). Alternately, we can find something slightly more useful to discuss.
May we both have better fortunes with regard to the significance of our future conversations.
The headline "replaced by outsourcing", combined with the mention of working from home for less pay, (which seems to have nothing at all to do with his actual situation) suggest that he is talking about the highly media-visible problem of offshore outsourcing.
You are not a casualty of off-shore outsourcing. You are a casualty of the battle between consultants and in-house IT expertise. Not that you're any less screwed, or that I'm any less outraged. And yes, I am a security consultant.
The first thing I would have done is mention the name of the company that screwed you. I think this would give other in-house specialists pause before recommending them to management. Our own company's business model is built around providing the opposite sort of experience from the one you described. When we audit, we work with the IT staff, not against them, and we do so with the understanding of having "been there" (because I have been). We try to position ourselves as the guys who will tell it like it is, without panic, arrogance, or exaggeration, and we tell it to you, not your boss's boss.
I have enormous disrespect for any network security firm who attempts to abuse the politics of their client's business to get ahead. Getting somebody fired in order ro pursue a business opportunity is beneath contempt and possible grounds for a lawsuit. I wish you luck.
Slashdot Mirror
You have an important reply to a recent comment posted via AC. (in another thread) Look for it. This is to trigger your reply notification (because AC will not).
And have a better day.
You misrepresented the grandparent's premise by implying that invasion (presumably in the formal military sense) is a prerequisite for retaliation. Your modification of the premise is, of course, absurd. 911 is an excellent exception to your "rule".
I think there's middle ground, especially when the cost of that freedom is the saving of human life.
I don't know about you, but I am tired of being held hostage by the words "If it could save just one life, it would be worth it."
Well, no, actually, it wouldn't. The idea of freedom, as it exists (however tenuously) in the United States, came about as a result of those willing to die for that freedom. I consider that principle one of the more noble and valuable in human history, and choose to reflect that in my own life, even if it affects my personal safety.
I don't think Occam's razor applies to a false dilemma. There are invasive and unreasonable things the government could do short of assassinating you using your Onstar system.
I was just thinking the same thing.
I think the fact that you've become a magnet for the seething mass of teen angst around here pretty much demonstrates all your points quite handily.
EM wins, kids. Go back to your video games.
Gives you more time for a clean dehydration as well, so you can make that trip to Orion in all your leathery splendor.
Thanks. No really.
How is a user stored whitelist going to affect the operation of a SMTP level application? Do you really expect Bellsouth to do searches on the mailing lists of every single one of their users for whitelist hits before initiating the anti-spam protocol?
One security screener even asked me to log in, decrypt and look at files on my notebook's desktop
You didn't get that state department memo about encrypted bombs?
Well, this confirmation mail would have you add the mailing list to your whitelist.
Except for the part where I'm Joe ISP customer and don't control my SMTP server.
Ah, so, if I'm joe shmoe, and I don't control my own SMTP server (that's about 99.999% of all email users), I can't very damn well do anything to the whitelists for a program that operates at the SMTP level, can I?
So, if I have a mailing list about government secrecy or some such, I will have an artificial scarcity imposed upon me with regard to how much free speech I can have per day?
This is the problem with the economic approach to controlling spam. It is impossible to do that without restricting free speech.
profit is *not* an ethical obligation...It's the goal pursued within ethical constraints.
That is the most brilliant comment I've seen on slashdot all year. It sure as hell took you long enough!
A tactic that might have been better than what they did is harassment: hit and fade attacks that strike the beseigers from multiple sides, relieving pressure on the city.
Yes, indeed. That really is the best idea, but I agree it wouldn't have made a very interesting movie. I cede armchair generalship to you.
No, that's completely stupid. If the cavalry pull up short to play around like that, they've given up their speed advantage, and will die.
Yeah, you're probably right about that. At least in as much as it was not necessary for them to dismount. (What can I say, I just like heavy infantry!) A better tactic, given that the line was disorganized, would have been to take advantage of their speed and flank the line.
The thing to do, if they had shields of any quality and if their swords were short enough, would be to take the spears out Roman style. Jam the speartip with your shield, cut off the blade with the shortsword, and then play a little game I like to call whittle the pikemen.
I also had trouble with the tactics and groaned heavily at the cavalry charges. At least according to the movie, a castle is a structure defended by a single wall and a single exterior door, and its defense consists of standing full height on the walls and waiting to be shot down by crossbowmen. I laughed out loud when the ranger and dwarf came out the "secret door" with the orc hordes banging away on the main door only feet away! Like they wouldn't notice it!
These films, you may have noticed, all are built on old methods of warfare, back when the movies thought war was fun and heroic. No nukes, no M-16s, no RPGs, no complications of gender, ethnicity, creed or race, like our messy modern affairs. Also, no ambiguity, no peace marches, no talking heads or torrential blogs zigging this way and that ideologically. No sir. In those days, even if those days are set in an Oxford don's fantasy life, war was war, war was man's business, up was up, down was down, enemies were demons, and best of all, killing them was holy work about which no one had to be guilty.
I see he didn't watch LOTR, where much of the plot of the movie was convincing everyone to fight, not to mention that the single most important battlefield event in the movie took place outside the parameters established above.
The purpose of this one is to dispense opinion, not gather it:
What organizations would to recommend use Linux?
Organizations who want to send a message to the greedy computer industry.
Score -1 (Troll) - We don't oppose the computer industry. We oppose Microsoft. We oppose Microsoft not because they are greedy, but because they are predatory, monopolistic, and actively restrict freedom of information to support their bottom line.
For what it's worth, my original question was rethorical.
This original question?: Why did you bring it up? You answered it:
What it suggests from glancing at the article is different from what it actually is saying when you read it
I noticed that, too, and thought it was worth discussing.
Discussing off-shore outsourcing as an objective topic of conversation would have very little to do with what I've said so far. I find that fact to be at once both hilarious and profound.
In fact, it could be argued that he's the most philanthrophic individual in history.
Well, he could be following in Rockefeller and/or Carnegie's footsteps of trying to pay for a philantrophic legacy after a lifetime of general evil. Carnegie advocated the violent resistance of a strike at one of his steel plants, and Rockefeller's Standard Oil is the modern blueprint of antitrust law.
Whereas Palladium alone may well be the cultural equivalent of burning the library at Alexandria, I'd say Bill has more to pay for than anyone in human history - as pseudo-philantropist plutocrats go.
Yet if one takes a minute to RTFA they see that it has nothing to off-shore outsourcing. Also, the part about working from home was part of Cliff's "commentary" not part of the original poster's message.
So, I was correct in pointing out the divergence between the article's acual content and what it appeared to be. I am also correct in pointing out that my original post demonstrated an understanding of the article, which means we can now begin an endless death spiral wherein you tell me to RTFA and I tell you to RTFC (as in my Comment). Alternately, we can find something slightly more useful to discuss.
May we both have better fortunes with regard to the significance of our future conversations.
The headline "replaced by outsourcing", combined with the mention of working from home for less pay, (which seems to have nothing at all to do with his actual situation) suggest that he is talking about the highly media-visible problem of offshore outsourcing.
You are not a casualty of off-shore outsourcing. You are a casualty of the battle between consultants and in-house IT expertise. Not that you're any less screwed, or that I'm any less outraged. And yes, I am a security consultant.
The first thing I would have done is mention the name of the company that screwed you. I think this would give other in-house specialists pause before recommending them to management. Our own company's business model is built around providing the opposite sort of experience from the one you described. When we audit, we work with the IT staff, not against them, and we do so with the understanding of having "been there" (because I have been). We try to position ourselves as the guys who will tell it like it is, without panic, arrogance, or exaggeration, and we tell it to you, not your boss's boss.
I have enormous disrespect for any network security firm who attempts to abuse the politics of their client's business to get ahead. Getting somebody fired in order ro pursue a business opportunity is beneath contempt and possible grounds for a lawsuit. I wish you luck.
What they've always really wanted is to get a license fee from each copy of Linux in any commercial use.
No, what they've always really wanted is to portray Linux as an outlaw, anti-American OS, because that is what their paymasters at Microsoft want.