however if you have a bankerbag full of 100 grand and you walk through downtown harlem at 3 AM with it on your shoulder and you get mugged, I cant say I really feel sorry for you
Then you are a bad person. And you are indeed blaming the victim for the crime.
you call me naive, yet you are the one who does not understand something as simple as varying degrees of risk
I have no problem with probability. Risk is simply probability attached to a bad outcome. I understand it very well. But unlike you I differentiate it from responsibility. The word risk is confusing you.
You're failing to differentiate between responsibility and choice. You have no such responsibility. If you were to walk through that part of town and you were not mugged, did you do something wrong?
Uh, GP didn't say he never uploaded photos to iCloud. He said he does NOT upload photos he doesn't "want distributed widely" to iCloud.
It's a backup. Whilst on PC software there may be facilities for not backing up certain directories, no-one chooses per photo. And on a phone there's no facility for doing so anyway.
The ONLY place you have your photos of your kids is on your phone and on iCloud? I have electronic copies of photos I care about shared via a syncing utility (not based on commercial servers or services) on at least four different computers, with at least two different computers in different locations running backups daily.
Does your mom? Don't give me stories about what you as a geek do. We're talking about ordinary people here, who wouldn't even understand what you just said, let alone be able to do it. Their choice is a local backup in the house or a commercial service.
And if your own solution works via the internet, there's nothing to say it's any more secure than commercial services.
I do NOT get why you feel the need to attack someone (GP) who is talking about reasonable precautions to take to avoid being taken advantage of evil people in the world.
What's reasonable? What part of your liberty are you prepared to give up for your safety? Are you at fault if you get burgled because you don't live in a gated community with security guards?
Sounds like you have more computer equipment than most people. Are you responsible if it gets stolen because you had so much? It would be safer to have less, after all.
No, that's your naive opinion. It's not at all simple, it's nuanced.
they chose the job, they could have chose other assignments. again it was just an example.
So a cop is responsible if he gets shot? You are responsible if you carry a wallet and get mugged? In fact you're responsible even if you don't carry a wallet because you stepped foot out of the house?
No, these are all things that reasonably need to be done. If you become the victim of a crime whilst doing them it's not your fault.
We need cops, we need news from war zone, people need to carry wallets, and walk outside the house. They are not things that you should not do. You carry no blame for doing them.
In that kind of circumstance the rapist is 100% at fault for his actions, but that doesn't mean that one can't cite additional responsibility on the part of those that took away their own self-control.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist. So there's a logical fault there.
There's nothing wrong with advice to people about what ways they can minimise risk. But the time for that is before the crime, and the people to do that to are people that are in danger. Raising it after the crime, amongst a group of people who are not renowned for having photogenic bodies, reveals that it is just reducing the blame allocated to the criminals, and that's wrong.
These people had no responsibility not to take nude pictures; no responsibility not to have them backed up on line, and bear no part of the blame for the crime of them being hacked.
Which is not the same thing as it being less risky not to do those things.
You know it would be less risky if I didn't carry cash in my wallet. But that doesn't make me even slightly responsible or to blame if I get mugged.
I right click on the video and it says "HTML 5 Player". If you're getting a Flash player then there's something lacking at your end. Perhaps you've not configured YouTube to deliver HTML5 instead of Flash. In which case I suggest you do.
Not they are not. They are doing their jobs. You are not to blame if you are murdered in the course of doing your job. The person(s) that murdered you are 100% to blame.
the attacker is still 100% wrong in his actions, but I feel that I share some of the blame if i did something that i could have avoided doing which caused the issue to begin with.
Which would make for more than 100% of the blame, and is thus impossible.
The thief is responsible for committing the crime and you didn't deserve to be the victim of that crime, but you *are* responsible for the circumstances which made it possible by not taking reasonable precautions like keeping your laptop out of site (or out of your car entirely).
The second use of the word responsible doesn't belong there. It's a good idea to lock your car door. It's a good idea to not leave the laptop there. But you have no responsibility to do either. And if you don't do either, and the laptop is taken, the thief still has 100% responsibility for their crime. Ease of committing the crime isn't a mitigating circumstance.
Passwords, door locks, security systems, and safes exist for a reason.
Sure, they have a practical use. But thankfully there is no legal, moral or any other responsibility to use them.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens.
Then I hope you backup your phone locally, and realise that if you have a house fire you may lose all your photos and other data. Which if you are a parent with photos of the kids would be adding one tragedy to another.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
There is not the slightest bit of emotion in my argument. It's perfectly rational. The criminal is 100% responsible for the crimes they chose to commit. And thus there in no percentage points available for allocating to the victim.
Being an idiot, not being fully aware of what needs to be done for good security, and being to blame, are 3 completely different things.
A victim may well have been unwise in various ways. That does not make them in the slightest bit to blame. Because if you allocate them a percentage of blame, you must therefore reduce the blame from the criminal. And the criminal's blame is 100% - only they chose to to the crime - no one made them.
If I walk to the bad part of town and that I know is the bad part of town and something bad happens to me yes, I am partially to blame because I should have known to avoid that spot (if I knew it was thebad part of town)
No. The person that attacks you or robs you is 100% to blame. Victims are not guilty of anything.
Protecting yourself is a virtue, not a vice. And giving advice on how to protect yourself is not necessarily "blaming the victim".
You can tell that that's not what's happening here, as the "advice" from these people invariable comes down to not taking or uploading nude photos, and never encompasses the less puritanically motivated "don't use easily guessed passwords or security question answers".
These people really are from the crowd that blames rape victims for how they dress.
Let me put it another way: to use some analogies that have been put forth in other comments, if there is a place in town where someone gets raped every single night, maybe two or three people, and you deliberately going to that place at night, alone... do you really think it's going to do any good to just tell whomever you encounter "don't rape me?"
Which is yet another variety of blaming rape victims. Slightly softened because you've no doubt experienced the short skirt argument gets you a lot of flack.
Uploading nude selfies to the cloud is stupid and naive.
It's not like they actively did so. It's simply an online backup, which is enabled when setting up the phone. You can opt out, but of course backing up is the recommended action. And quite rightly so. There is more chance of people being harmed by losing all the photos of the kids when a phone dies than there is of the account being hacked and photos being taken.
Consider also that the technicalities of a backup are beyond most non-technical consumers. Which is the group most people, including celebrities, fall in to.
I've already paid people from my bank. That doesn't mean it's OK for hackers to go and take whatever money they want from my bank. Not I am wrong for storing my money in a bank even though it has an internet banking facility.
I don't believe for a moment that Stallman is reduced to hand-drawing slides because he believes hand-drawn slides are better. And if he does believe that, his slides certainly don't demonstrate it, as pretty much every other TED talk with a presentation is better than this one.
It gives the impression that whatever free presentation apps there are (Libreoffice Impress?) are pretty bad.
Also note the slide where he comperes free software with open source software. He makes the distinction that open source people are more interested in quality, and he's more interested in freedom.
This is one of the major reasons I don't like free software. There is little attention to quality.
Do you mean, perhaps, that you can't have a C string that doesn't fit into memory all at once? Let's assume you do.
That would be a very bad assumption, both because it isn't what I mean, and because it's irrelevant to the issue. Every element of a C string is addressable by a pointer. Regardless of whether it is real or virtual memory addressing. If you're talking about a stream that isn't addressable by a pointer, that's NOT a C string. A C string is a char*. A stream is NOT a C string even if it happens to be null terminated.
Think I'm wrong? Then tell me what the result of strlen(). It doesn't even make sense.
However, well abstracted problems result in concise code and object
That's a quality of the algorithms and patterns used by the programmer, not the language.
Simply punching away in order to scratch the itch is a guarantee for revisiting the code unnecessarily.
Well that's a whole different discussion, for which you are just stating your point of view. Agile development methods tend towards writing the minimum code for a limited feature set, and adding and refactoring constantly. I'm not advocating either here as it would take us down a different path, but I just mention it because it shows you're just presenting your opinion, not anything objectively right.
Who are you quoting there sonny? You do realise the purpose of quote marks, no? That's one thing you should've learned in first year of college if not before.
Look I can see you're pissed, because you feel your achievement of getting a degree being undermined. But higher education is for you as a person. The fact that it doesn't make you better than people with experience shouldn't upset you, as long as you feel it was worth it for you.
A degree is certainly good for getting your first job. But after that it becomes less and less useful for work, as experience gives you the real knowledge you use day to day.
Slashdot Mirror
however if you have a bankerbag full of 100 grand and you walk through downtown harlem at 3 AM with it on your shoulder and you get mugged, I cant say I really feel sorry for you
Then you are a bad person. And you are indeed blaming the victim for the crime.
you call me naive, yet you are the one who does not understand something as simple as varying degrees of risk
I have no problem with probability. Risk is simply probability attached to a bad outcome. I understand it very well. But unlike you I differentiate it from responsibility. The word risk is confusing you.
You're failing to differentiate between responsibility and choice. You have no such responsibility. If you were to walk through that part of town and you were not mugged, did you do something wrong?
How about at a time when you are not attaching it to a particular victim or victims, in order to allocate blame to them.
The only close-to-acceptable way to create it and not have it be at risk is to not use a digital means.
The only close to acceptable way to protect yourself from being mugged is not to carry any money or valuables. Do you carry them?
Uh, GP didn't say he never uploaded photos to iCloud. He said he does NOT upload photos he doesn't "want distributed widely" to iCloud.
It's a backup. Whilst on PC software there may be facilities for not backing up certain directories, no-one chooses per photo. And on a phone there's no facility for doing so anyway.
The ONLY place you have your photos of your kids is on your phone and on iCloud? I have electronic copies of photos I care about shared via a syncing utility (not based on commercial servers or services) on at least four different computers, with at least two different computers in different locations running backups daily.
Does your mom? Don't give me stories about what you as a geek do. We're talking about ordinary people here, who wouldn't even understand what you just said, let alone be able to do it. Their choice is a local backup in the house or a commercial service.
And if your own solution works via the internet, there's nothing to say it's any more secure than commercial services.
I do NOT get why you feel the need to attack someone (GP) who is talking about reasonable precautions to take to avoid being taken advantage of evil people in the world.
What's reasonable? What part of your liberty are you prepared to give up for your safety? Are you at fault if you get burgled because you don't live in a gated community with security guards?
Sounds like you have more computer equipment than most people. Are you responsible if it gets stolen because you had so much? It would be safer to have less, after all.
it really is that simple basil.
No, that's your naive opinion. It's not at all simple, it's nuanced.
they chose the job, they could have chose other assignments. again it was just an example.
So a cop is responsible if he gets shot? You are responsible if you carry a wallet and get mugged? In fact you're responsible even if you don't carry a wallet because you stepped foot out of the house?
No, these are all things that reasonably need to be done. If you become the victim of a crime whilst doing them it's not your fault.
We need cops, we need news from war zone, people need to carry wallets, and walk outside the house. They are not things that you should not do. You carry no blame for doing them.
In that kind of circumstance the rapist is 100% at fault for his actions, but that doesn't mean that one can't cite additional responsibility on the part of those that took away their own self-control.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist. So there's a logical fault there.
There's nothing wrong with advice to people about what ways they can minimise risk. But the time for that is before the crime, and the people to do that to are people that are in danger. Raising it after the crime, amongst a group of people who are not renowned for having photogenic bodies, reveals that it is just reducing the blame allocated to the criminals, and that's wrong.
These people had no responsibility not to take nude pictures; no responsibility not to have them backed up on line, and bear no part of the blame for the crime of them being hacked.
Which is not the same thing as it being less risky not to do those things.
You know it would be less risky if I didn't carry cash in my wallet. But that doesn't make me even slightly responsible or to blame if I get mugged.
I right click on the video and it says "HTML 5 Player". If you're getting a Flash player then there's something lacking at your end. Perhaps you've not configured YouTube to deliver HTML5 instead of Flash. In which case I suggest you do.
Not they are not. They are doing their jobs. You are not to blame if you are murdered in the course of doing your job. The person(s) that murdered you are 100% to blame.
the attacker is still 100% wrong in his actions, but I feel that I share some of the blame if i did something that i could have avoided doing which caused the issue to begin with.
Which would make for more than 100% of the blame, and is thus impossible.
The thief is responsible for committing the crime and you didn't deserve to be the victim of that crime, but you *are* responsible for the circumstances which made it possible by not taking reasonable precautions like keeping your laptop out of site (or out of your car entirely).
The second use of the word responsible doesn't belong there. It's a good idea to lock your car door. It's a good idea to not leave the laptop there. But you have no responsibility to do either. And if you don't do either, and the laptop is taken, the thief still has 100% responsibility for their crime. Ease of committing the crime isn't a mitigating circumstance.
Passwords, door locks, security systems, and safes exist for a reason.
Sure, they have a practical use. But thankfully there is no legal, moral or any other responsibility to use them.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens.
Then I hope you backup your phone locally, and realise that if you have a house fire you may lose all your photos and other data. Which if you are a parent with photos of the kids would be adding one tragedy to another.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
There is not the slightest bit of emotion in my argument. It's perfectly rational. The criminal is 100% responsible for the crimes they chose to commit. And thus there in no percentage points available for allocating to the victim.
Being an idiot, not being fully aware of what needs to be done for good security, and being to blame, are 3 completely different things.
A victim may well have been unwise in various ways. That does not make them in the slightest bit to blame. Because if you allocate them a percentage of blame, you must therefore reduce the blame from the criminal. And the criminal's blame is 100% - only they chose to to the crime - no one made them.
We are talking about victims of crime here, not victims of accidents.
If I walk to the bad part of town and that I know is the bad part of town and something bad happens to me yes, I am partially to blame because I should have known to avoid that spot (if I knew it was thebad part of town)
No. The person that attacks you or robs you is 100% to blame. Victims are not guilty of anything.
Rather than use safe practices liberals always cry blaming the victim.
Wow! It's a matter of left/right politics now?
Protecting yourself is a virtue, not a vice. And giving advice on how to protect yourself is not necessarily "blaming the victim".
You can tell that that's not what's happening here, as the "advice" from these people invariable comes down to not taking or uploading nude photos, and never encompasses the less puritanically motivated "don't use easily guessed passwords or security question answers".
These people really are from the crowd that blames rape victims for how they dress.
Let me put it another way: to use some analogies that have been put forth in other comments, if there is a place in town where someone gets raped every single night, maybe two or three people, and you deliberately going to that place at night, alone... do you really think it's going to do any good to just tell whomever you encounter "don't rape me?"
Which is yet another variety of blaming rape victims. Slightly softened because you've no doubt experienced the short skirt argument gets you a lot of flack.
He didn't say it was, andy more than he said it was murder. It was examples of three different crimes.
Uploading nude selfies to the cloud is stupid and naive.
It's not like they actively did so. It's simply an online backup, which is enabled when setting up the phone. You can opt out, but of course backing up is the recommended action. And quite rightly so. There is more chance of people being harmed by losing all the photos of the kids when a phone dies than there is of the account being hacked and photos being taken.
Consider also that the technicalities of a backup are beyond most non-technical consumers. Which is the group most people, including celebrities, fall in to.
Again, blaming the victims is just wrong.
namely that Apple would allow brute force dictionary attacks (and claimed there was no security issue, while patching it at the same time)
There was never any evidence that the hacking was from brute forcing findmyiphone. It was only ever a theory.
I've already paid people from my bank. That doesn't mean it's OK for hackers to go and take whatever money they want from my bank. Not I am wrong for storing my money in a bank even though it has an internet banking facility.
Stop blaming the victims.
How about telling those celeb sluts to stop taking naughty selfies, or at least not uploading them all to The Cloud (tm)?
Puritanical American blaming the victims. It's the same argument as telling rape victims they shouldn't have worn short skirts.
I don't believe for a moment that Stallman is reduced to hand-drawing slides because he believes hand-drawn slides are better. And if he does believe that, his slides certainly don't demonstrate it, as pretty much every other TED talk with a presentation is better than this one.
It gives the impression that whatever free presentation apps there are (Libreoffice Impress?) are pretty bad.
Also note the slide where he comperes free software with open source software. He makes the distinction that open source people are more interested in quality, and he's more interested in freedom.
This is one of the major reasons I don't like free software. There is little attention to quality.
For those who want something more useful than webm:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video...
Do you mean, perhaps, that you can't have a C string that doesn't fit into memory all at once? Let's assume you do.
That would be a very bad assumption, both because it isn't what I mean, and because it's irrelevant to the issue. Every element of a C string is addressable by a pointer. Regardless of whether it is real or virtual memory addressing. If you're talking about a stream that isn't addressable by a pointer, that's NOT a C string. A C string is a char*. A stream is NOT a C string even if it happens to be null terminated.
Think I'm wrong? Then tell me what the result of strlen(). It doesn't even make sense.
However, well abstracted problems result in concise code and object
That's a quality of the algorithms and patterns used by the programmer, not the language.
Simply punching away in order to scratch the itch is a guarantee for revisiting the code unnecessarily.
Well that's a whole different discussion, for which you are just stating your point of view. Agile development methods tend towards writing the minimum code for a limited feature set, and adding and refactoring constantly. I'm not advocating either here as it would take us down a different path, but I just mention it because it shows you're just presenting your opinion, not anything objectively right.
"a CS degree is not worth the effort."
Who are you quoting there sonny? You do realise the purpose of quote marks, no? That's one thing you should've learned in first year of college if not before.
Look I can see you're pissed, because you feel your achievement of getting a degree being undermined. But higher education is for you as a person. The fact that it doesn't make you better than people with experience shouldn't upset you, as long as you feel it was worth it for you.
A degree is certainly good for getting your first job. But after that it becomes less and less useful for work, as experience gives you the real knowledge you use day to day.