Funny how you keep trying to 'save face' here in you replying back though, eh?
Yeah, I've really been feeding the troll. I should stop.
But "save face"? Nah. If I was about image, I might have dropped my docs, as you did.
Clearly this is the "best you've got"
Nope, you haven't seen the best I've got, and better things were said, but they seemed to go right over your head. In one ear and out the other, through the empty space in your skull.
Question is, are you?
No.
You brought them up, not I...
Yes, I did, as an example of why a degree from a diploma mill is useless. Also as an example to illustrate the people (with degrees) who will happily criticize pretty much all of science, without understanding any of it.
Those people were much easier to reason with than you.
Of course, the beautiful irony here is that you're too dumb to follow the way in which I'm calling you dumb.
You don't have any "Authoritativeness"
Poor, sad aristocrat, still doesn't understand that this was never about "authoritativeness." It was about truth.
You wouldn't ACKNOWLEDGE IT when I stated it first was my point...
Let's find it:
if I have the sourcecode to an operating system, I have a FAR easier time of finding bugs in it than I would on a closed source OS, & for instance, using "fuzzers" (or worse, disassembly via debuggers) on it during pen testing...
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said. I also explained why this is a good thing.
So you're factually wrong again. Not only did I acknowledge it, it was in my original post, you just somehow missed it:
Linux always has more vulnerabilities publicly found and fixed due to it being open source,
Perhaps the word you're looking for is that those vulnerabilities are more easily found? Even if you assert that I wasn't clearly "admitting" it here, I would think I clarified sufficiently when I said "That's pretty much exactly what I said."
And then you kept hammering on that point for post after post, as if I didn't agree. It was maddening:
That is MUCH EASIER TO SPOT, in an app with its SOURCE OPENED
Easier to spot, and also easier to fix.
I was affirming your "easier to spot" comment, and in the same sentence, explaining why it doesn't matter. I expanded on it in the next sentence:
When it's as easy to spot as you suggest, it's not going to survive long, particularly in a well-known open source application.
Yet in the next post, you again ignored this:
IF you were ANY GOOD? You'd have KNOWN that "Open Sores" also works AGAINST security, because it is Open Source... just like the sscanf I noted, it's easy to spot
You know what? I'll just let the post you were replying to answer this:
Easier to spot, and also easier to fix.
And now you suddenly have amnesia about the whole thing.
This is why it's a waste of time to talk to you. You don't read. You don't listen. You don't communicate, and you certainly don't connect. You lecture via copy and paste, and you "play" to win.
Which only proves your sources (like, LOL, Jeremy Reimer too), just are not absolutely VALID
He's a source of amusement. That's all I assume he's valid for. His experience comports with my own, however.
validity is important in LOGIC, period... especially absolute validity.
Huh. You clearly don't know what validity means in logic. Hint: It has nothing to do with the kind of validation you get by looking at that piece of paper you're so proud of. It's about the structure of an argument and the truth of its premises.
Why am I not surprised that, instead of attacking either of these, you continue to attack comments made alongside an argument?
Are you incapable of understanding the null hypothesis?
No,
Then prove it.
"Worthless -- any student can do that.
Students with degrees are better than those minus them
Your arrogance shines through -- students with degrees are not "better" people. Better sources? Maybe...
Of course, where's your evidence that this person has a degree? Again, students can post a tilde-URL, with or without degrees. The ones with degrees are generally smart enough to source their assertions.
(like you)
Now you assume I'm a student. Can you back that up?
That is the day you can even BEGIN to call me, lazy...
I gave you a simple task, to discover the truth, and you chose to continue in your assumptions instead. That's lazy.
According to him, it was you trying to bring suit against him.
you've been under the assumption that I was ever trying to establish myself as an authority.
Because you CANNOT do so
That's quite a leap. I can't do so, therefore I was trying to do so?
I was never trying to jump off a bridge, either. Does that mean I was trying to do so?
Who are you to even BEGIN to try to get the better of me??
What a sad person you are.
Here I was thinking this would be a technical discussion, maybe even a philosophical one, and instead, it was always about stroking your ego. It was always about you winning and proving how much better you are than me.
You're so desperate to win, you'll try anything other than actually communicating.
And I've been here the whole time.
your ad hominem name tossing quoted here
You know, I was going to complain about you fixating on that one sentence -- after however many thousands of words we've exchanged, that is still what you bring up in every fucking post?
But you prove it more true with every word, so go ahead and quote it. Ad-homs aren't sufficient to prove anything, but they also don't invalidate every single word your opponent says, especially when they're true.
Open "Sores" (which I help projects in no less & I produced proof of that as well here in UltraDefrag 64) is FAR from using racial slurs
It's an analogy. It's quantitatively different, but not qualitatively different. An insult directed at something you help, or are a member of, is still an insult.
Yea, well, who ever said I was here to "comfort you" or to "make friends"?
Never thought you were, but it makes me wonder why you are here. After all...
I am not here to make you happy OR to win a popularity contest after all.
But you are here to win something. You've made it all about keeping score and being competitive, and you've entirely lost the point of debate, discussion, and communication in the first place.
Is that why you avoided answering to it like mad thru this exchange until now?
When "now"? Go read through the exchange. I never denied it, said it explicitly several times before you got it, and when you finally did, you interpreted it as somehow an admission of defeat.
You'd make a decent politician, if you weren't so unlikable.
No, I don't really care anymore. I did use logical arguments, and you ignored them where they didn't go right over your head.
I'd call that a SLACKER
Or too busy to deal with you anymore.
They have degrees too, you know -- from Patriot Bible University.
And you do not, end of discussion
Are you actually going to give any credence to a degree from Patriot Bible University? Y'know, this place?
I'd be offended if someone offered me an honorary degree from such a place.
Funny how you complimented me at first for addressing the technical issues. Now, when I give you a single technical issue to address, you instead make it all about authority.
Do you dispute what I said about compiled vs scripted, or do you really need me to hold your hand through the process of finding a source for that? Or maybe you have a counterexample, a "scripting language" you imagine I use which can never be compiled?
Never said that, but it is more reliable than some random person's opinion. Obviously, properly sourced, peer-reviewed stuff would be better.
Meaning "YOU DON'T HAVE ONE"
Are you incapable of understanding the null hypothesis?
Its from an.edu domain,
Do you know what a tilde in a URL usually signifies? That's something else I'd hope you'd have learned while earning your degree -- how to evaluate sources on the web. A.edu domain, no sources cited, no peer review, nothing but, well, the.edu domain? Worthless -- any student can do that.
Busy doing what?
Too lazy to find out for yourself? Typical.
And what have you been busy with this week, that you have time to respond in the middle of the day?
my being specific
Buys you nothing, if you just keep repeating the same specific, already-refuted arguments.
Let's talk about Jeremy Reimer, here are some FACTS:
Jereny Reimer got caught by his ISP, Shaw in Canada, for:
Actually, according to what I linked to, he not only didn't get "caught", he actually played you pretty amusingly for a long time, after you'd demonstrated trollish (and litigious!) behavior.
But go ahead, show me the evidence for this. It should be even easier than evidence that you are the same APK.
More AD HOMINEM attacks, from an "authority"?
Ah, I see. For about the past three posts, you've been under the assumption that I was ever trying to establish myself as an authority.
When I call you on appeal to authority, it doesn't mean I think I'm an authority. It means I think authority is irrelevant when you're as obviously wrong as you are.
That is what the Internet does, and Slashdot is an example -- it flattens things. If you're a good communicator, and what you say is valuable, you get modded up, people pay attention. If you suck, nobody cares, no matter how many degrees you have, or how many news organizations you run.
Yet you refuse to admit the corresponding advantage.
OH, really? In fact, I even HELP an open SORES
Doesn't change a thing. You've consistently refused to acknowledge the advantage of having security holes resolved more quickly, because they are easy to find. This is what I was referring to when I said corresponding advantage, because it's one that goes directly, hand in hand, with the "disadvantage" you point out.
(I know that bugs you, lol)
So you admit to doing something deliberately, because you know it bugs me. That's the definition of trolling.
That's like saying "I help the Nigger community." Doesn't make it any less insulting or more productive.
I mean, do you think your "doubletalk" fools anyone?
You're the only one here. "Doubletalk" wasn't my intent -- trying to clarify terms is one of the basics of any philosophical discussion. It's clearly needed with you, as you came to the table with entirely different definitions of some fundamental things than me.
But go ahead, keep assuming malice. I'm sure it'll make you lots of friends.
Show me where I ever said anything other than that.
I never did. I always "admitted" it, always accepted it, and my initial arguments assumed it. You somehow missed this, and needed me to spell it out for you explicitly, multiple times, before we stopped talking past each other on that point.
You then go on to elaborate as to how I scrambled to completely shift my position... really? Were you paying attention at all? Have you even bothered to look at my earlier posts other than to whine about where I hurt your feelings?
This was only to show & expose you in the fact that you "talk a big game" but you have no degrees or certs to your credit,
What, because people with degrees and certs only program in C?
I have. I don't, as a rule, but that's due to personal preference, not a lack of ability.
Sure, sure: "WE BELIEVE YOU"
So what was the point in asking me, if you're going to outright call me a liar?
No, I just used actual educational institutions on the grounds of logic whereas you by way of comparison?
I just replied directly, using more basic logical axioms. I showed, directly, where and how ad-hominem is a fallacy.
You, as usual, ignored my arguments -- actual arguments, not just assertions -- and considered only sources.
Yea, sure... is that why You had to use WIKIPEDIA?
Because I'm lazy, and it's far easier to tell you to go educate yourself, and link to a resource on the topic, than to spell it out for you in painstaking detail, over and over again.
Uhm, lmao... those modules (classes, objects, units, headers, etc. et al)? They are ALL part of a system, & the parts make up the whole and they interact with one another... you can't avoid it
The entire field of software engineering is an effort to avoid it -- to allow the architects to make decisions about how the pieces interact with each other, but to make individual pieces isolated from each other.
Lisp, one of the oldest languages still in common use, is frequently run either compiled or interpreted, depending on which is desired at the moment.
you're just another "Script Kiddie" trying to play "expert" with me...
Is that really something any self-respecting comp sci major would say?
Are you even a graduate of a CSC or CIS/MIS degree? We'd like to know,
Who's "we"? It's just you and me here.
A quick reminder: Your entire reason for being skeptical that I have a degree is that I haven't shown you one, and you doubt the quality of what I'm saying.
By the same token, I doubt anyone with a comp sci degree wouldn't understand such a basic principle about programming language design.
I'm going to have to cut this short here, because you're repetitive and frankly quite boring. Yes, take that as an "ad-hom" if you like, it won't make the rest of this drivel any more interesting.
If you want to continue this discussion, stop making me repeat myself. Stop the dick-waving. Start addressing actual arguments.
Because it's no longer a matter of ad-hom or personal attacks -- several levels deep in this, you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the difference between a scripted and compiled language.
So go ahead -- type another response full of "authority" bullshit, and hope I don't notice while you scramble to try to put together some actual response. I won't be responding until you address this point, and I doubt I will then.
Debating you has been in every way more time-consuming, less intellectually stimulating, more frustrating, less productive, and overall a much worse experience than debati
Certainly, but I think it's laughably less important than a remote DoS in the OS (something that's already a DoS) or a true remote exploit, like what we found with Windows.
Indeed, part of my point was that this local DoS is nothing by itself. It's only relevant when you already have that exploitable buffer overflow, which is a much more serious issue. In other words, when counting vulnerabilities and measuring their severity, we should look at the exploitable buffer overflows first, local escalations second, and local DoS last.
Yes, all exploits should be fixed. Even if you can't figure out how they could be triggered, it might make sense to fix them for coding style reasons alone. But I can't see a local DoS as remotely as important as any remote vulnerability.
Find a URL without the tilde. Seriously -- at least Wikipedia cites sources, and has multiple contributors. That's just one person's assertion.
The topic here and this forums section, in case you had not noticed? It is comp. sci. related material, not logic,
Really?
Logic can be reduced to math. All programs can be reduced to math. And as you pointed out, you needed a Logic class for your degree.
Not that this is in any way relevant -- logical fallacies are fallacies in any field.
WTF? Who are you trying to fool here?? This, on your part???
Ah, right, the personal attack.
Still not a fallacy. You may well be a moron, but it doesn't automatically make you wrong in this case, and I didn't imply that. That is when ad-hominem is a fallacy, because that is when it's a non-sequitur. We've been over this.
Oh, that's RICH...
Want me to copy and paste my reply, too?
LOL, no no senor...
You don't get to dismiss one of the most important philosophical concepts of our time with "no no senor".
Again, you are making a positive claim that I don't have a degree. I am not and have not claimed anything about a degree. Burden's still on you -- it doesn't magically shift to me because you say so.
Pfah: I've shown you that much BY THE SCORE...
Who's keeping score? You again seem lost in your own little world -- of course you think you've won. So does NephilimFree. He also believes in a geocentric universe and a young earth. Do you think he's won?
from more respected sources than you are noting
Some random user's homepage is "respected" now?
you only have your evasions now + attempts @ doubletalk
I'm simply done playing the credentials game. I have no desire to make it any easier for you to find the real work I'm doing, the stuff I'm passionate about, and fling insults about it, troll the mailing lists and code reviews, and generally make life unpleasant for me.
Despite that, you actually have more than enough information to find what I'm talking about, but you don't seem to care, so I'm not making it easier for you.
you violate its logical debate tenets like MAD
Neither you nor your "easily found" tilde-prefixed homepage set the rules for logical debate.
Also, posting DAYS LATER on your part? Did you think I would just let YOU "skate away"
I did warn you I'd be busy this week. I did that in my last post to you before I disappeared. That's a giant hint as to some of the credentials I might have. What might I be fantastically busy with this week?
Great. You copied and pasted from your other post as I'm replying to it.
Do yourself a favor: Unbind ctrl+c and ctrl+v for a day. It'll make you a lot more interesting to read.
DEFINITELY a name tossing ad hominem attack on myself...
No it wasn't. Do you really want to continue?
especially on technical issues here, and even though you are trying to "drag this further off topic"?
That's hilarious. You're the one who not only responded to the ad-hominem stuff in the appropriate thread, but dragged it (via copy-and-paste) into every other thread we had going, spending at least as much time on that as the technical stuff. And you're the one who dropped the technical discussion to respond to the discussion of logic, still ignoring the benefits of open source until recently.
And your attack on those benefits? One random person you selected is not contributing to the Linux kernel directly, therefore "many eyes" doesn't work? But go to the other thread, I've got a rebuttal there.
you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that.
Oh, that's RICH: Coming from a no degree
*facepalm* And that's circular. Blindingly, obviously, circular. Another thing you should've learned in...
See how that works? You dismiss my argument because you haven't seen a degree. I point out that this dismissal is poor epistemology. You ignore that argument because you haven't seen a degree. But you see, if that argument is correct, you should listen to it and the previous regardless of degree.
First establish your epistemology is in any way correct, or at least reasonable. Then use it to disregard other things as untrue.
Oh, and you have the energy to copy and paste, and type prolifically for days at a time about how worthless I am without whatever credentials you think I should have, but you don't have the energy to look up my credentials?
per this article from TODAY NO LESS? So do others (in respected publications no less - take a read):
Fascinating:
Holy scriptures: The Lord of the Rings; Programming Perl (aka "The Camel Book")
Are you really taking this as a serious article? Seems like the majority of Slashdotters I meet hate Perl, for one...
Pity the fool who wanders blithely into a discussion and says, "What's the big deal with Linux? Windows works just fine." His online remains will later be hauled away in Chinese takeout boxes.
Without, of course, any reference or citation. This article certainly seems to have representation from both sides -- anti-Microsoft, and anti-Google.
I have seen pro-Microsoft comments modded to +5.
Of course, here you go:
How does one recognize a Slashdotter in public? One doesn't, says Malda, because they almost never leave the house.
So clearly, this was an article about humorous stereotypes, not about reality. (Do you really want to know where I've been this week?)
No no senor - the "burden of proof" is NOW upon you
You forgot the null hypothesis.
If you said "I don't know that you have a degree," the burden of proof would be on me. I have not said I do, but you continue to say I don't.
Since you are the only one making a positive claim about the existence of my degree, the burden of proof is on you.
Now, you started the dick-waving about degrees long before I pointed out your sock-puppeting. This was analogous -- I am not actually asking you to prove that.
Instead, I'm offering a simple deal: I'll drop it about your sock-puppeting (seriously, who says "judging by your bad performance" except you?) if you drop it about degrees.
However, those? Those are NOT as bad as your LOGIC blunders in:
Let me know if there was anything valuable in that. I don't read you when you copy and paste.
This only FURTHER proves it (SanityInAnarchy is giving up & crumbling...
Or you could take it at face value.
LOL, perhaps I've inspired him to earn a CSC/CIS/MIS degree finally? Doubt it... he strikes me as a big talking slacker actually!
About 3 hours of sleep per night for three nights in a row, and running full steam the rest of the time. Yep, I'm a slacker.
It occurs to me that I could offer you the proof you keep demanding, right now. I could show you what I've been doing this week. I could show you my real name. I could show you a very large software development community which seems to value my contributions, and I could show you how they did so.
But it wouldn't change a thing, would it?
If I met you in person and showed you a PhD, at the very best, it'd get you to shut up. But I can do that anyway, clearly, by simply ignoring the thread. Despite all your appeal to authority, if I showed you authority higher than yours which disagrees with you, it isn't as though you'd instantly reverse your position.
Am I right?
Prove me wrong. Go back to the original, technical topic. Stay focused. Write concise answers, and put them in one place, instead of copying and pasting them everywhere. Make it about finding out what's actually true, actually communicating, instead of just playing to win. ("performance"? Really?)
Or prove me right and paste your Ozymandias bit again. Do you know the rest of that sonnet?
I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
You clearly are capable of making points, as you seem to be trying to do elsewhere.
Again: I don't understand why you think "summarizing" (summary-by-copypasta?) will make anyone more likely to agree with you. If you don't think that, I don't understand what your motivation is.
it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
Where in that does it say that this only applies to incorrect authority? It does not. In logical debate, sorry, but no amount of authority (earned or otherwise) excuses you from justifying your position.
From your ad hominem & tu quoque (ad hominem again) attacks directed my way? No way you could have,
From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all), I could guess the same about you.
Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that.
What I said. Is it so hard to read what I actually said? In fact, I clarified it in the very next sentence from the one you quoted:
Since we both know it's not, you should realize that you must do more than show that vulnerabilities are easier to find. You must also show that there are just as many vulnerabilities as there are in proprietary software.
You didn't.
I came in here demonstrating WITH VERIFIABLE FACTS FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE (in secunia.com security vulnerabilities data) that LINUX 2.6x, the "latest/greatest" from LINUX has more KNOWN security vulnerabilities...
Fixed that for you.
There's also quality over quantity -- the number of remote vs local exploits. You need a remote exploit first, before the local exploit matters.
I also submit & HAD YOU ADMIT TO IT NO LESS, that "Open SORES" code has a disadvantage
Yet you refuse to admit the corresponding advantage.
you asked for proofs of where I have been shown in publications of respected & some notoriety in this art & science of computing, & I told you who you could write in that regards AND how to research them...
You did not answer whether those people would be willing to review this particular Slashdot post -- and would you really want me to waste their time with that? That's the problem with being anonymous. It wouldn't be enough for them to say that APK did this, they'd have to confirm that this is APK.
My ideas are simple, and you don't even DENY the ones on "Open Sores" code being easier & faster to find errors
That's correct. Finally, you acknowledge this.
All I did was point that out,
And I responded.
All I did was point that out, and the fact that though many "Pro-*NIX" people rant "I have the sourcecode, I can fix it"...
In what way is this not true?
And why must it be me myself? When I say "I", I mean "Anyone with the time and skill." Windows can be fixed by anyone with the time, skill, and appropriate position at Microsoft -- or by people with several orders of magnitude more time and skill with a disassembler, in theory.
But as you say, it's far easier to work with source -- both to find and to fix vulnerabilities.
Can YOU, yourself, PROFICIENTLY code in C/C++?
I have. I don't, as a rule, but that's due to personal preference, not a lack of ability.
Also, for YOUR sources? Try to cite an educational institution, as I did, next time!
You didn't even address the content of my sources, did you? Ah, well...
I can also argue independently of them -- do you know what a non-sequitur is? Abuse which is used as a premise to an unrelated conclusion -- "You're stupid, so you must be wrong" -- is a fallacy. But abuse can easily be used to support a conclusion -- "Your writing sucks. People aren't often taken seriously when their writing sucks. You want people to take you seriously. Therefore, you should strive to improve your writing."
At this point, whether we call either "ad-hominem" is shifting the debate. Find the formal flaw in the above argument about your writing.
Oh please - you OUTRIGHT CALLED ME A MORON!
Again, you missed that all-important word being. Smart people can do stupid things.
The day you can produce as many decent accomplishments as I have in respected publications centered on Comp. Sci. as I have is the day you can call me that,
Again with the appeal to authority. Are you going to tell me why it's not? Are you even going to address it?
Or are you going to actually Tu Quoque me, by refusing to address any fallacies so long as you believe I've ever used any?
TU QUOQUE
Found a quote about it:
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser.
As for this being "forum logic", this is also from Fallacy Files, which also cites various print sources. Again here, I am contrasting what you accuse me of (which turns out not to be a fallacy) with what you have done (which turns out to be a fallacy).
As usual, you have responded, not by actually responding to your own fallacies (appeal to authority being the most frequent), but by attempting to point out one of mine -- which is the classic tu quoque. In the same sentence in which you accuse me of tu quoque. Hilarious.
HAVE YOU EVEN TAKEN AND PASSED A FORMALLY ADMINISTERED LOGIC COURSE IN COLLEGIATE ACADEMIA? Obviously not...
Of course, this comes immediately after your accusation of fallacy. Hello? Appeal to authority? Is this thing on?
You can stop your usual "putting words into my mouth I never said"
Am I doing that here?
No, it leads to being able to find SECURITY VULNERABILITIES IN AN OPEN SOURCED APP (meaning having actual sourcecode, vs. only a binary executable for instance) FASTER THAN YOU CAN IN A CLOSED SOURCE EXECUTABLE
I never disputed that. You have yet to respond to these same vulnerabilities being faster to fix. Did you catch the vulnerability the Google engineer disclosed? He gave Microsoft five days,
Tu quoque is a subset of ad-hominem, meaning, again, it applies when one is using this instead of attacking the argument. Of course:
I attacked you ONLY AFTER you repeatedly performed an Ad Hominem attack on myself (in your outright blantantly calling me a moron, dick, & other "choice words"),
In other words, you're overly sensitive when constructive criticism is presented with vulgarity. Contrast to your use of "open sores", which is neither constructive nor actually criticism, but merely abuse -- exactly what am I meant to take away from that?
You've also refused to (or are unable to) make this fine distinction: My use of "dick" was a description of your behavior, not your character.
Tu quoque literally means "you too", which is something you've done pretty consistently, as above. (If you really want to play the "who started it" game, you said "open sores" long before I said "don't be a dick.") But that isn't what I've done -- I have pointed out your blind hypocrisy (to the point of projection) while defending my own position.
You acknowledge that you attacked me. I still have not attacked you -- see above for the distinction.
Microsoft was informed about this vulnerability on 5-Jun-2010, and they confirmed receipt of my report on the same day.
So they did respond. They just didn't fix it in five days:
Those of you with large support contracts are encouraged to tell your support representatives that you would like to see Microsoft invest in developing processes for faster responses to external security reports.
That's what he was complaining about, and I think it's a legitimate complaint.
Slashdot Mirror
"Post", as in the mail, a stick of wood, or the act of attaching a piece of paper to a tree or wall, is standard English.
"Post", as in something to do with the Internet, is NOT standard English.
Nor is the inter-net itself, unless you mean a bunch of ropes tied into a net and strung between, say, some fishing trawlers.
Language evolves. The only point of contention here is whether Twitter will be gone in five years.
IRC is built around channels and PMs.
Twitter can do that, or it can be publish/subscribe, for which there isn't (AFAIK) an IRC analogue.
So now, in order to track this, I'd have to actually talk to his ISP. Of course, all you say here is, "we have added this evidence..."
Jeremy Reimer's nobody anyone respects or takes seriously period
Maybe. I never heard of him until I noticed what he'd done with you.
Funny how you keep trying to 'save face' here in you replying back though, eh?
Yeah, I've really been feeding the troll. I should stop.
But "save face"? Nah. If I was about image, I might have dropped my docs, as you did.
Clearly this is the "best you've got"
Nope, you haven't seen the best I've got, and better things were said, but they seemed to go right over your head. In one ear and out the other, through the empty space in your skull.
Question is, are you?
No.
You brought them up, not I...
Yes, I did, as an example of why a degree from a diploma mill is useless. Also as an example to illustrate the people (with degrees) who will happily criticize pretty much all of science, without understanding any of it.
Those people were much easier to reason with than you.
Of course, the beautiful irony here is that you're too dumb to follow the way in which I'm calling you dumb.
You don't have any "Authoritativeness"
Poor, sad aristocrat, still doesn't understand that this was never about "authoritativeness." It was about truth.
You wouldn't ACKNOWLEDGE IT when I stated it first was my point...
Let's find it:
if I have the sourcecode to an operating system, I have a FAR easier time of finding bugs in it than I would on a closed source OS, & for instance, using "fuzzers" (or worse, disassembly via debuggers) on it during pen testing...
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said. I also explained why this is a good thing.
So you're factually wrong again. Not only did I acknowledge it, it was in my original post, you just somehow missed it:
Linux always has more vulnerabilities publicly found and fixed due to it being open source,
Perhaps the word you're looking for is that those vulnerabilities are more easily found? Even if you assert that I wasn't clearly "admitting" it here, I would think I clarified sufficiently when I said "That's pretty much exactly what I said."
And then you kept hammering on that point for post after post, as if I didn't agree. It was maddening:
That is MUCH EASIER TO SPOT, in an app with its SOURCE OPENED
Easier to spot, and also easier to fix.
I was affirming your "easier to spot" comment, and in the same sentence, explaining why it doesn't matter. I expanded on it in the next sentence:
When it's as easy to spot as you suggest, it's not going to survive long, particularly in a well-known open source application.
Yet in the next post, you again ignored this:
IF you were ANY GOOD? You'd have KNOWN that "Open Sores" also works AGAINST security, because it is Open Source... just like the sscanf I noted, it's easy to spot
You know what? I'll just let the post you were replying to answer this:
Easier to spot, and also easier to fix.
And now you suddenly have amnesia about the whole thing.
This is why it's a waste of time to talk to you. You don't read. You don't listen. You don't communicate, and you certainly don't connect. You lecture via copy and paste, and you "play" to win.
Which only proves your sources (like, LOL, Jeremy Reimer too), just are not absolutely VALID
He's a source of amusement. That's all I assume he's valid for. His experience comports with my own, however.
validity is important in LOGIC, period... especially absolute validity.
Huh. You clearly don't know what validity means in logic. Hint: It has nothing to do with the kind of validation you get by looking at that piece of paper you're so proud of. It's about the structure of an argument and the truth of its premises.
Why am I not surprised that, instead of attacking either of these, you continue to attack comments made alongside an argument?
Are you incapable of understanding the null hypothesis?
No,
Then prove it.
"Worthless -- any student can do that.
Students with degrees are better than those minus them
Your arrogance shines through -- students with degrees are not "better" people. Better sources? Maybe...
Of course, where's your evidence that this person has a degree? Again, students can post a tilde-URL, with or without degrees. The ones with degrees are generally smart enough to source their assertions.
(like you)
Now you assume I'm a student. Can you back that up?
That is the day you can even BEGIN to call me, lazy...
I gave you a simple task, to discover the truth, and you chose to continue in your assumptions instead. That's lazy.
LOL, from "Jeremy Reimer" a known troll online?
Known by whom? You?
Yes, some "authoritative source",
Never said he was.
FAKE like yourself
What have I pretended to be?
he can try to bring suit on me, ANYTIME,
According to him, it was you trying to bring suit against him.
you've been under the assumption that I was ever trying to establish myself as an authority.
Because you CANNOT do so
That's quite a leap. I can't do so, therefore I was trying to do so?
I was never trying to jump off a bridge, either. Does that mean I was trying to do so?
Who are you to even BEGIN to try to get the better of me??
What a sad person you are.
Here I was thinking this would be a technical discussion, maybe even a philosophical one, and instead, it was always about stroking your ego. It was always about you winning and proving how much better you are than me.
You're so desperate to win, you'll try anything other than actually communicating.
And I've been here the whole time.
your ad hominem name tossing quoted here
You know, I was going to complain about you fixating on that one sentence -- after however many thousands of words we've exchanged, that is still what you bring up in every fucking post?
But you prove it more true with every word, so go ahead and quote it. Ad-homs aren't sufficient to prove anything, but they also don't invalidate every single word your opponent says, especially when they're true.
Open "Sores" (which I help projects in no less & I produced proof of that as well here in UltraDefrag 64) is FAR from using racial slurs
It's an analogy. It's quantitatively different, but not qualitatively different. An insult directed at something you help, or are a member of, is still an insult.
Yea, well, who ever said I was here to "comfort you" or to "make friends"?
Never thought you were, but it makes me wonder why you are here. After all...
I am not here to make you happy OR to win a popularity contest after all.
But you are here to win something. You've made it all about keeping score and being competitive, and you've entirely lost the point of debate, discussion, and communication in the first place.
Is that why you avoided answering to it like mad thru this exchange until now?
When "now"? Go read through the exchange. I never denied it, said it explicitly several times before you got it, and when you finally did, you interpreted it as somehow an admission of defeat.
You'd make a decent politician, if you weren't so unlikable.
No, I don't really care anymore. I did use logical arguments, and you ignored them where they didn't go right over your head.
I'd call that a SLACKER
Or too busy to deal with you anymore.
They have degrees too, you know -- from Patriot Bible University.
And you do not, end of discussion
Are you actually going to give any credence to a degree from Patriot Bible University? Y'know, this place?
I'd be offended if someone offered me an honorary degree from such a place.
Funny how you complimented me at first for addressing the technical issues. Now, when I give you a single technical issue to address, you instead make it all about authority.
Do you dispute what I said about compiled vs scripted, or do you really need me to hold your hand through the process of finding a source for that? Or maybe you have a counterexample, a "scripting language" you imagine I use which can never be compiled?
Wikipedia doens't have inaccurate information?
Never said that, but it is more reliable than some random person's opinion. Obviously, properly sourced, peer-reviewed stuff would be better.
Meaning "YOU DON'T HAVE ONE"
Are you incapable of understanding the null hypothesis?
Its from an .edu domain,
Do you know what a tilde in a URL usually signifies? That's something else I'd hope you'd have learned while earning your degree -- how to evaluate sources on the web. A .edu domain, no sources cited, no peer review, nothing but, well, the .edu domain? Worthless -- any student can do that.
Busy doing what?
Too lazy to find out for yourself? Typical.
And what have you been busy with this week, that you have time to respond in the middle of the day?
my being specific
Buys you nothing, if you just keep repeating the same specific, already-refuted arguments.
Let's talk about Jeremy Reimer, here are some FACTS:
Jereny Reimer got caught by his ISP, Shaw in Canada, for:
Actually, according to what I linked to, he not only didn't get "caught", he actually played you pretty amusingly for a long time, after you'd demonstrated trollish (and litigious!) behavior.
But go ahead, show me the evidence for this. It should be even easier than evidence that you are the same APK.
More AD HOMINEM attacks, from an "authority"?
Ah, I see. For about the past three posts, you've been under the assumption that I was ever trying to establish myself as an authority.
When I call you on appeal to authority, it doesn't mean I think I'm an authority. It means I think authority is irrelevant when you're as obviously wrong as you are.
That is what the Internet does, and Slashdot is an example -- it flattens things. If you're a good communicator, and what you say is valuable, you get modded up, people pay attention. If you suck, nobody cares, no matter how many degrees you have, or how many news organizations you run.
Yet you refuse to admit the corresponding advantage.
OH, really? In fact, I even HELP an open SORES
Doesn't change a thing. You've consistently refused to acknowledge the advantage of having security holes resolved more quickly, because they are easy to find. This is what I was referring to when I said corresponding advantage, because it's one that goes directly, hand in hand, with the "disadvantage" you point out.
(I know that bugs you, lol)
So you admit to doing something deliberately, because you know it bugs me. That's the definition of trolling.
Yea, but I actually HELP the "Open SORES" crowd,
That's like saying "I help the Nigger community." Doesn't make it any less insulting or more productive.
I mean, do you think your "doubletalk" fools anyone?
You're the only one here. "Doubletalk" wasn't my intent -- trying to clarify terms is one of the basics of any philosophical discussion. It's clearly needed with you, as you came to the table with entirely different definitions of some fundamental things than me.
But go ahead, keep assuming malice. I'm sure it'll make you lots of friends.
"That's correct. Finally, you acknowledge this.
WTF? No, you had to CONCEDE that
Show me where I ever said anything other than that.
I never did. I always "admitted" it, always accepted it, and my initial arguments assumed it. You somehow missed this, and needed me to spell it out for you explicitly, multiple times, before we stopped talking past each other on that point.
You then go on to elaborate as to how I scrambled to completely shift my position... really? Were you paying attention at all? Have you even bothered to look at my earlier posts other than to whine about where I hurt your feelings?
This was only to show & expose you in the fact that you "talk a big game" but you have no degrees or certs to your credit,
What, because people with degrees and certs only program in C?
I have. I don't, as a rule, but that's due to personal preference, not a lack of ability.
Sure, sure: "WE BELIEVE YOU"
So what was the point in asking me, if you're going to outright call me a liar?
No, I just used actual educational institutions on the grounds of logic whereas you by way of comparison?
I just replied directly, using more basic logical axioms. I showed, directly, where and how ad-hominem is a fallacy.
You, as usual, ignored my arguments -- actual arguments, not just assertions -- and considered only sources.
Yea, sure... is that why You had to use WIKIPEDIA?
Because I'm lazy, and it's far easier to tell you to go educate yourself, and link to a resource on the topic, than to spell it out for you in painstaking detail, over and over again.
Uhm, lmao... those modules (classes, objects, units, headers, etc. et al)? They are ALL part of a system, & the parts make up the whole and they interact with one another... you can't avoid it
The entire field of software engineering is an effort to avoid it -- to allow the architects to make decisions about how the pieces interact with each other, but to make individual pieces isolated from each other.
Lisp, one of the oldest languages still in common use, is frequently run either compiled or interpreted, depending on which is desired at the moment.
you're just another "Script Kiddie" trying to play "expert" with me...
Is that really something any self-respecting comp sci major would say?
Are you even a graduate of a CSC or CIS/MIS degree? We'd like to know,
Who's "we"? It's just you and me here.
A quick reminder: Your entire reason for being skeptical that I have a degree is that I haven't shown you one, and you doubt the quality of what I'm saying.
By the same token, I doubt anyone with a comp sci degree wouldn't understand such a basic principle about programming language design.
I'm going to have to cut this short here, because you're repetitive and frankly quite boring. Yes, take that as an "ad-hom" if you like, it won't make the rest of this drivel any more interesting.
If you want to continue this discussion, stop making me repeat myself. Stop the dick-waving. Start addressing actual arguments.
Because it's no longer a matter of ad-hom or personal attacks -- several levels deep in this, you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the difference between a scripted and compiled language.
So go ahead -- type another response full of "authority" bullshit, and hope I don't notice while you scramble to try to put together some actual response. I won't be responding until you address this point, and I doubt I will then.
Debating you has been in every way more time-consuming, less intellectually stimulating, more frustrating, less productive, and overall a much worse experience than debati
Certainly, but I think it's laughably less important than a remote DoS in the OS (something that's already a DoS) or a true remote exploit, like what we found with Windows.
Indeed, part of my point was that this local DoS is nothing by itself. It's only relevant when you already have that exploitable buffer overflow, which is a much more serious issue. In other words, when counting vulnerabilities and measuring their severity, we should look at the exploitable buffer overflows first, local escalations second, and local DoS last.
Yes, all exploits should be fixed. Even if you can't figure out how they could be triggered, it might make sense to fix them for coding style reasons alone. But I can't see a local DoS as remotely as important as any remote vulnerability.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Find a URL without the tilde. Seriously -- at least Wikipedia cites sources, and has multiple contributors. That's just one person's assertion.
The topic here and this forums section, in case you had not noticed? It is comp. sci. related material, not logic,
Really?
Logic can be reduced to math. All programs can be reduced to math. And as you pointed out, you needed a Logic class for your degree.
Not that this is in any way relevant -- logical fallacies are fallacies in any field.
WTF? Who are you trying to fool here?? This, on your part???
Ah, right, the personal attack.
Still not a fallacy. You may well be a moron, but it doesn't automatically make you wrong in this case, and I didn't imply that. That is when ad-hominem is a fallacy, because that is when it's a non-sequitur. We've been over this.
Oh, that's RICH...
Want me to copy and paste my reply, too?
LOL, no no senor...
You don't get to dismiss one of the most important philosophical concepts of our time with "no no senor".
Again, you are making a positive claim that I don't have a degree. I am not and have not claimed anything about a degree. Burden's still on you -- it doesn't magically shift to me because you say so.
Pfah: I've shown you that much BY THE SCORE...
Who's keeping score? You again seem lost in your own little world -- of course you think you've won. So does NephilimFree. He also believes in a geocentric universe and a young earth. Do you think he's won?
from more respected sources than you are noting
Some random user's homepage is "respected" now?
you only have your evasions now + attempts @ doubletalk
I'm simply done playing the credentials game. I have no desire to make it any easier for you to find the real work I'm doing, the stuff I'm passionate about, and fling insults about it, troll the mailing lists and code reviews, and generally make life unpleasant for me.
Despite that, you actually have more than enough information to find what I'm talking about, but you don't seem to care, so I'm not making it easier for you.
you violate its logical debate tenets like MAD
Neither you nor your "easily found" tilde-prefixed homepage set the rules for logical debate.
Also, posting DAYS LATER on your part? Did you think I would just let YOU "skate away"
I did warn you I'd be busy this week. I did that in my last post to you before I disappeared. That's a giant hint as to some of the credentials I might have. What might I be fantastically busy with this week?
Great. You copied and pasted from your other post as I'm replying to it.
Do yourself a favor: Unbind ctrl+c and ctrl+v for a day. It'll make you a lot more interesting to read.
DEFINITELY a name tossing ad hominem attack on myself...
No it wasn't. Do you really want to continue?
especially on technical issues here, and even though you are trying to "drag this further off topic"?
That's hilarious. You're the one who not only responded to the ad-hominem stuff in the appropriate thread, but dragged it (via copy-and-paste) into every other thread we had going, spending at least as much time on that as the technical stuff. And you're the one who dropped the technical discussion to respond to the discussion of logic, still ignoring the benefits of open source until recently.
And your attack on those benefits? One random person you selected is not contributing to the Linux kernel directly, therefore "many eyes" doesn't work? But go to the other thread, I've got a rebuttal there.
you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that.
Oh, that's RICH: Coming from a no degree
*facepalm* And that's circular. Blindingly, obviously, circular. Another thing you should've learned in...
See how that works? You dismiss my argument because you haven't seen a degree. I point out that this dismissal is poor epistemology. You ignore that argument because you haven't seen a degree. But you see, if that argument is correct, you should listen to it and the previous regardless of degree.
First establish your epistemology is in any way correct, or at least reasonable. Then use it to disregard other things as untrue.
Oh, and you have the energy to copy and paste, and type prolifically for days at a time about how worthless I am without whatever credentials you think I should have, but you don't have the energy to look up my credentials?
per this article from TODAY NO LESS? So do others (in respected publications no less - take a read):
Fascinating:
Holy scriptures: The Lord of the Rings; Programming Perl (aka "The Camel Book")
Are you really taking this as a serious article? Seems like the majority of Slashdotters I meet hate Perl, for one...
Pity the fool who wanders blithely into a discussion and says, "What's the big deal with Linux? Windows works just fine." His online remains will later be hauled away in Chinese takeout boxes.
Without, of course, any reference or citation. This article certainly seems to have representation from both sides -- anti-Microsoft, and anti-Google.
I have seen pro-Microsoft comments modded to +5.
Of course, here you go:
How does one recognize a Slashdotter in public? One doesn't, says Malda, because they almost never leave the house.
So clearly, this was an article about humorous stereotypes, not about reality. (Do you really want to know where I've been this week?)
No no senor - the "burden of proof" is NOW upon you
You forgot the null hypothesis.
If you said "I don't know that you have a degree," the burden of proof would be on me. I have not said I do, but you continue to say I don't.
Since you are the only one making a positive claim about the existence of my degree, the burden of proof is on you.
Now, you started the dick-waving about degrees long before I pointed out your sock-puppeting. This was analogous -- I am not actually asking you to prove that.
Instead, I'm offering a simple deal: I'll drop it about your sock-puppeting (seriously, who says "judging by your bad performance" except you?) if you drop it about degrees.
However, those? Those are NOT as bad as your LOGIC blunders in:
Let me know if there was anything valuable in that. I don't read you when you copy and paste.
This only FURTHER proves it (SanityInAnarchy is giving up & crumbling...
Or you could take it at face value.
LOL, perhaps I've inspired him to earn a CSC/CIS/MIS degree finally? Doubt it... he strikes me as a big talking slacker actually!
About 3 hours of sleep per night for three nights in a row, and running full steam the rest of the time. Yep, I'm a slacker.
It occurs to me that I could offer you the proof you keep demanding, right now. I could show you what I've been doing this week. I could show you my real name. I could show you a very large software development community which seems to value my contributions, and I could show you how they did so.
But it wouldn't change a thing, would it?
If I met you in person and showed you a PhD, at the very best, it'd get you to shut up. But I can do that anyway, clearly, by simply ignoring the thread. Despite all your appeal to authority, if I showed you authority higher than yours which disagrees with you, it isn't as though you'd instantly reverse your position.
Am I right?
Prove me wrong. Go back to the original, technical topic. Stay focused. Write concise answers, and put them in one place, instead of copying and pasting them everywhere. Make it about finding out what's actually true, actually communicating, instead of just playing to win. ("performance"? Really?)
Or prove me right and paste your Ozymandias bit again. Do you know the rest of that sonnet?
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Wreck. Nice.
You really like copying and pasting, don't you?
You clearly are capable of making points, as you seem to be trying to do elsewhere.
Again: I don't understand why you think "summarizing" (summary-by-copypasta?) will make anyone more likely to agree with you. If you don't think that, I don't understand what your motivation is.
Read.
it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
Where in that does it say that this only applies to incorrect authority? It does not. In logical debate, sorry, but no amount of authority (earned or otherwise) excuses you from justifying your position.
From your ad hominem & tu quoque (ad hominem again) attacks directed my way? No way you could have,
From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all), I could guess the same about you.
Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that.
First of all: You DEFINITELY tried to imply it.
Nope.
Secondly: What EXACTLY were you implying?
What I said. Is it so hard to read what I actually said? In fact, I clarified it in the very next sentence from the one you quoted:
Since we both know it's not, you should realize that you must do more than show that vulnerabilities are easier to find. You must also show that there are just as many vulnerabilities as there are in proprietary software.
You didn't.
I came in here demonstrating WITH VERIFIABLE FACTS FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE (in secunia.com security vulnerabilities data) that LINUX 2.6x, the "latest/greatest" from LINUX has more KNOWN security vulnerabilities...
Fixed that for you.
There's also quality over quantity -- the number of remote vs local exploits. You need a remote exploit first, before the local exploit matters.
I also submit & HAD YOU ADMIT TO IT NO LESS, that "Open SORES" code has a disadvantage
Yet you refuse to admit the corresponding advantage.
you asked for proofs of where I have been shown in publications of respected & some notoriety in this art & science of computing, & I told you who you could write in that regards AND how to research them...
You did not answer whether those people would be willing to review this particular Slashdot post -- and would you really want me to waste their time with that? That's the problem with being anonymous. It wouldn't be enough for them to say that APK did this, they'd have to confirm that this is APK.
You seem to have a remarkably bad track record for proving you are who you say you are.
My ideas are simple, and you don't even DENY the ones on "Open Sores" code being easier & faster to find errors
That's correct. Finally, you acknowledge this.
All I did was point that out,
And I responded.
All I did was point that out, and the fact that though many "Pro-*NIX" people rant "I have the sourcecode, I can fix it"...
In what way is this not true?
And why must it be me myself? When I say "I", I mean "Anyone with the time and skill." Windows can be fixed by anyone with the time, skill, and appropriate position at Microsoft -- or by people with several orders of magnitude more time and skill with a disassembler, in theory.
But as you say, it's far easier to work with source -- both to find and to fix vulnerabilities.
Can YOU, yourself, PROFICIENTLY code in C/C++?
I have. I don't, as a rule, but that's due to personal preference, not a lack of ability.
Also, for YOUR sources? Try to cite an educational institution, as I did, next time!
You didn't even address the content of my sources, did you? Ah, well...
I can also argue independently of them -- do you know what a non-sequitur is? Abuse which is used as a premise to an unrelated conclusion -- "You're stupid, so you must be wrong" -- is a fallacy. But abuse can easily be used to support a conclusion -- "Your writing sucks. People aren't often taken seriously when their writing sucks. You want people to take you seriously. Therefore, you should strive to improve your writing."
At this point, whether we call either "ad-hominem" is shifting the debate. Find the formal flaw in the above argument about your writing.
Oh please - you OUTRIGHT CALLED ME A MORON!
Again, you missed that all-important word being. Smart people can do stupid things.
The day you can produce as many decent accomplishments as I have in respected publications centered on Comp. Sci. as I have is the day you can call me that,
Again with the appeal to authority. Are you going to tell me why it's not? Are you even going to address it?
Or are you going to actually Tu Quoque me, by refusing to address any fallacies so long as you believe I've ever used any?
TU QUOQUE
Found a quote about it:
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser.
As for this being "forum logic", this is also from Fallacy Files, which also cites various print sources. Again here, I am contrasting what you accuse me of (which turns out not to be a fallacy) with what you have done (which turns out to be a fallacy).
As usual, you have responded, not by actually responding to your own fallacies (appeal to authority being the most frequent), but by attempting to point out one of mine -- which is the classic tu quoque. In the same sentence in which you accuse me of tu quoque. Hilarious.
HAVE YOU EVEN TAKEN AND PASSED A FORMALLY ADMINISTERED LOGIC COURSE IN COLLEGIATE ACADEMIA? Obviously not...
Of course, this comes immediately after your accusation of fallacy. Hello? Appeal to authority? Is this thing on?
You can stop your usual "putting words into my mouth I never said"
Am I doing that here?
No, it leads to being able to find SECURITY VULNERABILITIES IN AN OPEN SOURCED APP (meaning having actual sourcecode, vs. only a binary executable for instance) FASTER THAN YOU CAN IN A CLOSED SOURCE EXECUTABLE
I never disputed that. You have yet to respond to these same vulnerabilities being faster to fix. Did you catch the vulnerability the Google engineer disclosed? He gave Microsoft five days,
Tu quoque is a subset of ad-hominem, meaning, again, it applies when one is using this instead of attacking the argument. Of course:
I attacked you ONLY AFTER you repeatedly performed an Ad Hominem attack on myself (in your outright blantantly calling me a moron, dick, & other "choice words"),
In other words, you're overly sensitive when constructive criticism is presented with vulgarity. Contrast to your use of "open sores", which is neither constructive nor actually criticism, but merely abuse -- exactly what am I meant to take away from that?
You've also refused to (or are unable to) make this fine distinction: My use of "dick" was a description of your behavior, not your character.
Tu quoque literally means "you too", which is something you've done pretty consistently, as above. (If you really want to play the "who started it" game, you said "open sores" long before I said "don't be a dick.") But that isn't what I've done -- I have pointed out your blind hypocrisy (to the point of projection) while defending my own position.
You acknowledge that you attacked me. I still have not attacked you -- see above for the distinction.
Public disclosure of the details of this vulnerability and how to exploit it, without giving us time to resolve the issue...
They had five days. Not great, but he made exactly this point -- Microsoft needs to patch these things faster when discovered.
Microsoft was informed about this vulnerability on 5-Jun-2010, and they confirmed receipt of my report on the same day.
So they did respond. They just didn't fix it in five days:
Those of you with large support contracts are encouraged to tell your support representatives that you would like to see Microsoft invest in developing processes for faster responses to external security reports.
That's what he was complaining about, and I think it's a legitimate complaint.
Actually, it works fine with GMail, but requires setting the user-agent.