I've addressed that elsewhere. It'd be a lot more convenient if you could stick to a topic, so we didn't have five simultaneous threads on the same issue. Please stop copying and pasting like that.
Again, you're doing your usual "putting words in my mouth I never said", as you have before!
Oh, that'll be exciting. I suppose you'll show me where I said that you said something...
I never said it was the "only way"
And I never said you did! Fail.
No, I said you would have a point if it was the only way. Indeed, you dishonestly use quotes around "only way" despite that I didn't use those words. Here's what I said:
if this was the only thing that determined the security of a system, you'd have a point.
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. Good luck, though, as there are likely many more vulnerabilities in proprietary software which have never been found (or fixed) -- since they are, as you said, hard to find.
You must have seen the link from LeMoyne where I was a lettermen...
There's still the part where you have to tie that to these posts. I could log on as AC and claim I'm Steve Jobs, but that's irrelevant unless I can prove I actually am. Proving Steve Jobs has credentials is beside the point.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.
Those "personal attacks" (to the extent that they were -- "don't be a dick" has never been a personal attack) were not attempts to undermine your argument -- I could do that well enough on my own.
However, you have been guilty of exactly this, haven't you? It seems every single claim I make, you counter with "Where's your degree that proves you have a right to say that?" You did it right here:
You're no expert in LOGIC, not in CSC/CIS/MIS, nor in English (per your 'grammar/spellcheck/writing style' forensics & critiques attempts, minus provable expertise in any of them yourself or degrees or licenses in them either), nor in Psychology (per your libel directed my way on that account also).
Show us degrees that show you are in those? I'll take it back... until then? LMAO!
In other words, "I'm not going to listen to anything you say unless you have a degree." How elitist and naive -- but it's also a perfect example of argumentum ad-hominem. Instead of addressing my argument, you attack my credentials, in an attempt to undermine my argument.
Many people seem to think that any personal criticism, attack, or insult counts as an ad hominem fallacy...
People like you, apparently.
Each subfallacy listed on that page is explicit that it applies when such arguments are used as evidence against the position -- which again, I have not done, though you have.
Ad-hominem is described as the introduction of a red herring, which you commit often, which is described like this:
This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy.
But I gave no conclusion about your arguments.
Finally, I'm not surprised you've forgotten:
when I brought up the fact that looking for faulty coding practices or risky compiler instructions like sscanf are easy to find... You were reduced to using ad hominem name calling
So you're implying that at this point, I had no argument, and all I did was ad-hom? Let's find out:
Linux always has more vulnerabilities publicly found and fixed due to it being open source, a process which leads to a more secure system -- wouldn't you rather have a vulnerability found and fixed, or even found and marked "unpatched" on Securina, than found and exploited (hidden) elsewhere?
Now, I'm not saying this in itself is an airtight argument, but it's also one that addresses your claim that merely having the source available naturally leads to a less secure system.
Revealing specific techniques for searching through source code, versus analyzing binary, are irrelevant. I never once claimed that vulnerabilities are harder to find in open source. My claim was that the fact that vulnerabilities are easy to find in open source makes it more secure in the long run.
Of course, that wasn't the post where I supposedly ad-hom'd you. Let's look at that one:
...then "PROVE" I don't have a PhD in Computer Science, with a minor in Math and Philosophy.
If you can't, then maybe this can stop being an argument about who has the better credentials, and start being an actual discussion. Remember, I didn't start pointing out your sock-puppeting until after you'd started your appeal-to-authority campaign.
Please, take THIS advice - Don't waste all your time here!
That's probably the most intelligent thing you've said, because you truly are a waste of valuable time, of which I have very little this week.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Why is it that you think repeating (or summarizing) the same arguments is going to accomplish anything? When you start making points again, I'll start countering them again.
Our natural instinct is to say to ourselves "Wow! If they provide that much computing power for free, just think how much they must keep back for themselves.".
It's more like, wow, they provide that much computing power to the point where not only do things like GMail pretty much always work, but I can actually get six and a half hours of CPU power (per app) through App Engine for code I write.
If they provide that much for free, it's not that I think they're holding anything back, it's that I would think they'd be able to provide similar levels of service internally. Remember, we're talking about dogfooding -- do you think developer's GMail accounts are slower than anyone else's?
Most corporations invest the absolute minimum in development resources.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know that Google does better, but I do know that pretty much nowhere I've worked has had that attitude. They realize that developers are what gets stuff done, and are happy to invest resources.
Not necessarily the absolute best, but think back to your TI suggestion -- it's a hell of a lot cheaper to give a developer a machine to work on than to pay him to sit idle.
you asked why I'd hate to work entirely through web based interfaces. Latency is one reason.
In other words, this is why you suspect there'd be latency -- but it's still possible that there wouldn't. I'm not saying every web-based IDE would suck, or that I'd prefer to work that way (I like Unix), but I'd certainly be willing to try one, and I think it could be made to work well, especially if you're working on web apps.
And the main difference here is that most engineers don't have a situation where people actually might die if their support team doesn't get shit done the way they're supposed to, and on time.
Again, I'm not saying they have a license to be assholes. I'm not even saying they're the only ones deserving of the title "elite." I'm saying that they shouldn't have to say please and thank you -- there's a line between being the cold, assertive, demanding doctor, and the elitist, abusive asshole doctor.
Actually, thanks, that's exactly what I meant by "a specific case".
So I suppose they do abuse it, which is unfortunate, because unlike "think of the children", it's actually a legitimate complaint -- if it's legitimate.
As for that computer, I think that'd be a pretty clear case for having two computers there, or one in a VM -- some way to isolate the paper airplane bullshit, so it doesn't actually affect patient care.
also shows you performing a logical fallacy called ad hominem, which means attacking the person and not the topic at hand.
For it to be a fallacy, it must be more than that, as I've explained elsewhere. Since you're not APK, and haven't shown any credentials, surely you can show me where you're getting this from.
I posted as an anonymous coward so that you cannot harass myself as you are others
Another stylistic trait of APK is referring to himself as "myself," where "me" would work well -- something he does often, and something others do very rarely.
Really, APK's "voice" is pretty blatant, especially compared to most others here.
There's also the fact that your opinions match his so perfectly, and many are opinions I can't remember seeing often here -- for instance, the opinion that you don't want a Slashdot account, because you don't want to be "tracked" or "harassed".
About the only thing you're missing is his swagger.
I think this is going to be decided based on whether or not with was reasonable to suspect that this speech would make it into school,
Problem is, it's pretty much always reasonable to suspect that, unless you went to great pains to make it private. And censorship generally applies to what's public, doesn't it?
I guess what such a finding would mean is that no student can ever post anything "disruptive" (as defined in Tinker) on the net. Do we, as a society want to go there?
ADHOMINEM = YOU ARE "ATTACKING THE MAN", not his arguments, period.
Not a logical fallacy. The fallacy is when you attempt to advance attacks on the man as evidence that his arguments are fallacious.
The irony is, I haven't done this, while you do a special case of it all the time:
HAVE YOU EVEN TAKEN & PASSED A FORMAL LOGIC COURSE IN COLLEGE ENVIRONS BOY?
That is pretty much a textbook ad-hom.
Don't you mean that for yourself?
"I know you are but what am I?" may have been clever in kindergarten, but it's not a logical argument.
Just as I suspected, and now I know to be true: You have NOTHING like this very partial list of accomplishments in respected publications...
This isn't my resume. Which might not even be terribly hard for you to find, if you cared to look.
Again, note how I didn't come out and list the programming languages I know when you first demanded them. Wasn't that embarrassing, after calling me a "script kiddie", to find out how many "real" languages I know? Maybe you'll take a hint this time and go back to attacking my arguments, instead of my qualifications.
Ok "google child"... listen: I don't have to look it up!I have actually TAKEN AND DID PRETTY WELL IN A FORMAL LOGIC COURSE DURING CSC DEGREE WORK... have you?
If that's true, you should realize that what you're doing here is an Appeal to Authority -- and yes, you're using it in a fallacious way.
NAMECALLING
Still can't tell the difference between calling you a name, and describing your behavior. It's subtle, but even with Intro to Philosophy (a fairly informal course), you should be able to see it.
Even if I was calling you a name, attacking the man is not automatically argumentum ad-hominem, which is still not automatically a fallacy.
I quote each point of yours, usually POINT BY POINT,
I am not sure you CAN read properly, and I am fairly certain at this point that you have NOT actually taken & passed logic in a formal collegiate environs,
One thing I do know from college is the purpose of citation. One purpose is so that a skeptic will take you seriously. It goes something like this:
Me: This is what an ad-hom is, this is why it's not always fallacious, and here's my source. (link) You: No, ad-hom is something else! Me: Ok, why is it something else? You: That's evasive! Me: Erm... do you have a source that it's something else? You: I don't need a source, I have a degree!
Yeah, I start to wonder if you've got a degree when you waste this much time repeating your appeals to authority. Prove that degree is worth something and show me that you know something about logical fallacies.
I think there's a pretty fair chance that this post was viewed at the school. Does that change anything?
I don't really think so.
What if you rent a billboard across the street from the school?
I'd draw the line there, but think of it this way: The alternate interpretation is that you simply are not allowed to say anything bad about the Principal, ever, if there's the slightest chance it could make it to school.
The further implication is that if a student started a blog, that blog would essentially be censored by the school, even if it was hosted by the student and never intended to be viewed at the school. And remember, school is taking a huge chunk of the student's life, so they are definitely going to talk about school, and about events at school, and they should be allowed to do so.
I could see it going either way.
The only argument I see in favor of the suspension is that it's better than a libel lawsuit -- but even this is a pretty weak argument. Take away the principal's authority here, and he can still say to the girl, "Look, I'm not doing this as a principal, I'm doing it as a human being. I could sue you for libel, but I think that would be a bit extreme. So tell you what, if you take it down, apologize, and do a little community service, I won't sue."
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that would have everyone win -- the school doesn't get obscene amounts of authority, the student gets punished, but no one gets sued.
Are you trying to tell us that using debuggers' assembly language dumps/traces OR even fuzzers is easier and faster than looking for bad coding practices in actual sourcecode or faulty instructions like sscanf in C compilers is?
Nope, and never have. I've answered this elsewhere.
ask their editors if you wish... You are also free to write Mr. Eric Dickman, CEO of SuperSpeed.com,
Will either of them personally go through your posts here? That's the point.
PC-WELT is the equivalent of the USA's "PC WORLD" magazine, & I never called them "great" - quit trying to put words into my mouth I never stated
"Look on my works and despair..." Or why include it in the list?
by now, it's obvious YOU have never done the same
Actually, it's not. I just don't care to spew my credentials over every page. Either my arguments speak for themselves, or they don't. Yours obviously need that Appeal to Authority.
I never said any of these mags was great, quit trying to put words into my mouth I never stated
You compared yourself to Ozymandeus, King of Kings. As I didn't quote you exactly, I'm only paraphrasing what I took you to say.
WTF? LOL, man... you are REALLY "reaching" now, aren't you?
Can you say "projection"? I knew you could.
So after the QUESTION you started off with, you're going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth?
By your reaction, I can assume you don't have a perfect life -- thus, things don't always go your way. So maybe now you can answer the question: When things don't go your way, do you blame God, just as you give him credit when things do go your way?
It also proves I read your points and answer (and defeat & disprove) each one YOU MAKE
Proving that you can copy and paste doesn't show you actually understood what was said. Actually responding (rather than copying and pasting your earlier, failed arguments) would be a lot more helpful.
Each time you make a posting here? IT SAYS "BY [insert name here]".
I did notice that. Did you notice that it doesn't insert that after each quote? Again, I have never seen anyone else quote in the way you do.
I just highlite your name in the posted by section of your replies,
Then why is it that practically no one on Slashdot does that, except you and one random person who stumbles on your thread?
The funny part is that you then want to lecture me about keeping some dignity.
Others do the same obviously as it saves time
Care to provide an example? Again, I never see it.
cites who said what
Because clicking "parent" is too hard for people? Another common method, if it's much higher up the chain, is to link to the original post, or specify "grandparent" or whatever.
in order to show EXACTLY what point of theirs I am disputing AND DISPROVING
Takes more than a citation to do that. Look up quote-mining.
What's wrong with that?
Well, it's obnoxious and unnecessary, but that's not really wrong, that's a matter of personal preference. What's wrong is that you felt the need to post as someone else, lying about it then and now.
Ahem: "Yea, right"... did you say THIS below, or not?
All exploits eventually touch the local system, of course.
I did. You have yet to explain why this is inconsistent or even wrong, other than to strawman me by suggesting I held a position diametrically opposed to the one I actually hold.
You just made a composition fallacy.
Your REPEATED name calling is Ad-Hominem attack upon myself,
That's changing the subject, and I've already refuted the ad-hom charge. Please explain how it's not a composition fallacy.
someone that's taken & done fairly well in LOGIC
Then try employing some -- again, explain how what you said is not a composition fallacy. When you're done with that, either show me a source that defines Ad-Hominem other than how I've defined it, or explain how according to my definition, what I said is an ad-hom.
Per my subject above? That's a logical fallacy in & of itself,
Already refuted this -- in fact, this specific thing. You know exactly where I did, because you posted something about "making excuses" without actually reading it. Hint: Ad-hominem takes the form of:
Premise: The person making this argument is a bad person of some sort. Conclusion: The argument they are making is wrong.
It does not take the form of:
Premise: Person X is behaving badly. Conclusion: Person X should behave better.
Now, by itself, that's not a complete argument. It's based on the implicit premise that people should not behave badly. But it was also never intended to be a formal argument.
that 'Open Sores' rib of mine "sets you off" hugely - that's your problem, not mine
It is, however, a serious interpersonal problem you have -- and you don't even seem to care. Try this for a thought experiment: Next black person you see, make a comment about "Niggers" or "Porch monkeys" and try to tell them it's their problem if they take offense.
This isn't an English class, or a paper for a grade
You're right, it's not a paper for a grade, or a formal debate competition, so why are you so concerned with winning?
However, it is on topic when you start bitching about how you get moderated. This is precisely why. Your posts would be crap even if there was solid technical merit. If there is, you're not doing a very good job of extracting it, since you're more interested in finding something to disagree in what I have to say.
For example:
Are you trying to tell us that using debuggers' assembly language dumps/traces OR even fuzzers is easier and faster than looking for bad coding practices in actual sourcecode or faulty instructions like sscanf in C compilers is?
Nope. Never have. In fact, if this was the only thing that determined the security of a system, you'd have a point.
I've also given you more than enough opportunity to prove your intelligence -- to prove that you've earned the credentials you cite -- by making an effort to read and understand what I'm actually saying. The fact that you would ask this, even rhetorically, is evidence that you are not now and never were paying much attention to what I have to say, or worse, that you're incapable of understanding it.
Too bad, because we probably could have some interesting discussions.
But this isn't a discussion, is it? It's you shouting with your fingers in your ears.
Ah, but now we're talking about load, not latency.
Developers tend to be stuck with limited resources.
Have you seen Google lately?
But at least now we're talking about something real, not a kneejerk reaction: Would there be enough resources to go around, if they were all shared? Google does have warehouse-sized computers, so I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't.
Islam if applied in the US would result in a theocracy.
So would Christianity. What's your point?
've been to the Middle East and see how they roll.
And I've met Muslims here -- not all are from the middle east.
there is ONLY reason to tolerate beliefs that are tolerant and SECULAR themselves.
No. No. Freedom of speech means freedom to believe and say whatever crazy shit you want.
It's not the beliefs you should be intolerant of. It's the actions.
I'm not saying you have to like their beliefs, or even respect them. But if you don't at least tolerate them, you're no better than they are.
Tolerance for Islam benefits only Islam.
How shortsighted of you.
Tolerance of all religions, indiscriminately, benefits all religions, and all people, whether they're religious or not. Again, I am speaking of the beliefs here -- no one is asking you to tolerate someone killing in the name of their religion.
an abstract ideal that "everything is everything so we dare not judge anything or resist an enemy",
I said neither of these things.
I'm not saying you can't judge. I'm not saying you can't resist.
If you follow the 'free speech' mantra, students should be able to shout abuse at a teacher all lesson long, and deny anyone the ability to learn.
Nope, that's in school, where teachers have authority.
Ridiculing teachers on the 'net in plain view is nothing short of bullying; this is why society developed etiquette...
In school, that'd be legitimate grounds for whatever it is they wanted to do.
Outside school, in the real world, it may not even be illegal. And if it is, the principal could bring his own libel/slander suit and resolve it that way.
Actually, the most important difference between Americans and radical Muslims is that only radicals have beliefs like this:
Muslims and their supporters don't count as Americans... if anyone else is thoughtful enough to kill Muslims...
The beliefs of most Americans are no less toxic, and have scarcely caused less harm in the time both have been around. The point of America is that you can be an American, no matter what your personal belief or superstition, and we don't tend to kill people merely for their beliefs. People like you are every bit as much a threat to the American ideal as the most hardcore Sharia supporter.
Unfortunately in the US (and many other countries), jailbreaking the iPhone is illegal.
What I don't get is why you would monetarily reward a company which forces you to crack your own device? I mean, let me run with the "jailbreak" analogy for a bit:
Genius: "Welcome to the new, improved Apple store! Let me just slip on your iCuffs..." *click* Customer: "Hey!" Tech-savvy customer: "It's OK, here, I've got a hairpin in my sock... Let me 'jailbreak' your hands..." Customer: "Cool! Now I can actually touch things!" Genius: "Whoops, looks like those iCuffs were vulnerable! Here's the patch..." *click* Customer: "HEY!" Tech-savvy customer: "It's OK, we'll come out with a new hairpin in a day or so... Don't you just love Apple?"
meanwhile, at the Microsoft store...
Ballmer: I don't get it. We let people do what they want here -- no iCuffs! But no one's here, they're all at the Apple Store! I'm going to fucking kill Apple! Gates: I dunno, they must be pretty kinky over there. Maybe they like the iCuffs? Ballmer: Brilliant! We'll release Microsoft Cuffs (TM) to compete! Then everyone will love the Microsoft Store!
I realize my analogy is being stretched a bit, but... I still don't get it.
I get wanting an iPhone and not caring about the restrictions. (Hey, some people are into cuffs, who am I to judge?) I get buying something else to avoid those restrictions.
I don't get going out of your way to buy an iPhone, when good, solid alternatives exist, and then jailbreaking it. I don't get supporting a closed ecosystem you clearly resent -- supporting it with money, word-of-mouth and general network effects ("I can help you fix your iPhone!"), some jailbreakers even develop for it, basically supporting it as a platform in every way... Even though you can't stand that it's closed (even though you know damned well that will never change), and you're willing to risk bricking your device to remove that restriction. You care enough to risk bricking an iPhone, but not enough to try Android?
Sorry if that sounds preachy, and maybe someone can explain it to me, because it still boggles me.
They could do that quite simply by changing their pricing model.
That is: Anticipate how much traffic you expect from tethered laptops at 2 gigs/mo. Work out how much it'll cost to build the infrastructure to support them. Change prices to match.
Instead, they're trying to restrict certain behavior on the basis that it might consume a lot of bandwidth, instead of dealing with the bandwidth issue. Restrict the bandwidth itself, or don't. Coming at it sideways like this is not only unfair, it's ultimately ineffective.
Slashdot Mirror
AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy)
I've addressed that elsewhere. It'd be a lot more convenient if you could stick to a topic, so we didn't have five simultaneous threads on the same issue. Please stop copying and pasting like that.
Again, you're doing your usual "putting words in my mouth I never said", as you have before!
Oh, that'll be exciting. I suppose you'll show me where I said that you said something...
I never said it was the "only way"
And I never said you did! Fail.
No, I said you would have a point if it was the only way. Indeed, you dishonestly use quotes around "only way" despite that I didn't use those words. Here's what I said:
if this was the only thing that determined the security of a system, you'd have a point.
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. Good luck, though, as there are likely many more vulnerabilities in proprietary software which have never been found (or fixed) -- since they are, as you said, hard to find.
You must have seen the link from LeMoyne where I was a lettermen...
There's still the part where you have to tie that to these posts. I could log on as AC and claim I'm Steve Jobs, but that's irrelevant unless I can prove I actually am. Proving Steve Jobs has credentials is beside the point.
This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
Note that I do continue to attack your ideas. Furthermore, here's an explanation:
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.
Those "personal attacks" (to the extent that they were -- "don't be a dick" has never been a personal attack) were not attempts to undermine your argument -- I could do that well enough on my own.
However, you have been guilty of exactly this, haven't you? It seems every single claim I make, you counter with "Where's your degree that proves you have a right to say that?" You did it right here:
You're no expert in LOGIC, not in CSC/CIS/MIS, nor in English (per your 'grammar/spellcheck/writing style' forensics & critiques attempts, minus provable expertise in any of them yourself or degrees or licenses in them either), nor in Psychology (per your libel directed my way on that account also).
Show us degrees that show you are in those? I'll take it back... until then? LMAO!
In other words, "I'm not going to listen to anything you say unless you have a degree." How elitist and naive -- but it's also a perfect example of argumentum ad-hominem. Instead of addressing my argument, you attack my credentials, in an attempt to undermine my argument.
Another source, with its own citations:
Many people seem to think that any personal criticism, attack, or insult counts as an ad hominem fallacy...
People like you, apparently.
Each subfallacy listed on that page is explicit that it applies when such arguments are used as evidence against the position -- which again, I have not done, though you have.
Ad-hominem is described as the introduction of a red herring, which you commit often, which is described like this:
This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy.
But I gave no conclusion about your arguments.
Finally, I'm not surprised you've forgotten:
when I brought up the fact that looking for faulty coding practices or risky compiler instructions like sscanf are easy to find... You were reduced to using ad hominem name calling
So you're implying that at this point, I had no argument, and all I did was ad-hom? Let's find out:
Linux always has more vulnerabilities publicly found and fixed due to it being open source, a process which leads to a more secure system -- wouldn't you rather have a vulnerability found and fixed, or even found and marked "unpatched" on Securina, than found and exploited (hidden) elsewhere?
Now, I'm not saying this in itself is an airtight argument, but it's also one that addresses your claim that merely having the source available naturally leads to a less secure system.
Revealing specific techniques for searching through source code, versus analyzing binary, are irrelevant. I never once claimed that vulnerabilities are harder to find in open source. My claim was that the fact that vulnerabilities are easy to find in open source makes it more secure in the long run.
Of course, that wasn't the post where I supposedly ad-hom'd you. Let's look at that one:
if I have the
...then "PROVE" I don't have a PhD in Computer Science, with a minor in Math and Philosophy.
If you can't, then maybe this can stop being an argument about who has the better credentials, and start being an actual discussion. Remember, I didn't start pointing out your sock-puppeting until after you'd started your appeal-to-authority campaign.
Please, take THIS advice - Don't waste all your time here!
That's probably the most intelligent thing you've said, because you truly are a waste of valuable time, of which I have very little this week.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Why is it that you think repeating (or summarizing) the same arguments is going to accomplish anything? When you start making points again, I'll start countering them again.
Sad.
No, not reading and responding to a post which has a fallacy -- one I've repeatedly pointed out to you -- in the subject.
Our natural instinct is to say to ourselves "Wow! If they provide that much computing power for free, just think how much they must keep back for themselves.".
It's more like, wow, they provide that much computing power to the point where not only do things like GMail pretty much always work, but I can actually get six and a half hours of CPU power (per app) through App Engine for code I write.
If they provide that much for free, it's not that I think they're holding anything back, it's that I would think they'd be able to provide similar levels of service internally. Remember, we're talking about dogfooding -- do you think developer's GMail accounts are slower than anyone else's?
Most corporations invest the absolute minimum in development resources.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know that Google does better, but I do know that pretty much nowhere I've worked has had that attitude. They realize that developers are what gets stuff done, and are happy to invest resources.
Not necessarily the absolute best, but think back to your TI suggestion -- it's a hell of a lot cheaper to give a developer a machine to work on than to pay him to sit idle.
you asked why I'd hate to work entirely through web based interfaces. Latency is one reason.
In other words, this is why you suspect there'd be latency -- but it's still possible that there wouldn't. I'm not saying every web-based IDE would suck, or that I'd prefer to work that way (I like Unix), but I'd certainly be willing to try one, and I think it could be made to work well, especially if you're working on web apps.
That's why I qualified "some of".
And the main difference here is that most engineers don't have a situation where people actually might die if their support team doesn't get shit done the way they're supposed to, and on time.
Again, I'm not saying they have a license to be assholes. I'm not even saying they're the only ones deserving of the title "elite." I'm saying that they shouldn't have to say please and thank you -- there's a line between being the cold, assertive, demanding doctor, and the elitist, abusive asshole doctor.
Actually, thanks, that's exactly what I meant by "a specific case".
So I suppose they do abuse it, which is unfortunate, because unlike "think of the children", it's actually a legitimate complaint -- if it's legitimate.
As for that computer, I think that'd be a pretty clear case for having two computers there, or one in a VM -- some way to isolate the paper airplane bullshit, so it doesn't actually affect patient care.
SanityInAnarchy, I am not apk.
Then who are you?
also shows you performing a logical fallacy called ad hominem, which means attacking the person and not the topic at hand.
For it to be a fallacy, it must be more than that, as I've explained elsewhere. Since you're not APK, and haven't shown any credentials, surely you can show me where you're getting this from.
I posted as an anonymous coward so that you cannot harass myself as you are others
Another stylistic trait of APK is referring to himself as "myself," where "me" would work well -- something he does often, and something others do very rarely.
Really, APK's "voice" is pretty blatant, especially compared to most others here.
There's also the fact that your opinions match his so perfectly, and many are opinions I can't remember seeing often here -- for instance, the opinion that you don't want a Slashdot account, because you don't want to be "tracked" or "harassed".
About the only thing you're missing is his swagger.
I think this is going to be decided based on whether or not with was reasonable to suspect that this speech would make it into school,
Problem is, it's pretty much always reasonable to suspect that, unless you went to great pains to make it private. And censorship generally applies to what's public, doesn't it?
I guess what such a finding would mean is that no student can ever post anything "disruptive" (as defined in Tinker) on the net. Do we, as a society want to go there?
I don't.
ADHOMINEM = YOU ARE "ATTACKING THE MAN", not his arguments, period.
Not a logical fallacy. The fallacy is when you attempt to advance attacks on the man as evidence that his arguments are fallacious.
The irony is, I haven't done this, while you do a special case of it all the time:
HAVE YOU EVEN TAKEN & PASSED A FORMAL LOGIC COURSE IN COLLEGE ENVIRONS BOY?
That is pretty much a textbook ad-hom.
Don't you mean that for yourself?
"I know you are but what am I?" may have been clever in kindergarten, but it's not a logical argument.
Just as I suspected, and now I know to be true: You have NOTHING like this very partial list of accomplishments in respected publications...
This isn't my resume. Which might not even be terribly hard for you to find, if you cared to look.
Again, note how I didn't come out and list the programming languages I know when you first demanded them. Wasn't that embarrassing, after calling me a "script kiddie", to find out how many "real" languages I know? Maybe you'll take a hint this time and go back to attacking my arguments, instead of my qualifications.
Ok "google child"... listen: I don't have to look it up!I have actually TAKEN AND DID PRETTY WELL IN A FORMAL LOGIC COURSE DURING CSC DEGREE WORK... have you?
If that's true, you should realize that what you're doing here is an Appeal to Authority -- and yes, you're using it in a fallacious way.
NAMECALLING
Still can't tell the difference between calling you a name, and describing your behavior. It's subtle, but even with Intro to Philosophy (a fairly informal course), you should be able to see it.
Even if I was calling you a name, attacking the man is not automatically argumentum ad-hominem, which is still not automatically a fallacy.
I quote each point of yours, usually POINT BY POINT,
You didn't quote this one.
I am not sure you CAN read properly, and I am fairly certain at this point that you have NOT actually taken & passed logic in a formal collegiate environs,
One thing I do know from college is the purpose of citation. One purpose is so that a skeptic will take you seriously. It goes something like this:
Me: This is what an ad-hom is, this is why it's not always fallacious, and here's my source. (link)
You: No, ad-hom is something else!
Me: Ok, why is it something else?
You: That's evasive!
Me: Erm... do you have a source that it's something else?
You: I don't need a source, I have a degree!
Yeah, I start to wonder if you've got a degree when you waste this much time repeating your appeals to authority. Prove that degree is worth something and show me that you know something about logical fallacies.
I think there's a pretty fair chance that this post was viewed at the school. Does that change anything?
I don't really think so.
What if you rent a billboard across the street from the school?
I'd draw the line there, but think of it this way: The alternate interpretation is that you simply are not allowed to say anything bad about the Principal, ever, if there's the slightest chance it could make it to school.
The further implication is that if a student started a blog, that blog would essentially be censored by the school, even if it was hosted by the student and never intended to be viewed at the school. And remember, school is taking a huge chunk of the student's life, so they are definitely going to talk about school, and about events at school, and they should be allowed to do so.
I could see it going either way.
The only argument I see in favor of the suspension is that it's better than a libel lawsuit -- but even this is a pretty weak argument. Take away the principal's authority here, and he can still say to the girl, "Look, I'm not doing this as a principal, I'm doing it as a human being. I could sue you for libel, but I think that would be a bit extreme. So tell you what, if you take it down, apologize, and do a little community service, I won't sue."
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that would have everyone win -- the school doesn't get obscene amounts of authority, the student gets punished, but no one gets sued.
Are you trying to tell us that using debuggers' assembly language dumps/traces OR even fuzzers is easier and faster than looking for bad coding practices in actual sourcecode or faulty instructions like sscanf in C compilers is?
Nope, and never have. I've answered this elsewhere.
ask their editors if you wish... You are also free to write Mr. Eric Dickman, CEO of SuperSpeed.com,
Will either of them personally go through your posts here? That's the point.
PC-WELT is the equivalent of the USA's "PC WORLD" magazine, & I never called them "great" - quit trying to put words into my mouth I never stated
"Look on my works and despair..." Or why include it in the list?
by now, it's obvious YOU have never done the same
Actually, it's not. I just don't care to spew my credentials over every page. Either my arguments speak for themselves, or they don't. Yours obviously need that Appeal to Authority.
I never said any of these mags was great, quit trying to put words into my mouth I never stated
You compared yourself to Ozymandeus, King of Kings. As I didn't quote you exactly, I'm only paraphrasing what I took you to say.
WTF? LOL, man... you are REALLY "reaching" now, aren't you?
Can you say "projection"? I knew you could.
So after the QUESTION you started off with, you're going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth?
By your reaction, I can assume you don't have a perfect life -- thus, things don't always go your way. So maybe now you can answer the question: When things don't go your way, do you blame God, just as you give him credit when things do go your way?
Hmm, looks like I missed this:
It also proves I read your points and answer (and defeat & disprove) each one YOU MAKE
Proving that you can copy and paste doesn't show you actually understood what was said. Actually responding (rather than copying and pasting your earlier, failed arguments) would be a lot more helpful.
Each time you make a posting here? IT SAYS "BY [insert name here]".
I did notice that. Did you notice that it doesn't insert that after each quote? Again, I have never seen anyone else quote in the way you do.
I just highlite your name in the posted by section of your replies,
Then why is it that practically no one on Slashdot does that, except you and one random person who stumbles on your thread?
The funny part is that you then want to lecture me about keeping some dignity.
Others do the same obviously as it saves time
Care to provide an example? Again, I never see it.
cites who said what
Because clicking "parent" is too hard for people? Another common method, if it's much higher up the chain, is to link to the original post, or specify "grandparent" or whatever.
in order to show EXACTLY what point of theirs I am disputing AND DISPROVING
Takes more than a citation to do that. Look up quote-mining.
What's wrong with that?
Well, it's obnoxious and unnecessary, but that's not really wrong, that's a matter of personal preference. What's wrong is that you felt the need to post as someone else, lying about it then and now.
Ahem: "Yea, right"... did you say THIS below, or not?
All exploits eventually touch the local system, of course.
I did. You have yet to explain why this is inconsistent or even wrong, other than to strawman me by suggesting I held a position diametrically opposed to the one I actually hold.
You just made a composition fallacy.
Your REPEATED name calling is Ad-Hominem attack upon myself,
That's changing the subject, and I've already refuted the ad-hom charge. Please explain how it's not a composition fallacy.
someone that's taken & done fairly well in LOGIC
Then try employing some -- again, explain how what you said is not a composition fallacy. When you're done with that, either show me a source that defines Ad-Hominem other than how I've defined it, or explain how according to my definition, what I said is an ad-hom.
Per my subject above? That's a logical fallacy in & of itself,
Already refuted this -- in fact, this specific thing. You know exactly where I did, because you posted something about "making excuses" without actually reading it. Hint: Ad-hominem takes the form of:
Premise: The person making this argument is a bad person of some sort.
Conclusion: The argument they are making is wrong.
It does not take the form of:
Premise: Person X is behaving badly.
Conclusion: Person X should behave better.
Now, by itself, that's not a complete argument. It's based on the implicit premise that people should not behave badly. But it was also never intended to be a formal argument.
that 'Open Sores' rib of mine "sets you off" hugely - that's your problem, not mine
It is, however, a serious interpersonal problem you have -- and you don't even seem to care. Try this for a thought experiment: Next black person you see, make a comment about "Niggers" or "Porch monkeys" and try to tell them it's their problem if they take offense.
This isn't an English class, or a paper for a grade
You're right, it's not a paper for a grade, or a formal debate competition, so why are you so concerned with winning?
However, it is on topic when you start bitching about how you get moderated. This is precisely why. Your posts would be crap even if there was solid technical merit. If there is, you're not doing a very good job of extracting it, since you're more interested in finding something to disagree in what I have to say.
For example:
Are you trying to tell us that using debuggers' assembly language dumps/traces OR even fuzzers is easier and faster than looking for bad coding practices in actual sourcecode or faulty instructions like sscanf in C compilers is?
Nope. Never have. In fact, if this was the only thing that determined the security of a system, you'd have a point.
I've also given you more than enough opportunity to prove your intelligence -- to prove that you've earned the credentials you cite -- by making an effort to read and understand what I'm actually saying. The fact that you would ask this, even rhetorically, is evidence that you are not now and never were paying much attention to what I have to say, or worse, that you're incapable of understanding it.
Too bad, because we probably could have some interesting discussions.
But this isn't a discussion, is it? It's you shouting with your fingers in your ears.
You're not considering server load.
Ah, but now we're talking about load, not latency.
Developers tend to be stuck with limited resources.
Have you seen Google lately?
But at least now we're talking about something real, not a kneejerk reaction: Would there be enough resources to go around, if they were all shared? Google does have warehouse-sized computers, so I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't.
Islam if applied in the US would result in a theocracy.
So would Christianity. What's your point?
've been to the Middle East and see how they roll.
And I've met Muslims here -- not all are from the middle east.
there is ONLY reason to tolerate beliefs that are tolerant and SECULAR themselves.
No. No. Freedom of speech means freedom to believe and say whatever crazy shit you want.
It's not the beliefs you should be intolerant of. It's the actions.
I'm not saying you have to like their beliefs, or even respect them. But if you don't at least tolerate them, you're no better than they are.
Tolerance for Islam benefits only Islam.
How shortsighted of you.
Tolerance of all religions, indiscriminately, benefits all religions, and all people, whether they're religious or not. Again, I am speaking of the beliefs here -- no one is asking you to tolerate someone killing in the name of their religion.
an abstract ideal that "everything is everything so we dare not judge anything or resist an enemy",
I said neither of these things.
I'm not saying you can't judge. I'm not saying you can't resist.
I'm saying you must tolerate. That's all.
If you follow the 'free speech' mantra, students should be able to shout abuse at a teacher all lesson long, and deny anyone the ability to learn.
Nope, that's in school, where teachers have authority.
Ridiculing teachers on the 'net in plain view is nothing short of bullying; this is why society developed etiquette...
In school, that'd be legitimate grounds for whatever it is they wanted to do.
Outside school, in the real world, it may not even be illegal. And if it is, the principal could bring his own libel/slander suit and resolve it that way.
If I was a student, I'd much rather be suspended than be prosecuted -- but I do agree that it's not really the job of the school to get involved.
Actually, the most important difference between Americans and radical Muslims is that only radicals have beliefs like this:
Muslims and their supporters don't count as Americans... if anyone else is thoughtful enough to kill Muslims...
The beliefs of most Americans are no less toxic, and have scarcely caused less harm in the time both have been around. The point of America is that you can be an American, no matter what your personal belief or superstition, and we don't tend to kill people merely for their beliefs. People like you are every bit as much a threat to the American ideal as the most hardcore Sharia supporter.
Unfortunately in the US (and many other countries), jailbreaking the iPhone is illegal.
What I don't get is why you would monetarily reward a company which forces you to crack your own device? I mean, let me run with the "jailbreak" analogy for a bit:
Genius: "Welcome to the new, improved Apple store! Let me just slip on your iCuffs..."
*click*
Customer: "Hey!"
Tech-savvy customer: "It's OK, here, I've got a hairpin in my sock... Let me 'jailbreak' your hands..."
Customer: "Cool! Now I can actually touch things!"
Genius: "Whoops, looks like those iCuffs were vulnerable! Here's the patch..."
*click*
Customer: "HEY!"
Tech-savvy customer: "It's OK, we'll come out with a new hairpin in a day or so... Don't you just love Apple?"
meanwhile, at the Microsoft store...
Ballmer: I don't get it. We let people do what they want here -- no iCuffs! But no one's here, they're all at the Apple Store! I'm going to fucking kill Apple!
Gates: I dunno, they must be pretty kinky over there. Maybe they like the iCuffs?
Ballmer: Brilliant! We'll release Microsoft Cuffs (TM) to compete! Then everyone will love the Microsoft Store!
I realize my analogy is being stretched a bit, but... I still don't get it.
I get wanting an iPhone and not caring about the restrictions. (Hey, some people are into cuffs, who am I to judge?) I get buying something else to avoid those restrictions.
I don't get going out of your way to buy an iPhone, when good, solid alternatives exist, and then jailbreaking it. I don't get supporting a closed ecosystem you clearly resent -- supporting it with money, word-of-mouth and general network effects ("I can help you fix your iPhone!"), some jailbreakers even develop for it, basically supporting it as a platform in every way... Even though you can't stand that it's closed (even though you know damned well that will never change), and you're willing to risk bricking your device to remove that restriction. You care enough to risk bricking an iPhone, but not enough to try Android?
Sorry if that sounds preachy, and maybe someone can explain it to me, because it still boggles me.
They could do that quite simply by changing their pricing model.
That is: Anticipate how much traffic you expect from tethered laptops at 2 gigs/mo. Work out how much it'll cost to build the infrastructure to support them. Change prices to match.
Instead, they're trying to restrict certain behavior on the basis that it might consume a lot of bandwidth, instead of dealing with the bandwidth issue. Restrict the bandwidth itself, or don't. Coming at it sideways like this is not only unfair, it's ultimately ineffective.
Actually, I'd prefer the weird ISP-based routing to the phone-based routing if the phone-based routing involves NAT.
Then again, who am I kidding -- while I haven't used a device with mobile Internet enough to tell, I'd guess the provider NATs everyone anyway.