Functionality doesn't == same security risk. Or as many. Might introduce more. I don't believe it necessarily means "as many" however. And certainly a replacement client side scripting language implementer should look into minimizing those risks.
So really, javascript, which is a huge security concern for everyone will not go away any time soon because of apathy. At least that's what *I'm* taking away from this thread...
So laughable you felt compelled to respond to it. You may believe what you like, of course, even that freedom of speech is a silly, bumpkin-ish American thing. But you really don't compel me to question myself. You're defensive and argumentative only.
As per other posts in this thread, Duffy did confess. So I know very well that you did not poke holes in the prosecution.
What Duffy said or didn't say is irrelevant to my argument.
This is a textbook True Scotsman fallacy.
British Solicitors are above reproach? Why Councillor, your nakedness is showing.
For all you know, the police came to Duffy's place to investigate and he broke down blubbering and confessed everything like the anonymous coward he is.
So, being a coward is illegal in Britain? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. I sure did poke holes in the prosecution, for all you know. You're speculating like I am. Yes, the defense was clearly not successful. As I said, IF THEY WERE COMPETENT.
You need to deal with those gray areas, otherwise, what kind of "rule of law" do you have, and being THE common law state, Britain should really have a better handle on it, don't you think? How hard is that to grasp?
Posting offensive messages on a tribute page for the deceased is not necessary for free speech.
And it could be treated as a civil matter, such as here. There's no law against suing the "offender". To be jailed for that though? Come on... just sounds draconian to me.
Well, I have a fundamental problem with your reasoning. What can I say, in Britain, that won't get me jailed, what doe I say that crosses the line into sociopathy? At what point, exactly, do I cross the line on what I say? And if I say "boo" to you and you let it go, but I say it to Charlie next to you and he says "Your going to jail.", don't you see a problem there? Now, shall I go to jail for saying Clegg is a bastard? Suppose you say yes, but Charlie says no. Is that clearly laid out in London statute? If I hold up a sign saying the same thing to a CCTV camera, what happens? Say its legal, but Clegg finds out and decides I need to be jailed, "for the good of the public safety"? He does and he's not called a tyrant? Or he doesn't and allows a miscreant free at large, picking and choosing who can say what they like and who not? If so, he's an even bigger tyrant. Has Britain come to grips with these issues? How firm a grip on one's tongue does one have to have? How has Britain decided to what degree a person is a sociopath based on what they say?
I would say that a few weeks in jail will serve them an important lesson.
Yes, that in Britain sticks and stones are meaningless, words obviously have the ability to jail you. Don't you feel, deep down in your bones, that jailing people for the things they say is, to put it bluntly, PATENTLY WRONG? Are you nut jobs going to start jailing people for thoughtcrime as well? If not, why not? Where is the diving line on that? A competent defence solicitor will do a MAC address comparison, and if the thoughtcriminal here masked his MAC, or if the MAC doesn't match, simply tracing the packets to this guy's flat ISN'T beyond a reasonable doubt. Just another example of the fucked up english legal system. I have a problem with the free speech issue alone, but I poked two holes in this guy's prosecution, and I'm not even an investigator. Just think what some one in the profession would do to this prosecution.
So the take away here is that people with an interest in the opposing view or finding are vocal. I would guess that few people are against finding a diamond planet. Sort of a non-story, really.
Well, in some cases its necessary, its not always convenient to gain access to a clients database directly. That most users don't give it a second thought isn't that extraordinary to me.
Trivially installed policy, and used by more than one web site I frequent. As much as I don't care for apple, and they should install such a policy, some of the blame does fall on the users. Having a contract with several web sites for tech support and not having access to their databases directly I have an occasion to ask users for their passwords to trouble shoot, and the amount of "abc123" or "qwerty" passwords is astounding.
I recall with immense fondness a west end gaffer with the thickest cockneyed black-country speech lecture me on how we Americans have bastardized the English language while in London a few years ago. I simply smiled and nodded, and drank my bitter. Be kind to our elders I was taught...
People aren't dumb, just busy. I do recognize the need for people to do their own due diligence to some extent but comments like yours, no offense, paint people as a bunch of sheep lamely pushing at buttons. The true picture is that these are by and large very busy people conducting business with a multitude of contacts and business correspondence that they have to perform every day, and not all of them, in fact very few of them, are really very IT savvy. IT isn't their business. And its usually not a matter of simply pushing buttons; many times its copying, pasting, attaching forms, scanning, and typing new contact names into contact books. With millions of people conducting transactions on the web every day some domains are going to get munged. Yeah, they need to make sure they are addressing their business correctly, but simply painting them as "dumb" is dismissive and disingenuous.
In other words, the system will become so complex..., kill[ing] trillions of dollars in value, renders most economies smoking ruins, and then everyone will finally ask "Why the fuck did ever let that happen?"
Kind of like what happened in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1929, 1973, 1989, 2008...
The take away here is I don't know that adding complexity, as you call it, will cause more crashes than the market's already experienced. Sure, they're painful, but they're inherent in a free market economy, and nothing new. Automating trading isn't going to change anything. I guess you could always outlaw private trading like China did. Oh wait... they kind of do now, don't they?
Slashdot Mirror
Functionality doesn't == same security risk. Or as many. Might introduce more. I don't believe it necessarily means "as many" however. And certainly a replacement client side scripting language implementer should look into minimizing those risks.
So really, javascript, which is a huge security concern for everyone will not go away any time soon because of apathy. At least that's what *I'm* taking away from this thread...
This is a laughable straw man argument.
So laughable you felt compelled to respond to it. You may believe what you like, of course, even that freedom of speech is a silly, bumpkin-ish American thing. But you really don't compel me to question myself. You're defensive and argumentative only.
As per other posts in this thread, Duffy did confess. So I know very well that you did not poke holes in the prosecution.
What Duffy said or didn't say is irrelevant to my argument.
This is a textbook True Scotsman fallacy.
British Solicitors are above reproach? Why Councillor, your nakedness is showing.
So being a nuisance is illegal in Britain?
You guys do have rule of law there, right? You're all really beginning to sound as though its a police state over there.
For all you know, the police came to Duffy's place to investigate and he broke down blubbering and confessed everything like the anonymous coward he is.
So, being a coward is illegal in Britain? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. I sure did poke holes in the prosecution, for all you know. You're speculating like I am. Yes, the defense was clearly not successful. As I said, IF THEY WERE COMPETENT.
You need to deal with those gray areas, otherwise, what kind of "rule of law" do you have, and being THE common law state, Britain should really have a better handle on it, don't you think? How hard is that to grasp?
Posting offensive messages on a tribute page for the deceased is not necessary for free speech.
And it could be treated as a civil matter, such as here. There's no law against suing the "offender". To be jailed for that though? Come on... just sounds draconian to me.
Well, I have a fundamental problem with your reasoning. What can I say, in Britain, that won't get me jailed, what doe I say that crosses the line into sociopathy? At what point, exactly, do I cross the line on what I say? And if I say "boo" to you and you let it go, but I say it to Charlie next to you and he says "Your going to jail.", don't you see a problem there? Now, shall I go to jail for saying Clegg is a bastard? Suppose you say yes, but Charlie says no. Is that clearly laid out in London statute? If I hold up a sign saying the same thing to a CCTV camera, what happens? Say its legal, but Clegg finds out and decides I need to be jailed, "for the good of the public safety"? He does and he's not called a tyrant? Or he doesn't and allows a miscreant free at large, picking and choosing who can say what they like and who not? If so, he's an even bigger tyrant. Has Britain come to grips with these issues? How firm a grip on one's tongue does one have to have? How has Britain decided to what degree a person is a sociopath based on what they say?
I would say that a few weeks in jail will serve them an important lesson.
Yes, that in Britain sticks and stones are meaningless, words obviously have the ability to jail you. Don't you feel, deep down in your bones, that jailing people for the things they say is, to put it bluntly, PATENTLY WRONG? Are you nut jobs going to start jailing people for thoughtcrime as well? If not, why not? Where is the diving line on that? A competent defence solicitor will do a MAC address comparison, and if the thoughtcriminal here masked his MAC, or if the MAC doesn't match, simply tracing the packets to this guy's flat ISN'T beyond a reasonable doubt. Just another example of the fucked up english legal system. I have a problem with the free speech issue alone, but I poked two holes in this guy's prosecution, and I'm not even an investigator. Just think what some one in the profession would do to this prosecution.
So the take away here is that people with an interest in the opposing view or finding are vocal. I would guess that few people are against finding a diamond planet. Sort of a non-story, really.
Well, in some cases its necessary, its not always convenient to gain access to a clients database directly. That most users don't give it a second thought isn't that extraordinary to me.
Trivially installed policy, and used by more than one web site I frequent. As much as I don't care for apple, and they should install such a policy, some of the blame does fall on the users. Having a contract with several web sites for tech support and not having access to their databases directly I have an occasion to ask users for their passwords to trouble shoot, and the amount of "abc123" or "qwerty" passwords is astounding.
Wind gusts cause surges for wind power.
This isn't a problem in modern turbines.
I hope your tag line is a joke.
Well, I demand that it be stricken from the book. In fact, I demand the entire book be banned.
Feelies and Orgy Porgies
"feelies and orgy porgies"???
Do you also yell at the kids to get off off of your lawn too, Ozzie Nelson?
Yeah, that's a good argument. Another one is "People are dumb", and as lame as "I'm too tired to get a glass of water, why don't you get if for me."
Yes, I think that's exactly how it works...
Uh... better than nothing at all?
I recall with immense fondness a west end gaffer with the thickest cockneyed black-country speech lecture me on how we Americans have bastardized the English language while in London a few years ago. I simply smiled and nodded, and drank my bitter. Be kind to our elders I was taught...
Many people I know or have known tailgate. People see a safe gap between two cars as an "opportunity", not a safety margin.
People aren't dumb, just busy. I do recognize the need for people to do their own due diligence to some extent but comments like yours, no offense, paint people as a bunch of sheep lamely pushing at buttons. The true picture is that these are by and large very busy people conducting business with a multitude of contacts and business correspondence that they have to perform every day, and not all of them, in fact very few of them, are really very IT savvy. IT isn't their business. And its usually not a matter of simply pushing buttons; many times its copying, pasting, attaching forms, scanning, and typing new contact names into contact books. With millions of people conducting transactions on the web every day some domains are going to get munged. Yeah, they need to make sure they are addressing their business correctly, but simply painting them as "dumb" is dismissive and disingenuous.
In other words, the system will become so complex..., kill[ing] trillions of dollars in value, renders most economies smoking ruins, and then everyone will finally ask "Why the fuck did ever let that happen?"
Kind of like what happened in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1929, 1973, 1989, 2008...
The take away here is I don't know that adding complexity, as you call it, will cause more crashes than the market's already experienced. Sure, they're painful, but they're inherent in a free market economy, and nothing new. Automating trading isn't going to change anything. I guess you could always outlaw private trading like China did. Oh wait... they kind of do now, don't they?