The thousands of slashbots babbling something about "anonymity not being a part of freedom".
Ironic, a post from an AC condemning slashdotters penchant for advocating privacy rights.
The right to privacy IS a fundamental function of a free society, along with the right to peaceably assemble, the freedom to speak your mind and the free press.
I have to question the patriotism--or location-- of someone who would actively condemn us for that.
Unless they're posting AC; in which case they're probably simply going for -1 troll anyways.;)
I understand that a lot of liberal slashdotters might find the idea of having everyone post under their real name and number intriguing. However, I would caution them to think out the implementation very clearly.
Any ID scheme by definition requires authentication, and therefore security protocols on an ABI layer (assuming we confine this discussion to computers and message boards). Most open source ABIs are well known and showing their age, the hacker community already knows how to circumvent them. The private ABI's don't fare much better.
So, we've established that there is an achilles' heel with regards to authentication--proving that citizen joe really is citizen joe.
Given that, I can see that any currently available implementations would make it far too easy for unathorized users to forge the ids of legitamate productive citizens.
I think that once we have the bandwidth to allow one-way always-on video streaming from the users' computers, then maybe we can re-visit this idea; but right now is just not the time.
Well, after having ridden out the Novell/BSDI lawsuit, I can tell you that none of us may ever know the true issues that are raised. So, the best we can do at this point is guess.
My guess is that the posistion that SCO is coming from is that it owns not only its' own code; but the code owned by caldera as well.
This being the case, they may well have a case, as anyone who boots Linux up my know (if they notice the various caldera driver copyrights as they pass).
So, it is a matter of wether or not the Linux Community has the ability to replace the infrastructure and drivers that Caldera brought to the table, once they are found to be in vololation of copyright.
I would suggest that you get your tinfoil panties unknotted and back up your rather spurious claims that SCO is somehow paying SCO to spread 'fud'.
I think that if this claim has any merit, it's this. SCO clearly didn't consider all sides of the pro and anti GNU License issue carefully before entering the market. Once they were in for a while, and saw the effects that their influence had on their IP, they realised that they'd chosen unwisely.
It's pretty clear that with it's anti-business qualities, the GNU license (and any code under it) has to be handled with care. SCO found that out the hard way, IBM probably will find that out fairly soon as well.
In the end, I think only apple handled this issue properly. Oh, wait, they chose BSD, didn't they?
Mac users generally don't need or want
on
The Mac Made of Lego
·
· Score: 2, Troll
tacky 'add-ons' such as case mods.
Enough care and thought goes into the design of macintoshes that things such as non-usb peripherials and case mods are about as desireable as tennis shoes for a goldfish!
We all know the various arguments surrounding the macintosh and when they get what they get for software, compared to the x86 platform, but ones thing is clear
On hardware, with regards to clockspeed as well as esthetically pleaseing cases, apple is second to NONE.
And this is even counting the one button mouse, too.;)
* So why not look at a dead body? It's just looking.
I think you're confusing murder with necrophilia. At least, judging by the way you tried to change that example. Maybe I just don't get the point you're trying to make?
It is more than 'simply' "children might be hurt" (of course it isn't "might", but rather it is "children are being hurt").
Lives are at stake. Do you think that 9/11 was a fluke and that the terrorists (who happen to be your neighbors, thanks to our far too lax immigration policies) aren't biding their time for another round?
If so, I hope you're right, but I really doubt that you are.
And I'd rather not take chances with my families' lives, or our childrens' safety.
You're assuming that the children were hurt, which may or may not be true. I'd rather assume that, and be wrong; then to assume that children are not hurt, and be wrong.
I'm certain the children would prefer I feel that way too.
Not all kiddy pervs are motivated by $. By possessing that porn, the person in this example is giving 'aid and comfort' to photographers who abuse children and then get their jollies off further by seeing their 'work' spread across the internet.
Also it encorages those pervs inbetween who are potentially abusers themselves. Since they can get the porn, and since others find it desirable to share, then what is depicted must not be so bad.
So why not look at little suzy? It's just looking
Why not touch little suzy, it's not serious...and my net friends told me they would too...
Advise him to erase it, or at least encrypt it and transfer it to his home computer.
So, are you unaware that his downloading said porn in the first place is financially and morally supporting the sites he got it from, whom in turn finance people who sexually molest their children?
I believe that what is worse is how it is degrading towards men. Given how addictive it is, and the many cases where formerly up-standing memboers of respectable churches abandon their faith and families simply to feed their porn addiction.
For each child in a single picture, how many more are hurt by it propagating along the internet and encouraging more abuse?
I think that there should be a law to protect whistleblowers, and perhaps some form of federal insurance that the can draw from in the event that they are retaliated against.
Whistleblowing, wether it is calling the cops on pedophiles in the workplace, or terrorists in your apartment building, is a critical tool of law enforcement. Sadly, too many privacy nuts would rather shelter pedos for the sake of being able to post anonymous crap on message boards...
Your morality is yours, and is entirely relative. It is not a fixed, universal thing, no matter how much you might think it is.
That attitude seems to be far too prevelent. What dismays me is to see people condoning child abuse and saying that 'relationships of this nature are not abusive at all'.
I have worked on support lines and in psych wards and I will tell you in no uncertain terms that just is not so!
What directors are thinking of, these days, is box sets; and how their movies will fit in that format. Basically, I found it jarring watching starwars back-to-back because of stopping at ESB and then restarting at Jedi
Granted, doing things this way makes the theatre-going experience a bit of a let-down for the reasons you've cited; but that's why you bought the big-screen tv and the dvd player in the first place, right?;)
Slashdot Mirror
The thousands of slashbots babbling something about "anonymity not being a part of freedom".
;)
Ironic, a post from an AC condemning slashdotters penchant for advocating privacy rights.
The right to privacy IS a fundamental function of a free society, along with the right to peaceably assemble, the freedom to speak your mind and the free press.
I have to question the patriotism--or location-- of someone who would actively condemn us for that.
Unless they're posting AC; in which case they're probably simply going for -1 troll anyways.
I understand that a lot of liberal slashdotters might find the idea of having everyone post under their real name and number intriguing. However, I would caution them to think out the implementation very clearly.
Any ID scheme by definition requires authentication, and therefore security protocols on an ABI layer (assuming we confine this discussion to computers and message boards). Most open source ABIs are well known and showing their age, the hacker community already knows how to circumvent them. The private ABI's don't fare much better.
So, we've established that there is an achilles' heel with regards to authentication--proving that citizen joe really is citizen joe.
Given that, I can see that any currently available implementations would make it far too easy for unathorized users to forge the ids of legitamate productive citizens.
I think that once we have the bandwidth to allow one-way always-on video streaming from the users' computers, then maybe we can re-visit this idea; but right now is just not the time.
Well, after having ridden out the Novell/BSDI lawsuit, I can tell you that none of us may ever know the true issues that are raised. So, the best we can do at this point is guess.
My guess is that the posistion that SCO is coming from is that it owns not only its' own code; but the code owned by caldera as well.
This being the case, they may well have a case, as anyone who boots Linux up my know (if they notice the various caldera driver copyrights as they pass).
So, it is a matter of wether or not the Linux Community has the ability to replace the infrastructure and drivers that Caldera brought to the table, once they are found to be in vololation of copyright.
Oh. Right. That's a secret.
Only until it comes out in court.
I would suggest that you get your tinfoil panties unknotted and back up your rather spurious claims that SCO is somehow paying SCO to spread 'fud'.
I think that if this claim has any merit, it's this. SCO clearly didn't consider all sides of the pro and anti GNU License issue carefully before entering the market. Once they were in for a while, and saw the effects that their influence had on their IP, they realised that they'd chosen unwisely.
It's pretty clear that with it's anti-business qualities, the GNU license (and any code under it) has to be handled with care. SCO found that out the hard way, IBM probably will find that out fairly soon as well.
In the end, I think only apple handled this issue properly. Oh, wait, they chose BSD, didn't they?
Some of us are just really high and bored.
Why, I had no idea such was the case, Mister SweetAndSourJesus; how bizzaro!
Goodbye!
It's saturday night, I'm sure that most slashdot readers are in bed with their SO's or out partying on the town.
Hello.
(it's funny, laugh. :-D)
tacky 'add-ons' such as case mods.
;)
Enough care and thought goes into the design of macintoshes that things such as non-usb peripherials and case mods are about as desireable as tennis shoes for a goldfish!
We all know the various arguments surrounding the macintosh and when they get what they get for software, compared to the x86 platform, but ones thing is clear
On hardware, with regards to clockspeed as well as esthetically pleaseing cases, apple is second to NONE.
And this is even counting the one button mouse, too.
* So why not look at a dead body? It's just looking.
I think you're confusing murder with necrophilia. At least, judging by the way you tried to change that example. Maybe I just don't get the point you're trying to make?
Your post gives me the seeds of an idea; maybe I should squirrel away a little something in case I'm ever visited by the IP police....
looks a LOT like the world of *BSD, only more poorly documented, choatically put together, and under a more restrictive license.
It is more than 'simply' "children might be hurt" (of course it isn't "might", but rather it is "children are being hurt"). Lives are at stake. Do you think that 9/11 was a fluke and that the terrorists (who happen to be your neighbors, thanks to our far too lax immigration policies) aren't biding their time for another round? If so, I hope you're right, but I really doubt that you are. And I'd rather not take chances with my families' lives, or our childrens' safety.
Maybe the next mod to come along will do some reading before performing a knee-jerk moderation.
You're assuming that the children were hurt, which may or may not be true.
I'd rather assume that, and be wrong; then to assume that children are not hurt, and be wrong.
I'm certain the children would prefer I feel that way too.
"I'm quitting church, I spend way too much time in the bathroom with a copy of Hustler to be bothered by Jesus every sunday."
When Jesus is relegated to Sundays only; it doesn't take too much to reach the conclusion you've just stated.
Also it encorages those pervs inbetween who are potentially abusers themselves. Since they can get the porn, and since others find it desirable to share, then what is depicted must not be so bad.
So why not look at little suzy? It's just looking
Why not touch little suzy, it's not serious...and my net friends told me they would too...
Does that make things clearer for you?
Three words: In Soviet Russia...
Two words: nine-eleven
Advise him to erase it, or at least encrypt it and transfer it to his home computer.
So, are you unaware that his downloading said porn in the first place is financially and morally supporting the sites he got it from, whom in turn finance people who sexually molest their children?
Or are you simply condoning child abuse?
I believe that what is worse is how it is degrading towards men. Given how addictive it is, and the many cases where formerly up-standing memboers of respectable churches abandon their faith and families simply to feed their porn addiction.
Yes, I believe that is what is worse, by far.
For each child in a single picture, how many more are hurt by it propagating along the internet and encouraging more abuse?
I think that there should be a law to protect whistleblowers, and perhaps some form of federal insurance that the can draw from in the event that they are retaliated against.
Whistleblowing, wether it is calling the cops on pedophiles in the workplace, or terrorists in your apartment building, is a critical tool of law enforcement. Sadly, too many privacy nuts would rather shelter pedos for the sake of being able to post anonymous crap on message boards...
Your morality is yours, and is entirely relative. It is not a fixed, universal thing, no matter how much you might think it is. That attitude seems to be far too prevelent. What dismays me is to see people condoning child abuse and saying that 'relationships of this nature are not abusive at all'. I have worked on support lines and in psych wards and I will tell you in no uncertain terms that just is not so!
Then give that troll a contract and send him to hollywood: sounds like your typical PR stunt/astroturfing to me! LOL
What directors are thinking of, these days, is box sets; and how their movies will fit in that format. Basically, I found it jarring watching starwars back-to-back because of stopping at ESB and then restarting at Jedi Granted, doing things this way makes the theatre-going experience a bit of a let-down for the reasons you've cited; but that's why you bought the big-screen tv and the dvd player in the first place, right? ;)