but if you reject cookies (as I do from Mozilla) then you get stuck in a loop at the advert. The "continue on" link just spits the ad back up. Not nice at all.
From what I understand (and admittedly that is very little) the whole Passport/Hailstorm/Liberty stuff has to do with Authentication and Authorization. Kerbros is an open implementation of the first; is there open implementation of the second? If so, how hard would it be to "package" it into something similar? Am I missing something here? What does MS and Sun's implementations add above and beyone Kerbros + Other Thing (Tm)?
Ahh.. the old "if you haven't done anything wrong then you don't have anything to hide" arguement.
Nice in theory, pants in practice. If it was that simple then there would be no need for *any* civil liberty protections since only the "bad" people would be prosicuted.
SARCASM>
As we know, the authorities have NEVER wrongly prosicuted anyone, they've never made mistakes, they've never abused power. Nah. Not in America.
/SARCASM
I believe Coin Op Warehouse here in northern Virginia had a Tempest cabinet in stock (at least the last time I was there a few weeks ago).
Hope this doesn't sound like an ad for them. I don't work for 'em, but I did buy a pinball machine there, and they let me skulk around the showroom playing classic pinball / video games for free during my lunch hour:) Great guys.
Two colleges on the cutting edge of Internet technology are now pioneering solutions to a rapidly growing problem: students who pay more attention to their computers than to their professors.
Hold on, this isn't elem. or high school. This is college. The students are adults. If they want to piss away thier education by NOT paying attention to their professors that's their problem. As long as thier not disturbing class (or using the technology to cheat) who gives a crap if they pay attention or not. They'll reap the benifits of their lack of attention.
I used to teach math in college. If you were a student who was interested, came to class, put forth an effort I'd bend over backwards to help you learn [I love teaching]. BUT, if you never came to class, didn't give a shit and did badly on homework/tests I had no problems failing you. Like I said, these are college students. They are adults.
I think its a bad idea... at least to have it associated with Slashdot. If someone was to create something seperate then fine. But I cherish the independence of/.
Yeah, I know some will complain that it really isn't independent, that the same types of stories are posted, and there's an anti-MS slant, but I think Taco and the boys (girls?) do a much better job than most folks give them credit for. Plus, the real value of/. isn't the postings, but the replys.
Something would just sit wrong with me knowing that/. had gone from a really cool community (that anyone can participate in) to something with "official positions".
Do you really need to purchase both NT *and* IIS per-seat licenses? (really, I don't know.. I always assumed they were one and the same). The only reason I ask was I was dickering around with shares and crap at work today which required a gander at the Licensing control panel. There were options for NT 4 and SQL 6.5 (yes, someone still runs that crap in a production environment) but none for IIS.
...is all well and good, but most people using IIS are doing so because they are using ASP.
Yup. Which is why I said *only* if they heed Gartner and switch to another webserver. My gut feeling is Win/IIS -> Win/Apache (et al) would be much harder than Win/Apache -> Un*x/Apache. *If* (and I agree, its a big if) they do step one, then there's little insentive not to do step two.
Regardless of whether we come to a shared conclusion or not, the exercise is very useful and I thank you and all the others who have helped me think things through a little more and come to some better understanding, however small that may be.
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for the time. I love a good debate:)
Note that my original comment said that murder is not justified. I never said that "killing is never justified." There is a key difference between the two words.
And not I recongnized that, and said it was a whole other arguement. That arguement is, of course, what defines *murder*. Killing is a fairly easy to define. You end someone else's life, you've killed them. Murder, though, is a lot more messy.
Note that in our legal system we allow for unintentional killing
But we're not talking the legal system here. We're talking absolutes. Moral Absolutes. What is the moral absolute definition of Murder? At what point does killing become murder? How do you determine if its justified and when it is not? And I don't mean in the the legal sense of the word, but in the moral absolute sense.
Just because one does not believe something, that does not make that something untrue. Just because you do not believe morality and truth are absolute, that does not cause the statement "morality and truth are absolute" to be any less true.
Similarly, one's lack of belief in their absolutes does not cause truth and morality to become relative.
Very true, as is:
"Just because one does believe something, that does not make that something true. Just because you do believe morality and truth are absolute, that does not cause the statement "morality and truth are absolute" to be any less true or false.
Similarly, one's lack of belief in that their are no absolutes does not cause truth and morality to become absolute."
...which is why I said it is, in the end, an arguement that will not come to a satisfatory conclusion. You will *believe* what you want, as will others. And no two people believe in exactly the same things. To you, the morals that you believe in are as absolute as they can be. The problem is everyone else thinks the same thing as well.
And I still say that if you believe there is an absolute morality you better damn well stick to it. The argement over whether its "though shall not kill" vs. "though shall not murder" seems to me to be a very shifty way of bending your absolute morals to allow something that, to me, doesn't pass the "this smells fishy" test.
As for the orig question. Is there a moral absolute? Maybe, maybe not. The problem is there since everyone's morals are different (some are more similar to other's) who's should I accept as the authority on what is moral? You, Green, Hitler, Bin Laden, my parents, my cube mate, my pastor, the man on the park bench? Who? No one has shown me any conclusive proof that the morals that they hold to be absolute indeed are. Thus, until I'm shown conclusing proof that there is "one way, and only one way" I'm going to say its all relative. I have my morals. I stick by them. I follow them. I have very definite reasons why I hold them and cherish them. That doesn't mean, though, that I think they're absolute. Absolute for me, yes. Absolute for the universe? I have my doubts.
There are other web servers out there that run perfectly well under Windows.
Very true. I know some folks running Apache/Tomcat-Jakarta on a W2K box and are pretty happy about it. I think in the short term (or mid term at least since some porting will be needed even if you only switch the web server) if the advice is followed they may stick with Apache, et al on Windows. But, since you save little to no $$ by purchasing NT/W2K/XP Server and not using IIS I would suspect those that did move off IIS would eventually lose NT/W2K/XP as the OS as well. I would imagine that the porting effort to move code the likes of PHP/JSP/servelets from Apache/MS to Apache/*BSD or Apache/Linux would be minimal.
Of course, I suspect that very few will switch. We got our asses handed to us last week, and the brass are sticking with MS anyway. Go figure.
That's not true you dope. In all cases those acts were evil.
Wow... finally someone who's views finally jive with what they say. Of course, it does nothing to forward the arguement of Absolute vs. Relative morals.
But if society changes, and their stance on slavery has changed, how does that make it "absolute"?
Should, for some reason or another, slavery come back into vogue and the vast majority of the population back it in some form or the other, can we then say that slavery is a "absolutely morally good thing?"
In your orig text, in which you were arguing the absoluteness of morality, you said:
There is never any justification for the murder of innocents.
...bolding the word NEVER. Now, this may seem like I'm belaboring a point, but IF this is an absolute, then there is NEVER an excuse for killing/murder (just what "murder" defines is a whole other arguement). Yet you've burned through quite a few paragraph of text explaining how sometimes its not so bad as other times. If there is "Never any justification for murder," and that is absolute, then it is always wrong, no matter how just you think the cause, no matter the circumstances, no matter what. To argue that something is absolute then turn around and say "well, in some cases its not quite as bad as others" does not do your cause justice.
Now, as for the arguement that there are moral absolutes, we are going to come to a standstill (since I now realize this argument is based on faith, something that is unprovable). You said that God is the final arbiter of what's right and what's wrong, which, of course leads into the dicussion of whether god exits or not; if so which god; which accepted writings of which god are accepted as "the real deal," etc. To you, the absolutes are framed by your beliefs. To me (and many, many others) their morals are framed by thier beliefs (or lack thereof). To you, you are right and they are wrong. To them, they are right and you are wrong. Which is precicely why I say how the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are relative.
Then again, maybe there is an absolute "right" and "wrong." Whatever I say is "right" is "right." Whatever I say is "wrong" is "wrong." Anyone who thinks differently than I is deluding themselves:)
God does.
Which God? (a loaded question I know...I'm not trying to be glib here... I assume you mean the one true God who is very real to you).
So then you do think that slavery should be a personal choice?
No, nice try though. I think that slavery should be outlawed. I think that it is wrong. I support legislation that agrees with my feelings.
What I have been saying is the notion of slavery (and any other moral choice) are personal. They are not absolutes. Someone else (much of the western world a few hundred years ago... not to mention the Old Testament) may think that its morally fine. We will disagree, but who is the final arbiter of who is right?
But you can't say "it just is." because it hasn't always been seen that way. It was considered OK at one time, and they probably considered it as just right as we now consider it wrong.
Actually, that was the point I was trying to make. The poster I was replying to was arguing that there were absolute "rights and wrongs" and was using slavery as an example. My point was if it was an abosolute "wrong" there would be no need for a society to come to concensus about it. It would just be.
Or do you think slavery should be allowed as a "cultural difference"? If some African country decided to start selling its citizens to another country, is it none of our business and it's just a "private transaction"?
Different arguement altogether. I never said you shouldn't act according to your personal moral center. I just claimed that its not universal.
You were argueing that there was an absolute morality. But now you say:
All "rights" and "morals" are artificial constructions of human society.
"Just War Theory?" A theory? I thought you were claiming that this was a moral absolute, not a theory.
states pretty explicitly that attacking civilians is a no-no. "Collateral damage" must be minimized. There is recognition that innocent people will likely be hurt or killed but they cannot be targets. This includes civilians who might "just happen" to get killed in an attack on a military objective in a densely poulated area. Such an attack would not be just.
You may agree, and I may agree (which, by the way I do) but that does not make it a moral absolute.
In your orig. posting you said:
There is never any justification for the murder of innocents.
yet now you say that there are, in fact, times when killing an innocent is acceptable. "If I don't tareget them but they unfortunatly get hit, well that's ok because its war. Unfortunate, but acceptable." So how does that jive with your statement that there is never any justification for murder of innocents? Maybe that statement isn't so absolute after all.
Note that while individual acts can be unjust, an overall campaign can still be considered just.
Again, you've just contridicted your "murder is never justified" statement. Now, as long as its part of a just campaign its ok.
Absolute means absolute. No excuses.
If we as a country would more carefully consider the justness of our policies...
And there in lies the rub. Who defines what is just? You defined a just war as a war with an explicitly stated and achievable goal. Are you telling me that's the ONLY criteria for "justness?"
The Nazi's had an explicitly stated and achieveable goal. Was thier cause just? Stalin had explicitly stated and achivevable goals? Was his cause just? The South had explicitly stated and achieveable goals. Was thier cause just?
For example, slavery has been determined to be an absolute wrong by modern society.
I'm I the only one to get a chuckle out the irony of this statement?
If something is an absolute it doesn't need to be "determined." It just is. Furthermore, by stating that modern society has determined it to be wrong you imply (correctly) that society at one point thought differently. Again, if something is absolute it has been for all times and under all conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
but if you reject cookies (as I do from Mozilla) then you get stuck in a loop at the advert. The "continue on" link just spits the ad back up. Not nice at all.
From what I understand (and admittedly that is very little) the whole Passport/Hailstorm/Liberty stuff has to do with Authentication and Authorization. Kerbros is an open implementation of the first; is there open implementation of the second? If so, how hard would it be to "package" it into something similar? Am I missing something here? What does MS and Sun's implementations add above and beyone Kerbros + Other Thing (Tm)?
Ahh.. the old "if you haven't done anything wrong then you don't have anything to hide" arguement.
Nice in theory, pants in practice. If it was that simple then there would be no need for *any* civil liberty protections since only the "bad" people would be prosicuted.
SARCASM>
As we know, the authorities have NEVER wrongly prosicuted anyone, they've never made mistakes, they've never abused power. Nah. Not in America.
/SARCASM
I believe Coin Op Warehouse here in northern Virginia had a Tempest cabinet in stock (at least the last time I was there a few weeks ago).
:) Great guys.
Hope this doesn't sound like an ad for them. I don't work for 'em, but I did buy a pinball machine there, and they let me skulk around the showroom playing classic pinball / video games for free during my lunch hour
Two colleges on the cutting edge of Internet technology are now pioneering solutions to a rapidly growing problem: students who pay more attention to their computers than to their professors.
Hold on, this isn't elem. or high school. This is college. The students are adults. If they want to piss away thier education by NOT paying attention to their professors that's their problem. As long as thier not disturbing class (or using the technology to cheat) who gives a crap if they pay attention or not. They'll reap the benifits of their lack of attention.
I used to teach math in college. If you were a student who was interested, came to class, put forth an effort I'd bend over backwards to help you learn [I love teaching]. BUT, if you never came to class, didn't give a shit and did badly on homework/tests I had no problems failing you. Like I said, these are college students. They are adults.
Could be (I just pulled the number out of my butt :)
I think its a bad idea... at least to have it associated with Slashdot. If someone was to create something seperate then fine. But I cherish the independence of /.
/. isn't the postings, but the replys.
/. had gone from a really cool community (that anyone can participate in) to something with "official positions".
.0215 Euros.
Yeah, I know some will complain that it really isn't independent, that the same types of stories are posted, and there's an anti-MS slant, but I think Taco and the boys (girls?) do a much better job than most folks give them credit for. Plus, the real value of
Something would just sit wrong with me knowing that
Just my
Do you really need to purchase both NT *and* IIS per-seat licenses? (really, I don't know.. I always assumed they were one and the same). The only reason I ask was I was dickering around with shares and crap at work today which required a gander at the Licensing control panel. There were options for NT 4 and SQL 6.5 (yes, someone still runs that crap in a production environment) but none for IIS.
...is all well and good, but most people using IIS are doing so because they are using ASP.
Yup. Which is why I said *only* if they heed Gartner and switch to another webserver. My gut feeling is Win/IIS -> Win/Apache (et al) would be much harder than Win/Apache -> Un*x/Apache. *If* (and I agree, its a big if) they do step one, then there's little insentive not to do step two.
Regardless of whether we come to a shared conclusion or not, the exercise is very useful and I thank you and all the others who have helped me think things through a little more and come to some better understanding, however small that may be.
:)
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for the time. I love a good debate
Note that my original comment said that murder is not justified. I never said that "killing is never justified." There is a key difference between the two words.
And not I recongnized that, and said it was a whole other arguement. That arguement is, of course, what defines *murder*. Killing is a fairly easy to define. You end someone else's life, you've killed them. Murder, though, is a lot more messy.
Note that in our legal system we allow for unintentional killing
But we're not talking the legal system here. We're talking absolutes. Moral Absolutes. What is the moral absolute definition of Murder? At what point does killing become murder? How do you determine if its justified and when it is not? And I don't mean in the the legal sense of the word, but in the moral absolute sense.
Just because one does not believe something, that does not make that something untrue. Just because you do not believe morality and truth are absolute, that does not cause the statement "morality and truth are absolute" to be any less true.
Similarly, one's lack of belief in their absolutes does not cause truth and morality to become relative.
Very true, as is:
"Just because one does believe something, that does not make that something true. Just because you do believe morality and truth are absolute, that does not cause the statement "morality and truth are absolute" to be any less true or false.
Similarly, one's lack of belief in that their are no absolutes does not cause truth and morality to become absolute."
...which is why I said it is, in the end, an arguement that will not come to a satisfatory conclusion. You will *believe* what you want, as will others. And no two people believe in exactly the same things. To you, the morals that you believe in are as absolute as they can be. The problem is everyone else thinks the same thing as well.
And I still say that if you believe there is an absolute morality you better damn well stick to it. The argement over whether its "though shall not kill" vs. "though shall not murder" seems to me to be a very shifty way of bending your absolute morals to allow something that, to me, doesn't pass the "this smells fishy" test.
As for the orig question. Is there a moral absolute? Maybe, maybe not. The problem is there since everyone's morals are different (some are more similar to other's) who's should I accept as the authority on what is moral? You, Green, Hitler, Bin Laden, my parents, my cube mate, my pastor, the man on the park bench? Who? No one has shown me any conclusive proof that the morals that they hold to be absolute indeed are. Thus, until I'm shown conclusing proof that there is "one way, and only one way" I'm going to say its all relative. I have my morals. I stick by them. I follow them. I have very definite reasons why I hold them and cherish them. That doesn't mean, though, that I think they're absolute. Absolute for me, yes. Absolute for the universe? I have my doubts.
'Tis a fun debate though.
There are other web servers out there that run perfectly well under Windows.
Very true. I know some folks running Apache/Tomcat-Jakarta on a W2K box and are pretty happy about it. I think in the short term (or mid term at least since some porting will be needed even if you only switch the web server) if the advice is followed they may stick with Apache, et al on Windows. But, since you save little to no $$ by purchasing NT/W2K/XP Server and not using IIS I would suspect those that did move off IIS would eventually lose NT/W2K/XP as the OS as well. I would imagine that the porting effort to move code the likes of PHP/JSP/servelets from Apache/MS to Apache/*BSD or Apache/Linux would be minimal.
Of course, I suspect that very few will switch. We got our asses handed to us last week, and the brass are sticking with MS anyway. Go figure.
Ah.. many apologies to Mr. Green then. Since he was still arguing that position I still stand by my arguement.
That's not true you dope. In all cases those acts were evil.
Wow... finally someone who's views finally jive with what they say. Of course, it does nothing to forward the arguement of Absolute vs. Relative morals.
So you support legislation to impose your feelings on me?
Yup, but what does that have to do with the arguement over moral absolutes? Um... nothing. Nice try though.
we are speaking of societal determinations
But if society changes, and their stance on slavery has changed, how does that make it "absolute"?
Should, for some reason or another, slavery come back into vogue and the vast majority of the population back it in some form or the other, can we then say that slavery is a "absolutely morally good thing?"
In your orig text, in which you were arguing the absoluteness of morality, you said:
:)
There is never any justification for the murder of innocents.
...bolding the word NEVER. Now, this may seem like I'm belaboring a point, but IF this is an absolute, then there is NEVER an excuse for killing/murder (just what "murder" defines is a whole other arguement). Yet you've burned through quite a few paragraph of text explaining how sometimes its not so bad as other times. If there is "Never any justification for murder," and that is absolute, then it is always wrong, no matter how just you think the cause, no matter the circumstances, no matter what. To argue that something is absolute then turn around and say "well, in some cases its not quite as bad as others" does not do your cause justice.
Now, as for the arguement that there are moral absolutes, we are going to come to a standstill (since I now realize this argument is based on faith, something that is unprovable). You said that God is the final arbiter of what's right and what's wrong, which, of course leads into the dicussion of whether god exits or not; if so which god; which accepted writings of which god are accepted as "the real deal," etc. To you, the absolutes are framed by your beliefs. To me (and many, many others) their morals are framed by thier beliefs (or lack thereof). To you, you are right and they are wrong. To them, they are right and you are wrong. Which is precicely why I say how the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are relative.
Then again, maybe there is an absolute "right" and "wrong." Whatever I say is "right" is "right." Whatever I say is "wrong" is "wrong." Anyone who thinks differently than I is deluding themselves
God does.
Which God? (a loaded question I know...I'm not trying to be glib here... I assume you mean the one true God who is very real to you).
So then you do think that slavery should be a personal choice?
No, nice try though. I think that slavery should be outlawed. I think that it is wrong. I support legislation that agrees with my feelings.
What I have been saying is the notion of slavery (and any other moral choice) are personal. They are not absolutes. Someone else (much of the western world a few hundred years ago... not to mention the Old Testament) may think that its morally fine. We will disagree, but who is the final arbiter of who is right?
But you can't say "it just is." because it hasn't always been seen that way. It was considered OK at one time, and they probably considered it as just right as we now consider it wrong.
Actually, that was the point I was trying to make. The poster I was replying to was arguing that there were absolute "rights and wrongs" and was using slavery as an example. My point was if it was an abosolute "wrong" there would be no need for a society to come to concensus about it. It would just be.
Or do you think slavery should be allowed as a "cultural difference"? If some African country decided to start selling its citizens to another country, is it none of our business and it's just a "private transaction"?
Different arguement altogether. I never said you shouldn't act according to your personal moral center. I just claimed that its not universal.
You were argueing that there was an absolute morality. But now you say:
All "rights" and "morals" are artificial constructions of human society.
Sorta contradictory, isn't it?
The Just War Theory states ...
"Just War Theory?" A theory? I thought you were claiming that this was a moral absolute, not a theory.
states pretty explicitly that attacking civilians is a no-no. "Collateral damage" must be minimized. There is recognition that innocent people will likely be hurt or killed but they cannot be targets. This includes civilians who might "just happen" to get killed in an attack on a military objective in a densely poulated area. Such an attack would not be just.
You may agree, and I may agree (which, by the way I do) but that does not make it a moral absolute.
In your orig. posting you said:
There is never any justification for the murder of innocents.
yet now you say that there are, in fact, times when killing an innocent is acceptable. "If I don't tareget them but they unfortunatly get hit, well that's ok because its war. Unfortunate, but acceptable." So how does that jive with your statement that there is never any justification for murder of innocents? Maybe that statement isn't so absolute after all.
Note that while individual acts can be unjust, an overall campaign can still be considered just.
Again, you've just contridicted your "murder is never justified" statement. Now, as long as its part of a just campaign its ok.
Absolute means absolute. No excuses.
If we as a country would more carefully consider the justness of our policies...
And there in lies the rub. Who defines what is just? You defined a just war as a war with an explicitly stated and achievable goal. Are you telling me that's the ONLY criteria for "justness?"
The Nazi's had an explicitly stated and achieveable goal. Was thier cause just? Stalin had explicitly stated and achivevable goals? Was his cause just? The South had explicitly stated and achieveable goals. Was thier cause just?
For example, slavery has been determined to be an absolute wrong by modern society.
I'm I the only one to get a chuckle out the irony of this statement?
If something is an absolute it doesn't need to be "determined." It just is. Furthermore, by stating that modern society has determined it to be wrong you imply (correctly) that society at one point thought differently. Again, if something is absolute it has been for all times and under all conditions.
Well, your definition's certainly are absolute... the question is, how exactly you "pick the teams."
Those who "prey upon their fellow human beings" is a little vague. I could throw pretty much anyone in that category.
Same with those who "help fellow human beings."
Nice sentiment, but very, very abstract (and personally definable) definitions.
There is never any justification for the murder of innocents.
Except maybe war... but only if its a just war... as I define "just"... ooops... but that's the whole "relative" argument again.
Was the US nuking Japan "evil?"
Were the Allies bombing of Dresden "evil?"
Were the Germans bombing of London "evil?"
...
I guess it depends on which side you are on.
Don't get me wrong. I think 9/11 was pretty damn "evil." But the key words there are "I think."
I?d assume that one of the ideas would be to revive the idea of key escrow. All generated keys would have to be ?registered with the state.?
I can?t wait until I can purchase a ?You?ll get my 1024 bit private key when you pry it out of my cold, dead Palm? bumper sticker.