When did I ever say "outlook"? (Which is useful to spammers, by the way, in that you can dig through it for personal contact lists - so if someone has you in their outlook's contact list and they get comprimised, you will get more spam from it. But that's not the point. The point is I never said outlook specificly. I just said MS. I was thinking in terms of other parts of the system, like IIS.)
They don't have to compramise security for marketing. MS's everything-works-together-automatically marketting ploy is the direct cause of exploits where public-facing programs like web browsers are merged with private-facing data and letting people get at it from outside. No, an e-mail should not automatically launch ANYTHING, ever. Yes, it is useful to keep the distinction between document and program. Yes, it is a bad idea to encourage people to send what amounts to executable content via push-channels. But all these are "good" if you're goal is to make it look like your system is easy and fun to use compared to other people's.
Freedom is an absolute? I think not. When person A's freedom clashes with person B's freedom, how can it be an absolute?
Re-read the post. He's arguing that because freedom is absolute, it doesn't actually occur like we trick ourselves into believing it does. Therefore the fact that it is self-contradictory is not a mark agaisnt his point. In fact it's a mark in favor of it.
Next time try reading the post. What he's saying is that "freedom" is the wrong word to describe the situation we have. He's trying to divorce the connotation of "freedom = goodness", by saying that it's not actually achievable to have true freedom.
Anybody stupid enough to run off and get trampled deserves to die.
The thing about trampling is - not everone getting trampled was part of the mob mentality. A human wave is impossible to stand your ground against. One of the biggest myths of a laissez-faire mentality is that it claims people only hurt themselves with their stupid decisions so it's only their own fault. This ignores the fact that people are affected by the stupid decisions of the others around them. For example, the fact that lots of other people run insecure setups on their computers means everyone else has to deal with the resulting wave of decentralized spam messages coming from their "owned" computers, and thus wasted traffic. The fact that everone else runs i.e. means I have to also, at least for a little while, to test any website I develop.
Where is the parent post you're replying to? I looked above yours and could not find any post stating what you quoted. (nor could I find and "beneth your threshold" links to posts either, so that's not it.)
Although I agree that the hypothetical person who made that hyopthetical statement is in the wrong, it's for different reasons - the idea that you only get spam if you give your address to spammers is false. You get spam the moment you decide to publish your e-mail *anywhere* on the internet where spiders will find it. And no, not publishing your e-mail is hardly an option for some. My address is listed at work's website, for work-related reasons, and I can't take it down without cutting off legitimate seekers of me.
Intimidation is not the way to get rid of spam. Fixing broken Windows security is. Microsoft is just taking the option that's easier for them to implement.
I agree - consider what MS's actual motivation here is: Someone is exploiting their broken security model to send spam. They're after the spammer not because they care about internet users' annoyances, but because they don't like how the preponderance of spam helps people realize how bad their product is.
It's just like the DMCA-enabled tactic of nailing anyone who can prove by example that you're lying about how good your security is.
That was the one thing I really disliked about it, because while it was a fun challenge to have to not kill anyone, the bow-and-arrow interface that game had was truly FUN - having to aim above the target, lead for time, etc. - hitting your target from 200 feet away where you have to aim a good 10 feet to the side and 40 feet up felt satisfying when it worked. But when you say no killing, then that aspect of the game is removed, as is the fun land-mine aspect (very theify - leaving booby traps where you expect someone to walk instead of hitting them directly.) While suceeding without killing is fun, the bow and arrow and landmines were also fun, and picking one precluded the other.
Yeah, and that reason was that it finished it's plotline. Now I realize that plotline was an alien concept in US sci-fi series until B5, and is again an alien concept afterward, but really, it can be a good thing, trust me.
No. 2 refers to writing a wrapper around another program, and 3 refers to writing an incomplete piece of code you intend to fill in later - a skeleton.
and so if you filled the streets of Iraq with (gun-toting) American cops it would be any better?
If there were enough to spare? Yes. Absolutely. Unfortunately there are two problems with this 1 - there aren't enough to do that, and 2 - Police officers are civilians, and aren't under any obligation to have to go where their country tells them to.
The whole flaw with the war in Iraq was the lack of understanding at the top that winning against an army and winning over a population are two entirely different things. And, being fundamentalists themselves, the people running the Executive Branch right now are rather blind to how truly nasty theocrats can be (they view themselves as virtuous and don't realize how nasty their ilk can be). So they never understood that if you remove the secular oppressive regime in a country with an excessively fundamentalist populace, a religious oppressive regime will want to take its place, and will fight bitterly to the last man to attempt to do so. Attempst to be all-inclusive and include them in the process won't help because they don't want power comesurate with their numbers. They want power over all.
I was opposed to the Iraq situation not because it was wrong to oust Saddam (although that's not the reason Bush gave in the first place despite his historical revisionism to the contrary), but because you have to do so with an understanding of how deep of a mess you are stepping into. Bush had no clue, and it was obivous to me he had no clue when he ignored his general's pleas for more troops to hold territory and only gave them enough troups to fight defenders, but not enough to patrol the occupied areas. This was way back in the beginning before they'd even reached bagdad.
Yes, police officers would do a better job, but there aren't enough of them. The next best step is military police (MP's) - this attack should have been accompanied by a massive training program for more MP's - becuae THAT is what we need.
I was opposed to going into Iraq half-assed. But now that it's done, it would be stupid and premature to pull out and leave without a working governmental infrastructure in place. One problem the American public has is they they don't realize there are only two viable choices when going to war (and occupation) - don't do it at all, or do it will all you can all at once. Anything halfway between is a recipie for disaster.
arrogant gibberish like "you might as well ban HTTP traffic"
Pointing out truth is not arrogance. There is no legal difference whatsoever between banning P2P, which has a mixture of legal and illegal uses, and banning HTTP, which has a mixture of legal and illegal uses. It's a perfectly legitimate point to bring up, and does not constitute "gibberish".
When you said they're more likely to respond when spoken to "reasonably" you should have said "politely" instead. No, they are not the same thing. Sometimes stating reasonable truths can be impolite to people who don't agree that they are truths. (Thus politeness and honesty sometimes clash and you can't have both - this happens to me all the time. I usually favor honesty, but when you really need some beurocrat's help on something, you sometimes have to bite the bullet and be polite by lying or telling only the polite half of the truth.)
But don't pretend that doing so is "speaking to them reasonably". It's what you gotta do to get by, but call it what it is - sucking up.
Now, THAT is true, unfortunately. It's the reason I took back the Samsung Yh-925 digital media player I bought this week and traded it for an iPod. (The iPod doesn't have to be used with iTunes, it will let you put any mp3 you burned yourself on it DRM-free, while the Samsung only worked if I used Napster or Windows Media Player to keep track of the ripped files, and they added DRM tags even to mp3s that you burn yourself from your own cd's.)
I don't want an mp3 I burned for personal use to have my name and ID on it, just in case it leaks out - and I don't appreciate being forced to put DRM tags in the music just because the thing is proprietary and only works with two programs. (There was no other way to get the songs to appear in the menu on the thing other than using one of those two programs to catalog it.)
In defending holed-up positions, having greater numbers with less tech wins out, but when on the move and attacking, you really need the tech. The example of stalingrad that people have been citing is one where the russians didn't win by sending hordes of people - they DEFENDED and PROLONGED by doing so, but it was the eventual fruition of russian tank production (which were really good once they finally arrived) that finally turned it from a defensive action into an offensive one and let them counterattack the germans out on the field.
Those aren't wars. Those are occupations - a very different sort of activity. Soldiers are trained to think of well defined enemies and allies with clear demarkations of who's who, where police are trained to think of the majority of strangers as allies or bystanders with just a few "enemies" hidden among them. They are very different states of mind, and that's why soldiers aren't police and police aren't soldiers. (And that's why we won the war but are losing the occupation).
1 - I'm one of those people who doesn't give Wikipedia much credibility. 2 - Even if I did, neither definition you posted supported your verison anyway.
There are uses for both strong tethers and wireless power that are not related to a space elevator (If you have a space elevator, you've got all the power you need. The wireless power is obviously for autonomous unconnected craft, like probes.)
Strong lightweight tethers make lots of things more plausable - like a spin-stabalized solar sail, or a spin-stabalized giat solar-panel connected flexibly with tethers.
Slashdot Mirror
When did I ever say "outlook"? (Which is useful to spammers, by the way, in that you can dig through it for personal contact lists - so if someone has you in their outlook's contact list and they get comprimised, you will get more spam from it. But that's not the point. The point is I never said outlook specificly. I just said MS. I was thinking in terms of other parts of the system, like IIS.)
They don't have to compramise security for marketing. MS's everything-works-together-automatically marketting ploy is the direct cause of exploits where public-facing programs like web browsers are merged with private-facing data and letting people get at it from outside. No, an e-mail should not automatically launch ANYTHING, ever. Yes, it is useful to keep the distinction between document and program. Yes, it is a bad idea to encourage people to send what amounts to executable content via push-channels. But all these are "good" if you're goal is to make it look like your system is easy and fun to use compared to other people's.
Freedom is an absolute? I think not. When person A's freedom clashes with person B's freedom, how can it be an absolute?
Re-read the post. He's arguing that because freedom is absolute, it doesn't actually occur like we trick ourselves into believing it does. Therefore the fact that it is self-contradictory is not a mark agaisnt his point. In fact it's a mark in favor of it.
Next time try reading the post. What he's saying is that "freedom" is the wrong word to describe the situation we have. He's trying to divorce the connotation of "freedom = goodness", by saying that it's not actually achievable to have true freedom.
Anybody stupid enough to run off and get trampled deserves to die.
The thing about trampling is - not everone getting trampled was part of the mob mentality. A human wave is impossible to stand your ground against. One of the biggest myths of a laissez-faire mentality is that it claims people only hurt themselves with their stupid decisions so it's only their own fault. This ignores the fact that people are affected by the stupid decisions of the others around them. For example, the fact that lots of other people run insecure setups on their computers means everyone else has to deal with the resulting wave of decentralized spam messages coming from their "owned" computers, and thus wasted traffic. The fact that everone else runs i.e. means I have to also, at least for a little while, to test any website I develop.
What's to stop someone from having a reader up their sleeve or something and shaking hands with the guy - and violla they now know his ID.
Where is the parent post you're replying to? I looked above yours and could not find any post stating what you quoted. (nor could I find and "beneth your threshold" links to posts either, so that's not it.)
Although I agree that the hypothetical person who made that hyopthetical statement is in the wrong, it's for different reasons - the idea that you only get spam if you give your address to spammers is false. You get spam the moment you decide to publish your e-mail *anywhere* on the internet where spiders will find it. And no, not publishing your e-mail is hardly an option for some. My address is listed at work's website, for work-related reasons, and I can't take it down without cutting off legitimate seekers of me.
Intimidation is not the way to get rid of spam. Fixing broken Windows security is. Microsoft is just taking the option that's easier for them to implement.
I agree - consider what MS's actual motivation here is: Someone is exploiting their broken security model to send spam. They're after the spammer not because they care about internet users' annoyances, but because they don't like how the preponderance of spam helps people realize how bad their product is.
It's just like the DMCA-enabled tactic of nailing anyone who can prove by example that you're lying about how good your security is.
I now have an image of someone being bludgeoned to death by an anthropomorphic book.
That was the one thing I really disliked about it, because while it was a fun challenge to have to not kill anyone, the bow-and-arrow interface that game had was truly FUN - having to aim above the target, lead for time, etc. - hitting your target from 200 feet away where you have to aim a good 10 feet to the side and 40 feet up felt satisfying when it worked. But when you say no killing, then that aspect of the game is removed, as is the fun land-mine aspect (very theify - leaving booby traps where you expect someone to walk instead of hitting them directly.)
While suceeding without killing is fun, the bow and arrow and landmines were also fun, and picking one precluded the other.
Done. Unsurprisingly, the words didn't change since last time, and neither does the fact that they don't support what you said.
There was a reason B5 was cancelled... Ugh
Yeah, and that reason was that it finished it's plotline. Now I realize that plotline was an alien concept in US sci-fi series until B5, and is again an alien concept afterward, but really, it can be a good thing, trust me.
That's not a fair jibe because Doohan was in poor health.
but clearly definitions 2 and 3 are in my favor.
No. 2 refers to writing a wrapper around another program, and 3 refers to writing an incomplete piece of code you intend to fill in later - a skeleton.
and so if you filled the streets of Iraq with (gun-toting) American cops it would be any better?
If there were enough to spare? Yes. Absolutely. Unfortunately there are two problems with this 1 - there aren't enough to do that, and 2 - Police officers are civilians, and aren't under any obligation to have to go where their country tells them to.
The whole flaw with the war in Iraq was the lack of understanding at the top that winning against an army and winning over a population are two entirely different things. And, being fundamentalists themselves, the people running the Executive Branch right now are rather blind to how truly nasty theocrats can be (they view themselves as virtuous and don't realize how nasty their ilk can be). So they never understood that if you remove the secular oppressive regime in a country with an excessively fundamentalist populace, a religious oppressive regime will want to take its place, and will fight bitterly to the last man to attempt to do so. Attempst to be all-inclusive and include them in the process won't help because they don't want power comesurate with their numbers. They want power over all.
I was opposed to the Iraq situation not because it was wrong to oust Saddam (although that's not the reason Bush gave in the first place despite his historical revisionism to the contrary), but because you have to do so with an understanding of how deep of a mess you are stepping into. Bush had no clue, and it was obivous to me he had no clue when he ignored his general's pleas for more troops to hold territory and only gave them enough troups to fight defenders, but not enough to patrol the occupied areas. This was way back in the beginning before they'd even reached bagdad.
Yes, police officers would do a better job, but there aren't enough of them. The next best step is military police (MP's) - this attack should have been accompanied by a massive training program for more MP's - becuae THAT is what we need.
I was opposed to going into Iraq half-assed. But now that it's done, it would be stupid and premature to pull out and leave without a working governmental infrastructure in place. One problem the American public has is they they don't realize there are only two viable choices when going to war (and occupation) - don't do it at all, or do it will all you can all at once. Anything halfway between is a recipie for disaster.
arrogant gibberish like "you might as well ban HTTP traffic"
Pointing out truth is not arrogance. There is no legal difference whatsoever between banning P2P, which has a mixture of legal and illegal uses, and banning HTTP, which has a mixture of legal and illegal uses. It's a perfectly legitimate point to bring up, and does not constitute "gibberish".
When you said they're more likely to respond when spoken to "reasonably" you should have said "politely" instead. No, they are not the same thing. Sometimes stating reasonable truths can be impolite to people who don't agree that they are truths. (Thus politeness and honesty sometimes clash and you can't have both - this happens to me all the time. I usually favor honesty, but when you really need some beurocrat's help on something, you sometimes have to bite the bullet and be polite by lying or telling only the polite half of the truth.)
But don't pretend that doing so is "speaking to them reasonably". It's what you gotta do to get by, but call it what it is - sucking up.
Now, THAT is true, unfortunately. It's the reason I took back the Samsung Yh-925 digital media player I bought this week and traded it for an iPod. (The iPod doesn't have to be used with iTunes, it will let you put any mp3 you burned yourself on it DRM-free, while the Samsung only worked if I used Napster or Windows Media Player to keep track of the ripped files, and they added DRM tags even to mp3s that you burn yourself from your own cd's.)
I don't want an mp3 I burned for personal use to have my name and ID on it, just in case it leaks out - and I don't appreciate being forced to put DRM tags in the music just because the thing is proprietary and only works with two programs. (There was no other way to get the songs to appear in the menu on the thing other than using one of those two programs to catalog it.)
That really doesn't make any sense. The more high-tech the jobs are, the less the differences between the sexes matter to being able to perform them.
No, it's called an unfunny failed attempt at a joke.
In defending holed-up positions, having greater numbers with less tech wins out, but when on the move and attacking, you really need the tech. The example of stalingrad that people have been citing is one where the russians didn't win by sending hordes of people - they DEFENDED and PROLONGED by doing so, but it was the eventual fruition of russian tank production (which were really good once they finally arrived) that finally turned it from a defensive action into an offensive one and let them counterattack the germans out on the field.
Those aren't wars. Those are occupations - a very different sort of activity. Soldiers are trained to think of well defined enemies and allies with clear demarkations of who's who, where police are trained to think of the majority of strangers as allies or bystanders with just a few "enemies" hidden among them. They are very different states of mind, and that's why soldiers aren't police and police aren't soldiers. (And that's why we won the war but are losing the occupation).
there are no services that let you download mp3 flies legally.
What about iTunes, or the new reborn Napster?
1 - I'm one of those people who doesn't give Wikipedia much credibility.
2 - Even if I did, neither definition you posted supported your verison anyway.
There are uses for both strong tethers and wireless power that are not related to a space elevator (If you have a space elevator, you've got all the power you need. The wireless power is obviously for autonomous unconnected craft, like probes.)
Strong lightweight tethers make lots of things more plausable - like a spin-stabalized solar sail, or a spin-stabalized giat solar-panel connected flexibly with tethers.