You just have to find the right button to press (in the person, not on the computer) and then the rest will follow naturally because they finally care.
That's probably effective, only I just don't think that's really viable long-term. There just isn't any substitute for people who love what is right and want to take responsibility for themselves and for how their actions can affect others, not out of fear, but because it's the right thing to do. I think using fear to motivate people has all sorts of nasty and non-obvious side effects that are seldom appreciated. It's another example of what you can call "external motivation".
Strong, wise, healthy people who make good decisions may be radically different from each other in many ways, but they all have one thing in common: they are all internally motivated. They have a strong sense of how things should be and they work towards that goal. Their personal growth is experienced in terms of a constant refinement of "how things should be," what that means, and why it has that meaning.
Their self-expression is not experienced in terms of reward and punishment, or doing the right thing only because of fear, or appearing good in the eyes of others. People often do things for hollow reasons like that, and then they wonder why they have inner conflict, why they don't feel that joy towards life that they know deep down is quite possible. That's my only real objection to what you advocate, and it's a hard one, because what I describe is not something you can just give to another person. Much patience and acceptance is required to deal with that.
Whether they admit it or not, they resent finally encountering something that requires them to think, that cannot be reduced to a short list of simple steps that they can execute mechanically.
People resent having to think about SOMETHING BORING. It's not that people won't think, they just think computers are boring. It's kind of like the tax code. I resent my thinking being wasted on something so inane, but I find lots of other kinds of thinking interesting. You and I happen to think that computers are not boring, but this does not put us above everyone else. E.g. the steoreotype is that the average Slashdotter resents having to really think about how to best interact with other people... so the average Slashdotter doesn't like thinking? It's just not so.
I'm sorry, because it gives me no pleasure to say this, but the mentality you just described belongs to a bunch of overgrown children who call themselves adults. That's the real reason why technical advances alone have not made this problem go away.
It's a package deal. That "something boring" is inseparable from the things they really want to do. It takes a lot of immaturity to fail to recognize this and to be unwilling to deal with it even if that unwillingness causes you or others to suffer, which insecurity certainly does. I'll put that another way. You may resent the tax code, and I'd agree you have lots of valid reasons for doing so. But you still handle it, you still pay your taxes, you still file you return. Why? Because you have a responsibility. Because you know bad things will happen (i.e. the IRS coming after you) if you don't. I know bad things will happen if I fail to secure the machines I put on the public Internet. That has been proven again and again with the examples provided by those people who didn't think security was important. I would have no excuse for failing to take reasonable measures to take care of it and my personal feelings about this reality are quite irrelevant.
"Boring" versus "exciting" is valid when you're talking about preferences. It might determine what movies you want to watch or which books you want to read, because with movies and books generally all of your choices are morally equivalent, so it really is just a matter of taste. The failure to recognize when you are dealing with something that is not simply a matter of taste, where one choice really is morally and pragmatically superior to all other choices, is a personal shortcoming. That's why I spoke about this in terms of a character weakness. You seem to think you are explaining something to me that I didn't already know. I am well familiar with what you are saying, I just think it's completely invalid and unworthy of the "excuse" status you seem to want to give to it.
The thing is, right now there is so much low-hanging fruit that you hardly need to be an expert to avoid the vast majority of attacks. The respectable decision-making would be that if you don't want to deal with learning a few new things and don't want to become familiar with the basic steps needed to make yourself a much harder target, then maybe connecting a machine to the Internet isn't for you. There are things I don't get involved in that would be nice, except that I know I don't want to take the time and effort to do them properly. There's nothing wrong with that. If you think being on the Internet IS for you, and you really want to be there, that's good too. Ideally, lots more people would use and enjoy it. Just do it right and don't make the network a worse place for everyone else because of your negligence.
I don't think this concept is hard to understand at all. I think you just don't like it and want an easy way out of it. The funny thing about that, is that if all of the effort spent coming up with excuses and defending personal negligence were put towards securing systems and networks, we'd have already made tremendous progress. I make only one assumption there: that the most average people can astound you with what they can accomplish if they really want to. They just need to get over the ways in which they are their own worst enemies, and that mentality you described is one of the biggest.
You take you car to the official service, they make a mistake. Your tire comes off and you hit somebody.
It is your fault?
Though I have worked profesionally in this area, this is just my unofficial personal opinion. I know that in my particular state, your insurance company would consider such an accident to be your fault and would charge you accordingly (higher rates, surcharges, etc). My state does not have no-fault accidents so your mileage may vary. It makes sense from the perspective of the other guy. If the other guy obeyed all traffic laws and took reasonable measures to avoid the accident, and then you lose a wheel and slam into him, why should he have to pay for that? At least with cars there is some sense that it's your equipment that you're using on a shared system and you are responsible for how it affects others.
Now what I don't have a clue about, and what you'd have to ask a lawyer, is what happens next. Does the fact that the mechanic screwed up absolve you of any guilt or any liability? Or is that liability your damages that you can then use to separately go after the mechanic? Either way I'd guess that you would have to go to court.
If you don't believe me - tell someone who isn't a tech person to go read this blog post. A week or two later ask them if they read it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say over 90% wont.
I'm going to assume here that you're implying they say "ok" when you tell them to read it. I think this is a more general phenomenon and isn't specific to computing at all. Lots of people casually say they're going to do something with no intention of actually following through, which makes me wish they'd just decline the request up-front. It's like their word doesn't mean anything to them, so they give it carelessly. Of course, they wouldn't dare do that to their boss at work, because he has ways to make them regret it, meaning this is merely a selfish trait and doesn't require any explanation more complex than a weak character. It's one of those things that has become common but that does not make it normal.
Or talk to someone like that about security. Watch as their eyes glaze over and they look for a way to escape.
That's what I like about security. It's one of the few things where that sort of childishness and inability to deal with the real-world situation just won't fly, at least not for very long. An ability to put on an act and go through the motions won't protect you from the cleverness of the black hats; you need to actually have some understanding of what you're doing and why you're doing it. I think that's why people don't like this topic and consequently don't want to take even the more basic precautions. Whether they admit it or not, they resent finally encountering something that requires them to think, that cannot be reduced to a short list of simple steps that they can execute mechanically.
The technical information needed to maintain good computer security is abundant. It is easily found via Google. I think the real problem here, the reason why nothing seems to seriously improve, can be found in the mentality with which security is approached. That mentality, in turn, can be shown to have its roots in the way people have become during the last few generations, particularly their short attention spans and their addiction to convenience and instant results. Security is just good at exposing these things because its rules and concepts are like the laws of physics: the principles are sound and all the wishing in the world won't change that.
It's more like "yes, you have the right to say whatever you want within certain limits, but you do not have the right to force me to listen to any or all of what you say or to make me interpret it any particular way."
Of course, the flipside is also true: Content providers can change their page layout around randomly every day in order to break your customized layout/parser.
If this gets popular, that's most likely what they're going to do, to the detriment of the Internet at large.
I, for one, do not welcome our content-munging overlords.
Let them do whatever they want. We don't need them, not anything like the way they need us. If they refuse to understand that and need to find it out the hard way, so be it. The more obnoxious they become and the less they respect what their users want, the more they alienate their target audience. What you describe represents a self-defeating, losing battle for those content producers. I actually hope that some of them try this; it will help get rid of the ones we can most easily do without.
No Web site is indispensable. Not Google, not Slashdot, not any of them. If 90% of all commercial Web sites shut down permanently and went completely out of business, I would be fine with that so long as the remaining 10% appreciated the privilege of having a Web presence that people want to visit (which they would, else they would not be in that remaining 10%). As a matter of fact, I think I'd like that Internet better than the one we have now. When you base your outlook on simple principles, you really don't have to worry so much about ten thousand "what ifs" like the one you bring up.
In extremely general terms, part of the reason why the world is so fucked up right now is because there is a severe shortage of people who are willing to set their foot down and say "this is wrong, I will not stand for it, I will not accept it, no matter how inconvenient that may be or what it might cost." If most people were willing to do that, you wouldn't have these silly power struggles to begin with. No one tries to assert control over you unless they first detect some kind of weakness in you (the hard part is admitting that you were not randomly targeted). Right now, that weakness is our collective addiction to convenience and instant gratification.
Sorry, but any computer literate user will have found one of the many frustrations with IE's horrible functionality and looked for a better choice.
So you assert, but many computer literate users have no issues using IE and have for years. Just because you dislike IE, or the way it works, or how it looks doesn't mean that everyone shares your opinion.
I posit that there is no web developer or power user that actually uses IE by personal choice.
Sure if your selection pool is slashdot or people at your LUG, then yes you probably won't.
There is one exception to what I am about to say. That exception is those folks who, for business reasons, need to use legacy software or programs for which there are few or no non-Windows alternatives, such as CAD programs. Because of those business reasons, I don't consider that to be a completely free choice because factors other than actual preference are forcing the outcome of their decision. Having said that...
I have never, ever, not once, met a person who was highly skilled with Windows, Linux, and MacOSX who still freely chose to run Windows on his/her own personal computer. I have met people who were skilled with Windows but not very familiar with Linux who decided to stick with what they know, but that too is something other than an informed preference. With all things being completely equal, I have never known a skilled person who is equally comfortable in multiple operating systems and browsers who preferred Windows and IE. I'm sure they are out there somewhere, but I have never seen them. In my personal opinion, Microsoft knows this, which is why they use various vendorlock and embrace-extend tactics, because if they thought their products were inherently superior and could compete in a completely free and open market, they wouldn't use those tactics.
I think the real question is, whose Internet is it? Does it belong to the corporations, the marketers, the governments, and other monied interests? Or does it belong to the people who use and enjoy it?
At best, you're creating a false dichotomy here. "The Internet" doesn't belong to anyone. The hardware, data lines, servers, client machines, and content belong to a whole lot of different entities around the world; no one category of them "owns" the Internet. We're all in this together.
Insofar as laws identify who is the "owner" of a particular piece of content, and what that ownership means in terms of their rights, we're all subject to that (unless we're in a different jurisdiction that says we don't have to pay attention). But an awful lot of the internet would be too expensive to maintain without a revenue stream, and that revenue stream has two ends: the producers, and the consumers. Neither one has "ownership" of the internet in any meaningful way; each is a necessary part of the whole.
My point was that the people in government and various corporations often forget that they are the servants of the people. When they forget this, they begin to believe that their interests should take precedence over those of the people. Then the people as a whole find themselves in the unenviable position of finding out that their politicians do not represent them, but rather, the corporate backers who get them into office. This comes into play when there is any question about those same politicians creating new regulations and laws for the Internet that favor various monied interests.
When you say "The Internet" doesn't belong to anyone, you are actually supporting my point. Anything that "doesn't belong to anyone" belongs to the people. What you have here are forces that want to treat it as their own personal property, to the point that they would oppose your free choices as to how you want to locally display information. This isn't about information and how it is displayed. This is about a claim of ownership where there should be none and the desire for control that goes along with it. Those same corporations quickly forget that they are nothing without those people who support them and buy their products and services. From time to time they need to be reminded of that fact and that they are our servants. If we fail to remind them of that by refusing to support their bids for control, then the next step is that anyone considers it legitimate that there should be a debate about how much control they should have over what we do with our own equipment.
I don't think you appreciate the mentality with which you're dealing.
If people dealt with it that way, then indeed you would not hear about "advertisers vs. ad-blocking capability." Instead, you would hear about content providers demanding ways to force people to view their Web sites. Those ways could be as benign as bargining with companies like Dell and Compaq to make their pages the default browser homepage, or they could be much, much more intrusive. Either way, if it is handled the way that you suggest, you would find that you are most definitely not dealing with people who would stop and accept the users' decision.
Telemarketers before the advent of the "Do Not Call" list are a better illustration. Various devices were created to thwart telemarketers or otherwise to selectively block them. Did the telemarketers say "well I guess we're not wanted by those people, maybe we should concentrate our efforts towards people who are more receptive to our business model"? No, they didn't. Instead, they came up with various ways to get around those devices and blocking techniques. You should hear some of the rationalizations behind this. The one I heard the most, was that they believed people installing telemarketer-blocking devices were mostly composed of unassertive folks who had a hard time saying "no" to a pushy salesperson, so that once they got through the blocking device they felt they were more likely to make a sale than usual. Of course, I am not even beginning to get into the fact that my private home is not a place of business and that anyone who doesn't want to accept that is acting like an intruder and deserves (within reason and within the bounds of the law, of course) to be treated like one.
My point is, you are not dealing with people who respect you or would honor your choices. Advertisers have a generally bad name on the Internet and elsewhere and they have soundly earned it. Your solution and those like it should be reserved for entities that can be reasoned with. Since that is not what you are dealing with, the attitude of "if you put it on the public network, I will take any measures I feel like taking with my own equipment in order to view it any way I damned well please" is entirely appropriate and I refuse to apologize for it.
I don't care if people change their browser or operating system. If asked for an opinion, I provide it. But I no longer sift through the rubble of infected and misconfigured PCs -- not mine or anyone else's. The absolute BEST way to rid the world of MS is to stop providing free help. It's frustrating and only temporarily helping the victim.
I think you nailed it right there. Doctors aren't generally expected to practice medicine for free. Electricians aren't generally expected to rewire your house for free. Yet computing is one area where the specialist who has devoted time and effort and discipline to learning his craft is often expected to work for free. This is compounded by the fact that most of the things they are expected to help with are not general maintainence but rather, are directly or indirectly caused by user error.
Nothing works "perfectly" for anyone. The issues with IE are not immediately obvious to the average user.
[...]
If people get a grip on how their choices of OS and browser affect their actual COST and PRODUCTIVITY, things will change. Too many people make bad choices because too many IT people enable them to do so. Let Geek Squad earn a living until the users have had enough.
We live in a superficial society. One result of that fact is that people generally fail to recognize anything that isn't immediately smack-you-in-the-face undeniably obvious. This doesn't just apply to computing. Most "crises" you see the talking heads go on about on the news were both foreseeable and preventable; it's just that the early stages aren't so obvious and undeniable as the full-blown crisis. While having contempt for it is the wrong way to handle it, it genuinely IS contemptible, particularly since it isn't generally recognized as a problem that people should be doing something about.
Your solution to it is the best one: leave them to their own devices. Most people are not virtuous enough to want to improve their decision-making when someone else is willing to deal with the fallout from their poor decisions. That is, they aren't virtuous enough to do a thing because it's the right thing to do, but they will change their ways if they have to deal with the problems they cause. Maybe that wouldn't rid the world of MS. Maybe it would cause their "easy to use, effort-free, no thought or consideration needed!" type of marketing to become more realistic, which would be an improvement all by itself.
What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.
That's a bit dramatic. Removing advertisements and altering how Web pages are displayed is more like the concept of being able to ignore or only selectively listen to someone who says things you don't like. It's more like "yes, you have the right to say whatever you want within certain limits, but you do not have the right to force me to listen to any or all of what you say or to make me interpret it any particular way."
The internet has the capability to be an incredible paradigm change for us all, but it is unlikely that it will be allowed to become this due to regulation that will invariably be placed upon it by our governments and corporations. What is especially sad is that those regulations are being created to stop people doing unimportant but selfish things like ad-blocking and pirating (this is said as someone who doesn't ad-block but does pirate, so please don't think I'm holding myself above my contempt!).
I think the real question is, whose Internet is it? Does it belong to the corporations, the marketers, the governments, and other monied interests? Or does it belong to the people who use and enjoy it?
If it belongs to the monied interests, then they should do as they please and we should have to adapt to what they want, by force of law if necessary. If that means that state police power needs to be used to jeopardize people who are doing something that should not be a crime, just refer to it as "collateral damage" or use some kind of specious "greater good" argument.
Here I refer to the local display of information. I am not referring to redistributing someone else's work, which is another matter entirely. If the Internet belongs to the people, then we should do whatever we want with the content that others have chosen to place on the public network. If commercial interests don't like that, they should be told that their choice is to adapt to it and find a way to profit from it or to go bankrupt.
To put that another way, if you don't like the freedoms associated with a particular medium, such as an end-user's ability to control how information is displayed, your option is to choose not to publish your content on that medium. If you do choose to publish your content on a medium that allows many options for how that content is displayed, it's rather underhanded to cry "foul" when those options are exercised. It's downright despicable to use political clout and the legal system to remove some of the freedoms from a medium that never forced you to publish your content on it. At the risk of being accused of hyperbole, the mentality is exactly the same as those psychopaths who murder a woman screaming "if I can't have her, no one can!" Of course one of those expressions is far, far more extreme and ghastly than another, but the underlying mentality is exactly the same.
While in theory this will make it accessible to everyone, that doesn't convert to a reality of everyone using it.
Linux, believe it or not, is to the point where to use it you can just pop a CD in the computer and turn it on. Yet how many people actual do use Linux and of those, how many would have not done so if LiveCD's weren't around?
This means powerusers will find being powerusers slight less cumbersome, but not that everyone will become a poweruser.
I'm absolutely fine with the fact that not everyone (most people actually) wants to be a poweruser. I just wish they'd accept responsibility for that decision. The easiest way to explain that, is to say that I don't want to hear their complaints when the only reason why something doesn't work out for them is that they didn't RTFM or when they're mystified and frustrated by a task that would be relatively straightforward if they were willing to do a little reading.
To address some knee-jerk responses, being able to RTFM is not remotely the same thing as being an expert. Since you mention Linux, if the requirement of having to learn a few things about how the system works in order to be able to effectively use it means that Linux will never replace Windows as the dominant desktop platform, I'm fine with that. I'm not one of those folks who thinks that Linux needs to have the goal of replacing Windows; I think the two operating systems are intended for entirely different audiences. Just wanted to get those two things out of the way because those are the two most predictable and therefore unenlightening replies that seem to constantly come up in these discussions.
What I am saying applies to many things, not just computers. The basic principle is simple: if there are reasonable measures someone can take to address the problem they are having, and they refuse to take those measures, then it's hard to take their complaints seriously.
It is a scientific fact that all black people love fried chicken. That's not even a bad stereotype to be associated with, so I don't understand why people get all up in arms over it.
Well, because, it's not even slightly insulting when government, corporations, and the educational system treat us as though we were all the same. That's alright and is never seriously questioned, somehow. But god dammit, an individual better not suggest that a group of people may have similar tastes because they are members of the same group. That's somehow completely different; in fact, that would be wrong and offensive and you're a bad person if you said that!
Bill Hicks had it right: "I wonder why we're fucked up, as a [human] race?"
If the stated purpose of the War on (some) Drugs is public safety and the prevention of crime (since drug use is handled as a law enforcement problem and not as a medical issue), I'd like to know how this furthers the cause. The brief article stated the cocaine content amounted to 0.4 micrograms of cocaine per liter of the beverage. Sounds to me like anyone trying to use cocaine by drinking Red Bull Cola would die of excess water consumption (anything is a poison given a high enough dose) before they'd feel the cocaine at all. Additionally, if someone tried to extract the cocaine from the drink and purify it, they'd spend a ton of money on the drink and I would imagine, since we're talking about nanogram amounts per liter, the expenditure would have to far exceed what they'd pay if they obtained it from a drug dealer.
Welcome to modern drug hysteria where logic and reasoning need not apply when evaluating potential threats to public safety. Aren't the Germans glad they have a government that's powerful enough to worry about things like this? It's amazing, really. No matter how absurd the drug hysteria becomes, no one or almost no one with any significant media presence is willing to suggest that maybe the way we're currently handling drugs isn't the best way to deal with them.
As to corn ethanol, I was *careful* to point out is a a transitional crop to get some sort of viable market going and to get enthusaism up, such as in the article. Even the people who push corn now admit that, it is to help get established the interest in biofuels and to also insure at least some form of limited liquid fuel availability insurance in case of force majeur disruptions to traditional supplies, which can happen overnight and ruin your whole day. so no, I disagree, it isn't a boondoggle when you add in the fact it is affrordable insurance plus, me being a farmer, I knoiw the US is setup to grow corn in vast quantities and we do so every year. so at least we could maintain some supplies if needs be for a modest extended period if something bad where to happen.
What I don't understand is why this type of discussion always centers around corn to the exclusion of all other vegetables. Brazil has a successful, sustainable ethanol market and they do it by growing sugarcane. Why do we in the USA see that this is so, and then continue to talk about corn as though it were the only option, even though we know it's difficult or impossible to obtain more energy from corn ethanol than you had to spend in growing the corn? What this reminds me of is the way the media frames debates on most other political matters. I'm not saying you are doing that, only that it's a narrow take on the subject of biofuels.
not to be a conspiracy nut or anything but i completely agree with you.
So I've read Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary" a couple of times. It's a humorous work, if a bit dated. This isn't a "Devil's Dictionary" but here is my own contribution because there seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding this basic issue.
"Conspiracy nut", n. - 1. A term used by an opponent in an argument in order to shut down certain occurrences of debate. Often used as a substitute for having any sort of valid basis for dissent. The preferred technique when said opponent has no evidence or logic by which he can disagree but does have a strong dislike of whatever is being said and wishes to end the discussion, or at least cause it to degenerate into a contest, by any means available.
2. Advocate of theories involving conspiracies, typically of the "smoky back room" type as opposed to the "business and government collusion" or "power behind the throne" type, most noted for the total lack of any evidence or reasoning behind them. This type of conspiracy nut does exist, which enables the intellectually dishonest to ignore conspiracy nuts fitting definition (1) and lump them together with the conspiracy nuts fitting definition (2), again as a means of shutting down debate (see: "argumentation", "intellectual honesty" and "propaganda techniques").
"Common sense", n. - the self-evident realization, easily supported by relatively small amounts of personal research and investigation into the matter, that a very small number of people control the world and that the general public is largely ignorant of this fact. The willingness to face this reality despite the insulting nature of those who do not want to accept it and will use all manner of personal attacks, logical fallacies, or dismissal without examination while congratulating themselves on their levelheadedness (see: "denial"). Said control is exerted primarily by means of media, propaganda, and the creation or manipulation of fiat currencies throughout the world.
Rumours are not news. They belong on Digg. Please please/., try to keep the quality of the post high and avoid speculation like this. It makes the site so much more worth reading.
It was clearly labelled as a rumor: "Apple Tablet Rumors Again (Still?)". If it weren't, I'd have a much easier time seeing your point.
Sure, you could say that the holy absolute purity of the rest of Slashdot is forever tainted by the stain of the word "rumor" in this story but, eh, have you SEEN the rest of Slashdot? I think it'll be alright.
Previous post is FLAMEBAIT. Metamoderation needed.
People loved this show because it was a great show, and was unexpectedly highbrow when people expected more explosions. Most people who say it sucked never saw it, or only saw an episode or two. Some moron said he refused to watch it because the actress who played Sarah Connor was pretty. I bet he would say the show sucked also. Was that you?
In other words, "if you disagree with me, it can only be because I have superior information. It can't possibly be that we have the same information and you merely disagree with me." Sorry but the correct response to that is "get over yourself." No offense was intended.
Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming. Your voting party system is only one party better than the Communism your country hates.
Captcha was: protest
I think the ideal would be for candidates to run as individuals with no such thing as a political party. Then, y'know, people might actually have to think about what the individual candidate stands for (or claims to stand for anyway) rather than reducing voting to the 50/50 chance of "is he a member of my party?" Then the next step would be to get rid of the concept of politicians and return to the concept of the statesman.
If anyone is aware of any writings the Founding Fathers have left behind about political parties in general I'd appreciate any reference you can provide. Ok, mod me off-topic now if that makes you feel better.
Any more proof required that Anonymity is required for a working free society? Not because without it, a society ceases to be free, but because an oppressive government requires a complete lack of it.
Quite frankly, every time I hear someone say "but I'm not hiding anything", I have to add "yet". People might not hide anything now, but that's largely because they're part of the majority that makes laws. They don't understand how quickly their position can evaporate and how quickly they can find themselves on the wrong end of the long arm of justice.
And if they don't understand that by now, with the numerous examples history has provided, then unfortunately it's probably because they don't want to. Just read any decent history book and what you see is that most of recorded history is the story of the most violent, egomaniacal, psychopathic and murderous segment of the population trying to assert control over everyone else with varying degrees of success. It's as though we think that all of history stopped applying to us in the last 50 years or so, like state power is your friend and has given up its dream of absolute control merely because it has learned that it will encounter less resistence if it puts on a smiling face and tells you it's all for your own good. The smallest foresight can prevent the Orwellian police state that's coming and is becoming more prominent, but not when people think that burying their heads in the sand is any sort of prevention.
What you said above reminds me of that saying: "it's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
I suspect many people don't have a choice. Of the two broadband providers who serve me, all three do this. The local cable company (Charter) turned it on. When their tech support proved unable to even understand my complaint, let alone fix it, I bailed. Months later the new company (TDS Telecom) started doing it. At least their tech support understood me, but they were unable to turn it off. Sure, I can use OpenDNS, or pinch DNS service from elsewhere, but providing functional DNS is a reasonable baseline of service. Welcome to the race to bottom of quality, thanks to the "free" market.
I've been very happy running my own local, caching DNS server. It communicates directly with the root DNS servers, no middleman required. It's also noticably faster for normal Web browsing because there is less latency when a lookup must be performed and effectively zero latency when a result has already been cached. I've been doing this for years and years, before anyone (to my knowledge anyway) decided that hijacking DNS queries was ever a desirable business practice (it isn't).
What follows is my opinion, though it's an informed one. The only thing I'd strongly recommend is to avoid using BIND. It has a terrible security history, comparable to that of Sendmail, which is fitting since both hail from an era before the Internet was considered a hostile network. The recent rewrite of BIND doesn't seem to have done much to change that. I used to use djbdns but I've switched to maradns and have been extremely satisfied with it. It's small, lean, secure, and generally it does everything I want it to do and nothing that I don't want it to do.
When ISPs overstep their bounds and start hijacking traffic when I have neither asked them to do so nor want them to do so, my answer is simple. Please pardon how I put this, but to them I say "fuck that" and run my own. I'd recommend this approach to anybody, and not just because I believe that relative independence is a virtue.
When there's a technical lock in addition to the contract I don't think the law objects to that.
It is that, and only that, which I intended to address. Though, I don't restrict myself to whether or not the law objects to a thing when I consider whether or not it is the right thing to do. It is for that reason that I spoke of this industry as compared to other industries and the powers they want to enjoy that would be considered unreasonable for other companies in other industries.
My point is simple. Whether it's called a copyright issue, a market issue, IP, licensing, DRM, or whatever, this is simply a power grab. Companies are trying to exert control over this market when they did not previously have this degree of control and it is not in our interests as customers to go along with that. That is all that I am saying. I think it's a big mistake to worry about fine intricate details if this causes us to ignore what should be universally recognized as an unwarranted power grab. Copyright law and its applications are complex; the concept of whether we should pretend like a power grab is anything other than a power grab is quite simple. Now I've had a few replies that responded to things I was not saying or points I was not making. I'm not trying to be rude but I'm waiting for anyone to respond to what I was actually getting at.
I have a better solution: Publishers should make games that are good enough that people want to buy them, in order to support further development of good games.
It's almost as though that were too simple. I really think most people don't consider how beautiful and simple that would be. Instead of the adversarial relationship between producers and customers that resembles an arms race between DRM and piracy, we could have a system based on mutual respect and appreciation. This truly is possible and would work very well and would suffer from none of the problems we currently have to deal with.
What we have now can be called a system of alienation. Everyone is assumed to be a selfish asshole who just wants to take advantage and what we get for that is widespread distrust and the feeling that different interests must always be in conflict. All of this because a few selfish assholes exist and we focus on them and on what they would do. I think the main obstacle to fixing that is the current cynacism which dictates that everyone is so selfish or incompetent that this would never work. That can be replaced by what you may call enlightened self-interest.
You may or may not see the parallel, but consider this. In ancient Athens, important public offices were assigned by lottery. That is, any and all citizens were expected to be ready and able to assume positions of great responsibility at any time. We think that would be such a disaster because we look at how people are now and we imagine how bad it would be if they were in charge. It appears to us to be a haphazard idea that begs for trouble. Do you know what really happened in Athens? The citizens rose to the occasion. They respected and appreciated their communities and felt like an integral part of them. They cared because their experience of community and of politics was hands-on, not reported to them second-hand with the expectation that they be spectators only. I think one of the worst things that has happened to America and the Western world in general is that we no longer believe in ourselves or each other, so to us this sounds absurd. What it really takes is the courage to believe in an ideal that can be realized, that things really don't have to continue to be the way that they are.
Slashdot Mirror
That's probably effective, only I just don't think that's really viable long-term. There just isn't any substitute for people who love what is right and want to take responsibility for themselves and for how their actions can affect others, not out of fear, but because it's the right thing to do. I think using fear to motivate people has all sorts of nasty and non-obvious side effects that are seldom appreciated. It's another example of what you can call "external motivation".
Strong, wise, healthy people who make good decisions may be radically different from each other in many ways, but they all have one thing in common: they are all internally motivated. They have a strong sense of how things should be and they work towards that goal. Their personal growth is experienced in terms of a constant refinement of "how things should be," what that means, and why it has that meaning.
Their self-expression is not experienced in terms of reward and punishment, or doing the right thing only because of fear, or appearing good in the eyes of others. People often do things for hollow reasons like that, and then they wonder why they have inner conflict, why they don't feel that joy towards life that they know deep down is quite possible. That's my only real objection to what you advocate, and it's a hard one, because what I describe is not something you can just give to another person. Much patience and acceptance is required to deal with that.
Whether they admit it or not, they resent finally encountering something that requires them to think, that cannot be reduced to a short list of simple steps that they can execute mechanically.
People resent having to think about SOMETHING BORING. It's not that people won't think, they just think computers are boring. It's kind of like the tax code. I resent my thinking being wasted on something so inane, but I find lots of other kinds of thinking interesting. You and I happen to think that computers are not boring, but this does not put us above everyone else. E.g. the steoreotype is that the average Slashdotter resents having to really think about how to best interact with other people... so the average Slashdotter doesn't like thinking? It's just not so.
I'm sorry, because it gives me no pleasure to say this, but the mentality you just described belongs to a bunch of overgrown children who call themselves adults. That's the real reason why technical advances alone have not made this problem go away.
It's a package deal. That "something boring" is inseparable from the things they really want to do. It takes a lot of immaturity to fail to recognize this and to be unwilling to deal with it even if that unwillingness causes you or others to suffer, which insecurity certainly does. I'll put that another way. You may resent the tax code, and I'd agree you have lots of valid reasons for doing so. But you still handle it, you still pay your taxes, you still file you return. Why? Because you have a responsibility. Because you know bad things will happen (i.e. the IRS coming after you) if you don't. I know bad things will happen if I fail to secure the machines I put on the public Internet. That has been proven again and again with the examples provided by those people who didn't think security was important. I would have no excuse for failing to take reasonable measures to take care of it and my personal feelings about this reality are quite irrelevant.
"Boring" versus "exciting" is valid when you're talking about preferences. It might determine what movies you want to watch or which books you want to read, because with movies and books generally all of your choices are morally equivalent, so it really is just a matter of taste. The failure to recognize when you are dealing with something that is not simply a matter of taste, where one choice really is morally and pragmatically superior to all other choices, is a personal shortcoming. That's why I spoke about this in terms of a character weakness. You seem to think you are explaining something to me that I didn't already know. I am well familiar with what you are saying, I just think it's completely invalid and unworthy of the "excuse" status you seem to want to give to it.
The thing is, right now there is so much low-hanging fruit that you hardly need to be an expert to avoid the vast majority of attacks. The respectable decision-making would be that if you don't want to deal with learning a few new things and don't want to become familiar with the basic steps needed to make yourself a much harder target, then maybe connecting a machine to the Internet isn't for you. There are things I don't get involved in that would be nice, except that I know I don't want to take the time and effort to do them properly. There's nothing wrong with that. If you think being on the Internet IS for you, and you really want to be there, that's good too. Ideally, lots more people would use and enjoy it. Just do it right and don't make the network a worse place for everyone else because of your negligence.
I don't think this concept is hard to understand at all. I think you just don't like it and want an easy way out of it. The funny thing about that, is that if all of the effort spent coming up with excuses and defending personal negligence were put towards securing systems and networks, we'd have already made tremendous progress. I make only one assumption there: that the most average people can astound you with what they can accomplish if they really want to. They just need to get over the ways in which they are their own worst enemies, and that mentality you described is one of the biggest.
Though I have worked profesionally in this area, this is just my unofficial personal opinion. I know that in my particular state, your insurance company would consider such an accident to be your fault and would charge you accordingly (higher rates, surcharges, etc). My state does not have no-fault accidents so your mileage may vary. It makes sense from the perspective of the other guy. If the other guy obeyed all traffic laws and took reasonable measures to avoid the accident, and then you lose a wheel and slam into him, why should he have to pay for that? At least with cars there is some sense that it's your equipment that you're using on a shared system and you are responsible for how it affects others.
Now what I don't have a clue about, and what you'd have to ask a lawyer, is what happens next. Does the fact that the mechanic screwed up absolve you of any guilt or any liability? Or is that liability your damages that you can then use to separately go after the mechanic? Either way I'd guess that you would have to go to court.
I'm going to assume here that you're implying they say "ok" when you tell them to read it. I think this is a more general phenomenon and isn't specific to computing at all. Lots of people casually say they're going to do something with no intention of actually following through, which makes me wish they'd just decline the request up-front. It's like their word doesn't mean anything to them, so they give it carelessly. Of course, they wouldn't dare do that to their boss at work, because he has ways to make them regret it, meaning this is merely a selfish trait and doesn't require any explanation more complex than a weak character. It's one of those things that has become common but that does not make it normal.
That's what I like about security. It's one of the few things where that sort of childishness and inability to deal with the real-world situation just won't fly, at least not for very long. An ability to put on an act and go through the motions won't protect you from the cleverness of the black hats; you need to actually have some understanding of what you're doing and why you're doing it. I think that's why people don't like this topic and consequently don't want to take even the more basic precautions. Whether they admit it or not, they resent finally encountering something that requires them to think, that cannot be reduced to a short list of simple steps that they can execute mechanically.
The technical information needed to maintain good computer security is abundant. It is easily found via Google. I think the real problem here, the reason why nothing seems to seriously improve, can be found in the mentality with which security is approached. That mentality, in turn, can be shown to have its roots in the way people have become during the last few generations, particularly their short attention spans and their addiction to convenience and instant results. Security is just good at exposing these things because its rules and concepts are like the laws of physics: the principles are sound and all the wishing in the world won't change that.
He probably browses at 1 and didn't see the AC's post.
You mean the post to which he directly responded? You know that doesn't add up, right?
Of course, the flipside is also true: Content providers can change their page layout around randomly every day in order to break your customized layout/parser.
If this gets popular, that's most likely what they're going to do, to the detriment of the Internet at large.
I, for one, do not welcome our content-munging overlords.
Let them do whatever they want. We don't need them, not anything like the way they need us. If they refuse to understand that and need to find it out the hard way, so be it. The more obnoxious they become and the less they respect what their users want, the more they alienate their target audience. What you describe represents a self-defeating, losing battle for those content producers. I actually hope that some of them try this; it will help get rid of the ones we can most easily do without.
No Web site is indispensable. Not Google, not Slashdot, not any of them. If 90% of all commercial Web sites shut down permanently and went completely out of business, I would be fine with that so long as the remaining 10% appreciated the privilege of having a Web presence that people want to visit (which they would, else they would not be in that remaining 10%). As a matter of fact, I think I'd like that Internet better than the one we have now. When you base your outlook on simple principles, you really don't have to worry so much about ten thousand "what ifs" like the one you bring up.
In extremely general terms, part of the reason why the world is so fucked up right now is because there is a severe shortage of people who are willing to set their foot down and say "this is wrong, I will not stand for it, I will not accept it, no matter how inconvenient that may be or what it might cost." If most people were willing to do that, you wouldn't have these silly power struggles to begin with. No one tries to assert control over you unless they first detect some kind of weakness in you (the hard part is admitting that you were not randomly targeted). Right now, that weakness is our collective addiction to convenience and instant gratification.
Sorry, but any computer literate user will have found one of the many frustrations with IE's horrible functionality and looked for a better choice.
So you assert, but many computer literate users have no issues using IE and have for years. Just because you dislike IE, or the way it works, or how it looks doesn't mean that everyone shares your opinion.
I posit that there is no web developer or power user that actually uses IE by personal choice.
Sure if your selection pool is slashdot or people at your LUG, then yes you probably won't.
There is one exception to what I am about to say. That exception is those folks who, for business reasons, need to use legacy software or programs for which there are few or no non-Windows alternatives, such as CAD programs. Because of those business reasons, I don't consider that to be a completely free choice because factors other than actual preference are forcing the outcome of their decision. Having said that ...
I have never, ever, not once, met a person who was highly skilled with Windows, Linux, and MacOSX who still freely chose to run Windows on his/her own personal computer. I have met people who were skilled with Windows but not very familiar with Linux who decided to stick with what they know, but that too is something other than an informed preference. With all things being completely equal, I have never known a skilled person who is equally comfortable in multiple operating systems and browsers who preferred Windows and IE. I'm sure they are out there somewhere, but I have never seen them. In my personal opinion, Microsoft knows this, which is why they use various vendorlock and embrace-extend tactics, because if they thought their products were inherently superior and could compete in a completely free and open market, they wouldn't use those tactics.
I think the real question is, whose Internet is it? Does it belong to the corporations, the marketers, the governments, and other monied interests? Or does it belong to the people who use and enjoy it?
At best, you're creating a false dichotomy here. "The Internet" doesn't belong to anyone. The hardware, data lines, servers, client machines, and content belong to a whole lot of different entities around the world; no one category of them "owns" the Internet. We're all in this together.
Insofar as laws identify who is the "owner" of a particular piece of content, and what that ownership means in terms of their rights, we're all subject to that (unless we're in a different jurisdiction that says we don't have to pay attention). But an awful lot of the internet would be too expensive to maintain without a revenue stream, and that revenue stream has two ends: the producers, and the consumers. Neither one has "ownership" of the internet in any meaningful way; each is a necessary part of the whole.
My point was that the people in government and various corporations often forget that they are the servants of the people. When they forget this, they begin to believe that their interests should take precedence over those of the people. Then the people as a whole find themselves in the unenviable position of finding out that their politicians do not represent them, but rather, the corporate backers who get them into office. This comes into play when there is any question about those same politicians creating new regulations and laws for the Internet that favor various monied interests.
When you say "The Internet" doesn't belong to anyone, you are actually supporting my point. Anything that "doesn't belong to anyone" belongs to the people. What you have here are forces that want to treat it as their own personal property, to the point that they would oppose your free choices as to how you want to locally display information. This isn't about information and how it is displayed. This is about a claim of ownership where there should be none and the desire for control that goes along with it. Those same corporations quickly forget that they are nothing without those people who support them and buy their products and services. From time to time they need to be reminded of that fact and that they are our servants. If we fail to remind them of that by refusing to support their bids for control, then the next step is that anyone considers it legitimate that there should be a debate about how much control they should have over what we do with our own equipment.
If it's overzealous don't use the site.
I don't think you appreciate the mentality with which you're dealing.
If people dealt with it that way, then indeed you would not hear about "advertisers vs. ad-blocking capability." Instead, you would hear about content providers demanding ways to force people to view their Web sites. Those ways could be as benign as bargining with companies like Dell and Compaq to make their pages the default browser homepage, or they could be much, much more intrusive. Either way, if it is handled the way that you suggest, you would find that you are most definitely not dealing with people who would stop and accept the users' decision.
Telemarketers before the advent of the "Do Not Call" list are a better illustration. Various devices were created to thwart telemarketers or otherwise to selectively block them. Did the telemarketers say "well I guess we're not wanted by those people, maybe we should concentrate our efforts towards people who are more receptive to our business model"? No, they didn't. Instead, they came up with various ways to get around those devices and blocking techniques. You should hear some of the rationalizations behind this. The one I heard the most, was that they believed people installing telemarketer-blocking devices were mostly composed of unassertive folks who had a hard time saying "no" to a pushy salesperson, so that once they got through the blocking device they felt they were more likely to make a sale than usual. Of course, I am not even beginning to get into the fact that my private home is not a place of business and that anyone who doesn't want to accept that is acting like an intruder and deserves (within reason and within the bounds of the law, of course) to be treated like one.
My point is, you are not dealing with people who respect you or would honor your choices. Advertisers have a generally bad name on the Internet and elsewhere and they have soundly earned it. Your solution and those like it should be reserved for entities that can be reasoned with. Since that is not what you are dealing with, the attitude of "if you put it on the public network, I will take any measures I feel like taking with my own equipment in order to view it any way I damned well please" is entirely appropriate and I refuse to apologize for it.
I think you nailed it right there. Doctors aren't generally expected to practice medicine for free. Electricians aren't generally expected to rewire your house for free. Yet computing is one area where the specialist who has devoted time and effort and discipline to learning his craft is often expected to work for free. This is compounded by the fact that most of the things they are expected to help with are not general maintainence but rather, are directly or indirectly caused by user error.
We live in a superficial society. One result of that fact is that people generally fail to recognize anything that isn't immediately smack-you-in-the-face undeniably obvious. This doesn't just apply to computing. Most "crises" you see the talking heads go on about on the news were both foreseeable and preventable; it's just that the early stages aren't so obvious and undeniable as the full-blown crisis. While having contempt for it is the wrong way to handle it, it genuinely IS contemptible, particularly since it isn't generally recognized as a problem that people should be doing something about.
Your solution to it is the best one: leave them to their own devices. Most people are not virtuous enough to want to improve their decision-making when someone else is willing to deal with the fallout from their poor decisions. That is, they aren't virtuous enough to do a thing because it's the right thing to do, but they will change their ways if they have to deal with the problems they cause. Maybe that wouldn't rid the world of MS. Maybe it would cause their "easy to use, effort-free, no thought or consideration needed!" type of marketing to become more realistic, which would be an improvement all by itself.
That's a bit dramatic. Removing advertisements and altering how Web pages are displayed is more like the concept of being able to ignore or only selectively listen to someone who says things you don't like. It's more like "yes, you have the right to say whatever you want within certain limits, but you do not have the right to force me to listen to any or all of what you say or to make me interpret it any particular way."
I think the real question is, whose Internet is it? Does it belong to the corporations, the marketers, the governments, and other monied interests? Or does it belong to the people who use and enjoy it?
If it belongs to the monied interests, then they should do as they please and we should have to adapt to what they want, by force of law if necessary. If that means that state police power needs to be used to jeopardize people who are doing something that should not be a crime, just refer to it as "collateral damage" or use some kind of specious "greater good" argument.
Here I refer to the local display of information. I am not referring to redistributing someone else's work, which is another matter entirely. If the Internet belongs to the people, then we should do whatever we want with the content that others have chosen to place on the public network. If commercial interests don't like that, they should be told that their choice is to adapt to it and find a way to profit from it or to go bankrupt.
To put that another way, if you don't like the freedoms associated with a particular medium, such as an end-user's ability to control how information is displayed, your option is to choose not to publish your content on that medium. If you do choose to publish your content on a medium that allows many options for how that content is displayed, it's rather underhanded to cry "foul" when those options are exercised. It's downright despicable to use political clout and the legal system to remove some of the freedoms from a medium that never forced you to publish your content on it. At the risk of being accused of hyperbole, the mentality is exactly the same as those psychopaths who murder a woman screaming "if I can't have her, no one can!" Of course one of those expressions is far, far more extreme and ghastly than another, but the underlying mentality is exactly the same.
While in theory this will make it accessible to everyone, that doesn't convert to a reality of everyone using it.
Linux, believe it or not, is to the point where to use it you can just pop a CD in the computer and turn it on. Yet how many people actual do use Linux and of those, how many would have not done so if LiveCD's weren't around?
This means powerusers will find being powerusers slight less cumbersome, but not that everyone will become a poweruser.
I'm absolutely fine with the fact that not everyone (most people actually) wants to be a poweruser. I just wish they'd accept responsibility for that decision. The easiest way to explain that, is to say that I don't want to hear their complaints when the only reason why something doesn't work out for them is that they didn't RTFM or when they're mystified and frustrated by a task that would be relatively straightforward if they were willing to do a little reading.
To address some knee-jerk responses, being able to RTFM is not remotely the same thing as being an expert. Since you mention Linux, if the requirement of having to learn a few things about how the system works in order to be able to effectively use it means that Linux will never replace Windows as the dominant desktop platform, I'm fine with that. I'm not one of those folks who thinks that Linux needs to have the goal of replacing Windows; I think the two operating systems are intended for entirely different audiences. Just wanted to get those two things out of the way because those are the two most predictable and therefore unenlightening replies that seem to constantly come up in these discussions.
What I am saying applies to many things, not just computers. The basic principle is simple: if there are reasonable measures someone can take to address the problem they are having, and they refuse to take those measures, then it's hard to take their complaints seriously.
It is a scientific fact that all black people love fried chicken. That's not even a bad stereotype to be associated with, so I don't understand why people get all up in arms over it.
Well, because, it's not even slightly insulting when government, corporations, and the educational system treat us as though we were all the same. That's alright and is never seriously questioned, somehow. But god dammit, an individual better not suggest that a group of people may have similar tastes because they are members of the same group. That's somehow completely different; in fact, that would be wrong and offensive and you're a bad person if you said that!
Bill Hicks had it right: "I wonder why we're fucked up, as a [human] race?"
I'll have you know, some members of Congress are female. How do you sleep at night, making such blanket generalizations?!
Why don't you just say what you mean, for the time being?
That's too easy. We'll never advance the state of the art with that kind of thinking!
If the stated purpose of the War on (some) Drugs is public safety and the prevention of crime (since drug use is handled as a law enforcement problem and not as a medical issue), I'd like to know how this furthers the cause. The brief article stated the cocaine content amounted to 0.4 micrograms of cocaine per liter of the beverage. Sounds to me like anyone trying to use cocaine by drinking Red Bull Cola would die of excess water consumption (anything is a poison given a high enough dose) before they'd feel the cocaine at all. Additionally, if someone tried to extract the cocaine from the drink and purify it, they'd spend a ton of money on the drink and I would imagine, since we're talking about nanogram amounts per liter, the expenditure would have to far exceed what they'd pay if they obtained it from a drug dealer.
Welcome to modern drug hysteria where logic and reasoning need not apply when evaluating potential threats to public safety. Aren't the Germans glad they have a government that's powerful enough to worry about things like this? It's amazing, really. No matter how absurd the drug hysteria becomes, no one or almost no one with any significant media presence is willing to suggest that maybe the way we're currently handling drugs isn't the best way to deal with them.
What I don't understand is why this type of discussion always centers around corn to the exclusion of all other vegetables. Brazil has a successful, sustainable ethanol market and they do it by growing sugarcane. Why do we in the USA see that this is so, and then continue to talk about corn as though it were the only option, even though we know it's difficult or impossible to obtain more energy from corn ethanol than you had to spend in growing the corn? What this reminds me of is the way the media frames debates on most other political matters. I'm not saying you are doing that, only that it's a narrow take on the subject of biofuels.
not to be a conspiracy nut or anything but i completely agree with you.
So I've read Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary" a couple of times. It's a humorous work, if a bit dated. This isn't a "Devil's Dictionary" but here is my own contribution because there seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding this basic issue.
"Conspiracy nut", n. - 1. A term used by an opponent in an argument in order to shut down certain occurrences of debate. Often used as a substitute for having any sort of valid basis for dissent. The preferred technique when said opponent has no evidence or logic by which he can disagree but does have a strong dislike of whatever is being said and wishes to end the discussion, or at least cause it to degenerate into a contest, by any means available.
2. Advocate of theories involving conspiracies, typically of the "smoky back room" type as opposed to the "business and government collusion" or "power behind the throne" type, most noted for the total lack of any evidence or reasoning behind them. This type of conspiracy nut does exist, which enables the intellectually dishonest to ignore conspiracy nuts fitting definition (1) and lump them together with the conspiracy nuts fitting definition (2), again as a means of shutting down debate (see: "argumentation", "intellectual honesty" and "propaganda techniques").
"Common sense", n. - the self-evident realization, easily supported by relatively small amounts of personal research and investigation into the matter, that a very small number of people control the world and that the general public is largely ignorant of this fact. The willingness to face this reality despite the insulting nature of those who do not want to accept it and will use all manner of personal attacks, logical fallacies, or dismissal without examination while congratulating themselves on their levelheadedness (see: "denial"). Said control is exerted primarily by means of media, propaganda, and the creation or manipulation of fiat currencies throughout the world.
Rumours are not news. They belong on Digg. Please please /., try to keep the quality of the post high and avoid speculation like this. It makes the site so much more worth reading.
It was clearly labelled as a rumor: "Apple Tablet Rumors Again (Still?)". If it weren't, I'd have a much easier time seeing your point.
Sure, you could say that the holy absolute purity of the rest of Slashdot is forever tainted by the stain of the word "rumor" in this story but, eh, have you SEEN the rest of Slashdot? I think it'll be alright.
Previous post is FLAMEBAIT. Metamoderation needed. People loved this show because it was a great show, and was unexpectedly highbrow when people expected more explosions. Most people who say it sucked never saw it, or only saw an episode or two. Some moron said he refused to watch it because the actress who played Sarah Connor was pretty. I bet he would say the show sucked also. Was that you?
In other words, "if you disagree with me, it can only be because I have superior information. It can't possibly be that we have the same information and you merely disagree with me." Sorry but the correct response to that is "get over yourself." No offense was intended.
Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming. Your voting party system is only one party better than the Communism your country hates.
Captcha was: protest
I think the ideal would be for candidates to run as individuals with no such thing as a political party. Then, y'know, people might actually have to think about what the individual candidate stands for (or claims to stand for anyway) rather than reducing voting to the 50/50 chance of "is he a member of my party?" Then the next step would be to get rid of the concept of politicians and return to the concept of the statesman.
If anyone is aware of any writings the Founding Fathers have left behind about political parties in general I'd appreciate any reference you can provide. Ok, mod me off-topic now if that makes you feel better.
Any more proof required that Anonymity is required for a working free society? Not because without it, a society ceases to be free, but because an oppressive government requires a complete lack of it.
Quite frankly, every time I hear someone say "but I'm not hiding anything", I have to add "yet". People might not hide anything now, but that's largely because they're part of the majority that makes laws. They don't understand how quickly their position can evaporate and how quickly they can find themselves on the wrong end of the long arm of justice.
And if they don't understand that by now, with the numerous examples history has provided, then unfortunately it's probably because they don't want to. Just read any decent history book and what you see is that most of recorded history is the story of the most violent, egomaniacal, psychopathic and murderous segment of the population trying to assert control over everyone else with varying degrees of success. It's as though we think that all of history stopped applying to us in the last 50 years or so, like state power is your friend and has given up its dream of absolute control merely because it has learned that it will encounter less resistence if it puts on a smiling face and tells you it's all for your own good. The smallest foresight can prevent the Orwellian police state that's coming and is becoming more prominent, but not when people think that burying their heads in the sand is any sort of prevention.
What you said above reminds me of that saying: "it's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
I suspect many people don't have a choice. Of the two broadband providers who serve me, all three do this. The local cable company (Charter) turned it on. When their tech support proved unable to even understand my complaint, let alone fix it, I bailed. Months later the new company (TDS Telecom) started doing it. At least their tech support understood me, but they were unable to turn it off. Sure, I can use OpenDNS, or pinch DNS service from elsewhere, but providing functional DNS is a reasonable baseline of service. Welcome to the race to bottom of quality, thanks to the "free" market.
I've been very happy running my own local, caching DNS server. It communicates directly with the root DNS servers, no middleman required. It's also noticably faster for normal Web browsing because there is less latency when a lookup must be performed and effectively zero latency when a result has already been cached. I've been doing this for years and years, before anyone (to my knowledge anyway) decided that hijacking DNS queries was ever a desirable business practice (it isn't).
What follows is my opinion, though it's an informed one. The only thing I'd strongly recommend is to avoid using BIND. It has a terrible security history, comparable to that of Sendmail, which is fitting since both hail from an era before the Internet was considered a hostile network. The recent rewrite of BIND doesn't seem to have done much to change that. I used to use djbdns but I've switched to maradns and have been extremely satisfied with it. It's small, lean, secure, and generally it does everything I want it to do and nothing that I don't want it to do.
When ISPs overstep their bounds and start hijacking traffic when I have neither asked them to do so nor want them to do so, my answer is simple. Please pardon how I put this, but to them I say "fuck that" and run my own. I'd recommend this approach to anybody, and not just because I believe that relative independence is a virtue.
It is that, and only that, which I intended to address. Though, I don't restrict myself to whether or not the law objects to a thing when I consider whether or not it is the right thing to do. It is for that reason that I spoke of this industry as compared to other industries and the powers they want to enjoy that would be considered unreasonable for other companies in other industries.
My point is simple. Whether it's called a copyright issue, a market issue, IP, licensing, DRM, or whatever, this is simply a power grab. Companies are trying to exert control over this market when they did not previously have this degree of control and it is not in our interests as customers to go along with that. That is all that I am saying. I think it's a big mistake to worry about fine intricate details if this causes us to ignore what should be universally recognized as an unwarranted power grab. Copyright law and its applications are complex; the concept of whether we should pretend like a power grab is anything other than a power grab is quite simple. Now I've had a few replies that responded to things I was not saying or points I was not making. I'm not trying to be rude but I'm waiting for anyone to respond to what I was actually getting at.
It's almost as though that were too simple. I really think most people don't consider how beautiful and simple that would be. Instead of the adversarial relationship between producers and customers that resembles an arms race between DRM and piracy, we could have a system based on mutual respect and appreciation. This truly is possible and would work very well and would suffer from none of the problems we currently have to deal with.
What we have now can be called a system of alienation. Everyone is assumed to be a selfish asshole who just wants to take advantage and what we get for that is widespread distrust and the feeling that different interests must always be in conflict. All of this because a few selfish assholes exist and we focus on them and on what they would do. I think the main obstacle to fixing that is the current cynacism which dictates that everyone is so selfish or incompetent that this would never work. That can be replaced by what you may call enlightened self-interest.
You may or may not see the parallel, but consider this. In ancient Athens, important public offices were assigned by lottery. That is, any and all citizens were expected to be ready and able to assume positions of great responsibility at any time. We think that would be such a disaster because we look at how people are now and we imagine how bad it would be if they were in charge. It appears to us to be a haphazard idea that begs for trouble. Do you know what really happened in Athens? The citizens rose to the occasion. They respected and appreciated their communities and felt like an integral part of them. They cared because their experience of community and of politics was hands-on, not reported to them second-hand with the expectation that they be spectators only. I think one of the worst things that has happened to America and the Western world in general is that we no longer believe in ourselves or each other, so to us this sounds absurd. What it really takes is the courage to believe in an ideal that can be realized, that things really don't have to continue to be the way that they are.