Do you believe in the "network of trust" model of trust?
The name of a website is irrelevant. What counts is who points at the page and says "That page is trustworthy." The more reputable people who point at a page and say it's trustworthy, the better.
Everyone who is anyone in the security field is pointing at dcwg.org as trustworthy. The only people who aren't are the ones who don't know what dcwg.org is and are arguing from ignorance about the trustworthiness of dcwg.org.
And this boggles my mind that I'm still arguing this point.
Because his argument revolves around the assumption that only.gov websites are trustworthy.
Like a.gov website has never been hijacked. Ever.
Basing the trustworthiness on the name of a site is as ridiculous as basing the trustworthiness of an individual on how he looks, is dressed, family tree, or his name or any number of unrelated categories. It's just utter bollocks.
You are wrong and you are basing your argument on false assumptions - that "free" should always mean free of monetary cost, when even this idea in itself is disclaimed in the GPL.
I suggest you actually read about what you write about, because you are fractally wrong.
>Many users aren't capable of learning how to do it at all.
Then they can pay for binaries. I don't see what your bloody problem is. There is no debating any more about this issue. If you can't be arsed to learn something, then you deserve what you get. It's like being totally ignorant about how a car works, and then going to the mechanic and being puzzled and confused when you get the bill. It's your fault for not doing the least amount of research.
So only.gov,.mil, and.edu websites are trustworthy?
That there has never been a hijacked.gov or.edu website?
Did I just wake up after a dream that I was in 2012 and it's really 1992?
Using the name of a website, or a TLD to determine trustworthiness is absolute bollocks. I don't know how else to put it. For an argument to be valid, it has to work through the entire chain. Yours fails on basic assumptions - the basic assumption is that.gov websites are inherently trustworthy.
Your entire assertion is that since it's an.org instead of a.gov means it's not trustworthy, implying it's the same a.biz or something a spammer would use..org,.gov,.mil,.com,.edu, and.us were all the original TLDs.
I was using pine as an example. I'm not going to list every silly email client that can handle both imap and local folders, which is why I said "any client that can filter"
Under the ECPA of 1986, all mail left on the server after 180 days is fair game. Law enforcement does not need a warrant, just a subpoena, and you'd better cough up the mail. This is because back in 1986, all mail clients stored locally. Leaving your mail on the server all the time was considered rude, frankly. It's your shit, take it and get out of here.
26 years later, people are encouraged to leave their mail on the server for years. Google even goes so far as to tell people they don't ever have to delete. But the law has not changed. It's still the same old ECPA which assumes you don't give two cents for stuff you left on the server for more than 6 months.
Tbird and other mail clients allow you to grab the mail off the server and delete it off the server and store it locally. Once this is done, and the mail is in your possession only, it is no longer covered by the ECPA, but rather the 4'th and 5'th amendments to the US Constitution.
>Edweek, not ordinarily an unfriendly venue for Gates,
>not >ordinarily >unfriendly
Why. Why do you do this? Why give passive voice such a gigantic hug, kiss and grope up the skirt?
Do you mean ordinarily friendly, or usually friendly, or friendly with unfriendly articles being the exception? If so, say so. Remove extraneous logical operators and use active voice.
There is no evidence this will be useful or not, therefore the opinion on it's efficacy should be tentative at best.
But this is wrong. Your assertion right there ignores the entire history of the human race ever since we stopped attributing what happened to us to spirits in rocks and random chance and started figuring things out. Basic science has been the foundation for *all* of our technology that we use, all the way from Newton to the latest quantum physics. Quantum physics that once seemed ridiculously unrelated to the macro universe is now emerging as a way to do computing. The esoteric math of sphere packing and related math led to faster communications and compression.
I don't know how else to put it. We wouldn't be here talking over the Internet with computers and fiber optics and all that stuff if people hadn't done the basic theoretical physics that at the time had no practical applications. While new physics and math typically do not have immediate applications, new physics eventually leads to technology, always, since the mists of time. The drive to do so is likely genetic. It gave us an evolutionary advantage over the other animals on the Veldt. When you get down to it, "primitive" hunters are basically scientists. They observe, make hypotheses, test, and make conclusions about the universe. It led to newer techniques and weapons. The atlatl was brilliant in its simplicity and deadliness. Technologically and scientifically minded hunting groups outcompeted other groups. And here we are, thousands of years later with the same basic method of thinking about the universe, but more of everything.
Nobody can answer the question "what are we going to use higgs for?" right now. It's unanswerable. Whatever answer given will surely be wrong. The question is not if we can find an application or what for, it's when, to which I would say "eventually" since I am not clairvoyant. But while I am not clairvoyant, I am also not an idiot and I can see the history of math, physics and technology over the past thousands of years.
We should be striving to find out if it can, not bashing people for wondering and setting up straw men to burn.
If I seemed overly harsh, it's because I saw a reporter ask the same question of a physicist and I watched him founder, trying to answer an unanswerable question.
We spend billions on the LHC and related projects, not just because it's fun, but because we, as a species, have found that new science reliably gets us new stuff that we hadn't even dreamed of.
Really, if that's about as much as any regular person can be expected to care about this, and if it's really not such a big deal outside of the theoretical physics community, then why is it all over the news and assorted venues that may have a passing association with the popular science culture, but are not actually impacted by the discovery?
Your lack of imagination and lack of curiosity is not the problem of the theoretical physicists, or the people who come up with the eventual applied physics or the engineers who take all of that and make technology out of it.
Back when Watson, Crick, and Rosalind Franklin imaged the DNA molecule, nobody in their right mind would have come up with DNA bar-coding or any of the other applied science, engineering, and medicine that came out of what they did. Einstein never figured that we'd be using GPS because of general relativity.
Breakthroughs in science, time and again, eventually lead to applications. That's why it's in the news.
But you know what? Finding out how the universe, even ignoring all the applications, is fun. If it wasn't, nobody would do it, and we'd be still sitting outside our caves wondering where the Sun went when it dipped below the horizon.
The know-nothings such as yourself should have died out when Thag discovered that the wind covered blew sand in the tracks in his game's footprints and that more sand = older track.
>The LHC is not a practical test. See, I used the same word there as in "practical applications".. ah.. now I suppose you'll tell me that a radio receiver the size of the LHC is practical.
Oh wow, an argument in semantics.
Get fucked. I know I'm not going to change your mind so I won't bother.
I'm not anywhere near "basic science" and everything I do is around applied science, but I at least know where all this applied science and engineering comes from. Apparently you are apparently completely ignorant of those facts and don't care to know them.
You're the kind of person my rant was directed at.
>This is the question: is it possible to test "Higgs theory" without a large hadron collider? Are there any practical tests? If not, how could there be any practical applications?
Reading comprehension. How does it effin' work?
1. We don't know. We've only had one way to do it so far. 2. The LHC test *is* the practical test. 3. We don't know.
But since we can't answer `1 and 3 immediately, the LHC and Higgs are both useless to people who can't think more than 5 minutes into the future or about anything but themselves.
There are people out there who are pooh-poohing the Higgs Boson. "What can we do with it?" they ask, implying that we can't ever do anything with basic science almost sneeringly because they can't wrap their own tiny minds around why we do basic scientific research. They can't figure out why we try to discover why the Universe is the way it is.
James Clerk Maxwell unified electromagnetic theory in the 1860s. This was the basis for all modern electronics and radio, and had implications for special and general relativity. There were absolutely *zero* practical implications at the time. It took people a while to figure out what to do with his equations.
It wasn't until the 1920s that broadcast radio started to become common. This was a gap of 80 years, more or less. That does not even include the implications for the nuclear science and MRI and such. We are still using his equations and the math of those who followed, like Einstein, Szilard, Bose, Feynman, et alia, as the basis of new technology more than 140 years later. We probably won't figure out the full implications of the Higgs Boson in the next 200 years. So what if there are no immediate applications for the Higgs? Discovering how the universe works helped the "primitive" hunter-gatherer track his lunch, and it has helped modern man in more ways than can be described here.
But that's not enough for certain people. These are the people who decry the study of fruit fly genetics as a waste of time and money because they can't possibly ask someone why we do such research. They are politicians, wannabe politicians, media dunderheads, demagogues, and people who don't see advancement of basic science as the self-centered advancement of themselves. They are the Sarah Palins of the world. They are the ones who, if actually listened to, would put a halt to all basic science because, to them, it is "useless."
Because they think their 8'th grade (if that) misunderstanding of science and technology trumps that of people actually doing the hard work of basic science.
>I mean, it's all well and good to know that it exists, but what can we actually *DO* with that knowledge?
People who say stuff like this typically imply such knowledge is useless.
Basic scientific research never has immediate here-and-now effects. They may even be 100 years off in the future. Do you honestly think that Maxwell thought we'd be communicating over large distances because of his equations wirelessly as easily as we do?
He unified electromagnetic theory in 1865. It took until the 1920s for broadcast radio to become popular.
So you can take your "Well, uh, what can we use it for?" question and chuck it in the trash until we do come up with a use, because it's a nonsensical point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you believe in the "network of trust" model of trust?
The name of a website is irrelevant. What counts is who points at the page and says "That page is trustworthy." The more reputable people who point at a page and say it's trustworthy, the better.
Everyone who is anyone in the security field is pointing at dcwg.org as trustworthy. The only people who aren't are the ones who don't know what dcwg.org is and are arguing from ignorance about the trustworthiness of dcwg.org.
And this boggles my mind that I'm still arguing this point.
--
BMO
Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with bmo these days...
Flattered.
I'm sure I'll wind up changing your mind about me in the next month or so.
--
BMO
Seriously guy, why such derision?
Because his argument revolves around the assumption that only .gov websites are trustworthy.
Like a .gov website has never been hijacked. Ever.
Basing the trustworthiness on the name of a site is as ridiculous as basing the trustworthiness of an individual on how he looks, is dressed, family tree, or his name or any number of unrelated categories. It's just utter bollocks.
--
BMO
You are wrong and you are basing your argument on false assumptions - that "free" should always mean free of monetary cost, when even this idea in itself is disclaimed in the GPL.
I suggest you actually read about what you write about, because you are fractally wrong.
And this is me waving goodbye.
--
BMO
>Many users aren't capable of learning how to do it at all.
Then they can pay for binaries. I don't see what your bloody problem is. There is no debating any more about this issue. If you can't be arsed to learn something, then you deserve what you get. It's like being totally ignorant about how a car works, and then going to the mechanic and being puzzled and confused when you get the bill. It's your fault for not doing the least amount of research.
>week old thread
Let it go, man.
--
BMO
So only .gov, .mil, and .edu websites are trustworthy?
That there has never been a hijacked .gov or .edu website?
Did I just wake up after a dream that I was in 2012 and it's really 1992?
Using the name of a website, or a TLD to determine trustworthiness is absolute bollocks. I don't know how else to put it. For an argument to be valid, it has to work through the entire chain. Yours fails on basic assumptions - the basic assumption is that .gov websites are inherently trustworthy.
--
BMO
Your entire assertion is that since it's an .org instead of a .gov means it's not trustworthy, implying it's the same a .biz or something a spammer would use. .org, .gov, .mil, .com, .edu, and .us were all the original TLDs.
Your argument rests on nonsense.
--
BMO
>nondescript .org
DCWG is DNS Changer Working Group
How is it nondescript? It's a friggin' acronym for the name of the group.
Tell me, how descriptive is slashdot.org? Why are you here on a site that has a nondescript.org name?
>modded informative
Right. There's no accounting for taste among mods.
--
BMO
But that wasn't the point.
I was using pine as an example. I'm not going to list every silly email client that can handle both imap and local folders, which is why I said "any client that can filter"
--
BMO
>What MUAs for which I can expect future development, support IMAP with local mbox?
Any that does filtering. Honestly, if a MUA does filtering it can fling mail to any folder - local or remote.
BTW, Pine supports local folders and IMAP. It's done so for a very long time.
--
BMO
Ah yes, the "If you have nothing to hide, why worry" canard.
>anonymous coward
But of course.
--
BMO
You can tell IMAP to delete the mail off the server.
Check your client.
--
BMO
Under the ECPA of 1986, all mail left on the server after 180 days is fair game. Law enforcement does not need a warrant, just a subpoena, and you'd better cough up the mail. This is because back in 1986, all mail clients stored locally. Leaving your mail on the server all the time was considered rude, frankly. It's your shit, take it and get out of here.
26 years later, people are encouraged to leave their mail on the server for years. Google even goes so far as to tell people they don't ever have to delete. But the law has not changed. It's still the same old ECPA which assumes you don't give two cents for stuff you left on the server for more than 6 months.
Tbird and other mail clients allow you to grab the mail off the server and delete it off the server and store it locally. Once this is done, and the mail is in your possession only, it is no longer covered by the ECPA, but rather the 4'th and 5'th amendments to the US Constitution.
--
BMO
Your anger.
It pleases me.
--
BMO
>Edweek, not ordinarily an unfriendly venue for Gates,
>not
>ordinarily
>unfriendly
Why. Why do you do this? Why give passive voice such a gigantic hug, kiss and grope up the skirt?
Do you mean ordinarily friendly, or usually friendly, or friendly with unfriendly articles being the exception? If so, say so. Remove extraneous logical operators and use active voice.
Your readers will thank you.
--
BMO
There is no evidence this will be useful or not, therefore the opinion on it's efficacy should be tentative at best.
But this is wrong. Your assertion right there ignores the entire history of the human race ever since we stopped attributing what happened to us to spirits in rocks and random chance and started figuring things out. Basic science has been the foundation for *all* of our technology that we use, all the way from Newton to the latest quantum physics. Quantum physics that once seemed ridiculously unrelated to the macro universe is now emerging as a way to do computing. The esoteric math of sphere packing and related math led to faster communications and compression.
I don't know how else to put it. We wouldn't be here talking over the Internet with computers and fiber optics and all that stuff if people hadn't done the basic theoretical physics that at the time had no practical applications. While new physics and math typically do not have immediate applications, new physics eventually leads to technology, always, since the mists of time. The drive to do so is likely genetic. It gave us an evolutionary advantage over the other animals on the Veldt. When you get down to it, "primitive" hunters are basically scientists. They observe, make hypotheses, test, and make conclusions about the universe. It led to newer techniques and weapons. The atlatl was brilliant in its simplicity and deadliness. Technologically and scientifically minded hunting groups outcompeted other groups. And here we are, thousands of years later with the same basic method of thinking about the universe, but more of everything.
Nobody can answer the question "what are we going to use higgs for?" right now. It's unanswerable. Whatever answer given will surely be wrong. The question is not if we can find an application or what for, it's when, to which I would say "eventually" since I am not clairvoyant. But while I am not clairvoyant, I am also not an idiot and I can see the history of math, physics and technology over the past thousands of years.
We should be striving to find out if it can, not bashing people for wondering and setting up straw men to burn.
If I seemed overly harsh, it's because I saw a reporter ask the same question of a physicist and I watched him founder, trying to answer an unanswerable question.
We spend billions on the LHC and related projects, not just because it's fun, but because we, as a species, have found that new science reliably gets us new stuff that we hadn't even dreamed of.
--
BMO
I should have proofread that more.
--
BMO
Really, if that's about as much as any regular person can be expected to care about this, and if it's really not such a big deal outside of the theoretical physics community, then why is it all over the news and assorted venues that may have a passing association with the popular science culture, but are not actually impacted by the discovery?
Your lack of imagination and lack of curiosity is not the problem of the theoretical physicists, or the people who come up with the eventual applied physics or the engineers who take all of that and make technology out of it.
Back when Watson, Crick, and Rosalind Franklin imaged the DNA molecule, nobody in their right mind would have come up with DNA bar-coding or any of the other applied science, engineering, and medicine that came out of what they did. Einstein never figured that we'd be using GPS because of general relativity.
Breakthroughs in science, time and again, eventually lead to applications. That's why it's in the news.
But you know what? Finding out how the universe, even ignoring all the applications, is fun. If it wasn't, nobody would do it, and we'd be still sitting outside our caves wondering where the Sun went when it dipped below the horizon.
The know-nothings such as yourself should have died out when Thag discovered that the wind covered blew sand in the tracks in his game's footprints and that more sand = older track.
--
BMO
>The LHC is not a practical test. See, I used the same word there as in "practical applications".. ah.. now I suppose you'll tell me that a radio receiver the size of the LHC is practical.
Oh wow, an argument in semantics.
Get fucked. I know I'm not going to change your mind so I won't bother.
--
BMO
No, you stupid fuck.
I'm not anywhere near "basic science" and everything I do is around applied science, but I at least know where all this applied science and engineering comes from. Apparently you are apparently completely ignorant of those facts and don't care to know them.
You're the kind of person my rant was directed at.
--
BMO
>This is the question: is it possible to test "Higgs theory" without a large hadron collider? Are there any practical tests? If not, how could there be any practical applications?
Reading comprehension. How does it effin' work?
1. We don't know. We've only had one way to do it so far.
2. The LHC test *is* the practical test.
3. We don't know.
But since we can't answer `1 and 3 immediately, the LHC and Higgs are both useless to people who can't think more than 5 minutes into the future or about anything but themselves.
--
BMO
>It has to be disseminated and then other scientists need to look over it all.
But the other scientists are at CERN already.
That's what you don't get. You think that CERN is a monolithic entity and not something like an academic institution.
>As to your insult, you make me sad
Tough. I've had enough of arguments from ignorance from people who think they matter.
--
BMO
There are people out there who are pooh-poohing the Higgs Boson. "What can we do with it?" they ask, implying that we can't ever do anything with basic science almost sneeringly because they can't wrap their own tiny minds around why we do basic scientific research. They can't figure out why we try to discover why the Universe is the way it is.
James Clerk Maxwell unified electromagnetic theory in the 1860s. This was the basis for all modern electronics and radio, and had implications for special and general relativity. There were absolutely *zero* practical implications at the time. It took people a while to figure out what to do with his equations.
It wasn't until the 1920s that broadcast radio started to become common. This was a gap of 80 years, more or less. That does not even include the implications for the nuclear science and MRI and such. We are still using his equations and the math of those who followed, like Einstein, Szilard, Bose, Feynman, et alia, as the basis of new technology more than 140 years later. We probably won't figure out the full implications of the Higgs Boson in the next 200 years. So what if there are no immediate applications for the Higgs? Discovering how the universe works helped the "primitive" hunter-gatherer track his lunch, and it has helped modern man in more ways than can be described here.
But that's not enough for certain people. These are the people who decry the study of fruit fly genetics as a waste of time and money because they can't possibly ask someone why we do such research. They are politicians, wannabe politicians, media dunderheads, demagogues, and people who don't see advancement of basic science as the self-centered advancement of themselves. They are the Sarah Palins of the world. They are the ones who, if actually listened to, would put a halt to all basic science because, to them, it is "useless."
Because they think their 8'th grade (if that) misunderstanding of science and technology trumps that of people actually doing the hard work of basic science.
Fuck them with a rake.
--
BMO
>but there's not a one of us who's liable to be impacted by this discovery in any way that I can foresee.
So?
--
BMO
>I mean, it's all well and good to know that it exists, but what can we actually *DO* with that knowledge?
People who say stuff like this typically imply such knowledge is useless.
Basic scientific research never has immediate here-and-now effects. They may even be 100 years off in the future. Do you honestly think that Maxwell thought we'd be communicating over large distances because of his equations wirelessly as easily as we do?
He unified electromagnetic theory in 1865. It took until the 1920s for broadcast radio to become popular.
So you can take your "Well, uh, what can we use it for?" question and chuck it in the trash until we do come up with a use, because it's a nonsensical point of view.
--
BMO