The Internet is not a polite society. As the GP said, you just have to accept the fact that anything can be said there at any time and adjust to it.
In a way, the idiots are doing you a favor. How hard is it to find out that a random stranger is a sick loser who should not be trusted or associated with--if they are being restrained in what they can say and do? It can be hard enough to end up costing you.
Every time somebody lets you know they are a waste of space at no appreciable cost to you, you have profited by how easy you got that information, and you can act accordingly.
It was starvation of the mind, exactly like today. Rational thought and discourse were so scarce, people had to make do with Marxist drivel, and like it. Stalinists shouted down anyone who asked for substance, or looked at consequences beyond immediate emotional gratification.
>>>Quite. While it's obviously true that there is only going to be a market leader, it in no way follows that that market leader will therefore have lousy security.
I agree. If Novell had won the Office Suite War and become market leader, it probably would have put much more emphasis on security in its products. On the other hand, it takes longer to bring products to market with good security and this hurts your chances of becoming the market leader.
>>>But did any one think for second what the effect of continually treating children like criminals is?
I think you have something there.
When I was a kid, if my parents believed that I had done something bad when I hadn't, I soon did it. After all, I was paying the price in loss of perceived virtue whether I did it or not.
When I was in grade school one of my best friends was the major hellion of the school. I spent some time at his house and saw that his parents spanked him a lot, for very little reason. He became emotionally hardened to it and seemed to think very little about consequences of his actions. It was like he was already way up the punishment ladder, so how much worse could it get? Later on he tended to steal things and later yet he became a drug dealer.
If Novell is forced to punt, after all the work they put into Linux, will anyone else be willing to risk tying their future to Linux afterward?
I've wondered, ever since Novell announced their plans to migrate to Linux, if the true roadblock to success wouldn't be the OSS community itself. There is a whiff of elitism in the OSS ranks that seems to want Linux to always be reserved for 'the right people'. Every time I start to get over that feeling I'm forced to look at a MAN page and it all comes back. There is a contingent inside Linux that does not want it to be user-friendly, or common in the business world, or used by for-profit companies.
If the OSS community torpedoes Novell, what do you think that will do to the long term prospects of Linux becoming an accepted alternative to Windows in the Enterprise? I'm sure that many do not care or would be happy to see Novell and then Linux fail in the competitive market.
If the web content disappears because I don't see the ads, then I'll happily live without the content. If my favorite TV shows go off the air because I skip most of the ads when I watch, I'll watch something else instead. If every TV show goes off the air, I'll read more books.
What I won't do is expose myself to more advertising than I have to.
"Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people." - George Bernard Shaw
In fact, Power Point could have saved the 1986 Challenger mission if it had been in use then. Some boring slide show presentations might have given the project team members a chance to doze off a little and regain their wits.
>>>My grandfather used to have a big black box in his lincoln that had a phone attached to it
I remember a guy in the news a few years ago who had something like that. He used it to eavesdrop on Newt's cell phone calls and then peddled them to the New York Times.
Surely it is technically feasible to build devices which will send back all the happy bits to the provider, saying that you are in total compliance with DRM, while actually recording the content for whatever timeshifting, commercial skipping, etc. you may desire.
If I can't watch a show without most of the commercials, I can't watch it. As I'm skipping commercials with my Media Center I often see something that interests me and I back up and watch it. But I will not watch some insulting piece of crap ad that is shown 47 times per broadcast day, even if it means not watching TV at all.
"IMO sites should assign a completely random password which cannot be changed. This would force people to write it down, instead of trying to remember it or reusing the same password for every account (another common security gaff). The password should be changed periodically, and if it is forgotten, that should require an in-depth interview and time-out period while the (real) user is contacted. That will give people incentive not to lose it."
In my opinion, and experience, this is the worst thing you can do. It virtually guarantees that all user account and password information will end up written on a Post-it Note, stuck either to the bottom of the keyboard or the side of the monitor.
I agree. As a B of A customer I have been made adequately aware of the Site Key feature by the bank's website. If I forget about it or chose to ignore its absence when logging in from remote computer, then the fault is not with B of A or the Site Key technology. The article is misleadingly titled. It should say, "Study shows that user incompetance and apathy can defeat web security features".
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan
>That is the great thing about the internet: decentralized >unstoppability. I bet this'll last a long time, and there's nothing >Bush can do about it! I bet they'll find many secret documents very, >very soon. They're all over the internet, so they can copy them down >to preserve the knowledge when Bush attacks.
Since the Bush Administration isn't following through on investigations or prosecutions of high-level leaks in the dead-tree media, what makes you think there is any chance of them launching 'attacks' on some repository of unverifiable documents on the Internet?
Information wants to be free. Disinformation wants to be everywhere.
The offer is now $250,000,000. Your geeky friends are saying "NO!", but if you stay in the game there's a 50 percent chance you'll end up with a one-way ticket to palookaville.
I hadn't seen it in that light before, but I agree with every word you've said.
I remember, at the end of one story, a character (or characters?) being specifically rewarded for taking a stand against their own friends. The lesson for children is that ultimately they need to learn to decide for themselves what is right, rather than thoughtlessly accepting the judgements of others.
In effect, what you are saying is true. A jury can always bring in a verdict of 'Not Guilty', regardless of the facts of the case (which is what the court expects them to determine) and the pertinent law (which the court expects them to accept from the judge).
However, if you as a juror go around talking about Jury Nullification and such you might very well get thrown off the case and even charged with misconduct. You can always vote to acquit the defendant, but you might not make it that far if you let it be known that you aren't accepting the limitations being pushed by the court.
In earlier times, American juries were informed of their rights by the court. Now, they have to inform themselves beforehand and avoid letting the court know what they've learned.
"We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read." - Mark Twain
In the early going I thought it was just a poorly done attempt at a Top 10 List. As I got nearer the end I realized it was a semi-autobiographical sketch and thought it was cute. I've seen worse. Although maybe not on SlashDot.
"Yeah, like, have a singer express her honest opinion of the leader of the good ol' free world."
I haven't heard of any singers being arrested, or audited, or denied visas for anti-Bush comments. Some singers have lost market share as a result of airing views that shocked their customers. That's the risk you take in a free market, nobody has to buy your stuff.
If you piss off a large enough segment of the market, advertisers won't want to have their products associated with you, because they think it will hurt them. So, you can lose positive media exposure for your work at the same time you are getting negative media exposure for your views.
Free speech is a right. Risk-free commercial speech is not.
Slashdot Mirror
>>> How is this acceptable in a polite society?
The Internet is not a polite society. As the GP said, you just have to accept the fact that anything can be said there at any time and adjust to it.
In a way, the idiots are doing you a favor. How hard is it to find out that a random stranger is a sick loser who should not be trusted or associated with--if they are being restrained in what they can say and do? It can be hard enough to end up costing you.
Every time somebody lets you know they are a waste of space at no appreciable cost to you, you have profited by how easy you got that information, and you can act accordingly.
>>> How can you call something international when your own interest is protecting something from a single country.
It's easy when your country has had a "World Series" since long before any other countries had teams.
>>> Never realized the famines of sixties
It was starvation of the mind, exactly like today. Rational thought and discourse were so scarce, people had to make do with Marxist drivel, and like it. Stalinists shouted down anyone who asked for substance, or looked at consequences beyond immediate emotional gratification.
>>>Quite. While it's obviously true that there is only going to be a market leader, it in no way follows that that market leader will therefore have lousy security.
I agree. If Novell had won the Office Suite War and become market leader, it probably would have put much more emphasis on security in its products. On the other hand, it takes longer to bring products to market with good security and this hurts your chances of becoming the market leader.
>>>But did any one think for second what the effect of continually treating children like criminals is?
I think you have something there.
When I was a kid, if my parents believed that I had done something bad when I hadn't, I soon did it. After all, I was paying the price in loss of perceived virtue whether I did it or not.
When I was in grade school one of my best friends was the major hellion of the school. I spent some time at his house and saw that his parents spanked him a lot, for very little reason. He became emotionally hardened to it and seemed to think very little about consequences of his actions. It was like he was already way up the punishment ladder, so how much worse could it get? Later on he tended to steal things and later yet he became a drug dealer.
If Novell is forced to punt, after all the work they put into Linux, will anyone else be willing to risk tying their future to Linux afterward?
I've wondered, ever since Novell announced their plans to migrate to Linux, if the true roadblock to success wouldn't be the OSS community itself. There is a whiff of elitism in the OSS ranks that seems to want Linux to always be reserved for 'the right people'. Every time I start to get over that feeling I'm forced to look at a MAN page and it all comes back. There is a contingent inside Linux that does not want it to be user-friendly, or common in the business world, or used by for-profit companies.
If the OSS community torpedoes Novell, what do you think that will do to the long term prospects of Linux becoming an accepted alternative to Windows in the Enterprise? I'm sure that many do not care or would be happy to see Novell and then Linux fail in the competitive market.
>>> 'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
What would firefox be showing you, that was worth looking at, if there were no women?
If the web content disappears because I don't see the ads, then I'll happily live without the content. If my favorite TV shows go off the air because I skip most of the ads when I watch, I'll watch something else instead. If every TV show goes off the air, I'll read more books.
What I won't do is expose myself to more advertising than I have to.
"Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people." - George Bernard Shaw
In fact, Power Point could have saved the 1986 Challenger mission if it had been in use then. Some boring slide show presentations might have given the project team members a chance to doze off a little and regain their wits.
Mod parent up.
The 1986 Challenger explosion was caused by sleep deprivation, not Power Point.
>>>My grandfather used to have a big black box in his lincoln that had a phone attached to it
I remember a guy in the news a few years ago who had something like that. He used it to eavesdrop on Newt's cell phone calls and then peddled them to the New York Times.
Wasn't the same guy I assume?
Surely it is technically feasible to build devices which will send back all the happy bits to the provider, saying that you are in total compliance with DRM, while actually recording the content for whatever timeshifting, commercial skipping, etc. you may desire.
If I can't watch a show without most of the commercials, I can't watch it. As I'm skipping commercials with my Media Center I often see something that interests me and I back up and watch it. But I will not watch some insulting piece of crap ad that is shown 47 times per broadcast day, even if it means not watching TV at all.
Hi,
Are you, by any chance, related to Emilio Lizardo?
I used to.
Then I read one too many New York Times news stories.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
You forgot:
"In Soviet Russia, Quantum Computer overlords YOU!"
"IMO sites should assign a completely random password which cannot be changed. This would force people to write it down, instead of trying to remember it or reusing the same password for every account (another common security gaff). The password should be changed periodically, and if it is forgotten, that should require an in-depth interview and time-out period while the (real) user is contacted. That will give people incentive not to lose it."
In my opinion, and experience, this is the worst thing you can do. It virtually guarantees that all user account and password information will end up written on a Post-it Note, stuck either to the bottom of the keyboard or the side of the monitor.
I agree. As a B of A customer I have been made adequately aware of the Site Key feature by the bank's website. If I forget about it or chose to ignore its absence when logging in from remote computer, then the fault is not with B of A or the Site Key technology. The article is misleadingly titled. It should say, "Study shows that user incompetance and apathy can defeat web security features".
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan
>That is the great thing about the internet: decentralized
>unstoppability. I bet this'll last a long time, and there's nothing
>Bush can do about it! I bet they'll find many secret documents very,
>very soon. They're all over the internet, so they can copy them down
>to preserve the knowledge when Bush attacks.
Since the Bush Administration isn't following through on investigations or prosecutions of high-level leaks in the dead-tree media, what makes you think there is any chance of them launching 'attacks' on some repository of unverifiable documents on the Internet?
Information wants to be free. Disinformation wants to be everywhere.
"Is there really a reason why people still use the word "Communist" as a sort of bogeyman?"
What reason is there why people should NOT still use the word "Communist" as a sort of bogeyman?
Which is better at impersonating the other in a believable fashion, liberals or conservatives?
The offer is now $250,000,000. Your geeky friends are saying "NO!", but if you stay in the game there's a 50 percent chance you'll end up with a one-way ticket to palookaville.
Deal, or No Deal?
Thanks for writing that.
I hadn't seen it in that light before, but I agree with every word you've said.
I remember, at the end of one story, a character (or characters?) being specifically rewarded for taking a stand against their own friends. The lesson for children is that ultimately they need to learn to decide for themselves what is right, rather than thoughtlessly accepting the judgements of others.
In effect, what you are saying is true. A jury can always bring in a verdict of 'Not Guilty', regardless of the facts of the case (which is what the court expects them to determine) and the pertinent law (which the court expects them to accept from the judge).
However, if you as a juror go around talking about Jury Nullification and such you might very well get thrown off the case and even charged with misconduct. You can always vote to acquit the defendant, but you might not make it that far if you let it be known that you aren't accepting the limitations being pushed by the court.
In earlier times, American juries were informed of their rights by the court. Now, they have to inform themselves beforehand and avoid letting the court know what they've learned.
"We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read." - Mark Twain
"The article in question was indeed funny."
In the early going I thought it was just a poorly done attempt at a Top 10 List. As I got nearer the end I realized it was a semi-autobiographical sketch and thought it was cute. I've seen worse. Although maybe not on SlashDot.
"Yeah, like, have a singer express her honest opinion of the leader of the good ol' free world."
I haven't heard of any singers being arrested, or audited, or denied visas for anti-Bush comments. Some singers have lost market share as a result of airing views that shocked their customers. That's the risk you take in a free market, nobody has to buy your stuff.
If you piss off a large enough segment of the market, advertisers won't want to have their products associated with you, because they think it will hurt them. So, you can lose positive media exposure for your work at the same time you are getting negative media exposure for your views.
Free speech is a right. Risk-free commercial speech is not.