I'm not talking about farm life. I'm talking about being able to go camping in the woods when you want or enjoy the pleasures of being out in nature and away from the urban sprawl. Many of us have this option today, but our posterity might not. And exposure to dangerous chemicals is largely a product of industrialization, not of a "natural life".
There's no reason why we can't preserve our environment without having to revert to an agrarian society if that's what you are implying. It's not like if we stop polluting all of our technology will cease to work, so I don't see why you correlate environmental destruction with ease of living.
There's also a large number of people who are allergic to the synthetic materials that are increasingly being used in everyday items. For some of them, it is so bad as these chemicals are so pervasive and hard to identify that they are forced to take refuge in the country-side where these synthetic allergens don't exist.
An operating system (OS) is a software program that manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. A key component of system software, the OS performs basic tasks, such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing the processing of instructions, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking, and managing files.
...
Security
Security as it pertains to the operating system is the ability to authenticate users prior to access, categorize the level of access the user has, and limit access based on a policy placed by administration. Typically an operating system offers (hosts) various services to other network computers and users. These services are usually provided through ports or numbered access points beyond the operating systems network address. Typically services include offerings such as file sharing, print services, email, web sites, and file transfer protocols.
At the front line of security are hardware devices known as firewalls. At the operating system level there are various software firewalls. A software firewall is configured to allow or deny traffic to a service running on top of the operating system. Therefore one can install and be running an insecure service, such as telnet or ftp, and not have to be threatened by a security breach because the firewall would deny all traffic trying to connect to the service on that port.
-- Operating System, Wikipedia
Dodge? I simply asked you to inform yourself of the basic definitions of the discussion--something you should have already familiarized yourself with if you want to have a productive discussion. An anti-virus clearly plays no role in the purpose of an OS, nor is it a key component in building a secure OS--unless perhaps you have a different definition of an OS that you'd like to share?
There's a hell of a lot of people on Slashdot who seem to think it can, however.
Are you familiar with ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM? You can't seem to build a logically sound argument as to why not packaging an anti-virus with Vista would make the OS inherently less secure. OS X does not come with a pre-packaged AV, nor do most Linux distros, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, nor pretty much all other OSes. The fact that it is something that would be packaged along side the operating system suggests that it's not an integral part of the OS or OS security.
So what is the definition of a secure operating system ? What OSes meet it ? What OSes don't ?
There's no such thing as a perfectly secure OS, but there are relatively secure OS's--these are operating systems that are secure by design (rational security policies), have relatively few exploitable bugs (few system vulnerabilities), and have secure default configurations (easy to secure by the average user). This doesn't entail protecting the user from himself. If an AV detects a virus, then chances are the OS has already been infected. If anything, AV's encourage users to be stupid about what they download since they think the AV will pick up all viruses and they will be more likely to proceed downloading and executing suspicious attachments. You can't build a foolproof system, the trick is to educate the user so they don't act foolishly.
What outstanding remote exploits of that nature are there in Windows ?
If you need a definition for those terms, look it up on wikipedia. We're not talking metaphysics here. An operating system's purpose is not to stop human stupidity. The definition of a secure operating system isn't an operating system that prevents users from acting like idiots.
There are plenty of non-PEBKAC virus vectors in all windows operating systems that MS should be focusing on rather than trying to compensate for intentional execution of malicious code. What good is an operating system that protects you from viral e-mail attachments when there exist exploits that allow attackers to take over your system remotely without you doing anything? That's like building a car with really advanced airbags but has a gastank that spontaneously explodes. You can prevent e-mail viruses from infecting your computer by exercising common sense. You can't prevent a remote attack exploiting a buffer overflow flaw in the system.
There are millions of ways to secure Vista other than packaging an anti-virus with it. These are the ways that Vista should be securing Vista because other companies can't. A MS anti-virus can still be sold separately just as Office is. This is all just common sense. Ofcourse if you rely on MS marketing speak instead of reasoning through the situation, you'd come to the conclusion that the EU wants MS to release an insecure OS...
And in the real world, an intelligent developer/admin can easily detect someone signing up for 10,000 accounts in a single day. And even if they manage to create the accounts, it would not be difficult to detect organized scripted attacks on such a large scale. If 1000 users who've signed up in the same day digg the exact same stories in the same time-frame, post no comments, setup no profiles, login from the same IPs, and don't perform any actions distinct from each other, then they are clearly bots. You might be able to get away with 10 or 20 accounts using scripted bots, but any statistically significant number would be easily to detect with a some clever programming.
And--reality check--one person with one hundred votes is a drop in the bucket on a site like digg. With the size the userbase on digg, if a good story gets buried by someone gaming the system, it will just get submitted by others users who've stumbled on the same story and don't see it on the frontpage. In the end, the community gets what it wants and the frontpage will reflect the community's interests. A really good story will have thousands of people voting for it. Someone gaming the system might be able to bury the stories that generate moderate or little interest, but they can't counter the popularity of strong stories.
Also, organizing vote blocs is still expressing the voice of the community in a democratic way. So what if people want to organize? It's still one vote per person. You're just whining and crying about people with shared interests leveraging their collective voting power to vote more effectively. This is a natural occurence in any participatory democratic system. There's no abuse going on here.
That seems like evidence that the system works. You game the system--it may work for a while, but eventually people catch on and--you effectively get banned from the site by the community. The site admins don't have to do anything, the community polices itself. What the masses judge as misconduct will naturally be detected and weeded out. This appears to be more effective than any kind of genius abuse detection script.
As for the burial processes being unbalanced, that simply requires modifications to the weight system. It's not a problem in the social design of the site. If there's a removed stories bin where people can vote to reinstate stories, then the problem is solved. Even without it, if it's really a good story, others will submit the story and it will keep being submitted by people until it actually shows up on the frontpage. That's the beauty of such a site. The collaborative filtering process directly reflects the community's interests.
There was on major incident a long time ago when Hussein used mustard gas on kurds in Iraq, but it wasn't a regular occasion as many gov. leaders would like us to believe.
That would actually be better as opening fire into a crowd of protestors would probably not be tolerated by the public, whereas blasting them with microwaves might. These technologies allow the government to strip us of the right to peaceful protest.
I don't think arresting people is the solution. That only addresses the symptoms of a greater problem--that is, poverty. In a lot of areas they already try implementing your suggested solution but it's just more mispent tax dollars that don't make much of a difference. I think if all other developed nations can eliminate the problem of homelessness we shouldn't have a problem eliminating it if the public were actually so inclined. But as of right now we would rather disparage the poor and treat them with spite rather than help them. A large number of homeless people are also mentally ill, and at least in my community the local government is unwilling to create facilities for treating these people. The only solution I see to the problem would be gradual cultural change towards a less selfish and more caring society where people are sympathetic to the hardships of others and a spirit of cooperation and altruism may be fostered.
But back to the topic at hand... I think our society has become controlled by fear to the point where we willingly oppress ourselves at the prodding of the media and the fear-mongering government and the industries they represent. We won't let our kids go on social networking sites, which can be very emotionally fulfilling and provide meaningful social interaction to enrich one's life, because we're afraid of internet stalkers and pedophiles even though the chances of one bumping to a child-predator online is probably as high as bumping into one at the mall or any other public place where people gather. We've let the media paint these scary images of a serial-killer around every corner and a child-rapist in every chatroom, thus we're led to believe that the world we live in is far more perilous than it actually is. I think this attitude due to public paranoia has largely contributed to a more detached society where individuals purposely isolate themselves from one another.
I agree. Each generation seems to have its own set of spiritual/emotional struggles aggravated by the particular "cultural bloc" they grew up in. We look at the kids today and see all these pronounced issues that they have, but they probably look at their parents and see a different set of social pathology characteristic of that generation. There were no good 'ol days to speak of. Only reactionaries delude themselves with such fantasies. Despite the flaws of our current society and culture, significant progress has been made in all fronts. The only thing that can be said that we're losing is our environment and natural resources. That is something that future generations may have much worse than us. People are exposed to far more industrial chemicals than before and are exposed to less and less of our natural environment. This may ultimately have a negative impact on the health of future generations.
Accessibility components? gee, none of the sites i've built have used these "accessibility components", yet they work just fine with screen readers... maybe you should do some research like i said before before you start drawing conclusions based on ignorance of the facts. All that is required is for certain elements of the site that can't be read by screen readers to be remedied. As the article states it's not difficult or costly. I'm pretty sure that any company that runs an e-commerce site has a full-time web development team. No "accessbility components" need to be designed or purchased. And again you assume that all societal progress and technological/medical innovations have been driven by financial greed--that's very questionable...
Secondly, where are you asked to pay money for the disabled here? Even if making sites compliant with accessibility guidelines cost a lot of money (which they don't, as the ADA only requires accessibility considerations to be made when they it is reasonable and easily achievable), in any kind of society there are distributed costs. Your taxes may go to roads, police stations, schools, etc. which you may never use. Are you going to start complaining that part of your tax dollars go towards buying school books and supplies for kids that aren't your own, or towards repairing a road that you never drive on? Get over it.
Lastly, you really ought to take a class in formal logic. Saying that "if you think life is unfair and we shouldn't do anything about it, then stop complaining about X being unfair" does not imply that I agree that X is unfair. But it's certainly illogical or hypocritical at least to say that the disabled need to accept that life is simply unfair, and then go on to complain that the judge's ruling is unfair. So let's try this again, did I say that the ruling was unfair towards Target, or did I simply state that you shouldn't be making that complaint in the first place if you think unfairness is just a fact of life to be accepted? And just so you don't get confused again by me reiterating your claims in my argument, I am not agreeing with you that unfairness should be accepted and that we shouldn't do anything about social inequities. That's exactly what I'm arguing against in fact, but your reading comprehension skills or your deductive reasoning abilities are somewhat lacking apparently, and I have to spell every letter out for you.
I don't know what gave you the idea tha target has to pay any fees in order for their site to be compliant with accessibility standards. Please read the article and the ADA before making even more of an ass of yourself. I haven't contradicted myself anywhere. It was natural for human beings to die from dental problems before the age of 40 up until the last few hundred years of human history. It was natural for the strong to dominate the weak. It's natural for people to die of cancer. None of this implies that these things ought to simply be accepted and that it's wrong for human beings to do something about these natural ailments and inequities. It seems you are the one who possesses questionable reasoning skills. If you think life is unfair and that's just the way it ought to be then stop complaining about how this ruling is unfair to Target or other business owners...
That's the whole argument genius: whether what the EU demands is really asking MS to make their OS less secure. They aren't asking MS to put security holes in their OS or implement poor security policies. They are simply requiring that MS not package their OS with an anti-virus program (something which is not a functional component of any operating system, but is rather a non-component application). An OS does not need to be packaged with an anti-virus to be secure. MS can simply put out more secure code in the first place and implement more intelligent security policies. An anti-virus packaged with the OS doesn't make the OS more inherently secure. The anti-virus is simply there is resolve inherent security flaws. It would actually allow MS to be more sloppy with their security settings and debugging process.
Your claim (and MS's) is basically like saying that not allowing MS to package the OS with Word would be forcing MS to build a less functional OS. Well, a Word process isn't an integral component to an operating system. MS can still sell an anti-virus package just as they do a word processing suite, but if they want to secure their OS, they should just be more careful about not creating as many security vulnerabilities and perhaps issuing patches in a more timely fashion.
Ever hear of a false dichotomy? Requiring signed code isn't the only way to secure an operating system, and it's not a perfect solution itself, which also presents other issues, some of which have already been mentioned.
I don't think the cost to independent software development is really worth the "security" this method adds.
Exactly. If you're going to create a social application that relies on input from the user to shape the content of the site, then you should be ready to give the community what it wants. The community knows better what it wants than appointed moderators or paid admins. It may not turn out the way that you want it to turn out, and there will always be discontent users, but ultimately the community has voiced what it wants and there's little you can or should do about it.
On large popular sites like digg, it would require an inordinate amount of bots to achieve this, and it wouldn't be hard to detect and block bot sign-ups and orchestrated abuses. Someone with malicious intentions would have to possess fake accounts which compose of 5-10% of the user base to really manipulate the social application against the spirit of the community, otherwise their influence would be statistically insignificant. On a site with 1 million+ users that isn't really practical and so far there's been no evidence of such an orchestrated attack being successfully pulled off. Ofcourse, there will always be people who won't like how the community generally votes/moderates and disagrees with the general attitude of the community, and these people will ofcourse try to blame it on social applications being fundamentally flawed or on some malicious conspiracy by a group of users. But the most obvious/likely scenario is just that the way things are is what the community happens to like things, and that complaints are just coming from personal frustration towards the democratic will of the community.
The whole point of these social applications relying on user input is so that distributed self-moderation by the community occurs. There is no trust issue as long as the user-base is large enough. If there's 500,000 equally powerful users then it's hard for a handful of users to abuse the system. It would require a large scale conspiracy to really skew the moderation system, thus appointed moderators aren't necessary and the admins have very little policing to do. The community will shape the site to what they want.
It sounds like you just want to design your own mashup, which you can already do with a lot of web services. This doesn't require AJAX or applets. It just requires a public API (actually, you can easily get around this as well). AJAX isn't anything like flash applications or java applets either. Like others have said, it would be useless installed onto your computer. AJAX is just a UI enhancement. The application is still run serverside. You can build a mashup to access the services if you're clever, but the AJAX interface itself is irrelevent to your goals.
I don't know when AJAX has ever been an end in and of itself to professional developers. Sites like Yahoo, Gmail, Flickr, Last.fm, etc. have always been using these technologies to simply improve usability and convenience of the interface in the ways that you are only now experiencing. This has been the expressed purpose of AJAX from the beginning. It just happens that a lot of Slashdotters decided early on that it was trendy to dismiss AJAX off hand as an emerging web trend because of its immediate popularity (it's not cool if everyone knows about and talks about it) and perpetuated a lot of baseless criticisms about the widespread adoption of AJAX. But these days it's harder and harder to say that AJAX is just a fad or bad idea when nearly every popular web application has adopted it as part of the shift towards "Web 2.0". Clearly those of us who were interested in learning more about this set of technologies weren't simply playing into the media-hype Web 2.0 internet bubble, or whatever the naysayers want to call it.
Even now you still see trolls in any AJAX-related Slashdot article making pointless remarks about how overhyped and useless AJAX is. However, I think this will eventually go away as AJAX-enhanced interfaces become ubiquitous on the web. Even Slashdot itself has adopted a more Web 2.0 feel to its interface. The whiners are rarely web developers themselves, and those that are probably won't get very far in their careers with that kind of reactionary attitude towards advancements in web development. Personally I'm pretty excited about all the news things I've learned how to do using AJAX which can help me polish my web applications and explore new avenues through the GUI possibilities.
Last time I checked, the public accomodations clause in the Americans with Disabilities Act included commercial services. The ADA is there to guarantee the disabled access to basic goods and services and protect them from discrimination based on their disabilities. Why do you think commercial facilities and accomodations such as transportation services need to meet accessibility requirements? Just because there are stores other than Target doesn't mean they can discriminate against a particular minority. And ADA compliance only requires accessibility considerations to be effected when they are readily available. Target isn't being asked to design some new internet technology. This is akin to adding a wheelchair ramp to a store building.
And I have read Atlas Shrugged. I read it in 11th grade and realized that, while Ayn Rand is a talented storyteller, objectivism is the biggest load of crap in the world, embraced only by Ivy league elitists. There is no such thing as a level playing field or equality of opportunity. Nature does not provide such a thing. So in order to create an equitable society, man has to establish social compensators. That is why we have social welfare programs. If policies requiring wheelchair access to public accomodations and commercial facilities were not imposed through the ADA, then what incentive would building owners have to provide access to the disabled? Those who tout free market capitalism as the panacea to all social problems don't seem to realize that some minorities, such as the disabled, do not compose of a large enough market to persuade most store owners to accomodate their needs. This is why up until the ADA, the disabled community was largely barred from the majority of public accomodations and denied access to goods and services basic to daily living.
Objectivism is a philosophy of selfishness and apathy towards the plight of others. This is not suprising as it is basically a moral philosophy derived from the economic theory of capitalism, twisting personal virtues such as self-reliance into excuses for being selfish and callous towards the less fortunate. Only the Ayn Rand Institute could possibly argue that charity is immoral and that it's destroying America. And only an objectivist would claim that the world is carried on the shoulders of the rich entreprenuers and industrialists, while the lower class are simply freeloading bottom feeders.
You can nonchalanty tell the disabled to simply shop at a different store because you don't face the challenges they face on a daily basis and are unwilling to put yourself in their position. You seem to be more concerned that Target, a rich corporation, has to make a few simple modifications to their site than with the fact that the visually impaired have to search for hours to find a site that they can make a simple purchase from because most sites are inaccessible to them. I would say that you have misplaced priorities. It's easy to tell the less fortunate not to whine so much when you have no sense of empathy I suppose.
Try to imagine if you couldn't access the vast majority of popular websites that you use on a regular basis because no one bothers to meet simple accessibility guidelines. The already difficult lives of a lot of disabled people can be made a great deal easier by simply implementing these trivial guidelines. Just because you read some book where altruism is painted as societal evil and selfish elitism is painted as a heroic virtue does mean you have to subscribe to such absurd beliefs. A 900-page discourse on sophistry does not imply justice or truth. Something tells me that those rich Yale MBAs calling for cuts on welfare and state-funded healthcare are motivated by little more than selfish greed. If you want proof, think a little harder about what you are saying, or visit the Ayn Rand Institute's website and read some of the backwards-thinking double-speak they publish. Objectivism is good philosophy if your objective in life is accumulating a lot of wealth, but otherwise it is morally bankrupt and not grounded in reality. Only such a philosophy would place more worth in a rich corporate ceo than a poor working mother.
John Stuart Mill did indeed place much higher value on "higher" pleasures that were supposed to be more intellectual of nature, but like you said, most of what goes on in your mind is not important in a court of law.
Wrong. Our legal system takes intent into account when prosecuting criminals; it's the difference between manslaughter and first, second, and third degree murder. This is a significant deviation from utilitarian ethics. By utilitarian ethics, at least the last 3 crimes would be judged the same. And your mental health is also taken into consideration during sentencing. That's why those judged to be criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial are prosecuted differently from someone judged to have good mental health.
Also, you can claim mental anguish and emotional damages and receive reparations for these things in a court of law, so our legal system is certainly concerned with more than material/monetary claims. Defamation doesn't have to cause monetary damages to be defamation. All that matters is that it is false and that it damages one's reputation.
As for the value of money/physical/material utility(or similarly dis-utility) it is extremely high in legal-moral terms. If you steal 10 million dollars from a bank (federally insured money), your punishment will be far more severe than if you (untruthfully) defame an innocent wife who suffers a nervous breakdown. As you can see, Mill is not alive in our courts.
That doesn't illustrate that money or physical crimes are weighed more heavily by our court of law. It just illustrates that stealing 10 million dollars is considered a greater crime than causing someone to have a nervous breakdown, and this isn't always the case either. First off, how the money is stolen and how the nervous breakdown was caused matters significantly in our legal system. By utilitarianism, or welfarist consequentialism, all that matters are the consequences. But someone who steals 10 million dollars by armed robbery and someone who steals 10 million dollars through grand larceny are going to get different sentences. Likewise, causing someone emotional damages from defamatory remarks versus causing someone emotional damages through child-abuse are going to get you different sentences. This also directly conflicts with utilitarian ethics.
Also, you claim that utilitarians only consider material/monetary consequences as having measurable utility, and that other consequences are simply "sins"--this makes no sense whatsoever. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism that weighs outcomes based on their effect on societal welfare--in other words, happiness of the whole. The utility of money or material goods are still measured through the pleasure/displeasure they contribute to; they have no utility in and of themselves. Nowhere does "sin" ever come into the equation. "Sin" is not even in the utilitarian vocabulary, and I have yet to encounter a utilitarian philosophy which incorporates that idea or uses that word to describe the utilitarian framework.
Lastly, if our legal system weren't concerned with non-material crimes, then why is perjury a crime. And why is treason--a crime of disloyalty to the nation--punishable by death.
I am of course not arguing about the utilitarian model does not make some rational decisions..it makes simple, utility-maximizing decisions that can help a community survive (because life is of greatest utility and death is the worst that can happen).
Utility does not mean what you think it means. Clearly utilitiarianism isn't applied the way you think it's applied in our legal system. Your criticisms of our legal system, even if they were valid, have nothing to do with utilitarianism by any measure. Pretty much everything you've claimed about utilitarianism has been incorrect if not incoherent. You still don't seem to grasp how utility is defined or
In other words, you are not talking about utilitarianism at all, and what you call "utility" is not what is being referred to as utility in mills' utilitarianism. So I don't know why you keep bringing up "utilitarianism" and the "utilitarian model" when clearly that isn't what you are discussing. The problem isn't in utilitarianism, it's in what you miscontrue to be utilitarianism. Our legal system is not based on utilitarianism, if that's what you mean.
Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. None of what you've said has anything to do with that, and little to do with the issue the OP raised.
Debt collectors are not allowed to call your employer and tell them you owe money as, it's not only a form of harassment, but it also endangers your employment and may prevent you from ever getting out of debt if the debt collectors keep contacting all of your employers. Since debt collectors can put black marks on your credit report, if employers all require full disclosure of your credit history, debt collectors would be able to harass you in the same way and cause the same unemployment problem as current laws try to prohibit--in fact, it might be even more permanent as the black marks would remain even if you do get out of debt.
Applying utilitarian principles to this, it would make more sense to have protections set up so the indebted can eventually get out of debt, as the debtor paying off his debts has far more utility to society as whole than the debtor being kept in constant debt and simply being perpetually punished for being in debt. This is a social/moral dilemma where the application of utilitarianism would seem to support what most would consider a rational choice of action. Society would benefit far more from those in debt working to pay off their debts than being unemployed and contributing little or nothing to society.
As to your example, the first case which you claim to be defamation would not fall under defamation legally in the U.S. as truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims in this country. The second case is not a legal issue either and has nothing to do with U.S. laws. Also, I would note that utilitarianism itself makes no consideration for intent, and utility simply means the net happiness/pleasure for society. Utilitarianism makes the distinction between various orders of pleasure, out of which money is likely a pretty low order pleasure. When faced with a difficult decision one is to weigh the outcomes of each action and choose the one which produces the most net pleasure (or least net suffering) for society as a whole, weighing higher order pleasures like intellectual advancement, spiritual growth, etc. more heavily than base/wordly pleasures like lust, money, physical appetites, etc.
Utilitarianism may be arguably flawed, but it really depends on interpretation and yours seems to be way off, atleast if you're talking about John Stuart Mills' utilitarian philosophy. I think you may have it confused with materialism, or you may be misinterpreting what utility means in this sense.
Do you always make assumptions about people who disagree with you so you can go off on completely irrelevant strawman rants?
As it happens, I do do a lot of volunteer work around the community I live in. I've been involved in service organizations since I was a freshman in high school. That said, this is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Some people have obviously shown a lot of spite towards the plaintiffs in the article for simply attempting to have have the ADA applied to internet websites. What is wrong with criticizing that kind of petty response? Does someone need to be working for the NAACP to be able to voice their opinion against prejudice and discrimination?
Clearly you're unable to refute what I've said so you've decided to rant off about baseless assumptions about me. You fool yourself into thinking that you've made a piercing analysis of your opponent but you only end up looking crazy and self-deluded to others. Do you know me? Do you know what kind of person I am? How do you know that I wouldn't lift a finger to help another person? You must be some kind of psychic I guess (albeit clearly a very poor one)...
Why is it idiotic to protect the disabled from being discriminated against? Is the Civil Rights Act also idiotic? Maybe it only appears idiotic to you because you can't think beyond yourself. For a vast number of Americans it's not idiotic at all, and it's the only thing that's reduced many of the hardships that they previously faced due to the lack of necessary infrastructure to accomdate the disabled in our society.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about farm life. I'm talking about being able to go camping in the woods when you want or enjoy the pleasures of being out in nature and away from the urban sprawl. Many of us have this option today, but our posterity might not. And exposure to dangerous chemicals is largely a product of industrialization, not of a "natural life".
There's no reason why we can't preserve our environment without having to revert to an agrarian society if that's what you are implying. It's not like if we stop polluting all of our technology will cease to work, so I don't see why you correlate environmental destruction with ease of living.
There's also a large number of people who are allergic to the synthetic materials that are increasingly being used in everyday items. For some of them, it is so bad as these chemicals are so pervasive and hard to identify that they are forced to take refuge in the country-side where these synthetic allergens don't exist.
An operating system (OS) is a software program that manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. A key component of system software, the OS performs basic tasks, such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing the processing of instructions, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking, and managing files.
Security
Security as it pertains to the operating system is the ability to authenticate users prior to access, categorize the level of access the user has, and limit access based on a policy placed by administration. Typically an operating system offers (hosts) various services to other network computers and users. These services are usually provided through ports or numbered access points beyond the operating systems network address. Typically services include offerings such as file sharing, print services, email, web sites, and file transfer protocols.
At the front line of security are hardware devices known as firewalls. At the operating system level there are various software firewalls. A software firewall is configured to allow or deny traffic to a service running on top of the operating system. Therefore one can install and be running an insecure service, such as telnet or ftp, and not have to be threatened by a security breach because the firewall would deny all traffic trying to connect to the service on that port.
-- Operating System, Wikipedia
Dodge? I simply asked you to inform yourself of the basic definitions of the discussion--something you should have already familiarized yourself with if you want to have a productive discussion. An anti-virus clearly plays no role in the purpose of an OS, nor is it a key component in building a secure OS--unless perhaps you have a different definition of an OS that you'd like to share?
Are you familiar with ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM? You can't seem to build a logically sound argument as to why not packaging an anti-virus with Vista would make the OS inherently less secure. OS X does not come with a pre-packaged AV, nor do most Linux distros, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, nor pretty much all other OSes. The fact that it is something that would be packaged along side the operating system suggests that it's not an integral part of the OS or OS security.
There's no such thing as a perfectly secure OS, but there are relatively secure OS's--these are operating systems that are secure by design (rational security policies), have relatively few exploitable bugs (few system vulnerabilities), and have secure default configurations (easy to secure by the average user). This doesn't entail protecting the user from himself. If an AV detects a virus, then chances are the OS has already been infected. If anything, AV's encourage users to be stupid about what they download since they think the AV will pick up all viruses and they will be more likely to proceed downloading and executing suspicious attachments. You can't build a foolproof system, the trick is to educate the user so they don't act foolishly.
http://www.google.com/search?q=windows+exploits http://attrition.org/security/advisory/ http://packetstormsecurity.org/alladvisories/advis ories/ ...or did you think e-mail attachments were the only threat to Windows? The constant stream of updates and patches tha
If you need a definition for those terms, look it up on wikipedia. We're not talking metaphysics here. An operating system's purpose is not to stop human stupidity. The definition of a secure operating system isn't an operating system that prevents users from acting like idiots.
There are plenty of non-PEBKAC virus vectors in all windows operating systems that MS should be focusing on rather than trying to compensate for intentional execution of malicious code. What good is an operating system that protects you from viral e-mail attachments when there exist exploits that allow attackers to take over your system remotely without you doing anything? That's like building a car with really advanced airbags but has a gastank that spontaneously explodes. You can prevent e-mail viruses from infecting your computer by exercising common sense. You can't prevent a remote attack exploiting a buffer overflow flaw in the system.
There are millions of ways to secure Vista other than packaging an anti-virus with it. These are the ways that Vista should be securing Vista because other companies can't. A MS anti-virus can still be sold separately just as Office is. This is all just common sense. Ofcourse if you rely on MS marketing speak instead of reasoning through the situation, you'd come to the conclusion that the EU wants MS to release an insecure OS...
And in the real world, an intelligent developer/admin can easily detect someone signing up for 10,000 accounts in a single day. And even if they manage to create the accounts, it would not be difficult to detect organized scripted attacks on such a large scale. If 1000 users who've signed up in the same day digg the exact same stories in the same time-frame, post no comments, setup no profiles, login from the same IPs, and don't perform any actions distinct from each other, then they are clearly bots. You might be able to get away with 10 or 20 accounts using scripted bots, but any statistically significant number would be easily to detect with a some clever programming.
And--reality check--one person with one hundred votes is a drop in the bucket on a site like digg. With the size the userbase on digg, if a good story gets buried by someone gaming the system, it will just get submitted by others users who've stumbled on the same story and don't see it on the frontpage. In the end, the community gets what it wants and the frontpage will reflect the community's interests. A really good story will have thousands of people voting for it. Someone gaming the system might be able to bury the stories that generate moderate or little interest, but they can't counter the popularity of strong stories.
Also, organizing vote blocs is still expressing the voice of the community in a democratic way. So what if people want to organize? It's still one vote per person. You're just whining and crying about people with shared interests leveraging their collective voting power to vote more effectively. This is a natural occurence in any participatory democratic system. There's no abuse going on here.
That seems like evidence that the system works. You game the system--it may work for a while, but eventually people catch on and--you effectively get banned from the site by the community. The site admins don't have to do anything, the community polices itself. What the masses judge as misconduct will naturally be detected and weeded out. This appears to be more effective than any kind of genius abuse detection script.
As for the burial processes being unbalanced, that simply requires modifications to the weight system. It's not a problem in the social design of the site. If there's a removed stories bin where people can vote to reinstate stories, then the problem is solved. Even without it, if it's really a good story, others will submit the story and it will keep being submitted by people until it actually shows up on the frontpage. That's the beauty of such a site. The collaborative filtering process directly reflects the community's interests.
There was on major incident a long time ago when Hussein used mustard gas on kurds in Iraq, but it wasn't a regular occasion as many gov. leaders would like us to believe.
That would actually be better as opening fire into a crowd of protestors would probably not be tolerated by the public, whereas blasting them with microwaves might. These technologies allow the government to strip us of the right to peaceful protest.
I don't think arresting people is the solution. That only addresses the symptoms of a greater problem--that is, poverty. In a lot of areas they already try implementing your suggested solution but it's just more mispent tax dollars that don't make much of a difference. I think if all other developed nations can eliminate the problem of homelessness we shouldn't have a problem eliminating it if the public were actually so inclined. But as of right now we would rather disparage the poor and treat them with spite rather than help them. A large number of homeless people are also mentally ill, and at least in my community the local government is unwilling to create facilities for treating these people. The only solution I see to the problem would be gradual cultural change towards a less selfish and more caring society where people are sympathetic to the hardships of others and a spirit of cooperation and altruism may be fostered.
But back to the topic at hand... I think our society has become controlled by fear to the point where we willingly oppress ourselves at the prodding of the media and the fear-mongering government and the industries they represent. We won't let our kids go on social networking sites, which can be very emotionally fulfilling and provide meaningful social interaction to enrich one's life, because we're afraid of internet stalkers and pedophiles even though the chances of one bumping to a child-predator online is probably as high as bumping into one at the mall or any other public place where people gather. We've let the media paint these scary images of a serial-killer around every corner and a child-rapist in every chatroom, thus we're led to believe that the world we live in is far more perilous than it actually is. I think this attitude due to public paranoia has largely contributed to a more detached society where individuals purposely isolate themselves from one another.
I agree. Each generation seems to have its own set of spiritual/emotional struggles aggravated by the particular "cultural bloc" they grew up in. We look at the kids today and see all these pronounced issues that they have, but they probably look at their parents and see a different set of social pathology characteristic of that generation. There were no good 'ol days to speak of. Only reactionaries delude themselves with such fantasies. Despite the flaws of our current society and culture, significant progress has been made in all fronts. The only thing that can be said that we're losing is our environment and natural resources. That is something that future generations may have much worse than us. People are exposed to far more industrial chemicals than before and are exposed to less and less of our natural environment. This may ultimately have a negative impact on the health of future generations.
Accessibility components? gee, none of the sites i've built have used these "accessibility components", yet they work just fine with screen readers... maybe you should do some research like i said before before you start drawing conclusions based on ignorance of the facts. All that is required is for certain elements of the site that can't be read by screen readers to be remedied. As the article states it's not difficult or costly. I'm pretty sure that any company that runs an e-commerce site has a full-time web development team. No "accessbility components" need to be designed or purchased. And again you assume that all societal progress and technological/medical innovations have been driven by financial greed--that's very questionable...
Secondly, where are you asked to pay money for the disabled here? Even if making sites compliant with accessibility guidelines cost a lot of money (which they don't, as the ADA only requires accessibility considerations to be made when they it is reasonable and easily achievable), in any kind of society there are distributed costs. Your taxes may go to roads, police stations, schools, etc. which you may never use. Are you going to start complaining that part of your tax dollars go towards buying school books and supplies for kids that aren't your own, or towards repairing a road that you never drive on? Get over it.
Lastly, you really ought to take a class in formal logic. Saying that "if you think life is unfair and we shouldn't do anything about it, then stop complaining about X being unfair" does not imply that I agree that X is unfair. But it's certainly illogical or hypocritical at least to say that the disabled need to accept that life is simply unfair, and then go on to complain that the judge's ruling is unfair. So let's try this again, did I say that the ruling was unfair towards Target, or did I simply state that you shouldn't be making that complaint in the first place if you think unfairness is just a fact of life to be accepted? And just so you don't get confused again by me reiterating your claims in my argument, I am not agreeing with you that unfairness should be accepted and that we shouldn't do anything about social inequities. That's exactly what I'm arguing against in fact, but your reading comprehension skills or your deductive reasoning abilities are somewhat lacking apparently, and I have to spell every letter out for you.
I don't know what gave you the idea tha target has to pay any fees in order for their site to be compliant with accessibility standards. Please read the article and the ADA before making even more of an ass of yourself. I haven't contradicted myself anywhere. It was natural for human beings to die from dental problems before the age of 40 up until the last few hundred years of human history. It was natural for the strong to dominate the weak. It's natural for people to die of cancer. None of this implies that these things ought to simply be accepted and that it's wrong for human beings to do something about these natural ailments and inequities. It seems you are the one who possesses questionable reasoning skills. If you think life is unfair and that's just the way it ought to be then stop complaining about how this ruling is unfair to Target or other business owners...
That's the whole argument genius: whether what the EU demands is really asking MS to make their OS less secure. They aren't asking MS to put security holes in their OS or implement poor security policies. They are simply requiring that MS not package their OS with an anti-virus program (something which is not a functional component of any operating system, but is rather a non-component application). An OS does not need to be packaged with an anti-virus to be secure. MS can simply put out more secure code in the first place and implement more intelligent security policies. An anti-virus packaged with the OS doesn't make the OS more inherently secure. The anti-virus is simply there is resolve inherent security flaws. It would actually allow MS to be more sloppy with their security settings and debugging process.
Your claim (and MS's) is basically like saying that not allowing MS to package the OS with Word would be forcing MS to build a less functional OS. Well, a Word process isn't an integral component to an operating system. MS can still sell an anti-virus package just as they do a word processing suite, but if they want to secure their OS, they should just be more careful about not creating as many security vulnerabilities and perhaps issuing patches in a more timely fashion.
Ever hear of a false dichotomy? Requiring signed code isn't the only way to secure an operating system, and it's not a perfect solution itself, which also presents other issues, some of which have already been mentioned.
I don't think the cost to independent software development is really worth the "security" this method adds.
Exactly. If you're going to create a social application that relies on input from the user to shape the content of the site, then you should be ready to give the community what it wants. The community knows better what it wants than appointed moderators or paid admins. It may not turn out the way that you want it to turn out, and there will always be discontent users, but ultimately the community has voiced what it wants and there's little you can or should do about it.
On large popular sites like digg, it would require an inordinate amount of bots to achieve this, and it wouldn't be hard to detect and block bot sign-ups and orchestrated abuses. Someone with malicious intentions would have to possess fake accounts which compose of 5-10% of the user base to really manipulate the social application against the spirit of the community, otherwise their influence would be statistically insignificant. On a site with 1 million+ users that isn't really practical and so far there's been no evidence of such an orchestrated attack being successfully pulled off. Ofcourse, there will always be people who won't like how the community generally votes/moderates and disagrees with the general attitude of the community, and these people will ofcourse try to blame it on social applications being fundamentally flawed or on some malicious conspiracy by a group of users. But the most obvious/likely scenario is just that the way things are is what the community happens to like things, and that complaints are just coming from personal frustration towards the democratic will of the community.
The whole point of these social applications relying on user input is so that distributed self-moderation by the community occurs. There is no trust issue as long as the user-base is large enough. If there's 500,000 equally powerful users then it's hard for a handful of users to abuse the system. It would require a large scale conspiracy to really skew the moderation system, thus appointed moderators aren't necessary and the admins have very little policing to do. The community will shape the site to what they want.
It sounds like you just want to design your own mashup, which you can already do with a lot of web services. This doesn't require AJAX or applets. It just requires a public API (actually, you can easily get around this as well). AJAX isn't anything like flash applications or java applets either. Like others have said, it would be useless installed onto your computer. AJAX is just a UI enhancement. The application is still run serverside. You can build a mashup to access the services if you're clever, but the AJAX interface itself is irrelevent to your goals.
I don't know when AJAX has ever been an end in and of itself to professional developers. Sites like Yahoo, Gmail, Flickr, Last.fm, etc. have always been using these technologies to simply improve usability and convenience of the interface in the ways that you are only now experiencing. This has been the expressed purpose of AJAX from the beginning. It just happens that a lot of Slashdotters decided early on that it was trendy to dismiss AJAX off hand as an emerging web trend because of its immediate popularity (it's not cool if everyone knows about and talks about it) and perpetuated a lot of baseless criticisms about the widespread adoption of AJAX. But these days it's harder and harder to say that AJAX is just a fad or bad idea when nearly every popular web application has adopted it as part of the shift towards "Web 2.0". Clearly those of us who were interested in learning more about this set of technologies weren't simply playing into the media-hype Web 2.0 internet bubble, or whatever the naysayers want to call it.
Even now you still see trolls in any AJAX-related Slashdot article making pointless remarks about how overhyped and useless AJAX is. However, I think this will eventually go away as AJAX-enhanced interfaces become ubiquitous on the web. Even Slashdot itself has adopted a more Web 2.0 feel to its interface. The whiners are rarely web developers themselves, and those that are probably won't get very far in their careers with that kind of reactionary attitude towards advancements in web development. Personally I'm pretty excited about all the news things I've learned how to do using AJAX which can help me polish my web applications and explore new avenues through the GUI possibilities.
Last time I checked, the public accomodations clause in the Americans with Disabilities Act included commercial services. The ADA is there to guarantee the disabled access to basic goods and services and protect them from discrimination based on their disabilities. Why do you think commercial facilities and accomodations such as transportation services need to meet accessibility requirements? Just because there are stores other than Target doesn't mean they can discriminate against a particular minority. And ADA compliance only requires accessibility considerations to be effected when they are readily available. Target isn't being asked to design some new internet technology. This is akin to adding a wheelchair ramp to a store building.
And I have read Atlas Shrugged. I read it in 11th grade and realized that, while Ayn Rand is a talented storyteller, objectivism is the biggest load of crap in the world, embraced only by Ivy league elitists. There is no such thing as a level playing field or equality of opportunity. Nature does not provide such a thing. So in order to create an equitable society, man has to establish social compensators. That is why we have social welfare programs. If policies requiring wheelchair access to public accomodations and commercial facilities were not imposed through the ADA, then what incentive would building owners have to provide access to the disabled? Those who tout free market capitalism as the panacea to all social problems don't seem to realize that some minorities, such as the disabled, do not compose of a large enough market to persuade most store owners to accomodate their needs. This is why up until the ADA, the disabled community was largely barred from the majority of public accomodations and denied access to goods and services basic to daily living.
Objectivism is a philosophy of selfishness and apathy towards the plight of others. This is not suprising as it is basically a moral philosophy derived from the economic theory of capitalism, twisting personal virtues such as self-reliance into excuses for being selfish and callous towards the less fortunate. Only the Ayn Rand Institute could possibly argue that charity is immoral and that it's destroying America. And only an objectivist would claim that the world is carried on the shoulders of the rich entreprenuers and industrialists, while the lower class are simply freeloading bottom feeders.
You can nonchalanty tell the disabled to simply shop at a different store because you don't face the challenges they face on a daily basis and are unwilling to put yourself in their position. You seem to be more concerned that Target, a rich corporation, has to make a few simple modifications to their site than with the fact that the visually impaired have to search for hours to find a site that they can make a simple purchase from because most sites are inaccessible to them. I would say that you have misplaced priorities. It's easy to tell the less fortunate not to whine so much when you have no sense of empathy I suppose.
Try to imagine if you couldn't access the vast majority of popular websites that you use on a regular basis because no one bothers to meet simple accessibility guidelines. The already difficult lives of a lot of disabled people can be made a great deal easier by simply implementing these trivial guidelines. Just because you read some book where altruism is painted as societal evil and selfish elitism is painted as a heroic virtue does mean you have to subscribe to such absurd beliefs. A 900-page discourse on sophistry does not imply justice or truth. Something tells me that those rich Yale MBAs calling for cuts on welfare and state-funded healthcare are motivated by little more than selfish greed. If you want proof, think a little harder about what you are saying, or visit the Ayn Rand Institute's website and read some of the backwards-thinking double-speak they publish. Objectivism is good philosophy if your objective in life is accumulating a lot of wealth, but otherwise it is morally bankrupt and not grounded in reality. Only such a philosophy would place more worth in a rich corporate ceo than a poor working mother.
I will humor you a little bit since I'm bored:
Wrong. Our legal system takes intent into account when prosecuting criminals; it's the difference between manslaughter and first, second, and third degree murder. This is a significant deviation from utilitarian ethics. By utilitarian ethics, at least the last 3 crimes would be judged the same. And your mental health is also taken into consideration during sentencing. That's why those judged to be criminally insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial are prosecuted differently from someone judged to have good mental health.
Also, you can claim mental anguish and emotional damages and receive reparations for these things in a court of law, so our legal system is certainly concerned with more than material/monetary claims. Defamation doesn't have to cause monetary damages to be defamation. All that matters is that it is false and that it damages one's reputation.
That doesn't illustrate that money or physical crimes are weighed more heavily by our court of law. It just illustrates that stealing 10 million dollars is considered a greater crime than causing someone to have a nervous breakdown, and this isn't always the case either. First off, how the money is stolen and how the nervous breakdown was caused matters significantly in our legal system. By utilitarianism, or welfarist consequentialism, all that matters are the consequences. But someone who steals 10 million dollars by armed robbery and someone who steals 10 million dollars through grand larceny are going to get different sentences. Likewise, causing someone emotional damages from defamatory remarks versus causing someone emotional damages through child-abuse are going to get you different sentences. This also directly conflicts with utilitarian ethics.
Also, you claim that utilitarians only consider material/monetary consequences as having measurable utility, and that other consequences are simply "sins"--this makes no sense whatsoever. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism that weighs outcomes based on their effect on societal welfare--in other words, happiness of the whole. The utility of money or material goods are still measured through the pleasure/displeasure they contribute to; they have no utility in and of themselves. Nowhere does "sin" ever come into the equation. "Sin" is not even in the utilitarian vocabulary, and I have yet to encounter a utilitarian philosophy which incorporates that idea or uses that word to describe the utilitarian framework.
Lastly, if our legal system weren't concerned with non-material crimes, then why is perjury a crime. And why is treason--a crime of disloyalty to the nation--punishable by death.
Utility does not mean what you think it means. Clearly utilitiarianism isn't applied the way you think it's applied in our legal system. Your criticisms of our legal system, even if they were valid, have nothing to do with utilitarianism by any measure. Pretty much everything you've claimed about utilitarianism has been incorrect if not incoherent. You still don't seem to grasp how utility is defined or
In other words, you are not talking about utilitarianism at all, and what you call "utility" is not what is being referred to as utility in mills' utilitarianism. So I don't know why you keep bringing up "utilitarianism" and the "utilitarian model" when clearly that isn't what you are discussing. The problem isn't in utilitarianism, it's in what you miscontrue to be utilitarianism. Our legal system is not based on utilitarianism, if that's what you mean.
Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. None of what you've said has anything to do with that, and little to do with the issue the OP raised.
Debt collectors are not allowed to call your employer and tell them you owe money as, it's not only a form of harassment, but it also endangers your employment and may prevent you from ever getting out of debt if the debt collectors keep contacting all of your employers. Since debt collectors can put black marks on your credit report, if employers all require full disclosure of your credit history, debt collectors would be able to harass you in the same way and cause the same unemployment problem as current laws try to prohibit--in fact, it might be even more permanent as the black marks would remain even if you do get out of debt.
Applying utilitarian principles to this, it would make more sense to have protections set up so the indebted can eventually get out of debt, as the debtor paying off his debts has far more utility to society as whole than the debtor being kept in constant debt and simply being perpetually punished for being in debt. This is a social/moral dilemma where the application of utilitarianism would seem to support what most would consider a rational choice of action. Society would benefit far more from those in debt working to pay off their debts than being unemployed and contributing little or nothing to society.
As to your example, the first case which you claim to be defamation would not fall under defamation legally in the U.S. as truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims in this country. The second case is not a legal issue either and has nothing to do with U.S. laws. Also, I would note that utilitarianism itself makes no consideration for intent, and utility simply means the net happiness/pleasure for society. Utilitarianism makes the distinction between various orders of pleasure, out of which money is likely a pretty low order pleasure. When faced with a difficult decision one is to weigh the outcomes of each action and choose the one which produces the most net pleasure (or least net suffering) for society as a whole, weighing higher order pleasures like intellectual advancement, spiritual growth, etc. more heavily than base/wordly pleasures like lust, money, physical appetites, etc.
Utilitarianism may be arguably flawed, but it really depends on interpretation and yours seems to be way off, atleast if you're talking about John Stuart Mills' utilitarian philosophy. I think you may have it confused with materialism, or you may be misinterpreting what utility means in this sense.
Do you always make assumptions about people who disagree with you so you can go off on completely irrelevant strawman rants?
As it happens, I do do a lot of volunteer work around the community I live in. I've been involved in service organizations since I was a freshman in high school. That said, this is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Some people have obviously shown a lot of spite towards the plaintiffs in the article for simply attempting to have have the ADA applied to internet websites. What is wrong with criticizing that kind of petty response? Does someone need to be working for the NAACP to be able to voice their opinion against prejudice and discrimination?
Clearly you're unable to refute what I've said so you've decided to rant off about baseless assumptions about me. You fool yourself into thinking that you've made a piercing analysis of your opponent but you only end up looking crazy and self-deluded to others. Do you know me? Do you know what kind of person I am? How do you know that I wouldn't lift a finger to help another person? You must be some kind of psychic I guess (albeit clearly a very poor one)...
Why is it idiotic to protect the disabled from being discriminated against? Is the Civil Rights Act also idiotic? Maybe it only appears idiotic to you because you can't think beyond yourself. For a vast number of Americans it's not idiotic at all, and it's the only thing that's reduced many of the hardships that they previously faced due to the lack of necessary infrastructure to accomdate the disabled in our society.
Because, believe it or not, people without money still need to eat, need shelter, need to pay medical bills, etc.