For the most part, we're in agreement then. I still think that there are quite a few people in prison (mainly federal prison) purely for possession-type crimes, and that the release of such people would not increase other crimes, resulting in at least a small decrease in the prison population.
Please demonstrate how alcohol prohibition did work, then.
Did it stop people from drinking (and the associated societal ills you talk about)? No. There was plenty of alcohol to be found, all over the country.
What it did accomplish was to create a large black market that was governed by violence rather than brand competition. We still suffer the consequences of that prohibition. Now, we have added another prohibition and another class of criminals determined to make "easy" money from a demand that isn't going to go away because we wish really hard that it would.
As far as your argument that there is a relationship between stupid people and alcohol...do you seriously believe that the kind of lowlifes that end up in the criminal justice system wouldn't be there if it weren't for ? I really have a hard time swallowing that argument. People like that would drink after shave if they had to.
Man has always wished to intoxicate himself, and always will do so, no matter how hard some try to prevent it. The question is at what point do we try to mitigate the harmful effects of the do-gooders?
I would happily accept drug legalization as long as people are still held responsible for their actions when they take the drugs.
Has anyone suggested otherwise? I mean, isn't it kind of obvious that people would/should be held responsible for crimes committed, drug-related or not?
Isn't that really the whole point...that people who do not commit an act of force or fraud against another person shouldn't be in jail?
I don't see how there could not be a decrease in the prison population if you decriminalized prohibited drug possession.
Prohibition doesn't work; we had a lot of crime last time we tried it, too.
OTOH in both cases the "criminal" can still become a productive member of society. Robert Morris has, IMO it's only a matter of time before Mitnick does.
I think this is the crucial point. Mitnick has done his time, and so has received his punishment. The judge seems to want to punish him further, but this really seems counter-productive in the case of a person like this. I believe it would be better to allow him to gradually get himself back into technology, so that he can become a productive member of society.
This kind of punitive order can only result in bad things for both Mitnick and society, as I believe it removes any disincentive for further criminal behavior. After all, if he's going to continue to be punished regardless, what the hell?
But, then again, I pretty much oppose all kinds of post-sentence restrictions/punishments. A person should receive their punishment, and that should be that. If they need to be in jail, leave them in jail; don't parole or otherwise release them. Otherwise, let them get on with their life.
Did you read my message. I said, "you must credit the author." That is still true. You cannot just relabel code as copyrighted by you; it is still copyrighted by the original author.
With public domain software, this is not the case. Thus, using Love's absurd reasoning, only public domain software is non-proprietary.
This article presents nothing new; neither did ESR's. Both articles simply rehash the same old arguments we've been hearing for years. I suppose these things do have to be occasionally restated, but I just feel the urge to say "bleaagh."
Elias Levy seems to be saying that security through obscurity does work, because he thinks that everyone is lazy/dumb.
Personally, looking at the evidence of the last few years, I'm not so sure I agree with him. Yes, *theoretically* open source software could go unfixed for a long time, but what we have seen is that it seems to be much more common for closed source software to have holes in it for years.
Regarding his point that black-hats will find the holes in open source: who do you think is finding the holes in closed source stuff? I'd still rather have the "window of opportunity" be of shorter duration, and I think I get that with open source.
Open source is not a panacea, but it's still safer in the long run, IMO.
Nope, because you have a legal right to the water. Either you have paid for the water in the pipes through taxes or paid at the store for the bottled water.
Not true. I do not pay anything for my water, which comes from a nearby spring.
I think the guy had kind of a point. Just like Evian is taking from the commons, refining and bottling, so is Metallica, drawing on various influences, repackaging what they've heard, performing it, and selling the product.
Of course, the difference is that copying their songs is not quite the same as drawing water from a different source. If we had replicators, then we'd have a similar situation...
On the other hand, many people here go to the other extreme, and suggest that copying==stealing, which is not quite true, either.
On that topic, I was at the tire shop the other day, and looking at one of the hot rod magazines there. They had a picture of a Fiat 500 with a small-block Chevy engine.
Moderation is completely out of control. It is almost entirely based on "do I agree or disagree with the sentiments in this post?" now.
The trollers are indeed serving a purpose in trying to point this out. Unfortunately, I don't think it's having much of an effect on most moderators, who seem to have no conscience.
I'd just like to add to what others have said. Linux, just like any operating system, takes a bit of work to make *and keep* secure. But there are some excellent tools at your disposal:
Secure-Linux is a Linux kernel patch that adds nifty security features, which eliminates many, if not most, buffer overflow attacks. I tested this with one of the ProFTPd exploits, and indeed, the exploit failed against a known vulnerable version of ProFTPd. Without the patch, the exploit worked.
Psionic PortSentry detects and responds to port scans in real time. It works with other Unixes as well.
With these tools, the standard ipchains stuff, and a willingness to not run *every* daemon under the sun, you can have a reasonably secure Linux box.
Also, to throw those k1dd13z for an extra loop, put all this on linuxppc. Let 'em chew on that for a while...
I don't trust anyone's judgement, thus I'd like to see guns removed from society.
And just how do you propose to do that? You won't be getting any gun of mine; I promise you that. And I know that many, many other people will keep their guns.
Face it, guns are here to stay. The arguments for banning guns sound *so* similar to the arguments in favor of the encryption export laws, which people here are so against.
Still, I can understand the anti-gun position of most people here. If I had been indoctrinated all my life to fear guns, I'd probably hold hoplophobic opinions, too.
If you *really* look at the statistics...I mean *really* look, with an open mind...you will find that gun ownership does not lead to an increase in murders. But you have to be open-minded and intellectually honest in order to see that.
One pointer...compare murder rates in North Dakota and Saskatchewan. See what you come up with.
But laws against murder are in an entirely different class, as they punish a person for violating the rights of another person.
Prohibition laws do no such thing; they are so-called 'preventative' measures. The problem with preventative laws is that they punish people who have committed no crime.
Really, it is a basic philosophical issue: do you see individuals as holding certain inherent rights? And if so, what rights are these? Can society, which is a construct made up of individuals, have rights of its own?
Legislating against firearms is not a matter of morality; it's a matter of pragmatics.
As I said, one can make similar arguments for anti-gay legislation (AIDS, does not promote "proper family values", etc.). These can certainly be seen by some as "pragmatic."
There is a rural lifestyle that includes the ownership of firearms. Whether you endorse such a lifestyle is irrelevant; it certainly exists. Anti-firearms-rights laws suppress the rights of those living this lifestyle, whether or not that is their intent.
I find it somewhat revealing that although pro-gun people seem able to grasp the (rather simple) concept of "respect my rights and I'll respect yours," but anti-gun people seem unable or unwilling to do the same.
You have utterly missed my point, perhaps intentionally.
I made no claim whatsoever as to the reasonableness of gun ownership; what I stated is that when you push to outlaw a lifestyle choice with which you disagree, you are ultimately destroying *everyone's* freedom, including your own, in the long run.
You may wish to rant and rave about this, but I believe it is demonstrably true.
I am merely making a plea for those with strong opinions to reconsider their push for legislating their morality. And make no mistake about it, passing anti-firearms-rights laws is legislating morality.
Please, reread your rant, and substitute "gay man" for "people who live with guns" and "have sex with another man" for "own weapons that kill."
How about some *real* tolerance for a change? Tolerance for those who we genuinely dislike, or disagree with, but who have not directly harmed anyone?
Support *everyone's* rights, and perhaps you'll find your rights supported by others when push comes to shove.
Hmmph. Are you saying that because we in Britain don't allow people to shoot assault rifles, this is morally equivalent to stopping people having gay sex?
Certainly. He made a rather good point. Anti-firearms-rights laws are a type of prejudice against a particular group of people and a particular lifestyle.
You can make seemingly reasonable arguments to support them, but so can the people supporting anti-gay legislation.
Government (and society) succeeds in removing our rights, because we are all too willing to sacrifice the rights of our brother, forgetting that the same will eventually happen to us.
...for a solution that works on a 45,000 foot loop.:-(
Yeah, there's gDSL, but I have to somehow convince my local phone company (Cascade Utilities, which has about 20,000 customers statewide as far as I can tell) to buy that equipment.
Man...living in BFE has its advantages and disadvantages...
it's hard to see what, if anything, will change as a result of this surreal conflict between 18th-century laws and institutions and 21st-century economic realities. Truth is, we already live in a post-Microsoft World. (Read more.) it's hard to see what, if anything, will change as a result of this surreal conflict between 18th-century laws and institutions and 21st-century economic realities.
Actually, antitrust laws were developed in the 19th century, and this is still the 20th century.
why not look into establishing better partnerships with IHVs so in the future Linux will be a viable option?
I dunno...maybe because Microsoft has illegally used its monopoly power to discourage said IHVs from supporting other operating systems than their shoddy ones?
A world dominated by Linux will be no better than a world dominated by Windows.
Yet, you claim:
although I'm a fierce supporter of Free Software.
This makes me scratch my head. Is it that you truly don't understand the inherent advantages of Free Software?
Of course a world dominated by Linux (or other Free Software) would be better than a world dominated by Windows. It's all about Freedom. That's why we're here. If that weren't the case, wouldn't we all just use Windows, and stop using our free time writing/bugfixing/promoting this stuff?
Putting aside the question of how NetBSD is any more desirable to the "regular Joe" than Linux, perhaps this post is just another example of someone intentionally trying to "go against the herd" to get moderated up.
Really, though, "going against the herd" is no longer possible here, as there are two herds: one that supports Free Software, and one that despises it. The latter are the people who moderate up any post that appears hostile to Free software in any way.
I would perhaps agree with you, to a point, had you actually given any actual technical reasons why Linux was inappropriate for this application. You did not. Therefore, I can not agree that this post was especially "Insightful."
You make some very good points; I think the only thing I would add is that in the extremely unlikely event that Microsoft goes essentially unpunished (like they did in 1995), their control of the browser market could mean that they could do some very nasty things, if they felt free to do so.
But, chances are, they will receive a rather severe smackdown, and your analysis will prove correct: that their defeat of Netscape only accelerated their own self-destruction.
Slashdot Mirror
For the most part, we're in agreement then. I still think that there are quite a few people in prison (mainly federal prison) purely for possession-type crimes, and that the release of such people would not increase other crimes, resulting in at least a small decrease in the prison population.
--
Did it stop people from drinking (and the associated societal ills you talk about)? No. There was plenty of alcohol to be found, all over the country.
What it did accomplish was to create a large black market that was governed by violence rather than brand competition. We still suffer the consequences of that prohibition. Now, we have added another prohibition and another class of criminals determined to make "easy" money from a demand that isn't going to go away because we wish really hard that it would.
As far as your argument that there is a relationship between stupid people and alcohol...do you seriously believe that the kind of lowlifes that end up in the criminal justice system wouldn't be there if it weren't for ? I really have a hard time swallowing that argument. People like that would drink after shave if they had to.
Man has always wished to intoxicate himself, and always will do so, no matter how hard some try to prevent it. The question is at what point do we try to mitigate the harmful effects of the do-gooders?
--
Has anyone suggested otherwise? I mean, isn't it kind of obvious that people would/should be held responsible for crimes committed, drug-related or not?
Isn't that really the whole point...that people who do not commit an act of force or fraud against another person shouldn't be in jail?
I don't see how there could not be a decrease in the prison population if you decriminalized prohibited drug possession.
Prohibition doesn't work; we had a lot of crime last time we tried it, too.
--
Slashdot has more than a few readers, you know.
--
I think this is the crucial point. Mitnick has done his time, and so has received his punishment. The judge seems to want to punish him further, but this really seems counter-productive in the case of a person like this. I believe it would be better to allow him to gradually get himself back into technology, so that he can become a productive member of society.
This kind of punitive order can only result in bad things for both Mitnick and society, as I believe it removes any disincentive for further criminal behavior. After all, if he's going to continue to be punished regardless, what the hell?
But, then again, I pretty much oppose all kinds of post-sentence restrictions/punishments. A person should receive their punishment, and that should be that. If they need to be in jail, leave them in jail; don't parole or otherwise release them. Otherwise, let them get on with their life.
--
Protecting my goats from coyotes and mountain lions. You think I'm going to use a machete?
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Did you read my message. I said, "you must credit the author." That is still true. You cannot just relabel code as copyrighted by you; it is still copyrighted by the original author.
With public domain software, this is not the case. Thus, using Love's absurd reasoning, only public domain software is non-proprietary.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
The Protect-Us-From-Government Protection Act
But they never seem to do that...
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Only public domain would be non-proprietary enough for Ransom Love, apparently. Is that what you advocate?
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Elias Levy seems to be saying that security through obscurity does work, because he thinks that everyone is lazy/dumb.
Personally, looking at the evidence of the last few years, I'm not so sure I agree with him. Yes, *theoretically* open source software could go unfixed for a long time, but what we have seen is that it seems to be much more common for closed source software to have holes in it for years.
Regarding his point that black-hats will find the holes in open source: who do you think is finding the holes in closed source stuff? I'd still rather have the "window of opportunity" be of shorter duration, and I think I get that with open source.
Open source is not a panacea, but it's still safer in the long run, IMO.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Not true. I do not pay anything for my water, which comes from a nearby spring.
I think the guy had kind of a point. Just like Evian is taking from the commons, refining and bottling, so is Metallica, drawing on various influences, repackaging what they've heard, performing it, and selling the product.
Of course, the difference is that copying their songs is not quite the same as drawing water from a different source. If we had replicators, then we'd have a similar situation...
On the other hand, many people here go to the other extreme, and suggest that copying==stealing, which is not quite true, either.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
That just made me chuckle.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
The trollers are indeed serving a purpose in trying to point this out. Unfortunately, I don't think it's having much of an effect on most moderators, who seem to have no conscience.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Secure-Linux is a Linux kernel patch that adds nifty security features, which eliminates many, if not most, buffer overflow attacks. I tested this with one of the ProFTPd exploits, and indeed, the exploit failed against a known vulnerable version of ProFTPd. Without the patch, the exploit worked.
Psionic PortSentry detects and responds to port scans in real time. It works with other Unixes as well.
With these tools, the standard ipchains stuff, and a willingness to not run *every* daemon under the sun, you can have a reasonably secure Linux box.
Also, to throw those k1dd13z for an extra loop, put all this on linuxppc. Let 'em chew on that for a while...
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
And just how do you propose to do that? You won't be getting any gun of mine; I promise you that. And I know that many, many other people will keep their guns.
Face it, guns are here to stay. The arguments for banning guns sound *so* similar to the arguments in favor of the encryption export laws, which people here are so against.
Still, I can understand the anti-gun position of most people here. If I had been indoctrinated all my life to fear guns, I'd probably hold hoplophobic opinions, too.
If you *really* look at the statistics...I mean *really* look, with an open mind...you will find that gun ownership does not lead to an increase in murders. But you have to be open-minded and intellectually honest in order to see that.
One pointer...compare murder rates in North Dakota and Saskatchewan. See what you come up with.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Prohibition laws do no such thing; they are so-called 'preventative' measures. The problem with preventative laws is that they punish people who have committed no crime.
Really, it is a basic philosophical issue: do you see individuals as holding certain inherent rights? And if so, what rights are these? Can society, which is a construct made up of individuals, have rights of its own?
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
As I said, one can make similar arguments for anti-gay legislation (AIDS, does not promote "proper family values", etc.). These can certainly be seen by some as "pragmatic."
There is a rural lifestyle that includes the ownership of firearms. Whether you endorse such a lifestyle is irrelevant; it certainly exists. Anti-firearms-rights laws suppress the rights of those living this lifestyle, whether or not that is their intent.
I find it somewhat revealing that although pro-gun people seem able to grasp the (rather simple) concept of "respect my rights and I'll respect yours," but anti-gun people seem unable or unwilling to do the same.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
I made no claim whatsoever as to the reasonableness of gun ownership; what I stated is that when you push to outlaw a lifestyle choice with which you disagree, you are ultimately destroying *everyone's* freedom, including your own, in the long run.
You may wish to rant and rave about this, but I believe it is demonstrably true.
I am merely making a plea for those with strong opinions to reconsider their push for legislating their morality. And make no mistake about it, passing anti-firearms-rights laws is legislating morality.
Please, reread your rant, and substitute "gay man" for "people who live with guns" and "have sex with another man" for "own weapons that kill."
How about some *real* tolerance for a change? Tolerance for those who we genuinely dislike, or disagree with, but who have not directly harmed anyone?
Support *everyone's* rights, and perhaps you'll find your rights supported by others when push comes to shove.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Certainly. He made a rather good point. Anti-firearms-rights laws are a type of prejudice against a particular group of people and a particular lifestyle.
You can make seemingly reasonable arguments to support them, but so can the people supporting anti-gay legislation.
Government (and society) succeeds in removing our rights, because we are all too willing to sacrifice the rights of our brother, forgetting that the same will eventually happen to us.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Yeah, there's gDSL, but I have to somehow convince my local phone company (Cascade Utilities, which has about 20,000 customers statewide as far as I can tell) to buy that equipment.
Man...living in BFE has its advantages and disadvantages...
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Actually, antitrust laws were developed in the 19th century, and this is still the 20th century.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
I dunno...maybe because Microsoft has illegally used its monopoly power to discourage said IHVs from supporting other operating systems than their shoddy ones?
Or did you forget about that little issue?
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
A world dominated by Linux will be no better than a world dominated by Windows.
Yet, you claim:
although I'm a fierce supporter of Free Software.
This makes me scratch my head. Is it that you truly don't understand the inherent advantages of Free Software?
Of course a world dominated by Linux (or other Free Software) would be better than a world dominated by Windows. It's all about Freedom. That's why we're here. If that weren't the case, wouldn't we all just use Windows, and stop using our free time writing/bugfixing/promoting this stuff?
Putting aside the question of how NetBSD is any more desirable to the "regular Joe" than Linux, perhaps this post is just another example of someone intentionally trying to "go against the herd" to get moderated up.
Really, though, "going against the herd" is no longer possible here, as there are two herds: one that supports Free Software, and one that despises it. The latter are the people who moderate up any post that appears hostile to Free software in any way.
I would perhaps agree with you, to a point, had you actually given any actual technical reasons why Linux was inappropriate for this application. You did not. Therefore, I can not agree that this post was especially "Insightful."
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
But, chances are, they will receive a rather severe smackdown, and your analysis will prove correct: that their defeat of Netscape only accelerated their own self-destruction.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.