"does this mean I should include the cost of water damage to my possessions when I leave my windows open during a hurricane that I knew was coming?"
Well, water damage doesn't have a cost tag, it goes for free. What does have a cost is recovering from damage. And then, of course you should include your recovering costs: the fact that the damage was because your idiocy can mean your insurance probably won't cover such costs but it certainly won't mean you'll recover for free; you can ask your bank account if you don't believe me.
And then, do you know what the "T" in "TCO" means? Exactly: that even idiocy must enter the equation.
"I don't get it, what prevents the attacker to try every recent vulnerability on that host"
Time.
"it's not like this hasn't been done before"
Yes... when you aim for a specific target; not when all you want is bots or just old plain wreaking havoc.
"if the attacker is serious about breaking into a system running apache he's probably got some exploits for more common operating system anyway, so this makes things a little bit difficult, but not by much."
Security is both a theoretical activity and a reality exercise. Much of the time, specially regarding non-targeted attacks, "a little bit difficult, but not by much" means in reality "secure enough".
"No, Microsoft use Akamai as a frontend to most of their major websites."
And so letting know their client-base that if they need to reach for massive public Microsoft is not up to the challenge... you know what happens to Caesar's wife.
"You cannot use viruses/bugs as an example of cost due to the fact that windows has had a 90+% marketshare since the dawn of time"
So what? Next time I go to the market I'll tell the casher: "You won't really try to bill me my food, will you? Coz, you see, more than 90% of the people eat to survive since the dawn of time so that means by Hubell's rationale that then it comes somehow for free!
The author didn't go into *why* malware is basically a Windows-only cost but that as for today it *is* basically a Windows-only cost. Are you going to deny such an obvious fact? You can tell, if you want to, that if tomorrow a different OS takes the place of Windows, then malware will focus on it, all well and good -although still only an hypothesis, but the fact is that *today* malware makes for a significant part of the TCO of Windows-based, and Windows-based only platforms and it's wise for CIOs and the likes to take this into account when planning.
"At a fundamental level, this is a case of an employee doing stuff on the web in (I presume) his free time which does not pertain in any way to his work."
But it is. Do you think he would have payed attention to that rant were not because she was an ex-student? And even it was the case, once he knew she was an ex-student he should have stopped on the spot to avoid responsibility collusion.
"So it would appear the principal did nothing legally wrong. "
Except, of course, opening his mouth a bit too much, as the bare mininum.
"I would argue that one's legal online activities outside of your work hours should have no bearing on your employment."
Unless, of course, they relate to your employment.
" Do I think what he did was despicable? Of course!"
Do you think what he did was despicable in a way directly related to the abilities and expectations related to a school principal's job? Of course too! and that's *exactly* the point. It's not only that disregarding circunstances that man showed a lack of common sense which might have been pardonable (it could have been a school mate, for instance; still stupid but much less relevant), but that that's man job is being school principal on the school that girl went to.
"Slashdot, where in one story the group harangues the though of stopping the ability to link to copyrighted material and in the next cuts down a man for sharing information posted to the internet."
Apples to oranges. I bet no one supports here suplanting authorship nor allowing misleading facts.
I for one have no problem on the copyright stanza for that girl's rant to be published on a newspaper. After all, if it's public, it's public. But I do see a problem when a person sends a letter pretending to be somebody else the one that sends it and/or pretending that its purported intention was to be published as a letter to the editor when it was not.
"What does his job/trade/profession have to do with this case? Why should anybody's job be affected by a copy/paste that may have had no ill will attached at all? We really need more details to make these calls."
The principal showed a complete lack of ethics and understandment. Working as a school principal requieres a high ethics and understandment standard since it makes for an authority role on minors. Therefor people showing lack of ethics and understandment cannot be appointed as school principals.
"Oh come on, if you're asking about this issue seriously, how can you omit what languages you speak?"
He stated that distance is not a barrier. Did you stop to think that may be, he being not an single-purpose machine but a human being, he could *learn* a new language?
"Or, if you are willing to learn a language, then that is an important piece of the puzzle, isn't it?"
That's him to decide, not you: show him the countries, tell him why they are, oh, so much better and then *he* could consider what is the best for him considering all his already known caveats (like knowing/not knowing the local language, if he has or not family already in that country, taxes, vaccinations, etc.). He might not know that (say) Liechtenstain was an option (not to say it is in fact, just an example), but once you rise it and why, he is pretty capable to stablish if he knows the local language or not and if its overwhelming -or not, benefits compense him for having to learn it -or not.
"But I suspect you weren't advocating changing laws to allow people the means to defend themselves from physical violence (aka guns so they can shoot the bastards)."
Well, murdering rates overall Europe are about three/four-fold less than those in USA... surely it must be because they are so easy on guns there, yeah, sure...
"It's not US society is any more screwed than any other society (aside from perhaps having more guns around), it's the image the media pushes 24/7/365."
Yes, including damn FBI and its damned official statistics about violent murderings stating that chances of being assassinated in USA triplicates or even quadruplicates those of countries like France, UK or Sweden and is about ten times more than chances of that happening in Japan.
"He stated it because he was making the point that he was out of place. He was a fish out of water and did not know what to expect if he had entered deeper into the community as an outsider not being aware of the nature of the area. He could have been confronted by some Puerto Rican street thug with a gun, and he was just a skinny white guy. Thats the point. Its not racist, its just that he was out of place and did not know what to expect."
He, being a black man from Harlem, could have been confronted in Wall Street by some ashkenazi jew thug with a gun, and he was just an O.J.Simpson-like with afro curly hair black man. Its not racist, its just that he was out of place and did not know what to expect. Oh, wait...
" i think that sucks and we will only be able to make claims regarding the elimination of racism when *no one* has any particular feeling regarding their fellow man other than those merited by the facts of the interaction."
I remember a South African adverstisement on the early days post apartheid: it was about a school bus full of angelical blonde boers fitted to play soccer, I think they were green shirts, let's accept that being the case. When they get to destiny they get out of the bus, see the team they are going to play against and suddenly all their faces sadden. Camera points were they were looking at and we see the other team is made up full of black children.
Then, one of the white boys, still saddenned, asks his trainer: But, but... they wear green shirts too! How will we distinguish between us???
Finally one of the teams go playing with shirt and the other without to resolve the problem, both teams laughing with the joy of sports.
I *never* have seen a better presentation of what racism is and what the goal to achieve should be.
If you read your cited pages it is *them* which effectively beg the question in case (from the very example: "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." while, at the same time, all their argument it "it is wrong because it is not that way" instead of "it is wrong because it *can't* be your way").
The fact is that "begging the question" can be perfectly understood as a kind of affirmation that is crying for a question to be made so, for instance if someone says "He deserves winning the lotto, after all he is blond" obviously is begging for somebody asking "yeah, so what the hell has to be being blond and winning the lotto?". It begs a question as much as a polite gentelman will beg your pardon if needs your attention or an unpolite molester is begging a fist on his face.
So, surprise-surprise: an idiom can really mean more than one thing. Who'd imagine, uh?
"Proprietary software has to CARE about the user's itch."
No, it hasn't, it's not needed and even sometimes it's not convenient. Proof? Each an every time a proprietary software vendor uses FUD, forced deprecation or lock-in strategies to retain or even gain paying users. The only itch proprietary software CARES about is the financial itch of their stockholders. But even if you want to think of it the positive way, the basis of breakgrounding privative software is not scratching a user's itch either, but provoking one.
"The essential problem with free software is that most of it is written to scratch someone's itch."
The proprietary software is for the most written to scratch someone's itch.
Oh! you meant "someone's *own* itch"! Well, that's the case with proprietary software too. It's only that free software tends to focus on someone's own technical/functional/motivational itch while proprietary scratch someone's own financial itch.
"I think it's just more likely that developers don't really understand the users"
What if what happens to developers is that they don't give a damn about what "the users" want or need?
There are developers that do care about your kind of "Joe Sixpack" users be it because their personal inclination or because they are paid for it and then, there are developers that program for a myriad of other reasons and that's perfectly OK. Unless you can point and demonstrate that there are developers that genuinously try to focus on Joe Sixpack kind of users and fail then there is not such a "problem", at all.
"for all the merits of free software, there are some things that centrally-managed, proprietary software does better, because the non-programmer professions involved in product development expect to be paid for their services, and most open source projects do not have a workable way to monetize the overall project to cover those costs."
And now you are mixing apples to oranges. It is not "centrally-managed proprietary software" but "centrally-managed software" as long as its central management does focus on Joe Sixpack satisfaction. Can you demonstrate if even at the logically level only that a centrally managed open source software project focused on Joe Sixpack satisfaction is worse fitted to the challenge than a centrally managed proprietary software focused on the same goal? I don't think so.
"You don't go and 'download' kiddie porn for 'research'."
No, of course you don't. We already know its distribution channels, its spreading and its variations by means of infused science.
"I just don't see what there is to research - not a politician at least."
Of course not. It is not as if it were politicians' responsibility to draft and analyse the laws that will stablish what is punible and what's not and to what extent.
"Either way, I don't think this is a great thing for the Pirate Party."
Of course not. It is not as if its alledged cause would be to put on the table the abuses on our privacy all kind of passed laws about "save the children", "terrorism" and "how will all these poor pop stars sustain their mansions".
"Could do more damage than good."
Of course. What kind of politician would be the one that says makes what feels proper instead of what gives him most immediate benefit? What kind of bastard system would we be pointing to if we allow this kind of behaviour to spread?
"In a democracy EVERYBODY gets to vote, not just those that are playing by the current laws."
Not true. In a democracy every *citizen* gets to vote. And then the political definition of "citizen" is not a fixed one and changes from place to place and from time to time. Some places, some times, women are not considered "citizen", or black men, or resident foreigners, or below 18 year-old, or below 21 year-old, or in jail, or...
"There would always be people at the bottom, no matter how educated everyone was."
But the great parent gave education a point even on national security. Over educated people (on trash jobs) can be a national security hazard too. I remember something like this on Huxley's 'Brave New World': "why don't we only produce A++ people...?"
"Well, yes and no. Automobile license plates serve a similar function. If my car were used in the commission of a crime I would certainly be investigated as a likely suspect."
A "likely" as in "there's demonstrable relationship between car plates and people we need to take into consideration" is quite different to "here: that's the bastard, we have his car plates".
Slashdot Mirror
"does this mean I should include the cost of water damage to my possessions when I leave my windows open during a hurricane that I knew was coming?"
Well, water damage doesn't have a cost tag, it goes for free. What does have a cost is recovering from damage. And then, of course you should include your recovering costs: the fact that the damage was because your idiocy can mean your insurance probably won't cover such costs but it certainly won't mean you'll recover for free; you can ask your bank account if you don't believe me.
And then, do you know what the "T" in "TCO" means? Exactly: that even idiocy must enter the equation.
"I don't get it, what prevents the attacker to try every recent vulnerability on that host"
Time.
"it's not like this hasn't been done before"
Yes... when you aim for a specific target; not when all you want is bots or just old plain wreaking havoc.
"if the attacker is serious about breaking into a system running apache he's probably got some exploits for more common operating system anyway, so this makes things a little bit difficult, but not by much."
Security is both a theoretical activity and a reality exercise. Much of the time, specially regarding non-targeted attacks, "a little bit difficult, but not by much" means in reality "secure enough".
"No, Microsoft use Akamai as a frontend to most of their major websites."
And so letting know their client-base that if they need to reach for massive public Microsoft is not up to the challenge... you know what happens to Caesar's wife.
"You cannot use viruses/bugs as an example of cost due to the fact that windows has had a 90+% marketshare since the dawn of time"
So what? Next time I go to the market I'll tell the casher: "You won't really try to bill me my food, will you? Coz, you see, more than 90% of the people eat to survive since the dawn of time so that means by Hubell's rationale that then it comes somehow for free!
The author didn't go into *why* malware is basically a Windows-only cost but that as for today it *is* basically a Windows-only cost. Are you going to deny such an obvious fact? You can tell, if you want to, that if tomorrow a different OS takes the place of Windows, then malware will focus on it, all well and good -although still only an hypothesis, but the fact is that *today* malware makes for a significant part of the TCO of Windows-based, and Windows-based only platforms and it's wise for CIOs and the likes to take this into account when planning.
"At a fundamental level, this is a case of an employee doing stuff on the web in (I presume) his free time which does not pertain in any way to his work."
But it is. Do you think he would have payed attention to that rant were not because she was an ex-student? And even it was the case, once he knew she was an ex-student he should have stopped on the spot to avoid responsibility collusion.
"So it would appear the principal did nothing legally wrong. "
Except, of course, opening his mouth a bit too much, as the bare mininum.
"I would argue that one's legal online activities outside of your work hours should have no bearing on your employment."
Unless, of course, they relate to your employment.
" Do I think what he did was despicable? Of course!"
Do you think what he did was despicable in a way directly related to the abilities and expectations related to a school principal's job? Of course too! and that's *exactly* the point. It's not only that disregarding circunstances that man showed a lack of common sense which might have been pardonable (it could have been a school mate, for instance; still stupid but much less relevant), but that that's man job is being school principal on the school that girl went to.
"Slashdot, where in one story the group harangues the though of stopping the ability to link to copyrighted material and in the next cuts down a man for sharing information posted to the internet."
Apples to oranges. I bet no one supports here suplanting authorship nor allowing misleading facts.
I for one have no problem on the copyright stanza for that girl's rant to be published on a newspaper. After all, if it's public, it's public. But I do see a problem when a person sends a letter pretending to be somebody else the one that sends it and/or pretending that its purported intention was to be published as a letter to the editor when it was not.
"What does his job/trade/profession have to do with this case? Why should anybody's job be affected by a copy/paste that may have had no ill will attached at all? We really need more details to make these calls."
The principal showed a complete lack of ethics and understandment. Working as a school principal requieres a high ethics and understandment standard since it makes for an authority role on minors. Therefor people showing lack of ethics and understandment cannot be appointed as school principals.
QED.
"Oh come on, if you're asking about this issue seriously, how can you omit what languages you speak?"
He stated that distance is not a barrier. Did you stop to think that may be, he being not an single-purpose machine but a human being, he could *learn* a new language?
"Or, if you are willing to learn a language, then that is an important piece of the puzzle, isn't it?"
That's him to decide, not you: show him the countries, tell him why they are, oh, so much better and then *he* could consider what is the best for him considering all his already known caveats (like knowing/not knowing the local language, if he has or not family already in that country, taxes, vaccinations, etc.). He might not know that (say) Liechtenstain was an option (not to say it is in fact, just an example), but once you rise it and why, he is pretty capable to stablish if he knows the local language or not and if its overwhelming -or not, benefits compense him for having to learn it -or not.
Population of Philadelphia ~1.5M
American troops in Irak ~150.000
So chances for an American being killed in Irak are roughly ten times those of Philadelphia.
"But I suspect you weren't advocating changing laws to allow people the means to defend themselves from physical violence (aka guns so they can shoot the bastards)."
Well, murdering rates overall Europe are about three/four-fold less than those in USA... surely it must be because they are so easy on guns there, yeah, sure...
"It's not US society is any more screwed than any other society (aside from perhaps having more guns around), it's the image the media pushes 24/7/365."
Yes, including damn FBI and its damned official statistics about violent murderings stating that chances of being assassinated in USA triplicates or even quadruplicates those of countries like France, UK or Sweden and is about ten times more than chances of that happening in Japan.
"He stated it because he was making the point that he was out of place. He was a fish out of water and did not know what to expect if he had entered deeper into the community as an outsider not being aware of the nature of the area.
He could have been confronted by some Puerto Rican street thug with a gun, and he was just a skinny white guy. Thats the point. Its not racist, its just that he was out of place and did not know what to expect."
He, being a black man from Harlem, could have been confronted in Wall Street by some ashkenazi jew thug with a gun, and he was just an O.J.Simpson-like with afro curly hair black man. Its not racist, its just that he was out of place and did not know what to expect. Oh, wait...
" i think that sucks and we will only be able to make claims regarding the elimination of racism when *no one* has any particular feeling regarding their fellow man other than those merited by the facts of the interaction."
I remember a South African adverstisement on the early days post apartheid: it was about a school bus full of angelical blonde boers fitted to play soccer, I think they were green shirts, let's accept that being the case. When they get to destiny they get out of the bus, see the team they are going to play against and suddenly all their faces sadden. Camera points were they were looking at and we see the other team is made up full of black children.
Then, one of the white boys, still saddenned, asks his trainer: But, but... they wear green shirts too! How will we distinguish between us???
Finally one of the teams go playing with shirt and the other without to resolve the problem, both teams laughing with the joy of sports.
I *never* have seen a better presentation of what racism is and what the goal to achieve should be.
"actually, it raises the question.
http://begthequestion.info/"
Or not.
If you read your cited pages it is *them* which effectively beg the question in case (from the very example: "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." while, at the same time, all their argument it "it is wrong because it is not that way" instead of "it is wrong because it *can't* be your way").
The fact is that "begging the question" can be perfectly understood as a kind of affirmation that is crying for a question to be made so, for instance if someone says "He deserves winning the lotto, after all he is blond" obviously is begging for somebody asking "yeah, so what the hell has to be being blond and winning the lotto?". It begs a question as much as a polite gentelman will beg your pardon if needs your attention or an unpolite molester is begging a fist on his face.
So, surprise-surprise: an idiom can really mean more than one thing. Who'd imagine, uh?
"Interesting that MS has support for Maori... Can't see a good commercial reason for that"
It can be the same case as with Catalan: the local government ended up paying for the transalation on top of the usage licenses.
"please don't go around implying that Windows' lack of support for Latin has even the slightest importance."
I know its lack of support for both Vasque and Catalan has been a problem of quite some Euros of importance.
"Proprietary software has to CARE about the user's itch."
No, it hasn't, it's not needed and even sometimes it's not convenient. Proof? Each an every time a proprietary software vendor uses FUD, forced deprecation or lock-in strategies to retain or even gain paying users. The only itch proprietary software CARES about is the financial itch of their stockholders. But even if you want to think of it the positive way, the basis of breakgrounding privative software is not scratching a user's itch either, but provoking one.
"The essential problem with free software is that most of it is written to scratch someone's itch."
The proprietary software is for the most written to scratch someone's itch.
Oh! you meant "someone's *own* itch"! Well, that's the case with proprietary software too. It's only that free software tends to focus on someone's own technical/functional/motivational itch while proprietary scratch someone's own financial itch.
"I think it's just more likely that developers don't really understand the users"
What if what happens to developers is that they don't give a damn about what "the users" want or need?
There are developers that do care about your kind of "Joe Sixpack" users be it because their personal inclination or because they are paid for it and then, there are developers that program for a myriad of other reasons and that's perfectly OK. Unless you can point and demonstrate that there are developers that genuinously try to focus on Joe Sixpack kind of users and fail then there is not such a "problem", at all.
"for all the merits of free software, there are some things that centrally-managed, proprietary software does better, because the non-programmer professions involved in product development expect to be paid for their services, and most open source projects do not have a workable way to monetize the overall project to cover those costs."
And now you are mixing apples to oranges. It is not "centrally-managed proprietary software" but "centrally-managed software" as long as its central management does focus on Joe Sixpack satisfaction. Can you demonstrate if even at the logically level only that a centrally managed open source software project focused on Joe Sixpack satisfaction is worse fitted to the challenge than a centrally managed proprietary software focused on the same goal? I don't think so.
"You don't go and 'download' kiddie porn for 'research'."
No, of course you don't. We already know its distribution channels, its spreading and its variations by means of infused science.
"I just don't see what there is to research - not a politician at least."
Of course not. It is not as if it were politicians' responsibility to draft and analyse the laws that will stablish what is punible and what's not and to what extent.
"Either way, I don't think this is a great thing for the Pirate Party."
Of course not. It is not as if its alledged cause would be to put on the table the abuses on our privacy all kind of passed laws about "save the children", "terrorism" and "how will all these poor pop stars sustain their mansions".
"Could do more damage than good."
Of course. What kind of politician would be the one that says makes what feels proper instead of what gives him most immediate benefit? What kind of bastard system would we be pointing to if we allow this kind of behaviour to spread?
"In a democracy EVERYBODY gets to vote, not just those that are playing by the current laws."
Not true. In a democracy every *citizen* gets to vote. And then the political definition of "citizen" is not a fixed one and changes from place to place and from time to time. Some places, some times, women are not considered "citizen", or black men, or resident foreigners, or below 18 year-old, or below 21 year-old, or in jail, or...
Can this be called the Godwin grammar law?
Hey! That was exactly the paragraph I was thinking of on another post. Time to mod me "redundant".
"There would always be people at the bottom, no matter how educated everyone was."
But the great parent gave education a point even on national security. Over educated people (on trash jobs) can be a national security hazard too. I remember something like this on Huxley's 'Brave New World': "why don't we only produce A++ people...?"
"Well, yes and no. Automobile license plates serve a similar function. If my car were used in the commission of a crime I would certainly be investigated as a likely suspect."
A "likely" as in "there's demonstrable relationship between car plates and people we need to take into consideration" is quite different to "here: that's the bastard, we have his car plates".