"all you're saying is that you agree with Marx more than Bakunin"
Not at all. What I was saying is that if you think Marx' end was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that was his main difference with Bakunin, you are wrong. Bakunin's and Marx' target were exactly the same, it was the path what was different.
But then, yes, I think Bakunin's path was essentially wrong, while Marx' was not (utterly wrong, yes, but not essentially wrong). And that's the most saddening thing that can be said about our society.
"Getting machines to orientate themselves in a non-controlled environment is non-trivial, to say the least."
It is not, but it's doable given proper motivation, even with current engineering knowledge (so, go figure if much more man-hours were thrown to that kind of problems).
Witness? modern cruise missiles, for instance. The problem is not the engineering, the problem is a society that it's not motivated towards those targets.
"There were societies that used slave labour (which approximates "self-sustaining intelligent machines") to avoid menial jobs, yet they still had the same motivational problems."
Yes, human minds are complex things.
But now consider in one of these societies if you (or they) preferred to be the unmotivated slave spading shit for slashes or the unmotivated poor rich trying to motivate himself by inventing philosophy.
"Forcing engineers and scientists to clean toilets is a horrible waste of resources"
Exactly what I said: good to find local optima, impossible to look further than that. Provided that engineers cleaning toilets is the fastest way to have self cleaning toilets (by means of the "scratch your own itch" principle) how can that be "a horrible waste of resources"?
"read up on the "Great Leap Forward" in China and see how badly that went moving "smart people" into the crop fields."
Apples to oranges. It is not a matter of moving smart people to the crop fields, but that they stay long enough on the crop fields to feel the pain and solution that once they return to the lab or design table (the "return to the lab or design table" being instrumental here).
"What happens when those people simply don't want to clean the toilets and simply say "no" when you ask them to?"
What happens when any people say "no" on his job? You just take him away and he won't taste the fruits of the society around him. And I don't mean to put him in jail: now you fire him and if that's his general attitude, he won't be able to earn a life and will become a beggar; there, it might be that he won't recieve the new selfcleaning toilet so he will need to clean his own one by hand.
You probably should study a bit more on the matter.
While Bakunin, of course, was right in that any dictatorship tends to perpetuate, Marx's proletarial dictatorship was not the end of the story but just the obvious recognition of the former: no dictatorship leaves its position volontarily, so the dictatorship of capital needs to be destroyed by the impetus of the dictatorship of proletariat.
A catch-22: you won't get an end to capitalist but by means of force, but that force will become a dictatorship itselt that in no way will surrender its position.
But there's hope: there's almost unlimited capitalism but there's social-democracies too; URRS was a dictatorship but it was destroyed mostly peacefully.
"Who actually wants to haul garbage for a living? Or clean toilets?"
Machines would do without problem.
Look at engineering in an abstract way: by now we could have been rid of all those pesky unmotivating jobs. But then, look at capitalism: is perfect to reach local optima but it has no concept of "just to make for a better society".
"Author and copyright owner are not the same thing."
Maybe not in bastardized legal systems. In other, more sane countries, authorship is the default copyright notice.
Nevertheless -the finger, the moon, and that story, change "copyright" for "authorship" if you want to (after all, we don't know the exact notice added to the sources, do we?) and review it again; you will see nothing of relevance has been changed.
"For very limited purposes, generally not trials."
Now. You see... you are answering on a thread starting talking about a secret chamber created for very understandable (for the time) concerns that, alas! was later misused.
"This is from distant memory so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that because users can put huge files all over their desktop..."
Yes. And that's why you add quotas to the profile and teach people that they don't need to put the whole file in their desktop, just a shortcut.
But now, in order for the roaming profile to work as expected (being able of, well, roam), you need to add their home directory as a shared resource and make sure all apps save documents by default within the shared resource... too much for your average windows "admin".
"If it was work for hire then the client owned the rights and original poster, samzenpus, had no right to put his own copyright into the header."
Which is, very possibly the case here. Taking my crystal ball out of its retirement, that's my view: 1) The original poster is hired to develop some code for a third party. 2) The original poster finds cool to stamp his copyright in said code -after all, nobody reads the sources, out of ignorance of the implications. 3) Another guy gets hired to work on the same code base, finds the copyright notice and for those files he modifies, he alters the note -hey! now it's my code, isn't it? 4) The former guy presents his code for a new hire 5)...but it happens that the code is javascript publicly accesable from the former company's web site and the new company downloads and sees that the copyright notice doesn't match. 6) but, but, but... it's mine! I know, I'll ask Slashdot to learn what can I do.
"The idea that as soon as you're talking about the internet, anything you can do should be legal, is a bit strange."
Did I say that "anything I can do [on Internet] should be legal"? No, did I?
"If faced with a login screen, behind which javascript implements completely inadequate security..."
For a starter, since you talk about trespassing, that javascript code is in *my* premises, downloaded to *my* PC and sent to *my* browser, and then, only *after* I politely asked to the server to send me what it sees fit.
Now again, if I politely salute a server with http://www.example.com/data?tell=me&your=secrets why should I be responsible for what the server, not me, decided to send back to me? Do you really consider burglary if I politely ask you to give me a grand and then you give me a grand?
And finally, what do you think that funny "www" in the begining means? It means "World Wide [Web]". So you put something reachable by the world at wide, explicitly meant to be reached by the world at wide and still you think no level of due diligence should be requested before throwing criminal charges to other people?
"Stealing money that's sitting poking out of someone's bag while they're not looking is still stealing"
I see you don't understand... there's no way I can unadvertidly poke something out of a web server: I need to *request* the server, and the server then answer my request the way it sees fit.
"there were numbers which were attainable BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE out of the thousands and thousands of sampled got those numbers."
But doesn't precisely *that* preclude fraud? Fraud is about gaining an advantage over others. If exactly 0 out of, how many? 150.000? didn't get graded, say, 33, this means there's no relative advantage since all with "true" 33 were taken out of it no matter what. That very finding points out to something algorithmic, by its very nature, absolutly the opposite to fraud.
"It's possible that for a given State or Federal law that the owner's intent is what's important, not their implementation. And the intent of the defendant is also a factor."
You told it. It's a factor. Due diligence is a factor too. Failing to protect something that it's easily writable in any browser pointing to an already known for both sides to be a public place shouldn't have to be consider due diligence in any sensible legal system.
Yes, it does. When you in real world put a door in a mall, with a big "WELCOME" sign at the top, then you can't argue you didn't allow in some explicit person unless you explicitly tell him he's not welcome.
Well, that's exactly what a website is in Internet world: you just can't say that I'm not allowed to enter http://www.example.com/data?tell=me&your=secrets post-facto, because it's a very valid entry point to an explicitly public place.
Law-makers should understand this. Well, law-makers do in fact know this. And they don't give a damn.
Why pay yourself when you can make others do it? You just need to convince your boss that the company really really really needs Exchange and SQL Server and whatnot. Don't feel ashamed, how do you think SAP or Oracle get their money and CIOs their curriculum?
"Roaming profiles may be a good idea, but when some flaw turns them into crawling profiles then either the bottlenecks need to be found or the idea needs to be given up"
The only problem with roaming profiles is to improperly manage them. There's no need for a user's profile to grow over very few megs.
Slashdot Mirror
"the fact is that competition *sometimes* forces them to become efficient and sacrifice profit."
There, corrected for you.
"I would say it is legalised prostitution allowed in a certain set of conditions."
If it's to be filmed, I'd say it's prostitution allowed in a set, full stop.
"all you're saying is that you agree with Marx more than Bakunin"
Not at all. What I was saying is that if you think Marx' end was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that was his main difference with Bakunin, you are wrong. Bakunin's and Marx' target were exactly the same, it was the path what was different.
But then, yes, I think Bakunin's path was essentially wrong, while Marx' was not (utterly wrong, yes, but not essentially wrong). And that's the most saddening thing that can be said about our society.
"No, we couldn't."
Yes, we would.
"Getting machines to orientate themselves in a non-controlled environment is non-trivial, to say the least."
It is not, but it's doable given proper motivation, even with current engineering knowledge (so, go figure if much more man-hours were thrown to that kind of problems).
Witness? modern cruise missiles, for instance. The problem is not the engineering, the problem is a society that it's not motivated towards those targets.
"There were societies that used slave labour (which approximates "self-sustaining intelligent machines") to avoid menial jobs, yet they still had the same motivational problems."
Yes, human minds are complex things.
But now consider in one of these societies if you (or they) preferred to be the unmotivated slave spading shit for slashes or the unmotivated poor rich trying to motivate himself by inventing philosophy.
"Forcing engineers and scientists to clean toilets is a horrible waste of resources"
Exactly what I said: good to find local optima, impossible to look further than that. Provided that engineers cleaning toilets is the fastest way to have self cleaning toilets (by means of the "scratch your own itch" principle) how can that be "a horrible waste of resources"?
"read up on the "Great Leap Forward" in China and see how badly that went moving "smart people" into the crop fields."
Apples to oranges. It is not a matter of moving smart people to the crop fields, but that they stay long enough on the crop fields to feel the pain and solution that once they return to the lab or design table (the "return to the lab or design table" being instrumental here).
"What happens when those people simply don't want to clean the toilets and simply say "no" when you ask them to?"
What happens when any people say "no" on his job? You just take him away and he won't taste the fruits of the society around him. And I don't mean to put him in jail: now you fire him and if that's his general attitude, he won't be able to earn a life and will become a beggar; there, it might be that he won't recieve the new selfcleaning toilet so he will need to clean his own one by hand.
You probably should study a bit more on the matter.
While Bakunin, of course, was right in that any dictatorship tends to perpetuate, Marx's proletarial dictatorship was not the end of the story but just the obvious recognition of the former: no dictatorship leaves its position volontarily, so the dictatorship of capital needs to be destroyed by the impetus of the dictatorship of proletariat.
A catch-22: you won't get an end to capitalist but by means of force, but that force will become a dictatorship itselt that in no way will surrender its position.
But there's hope: there's almost unlimited capitalism but there's social-democracies too; URRS was a dictatorship but it was destroyed mostly peacefully.
"Who actually wants to haul garbage for a living? Or clean toilets?"
Machines would do without problem.
Look at engineering in an abstract way: by now we could have been rid of all those pesky unmotivating jobs.
But then, look at capitalism: is perfect to reach local optima but it has no concept of "just to make for a better society".
"Author and copyright owner are not the same thing."
Maybe not in bastardized legal systems. In other, more sane countries, authorship is the default copyright notice.
Nevertheless -the finger, the moon, and that story, change "copyright" for "authorship" if you want to (after all, we don't know the exact notice added to the sources, do we?) and review it again; you will see nothing of relevance has been changed.
It just makes sense. It's much more difficult to type 4.1 characters on an unprivileged console.
"For very limited purposes, generally not trials."
Now. You see... you are answering on a thread starting talking about a secret chamber created for very understandable (for the time) concerns that, alas! was later misused.
See the parallelism?
"This is from distant memory so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that because users can put huge files all over their desktop..."
Yes. And that's why you add quotas to the profile and teach people that they don't need to put the whole file in their desktop, just a shortcut.
But now, in order for the roaming profile to work as expected (being able of, well, roam), you need to add their home directory as a shared resource and make sure all apps save documents by default within the shared resource... too much for your average windows "admin".
"If it was work for hire then the client owned the rights and original poster, samzenpus, had no right to put his own copyright into the header."
Which is, very possibly the case here. Taking my crystal ball out of its retirement, that's my view: ...but it happens that the code is javascript publicly accesable from the former company's web site and the new company downloads and sees that the copyright notice doesn't match.
1) The original poster is hired to develop some code for a third party.
2) The original poster finds cool to stamp his copyright in said code -after all, nobody reads the sources, out of ignorance of the implications.
3) Another guy gets hired to work on the same code base, finds the copyright notice and for those files he modifies, he alters the note -hey! now it's my code, isn't it?
4) The former guy presents his code for a new hire
5)
6) but, but, but... it's mine! I know, I'll ask Slashdot to learn what can I do.
"you mean a company that writes software for others cannot use the enterprise offering from github ?"
It depends on contract, as you surely know.
"The idea that as soon as you're talking about the internet, anything you can do should be legal, is a bit strange."
Did I say that "anything I can do [on Internet] should be legal"? No, did I?
"If faced with a login screen, behind which javascript implements completely inadequate security..."
For a starter, since you talk about trespassing, that javascript code is in *my* premises, downloaded to *my* PC and sent to *my* browser, and then, only *after* I politely asked to the server to send me what it sees fit.
Now again, if I politely salute a server with http://www.example.com/data?tell=me&your=secrets why should I be responsible for what the server, not me, decided to send back to me? Do you really consider burglary if I politely ask you to give me a grand and then you give me a grand?
And finally, what do you think that funny "www" in the begining means? It means "World Wide [Web]". So you put something reachable by the world at wide, explicitly meant to be reached by the world at wide and still you think no level of due diligence should be requested before throwing criminal charges to other people?
"Stealing money that's sitting poking out of someone's bag while they're not looking is still stealing"
I see you don't understand... there's no way I can unadvertidly poke something out of a web server: I need to *request* the server, and the server then answer my request the way it sees fit.
"Sorry, do you think key loggers are impossible on Linux or something?"
No. I'm simply stating that this specific key-logger is focused on windows systems.
For platform-specific malware I it would be good always mentioning which platforms it affects.
"If A is an undecidable statement, then so is (not A)."
Which happens to be a very operational (modern) definition of an axiom: only one straight line goes through two points... or not.
On *Windows* target systems, you mean.
"there were numbers which were attainable BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE out of the thousands and thousands of sampled got those numbers."
But doesn't precisely *that* preclude fraud? Fraud is about gaining an advantage over others. If exactly 0 out of, how many? 150.000? didn't get graded, say, 33, this means there's no relative advantage since all with "true" 33 were taken out of it no matter what. That very finding points out to something algorithmic, by its very nature, absolutly the opposite to fraud.
"It's possible that for a given State or Federal law that the owner's intent is what's important, not their implementation. And the intent of the defendant is also a factor."
You told it. It's a factor. Due diligence is a factor too. Failing to protect something that it's easily writable in any browser pointing to an already known for both sides to be a public place shouldn't have to be consider due diligence in any sensible legal system.
"Now this doesn't even make sense."
Yes, it does. When you in real world put a door in a mall, with a big "WELCOME" sign at the top, then you can't argue you didn't allow in some explicit person unless you explicitly tell him he's not welcome.
Well, that's exactly what a website is in Internet world: you just can't say that I'm not allowed to enter http://www.example.com/data?tell=me&your=secrets post-facto, because it's a very valid entry point to an explicitly public place.
Law-makers should understand this. Well, law-makers do in fact know this. And they don't give a damn.
Why pay yourself when you can make others do it? You just need to convince your boss that the company really really really needs Exchange and SQL Server and whatnot. Don't feel ashamed, how do you think SAP or Oracle get their money and CIOs their curriculum?
"Roaming profiles may be a good idea, but when some flaw turns them into crawling profiles then either the bottlenecks need to be found or the idea needs to be given up"
The only problem with roaming profiles is to improperly manage them. There's no need for a user's profile to grow over very few megs.
"you are updating ONE image that all clients boot from"
Sorry, son. It is you the one that don't understand what are you talking about.
"Most statements that interest mathematicians are decidable, and 100% so."
And for those truly undecidable, you take them for an axiom and done with it.