Has anyone looked at all of this rush to censor what kids see and thought 'security through obscurity', or have I been geeking out too much? It smells very much like the idea that by covering something up, it or you are secure and safe. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think the same flawed reasoning and fear drive the two. It's like blaming the mirror for being overweight or something.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. --Aristotle
Not to expand this thread too much, but I'm surprised people feel the need to attack, again, the -person- instead of the -issue-. Did you agree with the content of the paper? Can you make a better point? This smacks of some 'Whack-A-Poster' game.
Speaking from my own experience, David's been very helpful when others at the LUG were there to show off their wonderous Enlightenment skills. Above and beyond, I'd say. My $.02 only.
I also like the paper. Essays are windows into opinion, and you can either learn something new from it or not. Sorry your experiences with the writer have been bad.
It goes to show that if anyone says the *INX people are fighting some religious war against the infidels, they need to be pointed to articles like the load of FUD blasted in this excellent reply. In the workplace, I'm fairly constantly dealing with arguments of this type, when my questions expect technical answers about the viability of NT server as a reliable enterprise solution. I'm treated as a zealot hyping some hacker kiddie OS, yet...the examples against the NT server 'solution' are many and factual and the arguments in favor of NT are often FUD. I work both sides, like 'em, but this is -not- a 'juvenile and doomed religious' war, this is a war for technical truth and clear facts. This is a war against implimentation based on ignorance, informed or uninformed. Given this, We Will Always Win as long as we have people like Kragen and countless others to stand up and tell it like it is, -even if- we do not agree. Just the Facts.
It's a lot easier to flame than it is to understand. There's a lot out there on the Net that isn't worth the rise in blood pressure and the degradation of finger tendons in banging away a reply, because someone has to believe you to change their thinking, and that takes choice on their part./rational_response Truth is, it doesn't really stop me or anyone else, of course.:) I get indignent at a lot, including posts from both sides. I think the key here is with the AC posts is....does it really matter who is posting? You're reading a stream of ideas, and unless it truly matters to you to know the name, background, SSN, OS of the person behind the ideas, then it's moot. Someone you disagree with strongly about Linux may have an opinion on music you agree with. The attachment of a name sometimes grants instant and unmerited bias to anything posted by that person. I really believe an Anonymous poster has the benefit of escaping the preconceived notions some may attach to a solid identity otherwise. Anyway, this is getting long.:) Katz has a knack for fluidity of perspective without compromising his own opinions, I think. If more people had flexibility, -then- the rational_response I cited above would play a bigger part in posting.
I can believe this. If anything has the ability to record data, and it's in a classified area, it has to be treated as classified to the level of the information it's exposed to. If that means putting classified password into your digital watch, which it does, then Furby's in the safe. I don't call this a Bad Thing....
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone looked at all of this rush to censor what kids see and thought 'security through obscurity', or have I been geeking out too much? It smells very much like the idea that by covering something up, it or you are secure and safe. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think the same flawed reasoning and fear drive the two. It's like blaming the mirror for being overweight or something.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
Not to expand this thread too much, but I'm surprised people feel the need to attack, again, the -person- instead of the -issue-. Did you agree with the content of the paper? Can you make a better point? This smacks of some 'Whack-A-Poster' game.
Speaking from my own experience, David's been very helpful when others at the LUG were there to show off their wonderous Enlightenment skills. Above and beyond, I'd say. My $.02 only.
I also like the paper. Essays are windows into opinion, and you can either learn something new from it or not. Sorry your experiences with the writer have been bad.
It goes to show that if anyone says the *INX people are fighting some religious war against the infidels, they need to be pointed to articles like the load of FUD blasted in this excellent reply. In the workplace, I'm fairly constantly dealing with arguments of this type, when my questions expect technical answers about the viability of NT server as a reliable enterprise solution. I'm treated as a zealot hyping some hacker kiddie OS, yet...the examples against the NT server 'solution' are many and factual and the arguments in favor of NT are often FUD. I work both sides, like 'em, but this is -not- a 'juvenile and doomed religious' war, this is a war for technical truth and clear facts. This is a war against implimentation based on ignorance, informed or uninformed. Given this, We Will Always Win as long as we have people like Kragen and countless others to stand up and tell it like it is, -even if- we do not agree. Just the Facts.
Question the dominant paradigm.
Pym
It's a lot easier to flame than it is to understand. There's a lot out there on the Net that isn't worth the rise in blood pressure and the degradation of finger tendons in banging away a reply, because someone has to believe you to change their thinking, and that takes choice on their part. /rational_response :) I get indignent at a lot, including posts from both sides. I think the key here is with the AC posts is....does it really matter who is posting? You're reading a stream of ideas, and unless it truly matters to you to know the name, background, SSN, OS of the person behind the ideas, then it's moot. Someone you disagree with strongly about Linux may have an opinion on music you agree with. The attachment of a name sometimes grants instant and unmerited bias to anything posted by that person. I really believe an Anonymous poster has the benefit of escaping the preconceived notions some may attach to a solid identity otherwise. :) Katz has a knack for fluidity of perspective without compromising his own opinions, I think. If more people had flexibility, -then- the rational_response I cited above would play a bigger part in posting.
Truth is, it doesn't really stop me or anyone else, of course.
Anyway, this is getting long.
Cheers,
Pym
I can believe this. If anything has the ability to record data, and it's in a classified area, it has to be treated as classified to the level of the information it's exposed to. If that means putting classified password into your digital watch, which it does, then Furby's in the safe. I don't call this a Bad Thing....