I've probably posted others, but I bet "everyone" is still going to leave the dozens of CA certs in their browsers, and Mozilla and friends aren't going to do the SSH style thing - warn user if the cert changes for whatever reason- even if it's a valid cert.
Well, you just need to warn if the cert signer changed. However, that doesn't help if the first time you access the page, you get the fake cert. But neither does your proposal.
There are some circumstances where you may fire someone on religious grounds. The law says only that you must make a reasonable effort to accommodate a person's religion. If your employee is taking incense into a clean room, you can tell him to stop. He can burn it outside the clean room in some designated area if you are able to provide such. That would be a reasonable alternative. If the employee refuses, you can fire him.
Correct. There are several exceptions to the at-will doctrine in California. You can't be fired if you've been promised, even verbally, that you will not be. Further, you can't be fired for refusing to break a law, based on religion or various other types of discrimination, and a small handful of other reasons.
You do not start by cloning geniuses. Then you might end up with an evil genius and that would just end badly for everyone involved. No, it's far better to start with neanderthals and work your way up. Dear lord, you need to watch more horror movies.
That's not a good idea. Hard drives tend to die early or they last for a while, so by swapping the drives out like that, you're just making it more likely that you'll fall victim to hard drive infant mortality.
If you want to avoid the problem, set up a RAID 1 mirror or similar.
I'm not sure about #3. It might be a lost cause because standards generally don't much like breaking compatibility. Still, I guess it couldn't hurt for them to try.
This isn't necessarily true. The problem you run into is that monopolies have the power to destroy the free market by raising the barrier to entry via several techniques, such as by temporarily lowering prices, suing new competitors for IP violations, buying all competitors, or not allowing competitors to use their infrastructure. Microsoft is guilty of all of these things, either directly or by proxy. Likewise, the telephone companies have done some of these things.
Some of these things are illegal. But really, we're talking about Google here. Is Google a monopoly? Probably not by the legal definition, but you could argue their mindshare makes them a de facto one. However, let's take a look at some of the things I mentioned. Google can't fix prices as long as they stick to the auction model. Furthermore, Google isn't in the habit of suing competitors, and it doesn't control infrastructure that is required to enter the market. Therefore, they can be accused only of buying all their competition. But Google clearly doesn't have the deep pockets required to buy Yahoo or Microsoft, who are their primary competitors.
I'd say that this deal probably should have gone through. The Google-Yahoo deal is more tenuous. I think that might be ok given that it's not a buyout, Yahoo has the option of dropping Google at any time, and it could be a badly needed cash infusion at Yahoo. But anyway, I think the purpose of anti-monopoly laws is to protect consumers, and consumers are probably not benefiting from the rejection of this deal.
Many? My dear friend, I would say most. Perhaps a slightly lower percentage than the number of conservatives since highly educated people are often more liberal, but you can't necessarily go from most highly educated people are liberal to saying that liberals are smarter on average. It just makes it slightly more likely that this is true.
Many of us liberals believe that the conservative ideas of how to protect and preserve America's physical assets are counterproductive to the stated goals.
Ones as fundamental to the success of those projects as the innards of C# are to Mono?
Yes. I bet they've got all kinds of patents like, "A method for displaying information to the user in such a way that the user has to acknowledge the information before proceeding" and such.
That would be about the most damaging blow they could land, but people of your mindset are happily buying into that vulnerable position.
Really, MS probably has patents that affect GCC, Linux, and a whole bunch of other stuff. They do, after all, have their own compilers and kernel that they have presumably filed patents on. Likewise, Sun probably has patents on Java, and maybe even C++ and other compilers. Borland likely does, too.
Really, you're just spreading FUD like any of the good MS marketing people.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see how convenient that would be for them.
Sure you do. Please provide specific examples of things the Novel deal lets Microsoft do to Mono that they couldn't have done before the deal.
The Mono Trap is that you might get stuck on a platform encumbered by patents
Guess what? You'd better stop using all software altogether. Pretty much every piece of software written today violates some patent somewhere. If Microsoft wants to sue Mono, they can do that. They can also sue Linux, KDE, and any number of other people. You know why? Because they have a lot of superficial patents that anyone might violate totally by accident.
Your argument, then, is that no business should stake itself on open source. Good to know.
It's equally obvious that Microsoft has never entered a relationship without destroying its partner. The naivety behind thinking that maybe they'll play nice this one time, for the first time in the history of their company, is simply astounding.
Who cares whether MS plays nice? Any business relationships involved are between MS and Novel. Mono is open source and so in no way tied to Novel. Novel might run into trouble with their MS deal, but it matters to Mono only insofar as many of the devs are paid by Novel.
WINE and classpath implement specifications that are publicly available whereas Mono, through a deal with M$, implements something which is not freely implementable
This is simply not true. There is no public specification for any of these. Java is mainly defined by a set of conformance tests, which is not a spec. Win32 has been partly reverse engineered so WINE can be implemented. Also, I don't know of any deal between MS and Novel about sharing information, but even if there is one, what difference does it make? Go look at how video drivers get written for X. Lots of open source devs sign NDAs so they can see the specs. This is an unfortunate practice, but it doesn't invalidate any of the work they've done. The code they write is still open source.
I'll also point out that you can write an alternative to Mono simply by reading the source code. The Mono source code has all the information you need to implement Mono. Furthermore, you can do what WINE does and reverse engineer things as you need to, which, to my knowledge, has been exactly what the Mono folks have been doing.
Finally, I'll point out that the comparison was with WINE and Win32 is not an open standard, either. You've conflated two terms in an effort to mislead people here. Nobody here is saying.NET is a proper standard. It's completely irrelevant to the current discussion.
You're not much of a debater. Yes, there's an ad hominem in there (but only one, not two as you claim). However, ad hominems don't invalidate anything else I said, and it's not necessarily even false. I still think you're a pea-brained moron and your response has done nothing to change that.
If you want to be taken seriously, respond to my argument against you thinking there's Linux lock-in that Mono is breaking. Or present some other argument that I shall take great pleasure in mocking similarly.
Before I tear apart what you think passes for an argument, let me say that the Mono folks are doing an amazing job and they get way too little credit. The tinfoil hat brigade around here seems to have taken on Mono as its personal whipping boy, and it's totally unfair and uncalled for.
WINE removes lock-in,.NET provides it.
Sure, but weren't you supposed to be talking about Mono there somewhere? Java used to provide lock-in, too. Hence, the GNU Classpath project, which is pretty much identical in its goals to Mono. Funny that I never saw you people screaming about that one being a trap.
WINE helps people leave windows and still keep their legacy applications. Mono provides a way for new applications to be moved from Linux to Windows.
Wow, get some perspective there. How many killer apps are there on Linux that the Windows people are craving? KDE? Gnome? Firefox? OpenOffice? None of those are on.NET and most of them run on Windows, anyway. Do you think that Firefox, OOo and KDE are all helping people move away from Linux by providing Windows ports? Isn't it more likely that without those Windows ports, most of these projects would go nowhere?
It's really quite obvious to anyone with any actual knowledge of how the industry works that people are going to write applications without Linux in mind. The Mono project, just like the Wine project, lets people who run Linux run applications that other people wrote for Windows.
As it turns out, there's also a bunch of useful libraries that Mono includes that you can use when coding for platforms other than Windows. It boggles my mind that anyone would think that this is somehow a trap. It's just a useful way to access Unixy things on Mono. But it clearly can't be breaking Linux lock-in or whatever pea-brained scheme you've come up with.
Unless, of course, the argument is made that there are legacy applications in.NET that can be run on Mono, in which case we have bigger problems, such as lack of intellectual integrity on the part of those making the argument
.NET has been around for 7-8 years now. Do you honestly think code can't become legacy in that amount of time? Here's a tip: if you think Linux has any lock-in potential for applications written on it, then perhaps you shouldn't talk too much about intellectual integrity.
Oh, and why do you find it so hard to believe that Google would deliberately weaken its competitor?
Oh, I love you conspiracy nuts. You're all the same. What makes you think Google knew this would happen? Think back to the terms and situation of the deal. It was Yahoo who was in danger of being bought by Microsoft. How about we start blaming Microsoft for weakening Yahoo, since they obviously knew all this would happen.
This deal was mutual between the two and most people were thinking it would strengthen Yahoo. If it has weakened them and it was Google's plan, then Google was about the only one who called it. I love that you give them that much credit, but I don't.
And how exactly is Abortion Rights less liberal than pro-choice? If anything the former more strongly implies that abortions are a good thing (not the actual procedure but the unfettered access).
Because pro-choice avoids the term abortion altogether. To many people, abortion has a negative connotation. I would have thought that was obvious. Certainly more obvious than the use of "anti" denoting a bias against something.
And "Anti-abortion rights" is actually a pretty common used term when referring to pro-life in articles.
There's a reason I qualified that with "might". It is still quite accurate because currently, abortion is a right Americans have.
Technically they are "anti-2nd ammendment" activist but once again, that doesn't sound good and is also not the way they self describe.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with the anti-2nd amendment idea. The 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any arms. Just like the right to pursue happiness does not give you unchecked rights to do whatever you want in that pursuit, the right to bear arms does not necessarily give you the right to bear any arms you like.
But that's a technicality. If what you say is true, why do anti-gun control lobbyists describe themselves this way? They could describe themselves as pro-gun rights, pro-2nd amendment, or even something more loaded, like pro-self defense.
I have no problems with the idea that language can be twisted to change the connotation of something and people who don't read between the lines or who aren't being cautious enough can easily fall for this. We all do it from time to time. But this isn't one of those cases. In neither case is the optimal term for the side in question being used. The choice seems to be about as technically accurate as one can expect. If you think anti-abortion hurts the pro-life side, it's just because the they are against the accepted standard of law. The term anti-abortion is perfectly accurate and indicates no bias at all.
Let me try one time to explain clearly why "anti" does not indicate a negative connotation. The word simply negates what comes after. If the word that comes after has a negative connotation, then its anti would likely have a positive connotation. If I say, "anti-murder" or "anti-infanticide", then it certainly sounds positive. Likewise, to many people, abortion has a negative connotation, so, if anything, anti-abortion should have a positive connotation for a lot of people.
I think your example is a poor one. Anti-abortion is actually perfectly descriptive of the mission of the pro-lifers. You'll notice they also avoided the loaded liberal term "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" (which seems to connote someone who thinks abortions are good). Personally, I think abortions are awful things, but the right to have one should exist. So I think abortion rights well describes my position and probably most "pro-choice" people. So no, the terms do not indicate any bias in the media. You might have an argument if it said anti-abortion rights, if only because it would then imply that abortion was a right the anti-abortionists were against. As another example, do you think that anti-gun control is loaded toward supporting gun control? I think it is telling that you point out clearly unbiased language as something proving a liberal bias.
But perhaps if presenting facts doesn't work, the Socratic method will work better: Why do you think the Slashdot crowd is important enough a demographic for the Republicans to pay someone to troll here?
[T]hen they run right off the deep end with conspiracy theories and crazy assumptions, but desire no proof to support their belief. It's almost like...an organized religion for complete nutjobs.
Sort of like claiming that the WMDs in Iraq were shipped to Syria or Iran hours before the invasion? Which country was it? Or are you just making shit up?
You realize that if they were making WMDs, they would also need factories and such, which we also presumably would have found. Or did those get shipped off to Israel or something?
It seems to me that you are the one believing in conspiracy theories. All any of the rest of us believe is that Bush lied to us or didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I really don't care which it was at this point, but it's not a conspiracy. Just a couple of liars or morons, pick your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if it's him getting fired. Maybe that's what he meant.
I have mod points, but I can't find the -1 Tinfoil Hat Brigade.
Well, you just need to warn if the cert signer changed. However, that doesn't help if the first time you access the page, you get the fake cert. But neither does your proposal.
There are some circumstances where you may fire someone on religious grounds. The law says only that you must make a reasonable effort to accommodate a person's religion. If your employee is taking incense into a clean room, you can tell him to stop. He can burn it outside the clean room in some designated area if you are able to provide such. That would be a reasonable alternative. If the employee refuses, you can fire him.
Correct. There are several exceptions to the at-will doctrine in California. You can't be fired if you've been promised, even verbally, that you will not be. Further, you can't be fired for refusing to break a law, based on religion or various other types of discrimination, and a small handful of other reasons.
I don't know about that. There are some people I know who I'd pay at least that much to get rid of.
No, no, no, no, NO!
You've missed the point.
You do not start by cloning geniuses. Then you might end up with an evil genius and that would just end badly for everyone involved. No, it's far better to start with neanderthals and work your way up. Dear lord, you need to watch more horror movies.
Wow, who let you out?
That's not a good idea. Hard drives tend to die early or they last for a while, so by swapping the drives out like that, you're just making it more likely that you'll fall victim to hard drive infant mortality.
If you want to avoid the problem, set up a RAID 1 mirror or similar.
I'm not sure about #3. It might be a lost cause because standards generally don't much like breaking compatibility. Still, I guess it couldn't hurt for them to try.
This isn't necessarily true. The problem you run into is that monopolies have the power to destroy the free market by raising the barrier to entry via several techniques, such as by temporarily lowering prices, suing new competitors for IP violations, buying all competitors, or not allowing competitors to use their infrastructure. Microsoft is guilty of all of these things, either directly or by proxy. Likewise, the telephone companies have done some of these things.
Some of these things are illegal. But really, we're talking about Google here. Is Google a monopoly? Probably not by the legal definition, but you could argue their mindshare makes them a de facto one. However, let's take a look at some of the things I mentioned. Google can't fix prices as long as they stick to the auction model. Furthermore, Google isn't in the habit of suing competitors, and it doesn't control infrastructure that is required to enter the market. Therefore, they can be accused only of buying all their competition. But Google clearly doesn't have the deep pockets required to buy Yahoo or Microsoft, who are their primary competitors.
I'd say that this deal probably should have gone through. The Google-Yahoo deal is more tenuous. I think that might be ok given that it's not a buyout, Yahoo has the option of dropping Google at any time, and it could be a badly needed cash infusion at Yahoo. But anyway, I think the purpose of anti-monopoly laws is to protect consumers, and consumers are probably not benefiting from the rejection of this deal.
Clearly, it's a sign of the Apocalypse. Dogs and cats living together and all that.
Many? My dear friend, I would say most. Perhaps a slightly lower percentage than the number of conservatives since highly educated people are often more liberal, but you can't necessarily go from most highly educated people are liberal to saying that liberals are smarter on average. It just makes it slightly more likely that this is true.
Totally irrelevant but, speaking as a pendant
Somehow, I doubt you're that pretty.
Many of us liberals believe that the conservative ideas of how to protect and preserve America's physical assets are counterproductive to the stated goals.
Yes. I bet they've got all kinds of patents like, "A method for displaying information to the user in such a way that the user has to acknowledge the information before proceeding" and such.
Really, MS probably has patents that affect GCC, Linux, and a whole bunch of other stuff. They do, after all, have their own compilers and kernel that they have presumably filed patents on. Likewise, Sun probably has patents on Java, and maybe even C++ and other compilers. Borland likely does, too.
Really, you're just spreading FUD like any of the good MS marketing people.
Sure you do. Please provide specific examples of things the Novel deal lets Microsoft do to Mono that they couldn't have done before the deal.
Guess what? You'd better stop using all software altogether. Pretty much every piece of software written today violates some patent somewhere. If Microsoft wants to sue Mono, they can do that. They can also sue Linux, KDE, and any number of other people. You know why? Because they have a lot of superficial patents that anyone might violate totally by accident.
Your argument, then, is that no business should stake itself on open source. Good to know.
Who cares whether MS plays nice? Any business relationships involved are between MS and Novel. Mono is open source and so in no way tied to Novel. Novel might run into trouble with their MS deal, but it matters to Mono only insofar as many of the devs are paid by Novel.
This is simply not true. There is no public specification for any of these. Java is mainly defined by a set of conformance tests, which is not a spec. Win32 has been partly reverse engineered so WINE can be implemented. Also, I don't know of any deal between MS and Novel about sharing information, but even if there is one, what difference does it make? Go look at how video drivers get written for X. Lots of open source devs sign NDAs so they can see the specs. This is an unfortunate practice, but it doesn't invalidate any of the work they've done. The code they write is still open source.
I'll also point out that you can write an alternative to Mono simply by reading the source code. The Mono source code has all the information you need to implement Mono. Furthermore, you can do what WINE does and reverse engineer things as you need to, which, to my knowledge, has been exactly what the Mono folks have been doing.
Finally, I'll point out that the comparison was with WINE and Win32 is not an open standard, either. You've conflated two terms in an effort to mislead people here. Nobody here is saying .NET is a proper standard. It's completely irrelevant to the current discussion.
You're not much of a debater. Yes, there's an ad hominem in there (but only one, not two as you claim). However, ad hominems don't invalidate anything else I said, and it's not necessarily even false. I still think you're a pea-brained moron and your response has done nothing to change that.
If you want to be taken seriously, respond to my argument against you thinking there's Linux lock-in that Mono is breaking. Or present some other argument that I shall take great pleasure in mocking similarly.
Before I tear apart what you think passes for an argument, let me say that the Mono folks are doing an amazing job and they get way too little credit. The tinfoil hat brigade around here seems to have taken on Mono as its personal whipping boy, and it's totally unfair and uncalled for.
Sure, but weren't you supposed to be talking about Mono there somewhere? Java used to provide lock-in, too. Hence, the GNU Classpath project, which is pretty much identical in its goals to Mono. Funny that I never saw you people screaming about that one being a trap.
Wow, get some perspective there. How many killer apps are there on Linux that the Windows people are craving? KDE? Gnome? Firefox? OpenOffice? None of those are on .NET and most of them run on Windows, anyway. Do you think that Firefox, OOo and KDE are all helping people move away from Linux by providing Windows ports? Isn't it more likely that without those Windows ports, most of these projects would go nowhere?
It's really quite obvious to anyone with any actual knowledge of how the industry works that people are going to write applications without Linux in mind. The Mono project, just like the Wine project, lets people who run Linux run applications that other people wrote for Windows.
As it turns out, there's also a bunch of useful libraries that Mono includes that you can use when coding for platforms other than Windows. It boggles my mind that anyone would think that this is somehow a trap. It's just a useful way to access Unixy things on Mono. But it clearly can't be breaking Linux lock-in or whatever pea-brained scheme you've come up with.
.NET has been around for 7-8 years now. Do you honestly think code can't become legacy in that amount of time? Here's a tip: if you think Linux has any lock-in potential for applications written on it, then perhaps you shouldn't talk too much about intellectual integrity.
Oh, I love you conspiracy nuts. You're all the same. What makes you think Google knew this would happen? Think back to the terms and situation of the deal. It was Yahoo who was in danger of being bought by Microsoft. How about we start blaming Microsoft for weakening Yahoo, since they obviously knew all this would happen.
This deal was mutual between the two and most people were thinking it would strengthen Yahoo. If it has weakened them and it was Google's plan, then Google was about the only one who called it. I love that you give them that much credit, but I don't.
Because pro-choice avoids the term abortion altogether. To many people, abortion has a negative connotation. I would have thought that was obvious. Certainly more obvious than the use of "anti" denoting a bias against something.
There's a reason I qualified that with "might". It is still quite accurate because currently, abortion is a right Americans have.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with the anti-2nd amendment idea. The 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any arms. Just like the right to pursue happiness does not give you unchecked rights to do whatever you want in that pursuit, the right to bear arms does not necessarily give you the right to bear any arms you like.
But that's a technicality. If what you say is true, why do anti-gun control lobbyists describe themselves this way? They could describe themselves as pro-gun rights, pro-2nd amendment, or even something more loaded, like pro-self defense.
I have no problems with the idea that language can be twisted to change the connotation of something and people who don't read between the lines or who aren't being cautious enough can easily fall for this. We all do it from time to time. But this isn't one of those cases. In neither case is the optimal term for the side in question being used. The choice seems to be about as technically accurate as one can expect. If you think anti-abortion hurts the pro-life side, it's just because the they are against the accepted standard of law. The term anti-abortion is perfectly accurate and indicates no bias at all.
Let me try one time to explain clearly why "anti" does not indicate a negative connotation. The word simply negates what comes after. If the word that comes after has a negative connotation, then its anti would likely have a positive connotation. If I say, "anti-murder" or "anti-infanticide", then it certainly sounds positive. Likewise, to many people, abortion has a negative connotation, so, if anything, anti-abortion should have a positive connotation for a lot of people.
I think your example is a poor one. Anti-abortion is actually perfectly descriptive of the mission of the pro-lifers. You'll notice they also avoided the loaded liberal term "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" (which seems to connote someone who thinks abortions are good). Personally, I think abortions are awful things, but the right to have one should exist. So I think abortion rights well describes my position and probably most "pro-choice" people. So no, the terms do not indicate any bias in the media. You might have an argument if it said anti-abortion rights, if only because it would then imply that abortion was a right the anti-abortionists were against. As another example, do you think that anti-gun control is loaded toward supporting gun control? I think it is telling that you point out clearly unbiased language as something proving a liberal bias.
What the...?
I'm surrounded by crazy people.
But perhaps if presenting facts doesn't work, the Socratic method will work better: Why do you think the Slashdot crowd is important enough a demographic for the Republicans to pay someone to troll here?
Sort of like claiming that the WMDs in Iraq were shipped to Syria or Iran hours before the invasion? Which country was it? Or are you just making shit up?
You realize that if they were making WMDs, they would also need factories and such, which we also presumably would have found. Or did those get shipped off to Israel or something?
It seems to me that you are the one believing in conspiracy theories. All any of the rest of us believe is that Bush lied to us or didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I really don't care which it was at this point, but it's not a conspiracy. Just a couple of liars or morons, pick your choice.