No, my argument is that you cannot change the meaning of evidence. Police may stop you because of evidence, but police stopping you is not evidence.
You are correct that the analogy doesn't run through, but it doesn't need to. It does show that "evidence" has a meaning that the GP tried to subvert to make an ideological point.
If I had argued that the government doesn't need to show you shit, then you'd be right, but I'd never argue that. The government should demonstrate that such action is being prevented.
However, that STILL doesn't mean that this is "evidence of abuse" it is "evidence of sending". If it did mean that, then actual "evidence of abuse" would lose its meaning.
Bullshit. The fact that the information gets sent at all is prima facie evidence that it's being abused. The burden of proof is on the government to justify it.
Bullshit, the fact that you were arrested by police and prosecuted by the DA is prima facie evidence that you are not innocent. The burden of proof is on you to justify yourself.
You can't change what "evidence" means because it suits your ideological goals.
How is this insightful? What does "backdoor" have to do with it then? If anything with keys can be picked, then all encrypted communication is vulnerable and adding a backdoor would just be meaningless.
All communication has to be decryptable or it isn't communication. (How would one-way communication work? exactly like a write-only memory chip). So someone always has to have a key, but that doesn't always have to be the NSA or government or even Verizon.
This has never been about whether the current U.S. government is trustworthy, but whether the future U.S. government is, and no one can ensure that. Would you trust promises from the Chinese government to always get warrants, or trust the quality of the warrants if they did? Governments are made from people and the people change. You may trust the U.S. government now, but you should not trust the U.S. government of the future further than necessary.
Actually this is false. It is possible to write a language that is both safe* and compiles itself.
If you're not up to that then fine, but please spare us the poor workman blaming his tools excuse
I can cut a straight line with a circular saw without using a guide or a guard, but I can do it a hell of a lot quicker with a guide to rest against and a guard to keep me from having to constantly check my fingers and chords etc. These things weren't invented because of bad workman, but because they make good workman better. Not everyone who notices that there may be better tools out there than C for the very things that C is used for is a workman blaming his tools.
Someone eventually needs to write the rules for translating the higher level language down to lower levels, but this isn't the same as "getting their hands dirty down to the metal" in the same way that you've implied because it can be done in tiny self-contained, small chunks following yet more rules and rigorously like a mathematical proof and therefore not be subject to the same pitfalls as languages like C. It also only has to be done once (per processor) but then the safety is ongoing.
This layering is just modular design and separation of concern. Look at IR in the LLVM project which has allowed an explosion of languages that can enjoy most of the same compiler optimizations that the C family enjoy using this principle.
(btw, the Rust project is very interesting in this subject)
* Of course, the term "safe" has a limited meaning. A compiler can't read your mind but, to the extent that a language is well designed, it can prevent you from doing things that you could not have intended to do and force you to follow rules that will never allow certain common errors that result from people having limited memory.
The only evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt or made a 40 year trip through the desert or that anyone like Moses ever existed is a story where a guy parts the sea by raising his staff and the people are fed by magical food that falls from the sky nightly. That is to say, there is zero evidence that the Israelites were ever even in Egypt.
I'm not sure that follows. Listeners compensate for both of these things by cranking up the volume only to be way over tolerance when the song goes from low point to high point or when the foam headphones shift back into place.
Which is worse for ears? Semi-loud music for 10 minutes or 10 seconds of over-the-top loud? It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the opposite effect with flatter dynamics and a more physically stable listening device.
That is a fascinating idea, but according to this story about who HIPAA applies to, employers are rarely subject to HIPAA except under some specific circumstances.
Doesn't this open them up to all kinds of legal problems? I mean if my bank account gets compromised after I use my nokia phone to check my balance, would I not have a pretty good cause for lawsuit?
The crucial detail is whether the physical layer of the network can be trusted
Someone maintains that physical layer. Even if they are employees of the company, it doesn't follow that they can be trusted. Someone with access to the physical layer and an NTLM hack could "become" anyone else on the network and do whatever he wanted with little fear of getting caught.
Put another way, If everyone that was employed by the company could be trusted, they could all share the same login with unlimited access. If that makes you cringe, then so should NTLM. I think that's the point of the article.
I agree with you that the author you are replying to has a weak opinion. However, that doesn't mean he hates women.
A careful look at what I wrote will reveal that my misogyny accusation was not directed at the author. Notice that the title of my post was "How does this get +5 insightful?" and then I speak of him and his post in the third person, while I make the misogyny accusation in the second person. In other words I was saying, "...don't let science get in the way of your [Slashdot moderators'] shit headed misogyny".
Calling him a misogynist because you don't like his opinion is a false argument ad hominem.
OK, so even if I had been calling the author a misogynist, it would only be ad hominem if I had used his misogyny as disproof of his premise. But my disproof of his premise was that it was contrary to scientific data. Even if I had gone on to claim he were a misogynist, which I didn't, it wouldn't have technically been ad hominem.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny (a hatred of women)
OK, I think you are trying to say that a feeling of superiority to women is not the same as hatred. Yes, that's true, but that's not precisely the definition of misogyny I was picturing. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny (noun: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.). I think I would have been within my liberty to have accused of mistrust given the following from the author:
But if you need someone to get you to the moon--your best bet is still the guy
And yet, to be clear again, that's not what I was doing. I was noting that the quickness that this shot up to +5 (before anything else even had +3) was (yet more) evidence of the rampant misogyny in the ranks of the Slashdot moderation crowd. I'm happy to see that cooler heads eventually brought it all the way back down.
There's no insight here, no data. The parent just spews his own feeling that "girls are rule followers" and "boys are smarter". The scientists with actual data found that the qualities were actually "attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization", but don't let science get in the way of your shit headed misogyny.
And yet this anti-science post makes it instantly to +5, why? Because it strokes the ego of the Slashdot anti-female crowd who think that feminists are coming to take their balls away.
3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.
They added no such restrictions, they've always been there. The summary is wrong.
It hasn't been tightened, the summary is wrong. The following, which the summary says is new:
3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK
Is an exact quote from APRIL 2009. The new terms didn't change this.
The new terms for the Android SDK now include phrases such as 'you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK
Here's what it said in April 10, 2009
3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.
Here's what it says now:
3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK; or (b) load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my argument is that you cannot change the meaning of evidence. Police may stop you because of evidence, but police stopping you is not evidence.
You are correct that the analogy doesn't run through, but it doesn't need to. It does show that "evidence" has a meaning that the GP tried to subvert to make an ideological point.
If I had argued that the government doesn't need to show you shit, then you'd be right, but I'd never argue that. The government should demonstrate that such action is being prevented.
However, that STILL doesn't mean that this is "evidence of abuse" it is "evidence of sending". If it did mean that, then actual "evidence of abuse" would lose its meaning.
Bullshit. The fact that the information gets sent at all is prima facie evidence that it's being abused. The burden of proof is on the government to justify it.
Bullshit, the fact that you were arrested by police and prosecuted by the DA is prima facie evidence that you are not innocent. The burden of proof is on you to justify yourself.
You can't change what "evidence" means because it suits your ideological goals.
How is this insightful? What does "backdoor" have to do with it then? If anything with keys can be picked, then all encrypted communication is vulnerable and adding a backdoor would just be meaningless.
All communication has to be decryptable or it isn't communication. (How would one-way communication work? exactly like a write-only memory chip). So someone always has to have a key, but that doesn't always have to be the NSA or government or even Verizon.
This has never been about whether the current U.S. government is trustworthy, but whether the future U.S. government is, and no one can ensure that. Would you trust promises from the Chinese government to always get warrants, or trust the quality of the warrants if they did? Governments are made from people and the people change. You may trust the U.S. government now, but you should not trust the U.S. government of the future further than necessary.
You can even get 4K PC monitors for an attractive price
Citation needed (...please!)
Actually this is false. It is possible to write a language that is both safe* and compiles itself.
If you're not up to that then fine, but please spare us the poor workman blaming his tools excuse
I can cut a straight line with a circular saw without using a guide or a guard, but I can do it a hell of a lot quicker with a guide to rest against and a guard to keep me from having to constantly check my fingers and chords etc. These things weren't invented because of bad workman, but because they make good workman better. Not everyone who notices that there may be better tools out there than C for the very things that C is used for is a workman blaming his tools.
Someone eventually needs to write the rules for translating the higher level language down to lower levels, but this isn't the same as "getting their hands dirty down to the metal" in the same way that you've implied because it can be done in tiny self-contained, small chunks following yet more rules and rigorously like a mathematical proof and therefore not be subject to the same pitfalls as languages like C. It also only has to be done once (per processor) but then the safety is ongoing.
This layering is just modular design and separation of concern. Look at IR in the LLVM project which has allowed an explosion of languages that can enjoy most of the same compiler optimizations that the C family enjoy using this principle.
(btw, the Rust project is very interesting in this subject)
* Of course, the term "safe" has a limited meaning. A compiler can't read your mind but, to the extent that a language is well designed, it can prevent you from doing things that you could not have intended to do and force you to follow rules that will never allow certain common errors that result from people having limited memory.
White > Black
Man > Woman
I will grant you that when your criteria is "Me > Things different from me" and you can ignore the misery of others, it really is convenient.
enhance!
The only evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt or made a 40 year trip through the desert or that anyone like Moses ever existed is a story where a guy parts the sea by raising his staff and the people are fed by magical food that falls from the sky nightly. That is to say, there is zero evidence that the Israelites were ever even in Egypt.
that 14 year old basement dwellers do not have rights and are not really people.
I don't.
Because accomplishing things you consider valuable...
That's what the GP wants to do. What he's tired of doing is accomplishing things that SOMEONE ELSE considers valuable.
I'm not sure that follows. Listeners compensate for both of these things by cranking up the volume only to be way over tolerance when the song goes from low point to high point or when the foam headphones shift back into place.
Which is worse for ears? Semi-loud music for 10 minutes or 10 seconds of over-the-top loud? It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the opposite effect with flatter dynamics and a more physically stable listening device.
I have username envy.
That is a fascinating idea, but according to this story about who HIPAA applies to, employers are rarely subject to HIPAA except under some specific circumstances.
Doesn't this open them up to all kinds of legal problems? I mean if my bank account gets compromised after I use my nokia phone to check my balance, would I not have a pretty good cause for lawsuit?
Surely all the crazy people that go on rampages do it for the fame. It has nothing to do with their mental health.
The crucial detail is whether the physical layer of the network can be trusted
Someone maintains that physical layer. Even if they are employees of the company, it doesn't follow that they can be trusted. Someone with access to the physical layer and an NTLM hack could "become" anyone else on the network and do whatever he wanted with little fear of getting caught.
Put another way, If everyone that was employed by the company could be trusted, they could all share the same login with unlimited access. If that makes you cringe, then so should NTLM. I think that's the point of the article.
I agree with you that the author you are replying to has a weak opinion. However, that doesn't mean he hates women.
A careful look at what I wrote will reveal that my misogyny accusation was not directed at the author. Notice that the title of my post was "How does this get +5 insightful?" and then I speak of him and his post in the third person, while I make the misogyny accusation in the second person. In other words I was saying, "...don't let science get in the way of your [Slashdot moderators'] shit headed misogyny".
Calling him a misogynist because you don't like his opinion is a false argument ad hominem.
OK, so even if I had been calling the author a misogynist, it would only be ad hominem if I had used his misogyny as disproof of his premise. But my disproof of his premise was that it was contrary to scientific data. Even if I had gone on to claim he were a misogynist, which I didn't, it wouldn't have technically been ad hominem.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny (a hatred of women)
OK, I think you are trying to say that a feeling of superiority to women is not the same as hatred. Yes, that's true, but that's not precisely the definition of misogyny I was picturing. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny (noun: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.). I think I would have been within my liberty to have accused of mistrust given the following from the author:
But if you need someone to get you to the moon--your best bet is still the guy
And yet, to be clear again, that's not what I was doing. I was noting that the quickness that this shot up to +5 (before anything else even had +3) was (yet more) evidence of the rampant misogyny in the ranks of the Slashdot moderation crowd. I'm happy to see that cooler heads eventually brought it all the way back down.
Indeed, how will he ever conceal the fact that he can write software? He's doomed.
There's no insight here, no data. The parent just spews his own feeling that "girls are rule followers" and "boys are smarter". The scientists with actual data found that the qualities were actually "attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization", but don't let science get in the way of your shit headed misogyny.
And yet this anti-science post makes it instantly to +5, why? Because it strokes the ego of the Slashdot anti-female crowd who think that feminists are coming to take their balls away.
if girls do worse on standardized tests, how do we conclude they do better at school?
The answer is in the summary. Teachers give girls better grades. Standardized tests give boys better grades.
Indeed, here is the version from April 2009.
3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.
They added no such restrictions, they've always been there. The summary is wrong.
It hasn't been tightened, the summary is wrong. The following, which the summary says is new:
3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK
Is an exact quote from APRIL 2009. The new terms didn't change this.
The summary is completely wrong.
The new terms for the Android SDK now include phrases such as 'you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK
Here's what it said in April 10, 2009
3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.
Here's what it says now:
3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK; or (b) load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.
What the hell does a non-free SDK do to curb fragmentation? What does clause 3.4 have to do with clause 3.2?