As a woman I can make a reciprocol evaluation: From my experience, the most important thing men were looking for was looks. I initially had a photo up and got swamped with replies, after removing the photo they slowed way down.
As a man who is probably less concerned about looks than most men are, I feel I should respond. I generally don't bother reading profiles without photos. Why? Because I can glean a ton of information about a person by how she chooses to present herself. For example, drunkenness is a real turn-off for me, and there is a world of difference between somebody who has an occasional few drinks with friends or on special occasions, and somebody who goes out and gets drunk nearly every weekend. Both will list "drinks socially" in their profiles, but a beer bottle in most of a person's photos is a good indicator.
A profile with crappy photos and randomly-punctuated pseudo-English says she's probably not really all that serious; and a half-naked main photo tells me that she's less likely to be my type than someone who is dressed well but modestly.
But really, the biggest reason why I don't bother looking at profiles without photos is that most of the time, there isn't any information on those profiles anyway. People sign up for a profile, fill in a few basic details (age, sex, availability), and never come back.
I realize it's all unfair stereotyping (well, profiling), but that's the point of these websites. There are enough people on these sites that I can afford to be picky about profiles. I'll have enough opportunity to compromise once I've actually met the person.
I wasn't what type of bank? The type of bank that handles large sums of other peoples' money?
which you would have known if you had read the article.
I read the article, and I just looked at it again. I still don't see what you mean.
It was a phone system. How would you like someone else listening to your voice mail because your password was 1-2-3-4-5?
There are only three reasons why my voice mail password might be 1-2-3-4-5: either I didn't know that was the password for some reason (maybe somebody else set the password up for me on speed-dial), or I thought there was something else preventing others from accessing my voice mail, or I just don't use my voicemail. In the first two cases, I'd want to know, and in the last case, I just wouldn't care. In no case would I be taking legal action against the person who told me that I have a problem.
However, that's irrelevant to my point, which is that the rules change when the organization is effectively (if not legally) a public trustee, like a bank, a telco, or a government. In the case of my voice mail, it's perfectly within my rights to have a stupidly easy-to-guess voicemail password. However, public trustees have (or should have) an obligation to maintain a reasonable amount of security. They do not (or should not) have the right to have (in your example) a stupid voicemail password, if that password protects other people's assets in a significant way.
People should be trying to break into these security systems every day, and they should be failing most of the time. I would be much more trusting of a bank that encourages anyone to test their information security than one that tries to hide their security flaws using the legal system.
When it comes to information systems, it's much like cryptography. Do you trust the algorithms that have been attacked countless times and found to be secure, or the algorithms that have never been attacked?
I don't think it was really neccessary to have right there in the heading the little note that it's some tiny bug squished during the scanning process.
Of course it was. It's what they want us to think. If they didn't put that idea in our heads, we'd be free to think about what really happened.
VMware Workstation does both. It also lets you create a tree of snapshots (and uses copy-on-write between them), so you can switch between your MSIE 5, MSIE 6, MSIE 7, DevStudio, Cygwin, and Borland images all separately.
The purpose of analogies to find similar things from which we can draw conclusions.
And that's fundamentally flawed. See my other posts.
Except that instead of giving you a rectal exam, he told you how someone could molest your daughter and explained how you could take action to prevent it, explained bombs to you and showed you what could happen if someone exploded your favourite hockey team's home town with NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and demonstrated how someone could steal your glasses and gave you a comprehensive plan on how you could protect your glasses from theft, before billing you for the explanation.
How could someone that is so right on Linus etc, be so far off on this one. I have previously enjoyed many of your posts.
Thank you.
The poster was using an analogy to show his perspective, and you went off and started talking about sexual abuse and killing?
Fordiman started by using an analogy to explain his position, and Typhon100 answered with another analogy to explain a different position, but he did it as though that somehow constituted an argument against Fordiman's position. That is where my criticism lies.
Analogies can be useful in giving a simplified view of some aspect of a system. For example, a "folder" on a computer is analogous to a folder in a filing cabinet, and a file on computer is analogous to a file in a filing cabinet (insomuch as files go inside folders). The value of analogies is that they discard most of the details of a system while keeping certain notions-of-interest intact. However, because using analogies involves discarding arbitrary details, it is silly to use an analogy as the basis for an argument; Different parties can form different arguments based on different analogies that discard different details. In the files/folders example, it would be stupid to use those analogies as the basis for arguments about the merits of implementing directory indexes, hard links, versioning, or whether it's a good idea to nest directories.
My analogies were supposed to be both disgusting and comical in an over-the-top sort of way (think "NUCLEAR WEAPONS" like how Dr. Evil would say it). They illustrate my simultaneous disgust and amusement when I see people trying to advance arguments based on analogies. That they don't do a good job is exactly my point.
It's better, but it's still overly simplistic. What if you just port-scanned my machine, and found that I was running a vulnerable version of SSH? What if my machine were a service that was essential to the public (like a bank)?
Analogies are great tools to explain things to people who are just curious, and lawyers like to use them to explain their otherwise arbitrary positions about particular cases, but they're substantially less useful when you need enough depth of understanding to make an important decision. For that, you need to look at the actual facts of the case. That's what the judge did here.
I consider banks to be an essential public service, even if they're privately-owned. If this guy was able to get access, regardless of what he did with it, then I think the people at the bank should have to answer for it.
Huh? That's what I don't understand. As a politician (if I were one) attaching a rider to a bill means that somebody is trying to avoid my scrutiny, i.e. they're trying to trick me into passing a measure that I wouldn't actually want passed. I'd be absolutely pissed off about that, precisely because it's an attack on my decision-making power.
Except that instead of giving you a rectal exam, he molested your daughter, exploded your favourite hockey team's home town with NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and stole your glasses.
Care to provide any justification for why your analogy isn't just an arbitrary construction designed to suit your position?
These are information systems. Not cars, not windshields, and not the doctor's office. Discuss the actual question, not stupid analogies.
Seriously, people... Who cares what country they come from? Space exploration is ultimately the achievement of the people who are involved with it, not most Slashdotters, politicians, or others who just happen to be from the same arbitrary zone of political union.
If the only things you can be proud of are things that you in no way actually caused, then you need to re-evaluate your self-worth.
I don't get it. I've worked on the board of a non-profit organization before. If somebody tried to avoid review by attaching junk to an otherwise good motion, we'd always either make a motion to split the bill into the separate issues, or just outright vote the thing down. Why do parliamentarians tolerate random crap being added to bills?
It's even worse than that. It's the tired old argument that people who release things under permissive licenses don't actually want people to make full use of those licenses.
News flash, Linus: If the Apache project didn't want its code to be able to be "hijacked" into GPLv3 projects, then they wouldn't have permitted it in the license.
Linus needs to learn to shut his damn mouth unless he actually has something intelligent to say.
Slashdot Mirror
So. True. People who think Spock == logic really don't get it.
As a man who is probably less concerned about looks than most men are, I feel I should respond. I generally don't bother reading profiles without photos. Why? Because I can glean a ton of information about a person by how she chooses to present herself. For example, drunkenness is a real turn-off for me, and there is a world of difference between somebody who has an occasional few drinks with friends or on special occasions, and somebody who goes out and gets drunk nearly every weekend. Both will list "drinks socially" in their profiles, but a beer bottle in most of a person's photos is a good indicator.
A profile with crappy photos and randomly-punctuated pseudo-English says she's probably not really all that serious; and a half-naked main photo tells me that she's less likely to be my type than someone who is dressed well but modestly.
But really, the biggest reason why I don't bother looking at profiles without photos is that most of the time, there isn't any information on those profiles anyway. People sign up for a profile, fill in a few basic details (age, sex, availability), and never come back.
I realize it's all unfair stereotyping (well, profiling), but that's the point of these websites. There are enough people on these sites that I can afford to be picky about profiles. I'll have enough opportunity to compromise once I've actually met the person.
Do you plan on having children? What then?
You were working at a deli at the time?
Heh. Atheism is the new Christianity. Go figure!
I wasn't what type of bank? The type of bank that handles large sums of other peoples' money?
I read the article, and I just looked at it again. I still don't see what you mean.
There are only three reasons why my voice mail password might be 1-2-3-4-5: either I didn't know that was the password for some reason (maybe somebody else set the password up for me on speed-dial), or I thought there was something else preventing others from accessing my voice mail, or I just don't use my voicemail. In the first two cases, I'd want to know, and in the last case, I just wouldn't care. In no case would I be taking legal action against the person who told me that I have a problem.
However, that's irrelevant to my point, which is that the rules change when the organization is effectively (if not legally) a public trustee, like a bank, a telco, or a government. In the case of my voice mail, it's perfectly within my rights to have a stupidly easy-to-guess voicemail password. However, public trustees have (or should have) an obligation to maintain a reasonable amount of security. They do not (or should not) have the right to have (in your example) a stupid voicemail password, if that password protects other people's assets in a significant way.
People should be trying to break into these security systems every day, and they should be failing most of the time. I would be much more trusting of a bank that encourages anyone to test their information security than one that tries to hide their security flaws using the legal system.
When it comes to information systems, it's much like cryptography. Do you trust the algorithms that have been attacked countless times and found to be secure, or the algorithms that have never been attacked?
Of course it was. It's what they want us to think. If they didn't put that idea in our heads, we'd be free to think about what really happened.
That's a classic understatement...
Has it even started? When did Congress declare war?
Sounds more like SCO tactics.
Microsoft's half-assed clone is of lower quality than the product of a company that basically invented the technology. News at 11.
VMware Workstation does both. It also lets you create a tree of snapshots (and uses copy-on-write between them), so you can switch between your MSIE 5, MSIE 6, MSIE 7, DevStudio, Cygwin, and Borland images all separately.
But does it run on Linux?
And that's fundamentally flawed. See my other posts.
Heh. Nice.
Hmm. I'm not impressed, but you're probably right. Thanks.
Thank you.
Fordiman started by using an analogy to explain his position, and Typhon100 answered with another analogy to explain a different position, but he did it as though that somehow constituted an argument against Fordiman's position. That is where my criticism lies.
Analogies can be useful in giving a simplified view of some aspect of a system. For example, a "folder" on a computer is analogous to a folder in a filing cabinet, and a file on computer is analogous to a file in a filing cabinet (insomuch as files go inside folders). The value of analogies is that they discard most of the details of a system while keeping certain notions-of-interest intact. However, because using analogies involves discarding arbitrary details, it is silly to use an analogy as the basis for an argument; Different parties can form different arguments based on different analogies that discard different details. In the files/folders example, it would be stupid to use those analogies as the basis for arguments about the merits of implementing directory indexes, hard links, versioning, or whether it's a good idea to nest directories.
My analogies were supposed to be both disgusting and comical in an over-the-top sort of way (think "NUCLEAR WEAPONS" like how Dr. Evil would say it). They illustrate my simultaneous disgust and amusement when I see people trying to advance arguments based on analogies. That they don't do a good job is exactly my point.
It's better, but it's still overly simplistic. What if you just port-scanned my machine, and found that I was running a vulnerable version of SSH? What if my machine were a service that was essential to the public (like a bank)?
Analogies are great tools to explain things to people who are just curious, and lawyers like to use them to explain their otherwise arbitrary positions about particular cases, but they're substantially less useful when you need enough depth of understanding to make an important decision. For that, you need to look at the actual facts of the case. That's what the judge did here.
This isn't a house. It wasn't trespassing.
I consider banks to be an essential public service, even if they're privately-owned. If this guy was able to get access, regardless of what he did with it, then I think the people at the bank should have to answer for it.
Huh? That's what I don't understand. As a politician (if I were one) attaching a rider to a bill means that somebody is trying to avoid my scrutiny, i.e. they're trying to trick me into passing a measure that I wouldn't actually want passed. I'd be absolutely pissed off about that, precisely because it's an attack on my decision-making power.
Except that instead of giving you a rectal exam, he molested your daughter, exploded your favourite hockey team's home town with NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and stole your glasses.
Care to provide any justification for why your analogy isn't just an arbitrary construction designed to suit your position?
These are information systems. Not cars, not windshields, and not the doctor's office. Discuss the actual question, not stupid analogies.
Seriously, people... Who cares what country they come from? Space exploration is ultimately the achievement of the people who are involved with it, not most Slashdotters, politicians, or others who just happen to be from the same arbitrary zone of political union.
If the only things you can be proud of are things that you in no way actually caused, then you need to re-evaluate your self-worth.
Now, BAG MY GROCERIES!
I don't get it. I've worked on the board of a non-profit organization before. If somebody tried to avoid review by attaching junk to an otherwise good motion, we'd always either make a motion to split the bill into the separate issues, or just outright vote the thing down. Why do parliamentarians tolerate random crap being added to bills?
Thanks. Yeah, I probably should have done the calculations before spouting off like that.
Isn't this just creating evolutionary pressure in favour of disinfectant-resistant bacteria?
It's even worse than that. It's the tired old argument that people who release things under permissive licenses don't actually want people to make full use of those licenses.
News flash, Linus: If the Apache project didn't want its code to be able to be "hijacked" into GPLv3 projects, then they wouldn't have permitted it in the license.
Linus needs to learn to shut his damn mouth unless he actually has something intelligent to say.