Personally, I think a new open source project to bring a Webkit-based browser to Windows that attempts to actually fit into Windows could easily kill Firefox. No bloat, superior standards support, what isn't there to love?
There used to be such an effort, called Swift. When Safari for Windows was announced, the Swift developer(s?) announced that they'd continue development, switch to win32 WebKit builds and provide a native Windows user experience with a WebKit renderer. Now swift.ws is gone. I seem to recall it'd disappeared before, so I don't know if the dev(s?) changed their plans or just have shitty hosting.
Better consciousness of security issues gives a lower probability than worse consciousness of security issues. Ultimately all of these statistics bear out into actual, real world cases. In real world cases, what is the actual security situation? That's what matters.
Jesus christ, that was my point. The person was offering argument after argument against things I hadn't said and wouldn't defend, ignoring the meat of every comment I made that made each not a troll but an honest and appropriate commentary on the previous comment.
I'm a writer, sometimes my interactions take on a more creative tone. In this case, I was referring to the action of tearing down a straw man, which is the origin of the term in relation to logical fallacies (in a "battle", instead of attacking one's enemy one attacks a easily surmountable straw man, thus demonstrating a false superiority).
Do you have a fucking problem with BBC Trust Will Hear iPlayer Openness Complaints and BBC Trust to Meet With OSC Over iPlayer?
Seems pretty unimportant to me.
I just want to be sure that it's cool with you to duplicate this important story before I comment.
Huh? I don't care if you fucking comment, or if you think it's important. I was just saying that talking about the topic that you did bother complaining about--the abuses of a murderous, nearly all-powerful government agency--is important and it's not a really big deal that the editors accidentally double posted it. That there's, you know, bigger problems in the world--like, gee, the FBI?
And how lucky that I can make the same comments on the story twice, just in case they missed the first one!
If you really feel that's worth your time, go ahead, but it sounds pretty worthless if you ask me. That certainly wasn't what I've advocated.
Or, in other words, why do you hate straw men so much that you need to tear them down?
"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with legality," Torvalds wrote.
Despite the abundance of religious fanatics and the obsessive drive towards new definitions of totalitarian in the US, I'd say that the fact that this liberal democracy routinely equates the two demonstrates how erroneous the comment is. Furthermore, if your legislation is out of line with your morality, what the fuck business do you have legislating? Leave decision-making to, at the very least, those who believe what they're doing is right--even if they're religious fanatics and totalitarians.
Not only would I prefer a passionate dictator to a cynical one, but I'd probably stand a better chance at unseating the former than the latter.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll pick it up. I was realizing as I was writing the above comment that I didn't have as solid a handle on more recent counter-intelligence as I have on the COINTELPRO era.
Yeah, I guess so. It's pompous to want to discuss abuses by a murderous, deceptive, invasive, nearly-all-powerful government agency, and to point out that it's not the end of the world that it got posted twice. God, why didn't I have this sense of perspective earlier?
Regardless of the reason that the story was posted again, the fact that it had previously been posted does not equate to "nothing to see here". In fact there's quite a lot, as I detailed in my comment here, to see here.
I added that yes, posting the story again might be justified simply to keep the topic on the frunt page, as an additional point to consider, not a supporting point for my original response to you.
In yet other words that might make this even clearer, in the case of important topics such as this, it might be beneficial to not gripe about the "slackness of the editors", as it works out in our favor to have more discussion about the issue.
Depending on its importance, yes, it should continue to occupy a place in discussion. Given the rate at which Slashdot stories pass off the front page, repeating a story might be the most effective method of doing that. Case in point, I didn't have a chance to engage in discussion on the last entry on the subject since I was busy with other things at the time, but had I returned to the topic later the discussion would have been dead. Instead, I have the chance to contribute here.
But... that wasn't really my point. I was just pointing out that this was posted already doesn't equate to there's nothing to see here, and given the weight of the issue, there absolutely is something to see here.
While I strongly disagree with the intent of your comment, the point is still important: people who are concerned about persecution by the powers that be should take precautions to make it, at the very least, difficult for them.
Who wants to bet that political dissident groups are being monitored through this program? I mean, it kind of goes without saying, since their primary domestic target is environmental activists. The FBI and the US government in general has a long history of using ostensibly crime-focused programs to infiltrate and neutralize political enemies (see the American Indian Movement [and Leonard Peltier], Martin Luther King Jr., United Slaves, the Black Panthers [and Mark Clark, Fred Hampton, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Alex Rackley, H Rap Brown, Geronimo Pratt], the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Black Liberation Army, groups struggling for Puerto Rican independence, Students for a Democratic Society, Earth First! [and Judi Bari], various militia groups, even church peace groups and smaller political parties like the various socialists. Not to mention nonaligned activists like individual environmentalists who've been set up or entrapped in recent years.
For those who don't know, COINTELPRO (counter-intelligence program) was an FBI initiative targeting American citizens engaged in "objectionable" political activity. Instead of arresting and prosecuting criminals, this secret and illegal program sought to neutralize targets by: - creating a culture of fear and paranoia (psychological warfare) through whispering campaigns, surveillance, illegal search, seizure and entry; - infiltration, provocation and entrapment; - legal harassment (such as repeatedly arresting leaders of targeted organizations for minor infractions, keeping them behind bars while they awaited a hearing or scrambled to make bail; also including falsified show trials such as the "tennis court murders", where Pratt was convicted of murders that were committed while he was, according the FBI's own surveillance records, 400 miles away); - violence and murder (notably the murder of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark).
While the COINTELPRO moniker has been disbanded, its methods extend into FBI practices to this day.
"in this case his rights curtail somebodys SERIVCE and not RIGHT. It is not the users RIGHT to use gmail, it is a SERVICE offered to him."
I guess you missed the part where I said
(hypothetically, and I don't think this hypothetical situation applies to Google mail)
"and for me, property is pretty much a universal trump. but that's just me; i come from a country where COMMon good was at its best 45 years long. believe me, COMMon good is not all that good:)"
Well, I COMMe from a country that is built on seized and redistributed property, corrupted with nepotism and deep-seated bigotry, the product of centuries of genocide and imperialism, with a militarized political police force which has been documented to kill, frame and otherwise neutralize political opponents secretly, illegally and with impunity. Capitalism and soviet socialism (there's a reason a lot of folks call it state capitalism) really aren't all that different; the powerful use a strong arm when necessary, and graceful manipulation when possible. So what else is new?
Say what you want about property rights, but when (hypothetically, and I don't think this hypothetical situation applies to Google mail) a person's property rights means curtailing others' rights, it's a compromise. Is property a universal trump card to you? Seems pretty misanthropic.
I read the context. If I wanted to talk to the other guy, I would have responded to the other guy. I wanted to respond to what *you* said, so I did. My sentiments about what you said are the same regardless of context.
"Those issues are rather less important--it's partly a scientific and economic question what really serves human well-being."
I think it's a social question, since it's a social phenomenon.
"I happen to believe human beings are better off with a sustainable, bright green post-industrial society"
It sounds like a nice fantasy.
"One might argue that reverting to a pre-industrial society would serve human well-being because industrial societies either fail to serve human well-being, or because no industrial society is ecologically sustainable."
I'd agree with that.
'I just don't see how you can be absolutist about not destroying any "natural" (i.e. non-human) ecosystem or species while actually accepting the principle of human well-being.'
Humans benefit from biological diversity. That's how.
"Really? Even the species of bacteria that causes tuberculosis?"
Yes.
'Do you honestly think it's "beneficial to people" to abandon industry?'
Yes.
"Agriculture?"
No, but it needs to be radically altered. But agriculture exists outside of industry and in many different forms, so this is a bit of a straw man.
"Medicine?"
Absolutely not. But medicine has existed for as long as human societies have existed, so this is kind of another straw man isn't it?
"On the other hand, if you're interested in ways to build a technological society that's ecologically sustainable and beneficial to humans even in the long run, we have no disagreement at all."
Well, it depends on what you mean by "technology". All it really means is applied knowledge. I'm not opposed to that (in fact, I'm arguing for a highly technological society, in that sense). Industrial technology is demonstrably harmful beyond its benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently using browsers other than Safari deletes your brain...
Fair enough.
Better consciousness of security issues gives a lower probability than worse consciousness of security issues. Ultimately all of these statistics bear out into actual, real world cases. In real world cases, what is the actual security situation? That's what matters.
Okay? What's your point?
More statistical potential for insecurity doesn't equate to actual insecurity.
Jesus christ, that was my point. The person was offering argument after argument against things I hadn't said and wouldn't defend, ignoring the meat of every comment I made that made each not a troll but an honest and appropriate commentary on the previous comment.
I'm a writer, sometimes my interactions take on a more creative tone. In this case, I was referring to the action of tearing down a straw man, which is the origin of the term in relation to logical fallacies (in a "battle", instead of attacking one's enemy one attacks a easily surmountable straw man, thus demonstrating a false superiority).
But feel free to give me more wikipedia links.
Or, in other words, why do you hate straw men so much that you need to tear them down?
Not only would I prefer a passionate dictator to a cynical one, but I'd probably stand a better chance at unseating the former than the latter.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll pick it up. I was realizing as I was writing the above comment that I didn't have as solid a handle on more recent counter-intelligence as I have on the COINTELPRO era.
Yeah, I guess so. It's pompous to want to discuss abuses by a murderous, deceptive, invasive, nearly-all-powerful government agency, and to point out that it's not the end of the world that it got posted twice. God, why didn't I have this sense of perspective earlier?
'Because "the point" is not defined by you?'
The point that I'm making is.
'No, as MY point was, the dupes aren't related to importance. They're random.'
And in this case, the randomness works out in favor of further discussion of an important topic. What's the fucking problem?
Oh, I'm sure you're right. I just took the opportunity to bring up the FBI's extensive history of abuses.
Why are you so determined to miss the point?
Regardless of the reason that the story was posted again, the fact that it had previously been posted does not equate to "nothing to see here". In fact there's quite a lot, as I detailed in my comment here, to see here.
I added that yes, posting the story again might be justified simply to keep the topic on the frunt page, as an additional point to consider, not a supporting point for my original response to you.
In yet other words that might make this even clearer, in the case of important topics such as this, it might be beneficial to not gripe about the "slackness of the editors", as it works out in our favor to have more discussion about the issue.
Put more bluntly, go complain about iPhone posts.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and the word "nargle" appears nowhere in the linked post.
Depending on its importance, yes, it should continue to occupy a place in discussion. Given the rate at which Slashdot stories pass off the front page, repeating a story might be the most effective method of doing that. Case in point, I didn't have a chance to engage in discussion on the last entry on the subject since I was busy with other things at the time, but had I returned to the topic later the discussion would have been dead. Instead, I have the chance to contribute here.
But... that wasn't really my point. I was just pointing out that this was posted already doesn't equate to there's nothing to see here, and given the weight of the issue, there absolutely is something to see here.
While I strongly disagree with the intent of your comment, the point is still important: people who are concerned about persecution by the powers that be should take precautions to make it, at the very least, difficult for them.
SInce when does posting twice about a story invalidate the story? There's plenty to see here.
Who wants to bet that political dissident groups are being monitored through this program? I mean, it kind of goes without saying, since their primary domestic target is environmental activists. The FBI and the US government in general has a long history of using ostensibly crime-focused programs to infiltrate and neutralize political enemies (see the American Indian Movement [and Leonard Peltier], Martin Luther King Jr., United Slaves, the Black Panthers [and Mark Clark, Fred Hampton, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Alex Rackley, H Rap Brown, Geronimo Pratt], the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Black Liberation Army, groups struggling for Puerto Rican independence, Students for a Democratic Society, Earth First! [and Judi Bari], various militia groups, even church peace groups and smaller political parties like the various socialists. Not to mention nonaligned activists like individual environmentalists who've been set up or entrapped in recent years.
For those who don't know, COINTELPRO (counter-intelligence program) was an FBI initiative targeting American citizens engaged in "objectionable" political activity. Instead of arresting and prosecuting criminals, this secret and illegal program sought to neutralize targets by:
- creating a culture of fear and paranoia (psychological warfare) through whispering campaigns, surveillance, illegal search, seizure and entry;
- infiltration, provocation and entrapment;
- legal harassment (such as repeatedly arresting leaders of targeted organizations for minor infractions, keeping them behind bars while they awaited a hearing or scrambled to make bail; also including falsified show trials such as the "tennis court murders", where Pratt was convicted of murders that were committed while he was, according the FBI's own surveillance records, 400 miles away);
- violence and murder (notably the murder of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark).
While the COINTELPRO moniker has been disbanded, its methods extend into FBI practices to this day.
Really? Thanks!
They really should word that better...
Ugh, is it possible to use HTML on /. without having to format all the line breaks? There were several in my post, but they got eaten.
Say what you want about property rights, but when (hypothetically, and I don't think this hypothetical situation applies to Google mail) a person's property rights means curtailing others' rights, it's a compromise. Is property a universal trump card to you? Seems pretty misanthropic.
I read the context. If I wanted to talk to the other guy, I would have responded to the other guy. I wanted to respond to what *you* said, so I did. My sentiments about what you said are the same regardless of context.
"Those issues are rather less important--it's partly a scientific and economic question what really serves human well-being."
I think it's a social question, since it's a social phenomenon.
"I happen to believe human beings are better off with a sustainable, bright green post-industrial society"
It sounds like a nice fantasy.
"One might argue that reverting to a pre-industrial society would serve human well-being because industrial societies either fail to serve human well-being, or because no industrial society is ecologically sustainable."
I'd agree with that.
'I just don't see how you can be absolutist about not destroying any "natural" (i.e. non-human) ecosystem or species while actually accepting the principle of human well-being.'
Humans benefit from biological diversity. That's how.
"Really? Even the species of bacteria that causes tuberculosis?"
Yes.
'Do you honestly think it's "beneficial to people" to abandon industry?'
Yes.
"Agriculture?"
No, but it needs to be radically altered. But agriculture exists outside of industry and in many different forms, so this is a bit of a straw man.
"Medicine?"
Absolutely not. But medicine has existed for as long as human societies have existed, so this is kind of another straw man isn't it?
"On the other hand, if you're interested in ways to build a technological society that's ecologically sustainable and beneficial to humans even in the long run, we have no disagreement at all."
Well, it depends on what you mean by "technology". All it really means is applied knowledge. I'm not opposed to that (in fact, I'm arguing for a highly technological society, in that sense). Industrial technology is demonstrably harmful beyond its benefits.