your free to salvage abandoned ships - unless they have enough value in them that some government might get offended and jumps in.
Afterall...they can change (er I mean re-interpret) such things at will. Whatver suits them at the moment you know.
You think that anything salvaged by the US military from German Uboats is being returned to the current German government?
"Whoever salvages something from an abandoned/sunken ship ownes it...oh unless it was a warship - then its owned by the government that owned it....oh yea unless WE want it...oh yea and if you bring it up on a tuesday then...."
To a person who has never had to pay bills, or be responsible for anything - not getting to go to chuck-e-cheese is suffering greatly - in their world.
Its all relative. Whether he suffered greatly or not is also besides the point. He "suffered" in that he was punished. Whether this was "great suffering" doesn't matter.
Martyrs are a silly concept anyway. Just because someone died or suffered for something doesn't make it right - it could just mean that they were stupid - or, at the VERY MOST that THEY believed it was right.
1) Dictionary definitions are seldom completely in step with real current day usage (excpet perhaps for basic words like articles and propositions)
2) "great Sacrifice" is a qualitative judgement. Just because YOU do not see this as a "great sacrifice" is besides the point.
Seriously folks - this is a metaphore. Are we next going to be complaining when a poet calls the eyes of his lover "leakes of blue" as the size of eyeballs belittles the size of lakes?
It gets the point accross. Do you suggest a better metaphore for a person whose punishment (however small) is used as a rallying point to advance his beliefs?
He made a statement against how things are going. he spoke out, in his own way - and he was punished for it.
What do you think martyr has come to mean?
A Martyr, is obviously a type of character from christian history/mythology who was killed for what they believe in - the martyrs were often held up as examples and their death became something to rally others together under. Thus their death served to help their cause.
So, by extension - he is a martyr. He was punished - and his unfair punishment is being used to bring attention to the issue and further his cause.
Its a perfectly acceptable metaphore. You deal with it.
> Look, I dont know what you think a domain name
> is supposed to be, but it is not for
> illustrating your dumbass protected freedom
> of speech.
A domain name is a pointer. It is a rememberable name to help get people to information. The information was the opinion that "Guinness Sucks" so domain names lik e"guiness-sucks" are entirely apropriate as pointers to that information.
> People in opposition of Guinness aren't
> supporters of free speech, they are supporters
> of typo-squaters,
[snip]
> alert against Guinness without even reading any
> of the facts.
You mean without reading the text of the WIPO judgement against them? Well I DID, in fact, read it. The judgement has nothing to do with domain squatting. If anything it apeared that the judgement was based solely on 2 facts - 1) the guiness name was used and 2) the domain registrant did not respond to the arbitrator.
The information that he was a squatter - and just doing it for banner ad money - did not come out until it was said in a post - a post which I did not know about until later.
Given the number of posts on any given topic on slashdot - I no longer find it possible to read them all. Hell - I barely find time to read all the stories.
If this is what he was doing - then he was doing nothing more than using their trademark to try and make money for himself.
However - that was NOT part of the WPIO decision (if it was, then I must have missed it - it was a large and rather boreing document - why don't such organizations require people who write their decisions and documents to be interesting and fun writters?) the decision was based more on the fact that their trademark was in the name.
I felt it safe to assume that if he was doing that, then it would have been listed as reasoning in the complaint part of the decision - afterall that is definitly a major reason to ask for it to be taken away.
Course - I still wont drink their beer - but now it is just because it does, indeed, suck. (where oh where can a person find a beer in Boston? A good beer. I have found them only once or twice - good dark rich beers - stuff served at a proper temperature - not freezing cold but just a little cool)
> all I have so far is that some guy is pissed
> and trying to harm the image of a company.
> Whatever happened to innocent until proven
> guilty, eh?
A) He was giving his opinion - which is that guiness sucks. If his opinion harms them - then that is their problem. He has every righ to tell the world his opinion.
B) "Innocent until proven guilty" is for government actions. It is the right of an individual to be considered innocent until their guilt can be proved (unless its a civil matter - like uncle sam wants to take your house away because some paid informant said he saw drugs there - in the US anyway)
When it comes to public opinion - there is no "right" to anything (no matter what some PR people and lawyers will tell you). I have the right to pass personal judgement on any person for any reason. I have the right to not buy a drink from your store because you are Irish, or because the moon is full if I please.
In this case however - we have a company that took away a persons domain names because that person was voicing the opinion that their product sucks.
He was using their trademark to refer to their product. No ambiguity at all. I mean whats he suposed to do...have the domain "some-irish-beer-that-I-cant-name-sucks.com"?
It comes down to simple "Image control". They want to sweep away anything negative. Its bad enough that companies will spin information so that everything comes out about them as positive - but actively going out and removing "dissent" is just plain wrong.
He had a problem with guiness beer - he has EVERY RIGHT to tell other people what he thinks about it. If it hurts guiness - then too bad.
Free Speech is a right - profit is not. If someone causes you to lose money because they are going around saying that your product sucks - then you should have 2 choices:
1) make a better product
2) lose money
A consumer has every right (no matter what any law says) to tell other consumers about products. As long as they do not lie - they have every right to give their honest opinion.
He wasn't diluting their trademark - he was using their trademark in a perfectly correct manner - he was using it to refer to THEIR PRODUCT.
> You boycotting Guiness isn't going to hurt the
> company
Boycotts of popular beer makers in the US back in the 80s got them to stop funding the contras.
...and for the record... guiness DOES suck. I like my beers dark - almost bread like. However I can't stand guiness - it just has this nasty flavor to it - not that its bitter (I like bitter) its just nasty - I can't even describe it. Maybe its the type of hops they use for dry hopping (I am assuming it is dry hopped from the flavor)
> Relying solely on a firewall is the single
> biggest mistake a company can make.
> True, a proprely configured firewall can make
> a huge difference, but _real_ security involves
> securing every machine on the network.
I completely agree. I also find that firewalls tend to be more trrouble than they are worth. Give me a bunch of hard hosts over a few soft hosts and a firewall any day of the week.
However - here is the kicker. Microsoft seems to be designing their OSs (like plain old windows) with the idea that "Client machines are behind the firewall" in fact - it seems alot of vendors design things with that in mind.
If you CAN'T make the host secure - then definitly put it behind the firewall. Windows hosts shareing files? Oh yea - thats where they are designed to be!
-Steve
Re:See what happens when you rely on NT
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 2
> True, but you (or the original AC) were talking
> about Unix, not Windows. You can't go into
> promiscious mode unless you're root on Unix.
True - of course under true64 if the admin throws the interface into promiscuous mode - by default it ends up setup so that any user can then sniff the network - kind of lame. Took some digging through docs to figure out how to avoid that.
(turned out to be simple - though I forget it now - one of those "things we needed to do once")
> And since most systems use shadow passwords,
> you can't get at the hashed passwords
> unless you're root, either.
Yup - and even then you still need to attack them. Good luck if the system uses cracklib (or equivalent). As an added bonus - the salt makes it so that its fairly CPU intensive to crack passwords in parrallel (probably doesn't apply to MD5 hashes - but they arn't as limited as the old crypt() stuff anyway)
-Steve
Re:s/NT/stupidly trojan-enabled software/
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 2
> (and please don't blame 'untrained users' - on a
> properly configured *nix system, an untrained
> user couldn't do any harm...)
That depends on your definition of "harm".
They certainly can do things like use the same password for your system as they use over unencrypted connections elsewhere.
Stuff like that can at least open the door to harm. Lets face it - no system is completely bug free - and once someone gets on by sniffing a password - its that much easier for them to use the latest root exploit
(assuming they need root - last time one of our users had a password sniffed - the guy who broke in just setup an IRC bouncer - fucking looser too - I got the job of logging and monitoring his IRC sessions while we were gathering evidence for the Authorities. Just sat around in IRC all day talking about how "we can take over this channel" or "We want that channel" - get a fucking life!)
-Steve
Re:s/NT/stupidly trojan-enabled software/
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 1
While I agree with you - It is stupid to have full fledge scripting languages built into email clients - and setup in wayhs that are just RIPE for abuse - its not like thats the only problem.
Its not like noone ever found a buffer overflow in pine that would expoit as soon as the victem read mail. (of course - ive only seen that once - maybe twice - and it got fixed quickly)
Then again - that is the beauty of unix - every user can pick their email client - there is no push or need to make EVERYONE use pine or elm or mutt (though I do prefer the latter).
Well yes they can but - not necissarily by that definition:) - mostly because I wasn't trying to define cult - I was trying to define when the Gov should be stepping into a religous issue.
I think that if som epeople are doing something to harm a nonconsenting party - it should be treated the same whether they call it religous practice or not.
That said - I think the ONLY time that the government should step in to religous affairs (or personal affairs of any type) is when a non-consenting person is involved against their will.
> I say, outlaw religion. Once the first few
> generations got over the "I'm outraged" stage
I look at it this way - Marx was right...
"Religion is the opium o the masses"
And you know what...thats great. I have no problem with individuals wishing to smoke opium! So I have no problem with them following some religion - if it works for you thats fucking great.
I think the church of satan had it right - stop subsidizing it. Tax them just like any other for-profit corperation. (at least until such day as taxes can be phased out - thats my main problem with libertarians - they want to abolish tax. Yes taxes are wrong - its extortion. However - much like toxic waste we can't just sweep i taway with our hands. Its something that has to be taken care of carefully and slowly - we are a few generations away from being realistically tax free)
> I do agree with your basic premise, though I
> would add, as long as those "rituals" do no harm
> to others inside or outside of the "religion".
Ahhh well I meant that implicitly - Once again another lesson that one should always explicitly state everything.
How about "As long as they do not harm any non-consenting parties". Generally speaking - they don't. Its the rare crackpot group that do these things and give all such groups a bad name.
> Whilst freedom of religion is an important part
> of a free society, let's not get so hung up on
> it that every crazed lunatic with a set of
> "beliefs" can pretend that they're a religious
> guru.
Yea like that damne dheritic Jesus guy from Nazareth! Where does he get off preaching that heresy anyway?
Ok seriously though...I think the best attitude I heard was when I mentioned a friend who was part of what I thought my abe a cult.... "Just because the people who run it may be bad, doesn't make the believers wrong"
If someone believes in something - truely believes in it - then it is a religion for them. Neither you nor anyone else has ANY right to try to stop them from believeing in it or practicing their rituals - whether they be dancing around a fire in the woods or eating stale bread given to them by some weird guy with a stiff collar.
> Well...sorry....but sometimes, a disability
> makes for a better person.
You wont get any argument here. A very good friend of mine has a genetic disorder - I forget the name but his body muscle mass is severely decreased.
Nicest guy I ever met. Very intelligent.
However - I do think that it is wise for people with such disorders to not breed. I don't mean to say that a person who has had offspring is bad for having done it - its a personal choice, but -you get good people without genetic diseases too.
Personally, I have reservations about breeding myself (my father and I were both born epileptic - its treatable and mine went away around age 15 - but his never did). I don't know that I would feel comfortable having a child, knowing that there is a pretty good chance that they would have to live with that (even if it goes away - it means an entire childhood on drugs like dilantin and tegretol)
If other people can do it thats fine with me. I just don't feel right about forcing a person into a life like that.
Of course - I would unilatterally encourage everyone to stop breeding anyway. Theres plenty of humans now. We can cut back on production now.
What is a language? It is a set of rules that governs ideas. You can use a language to communicate with others - ie I can write symbols (which are no different in function than the alphabet for crepresenting english)
A language is completely mental. It exists in your mind. I use english to think about how I feel, or about what I want to do. I make sounds which represent things in the language - to communicate to others. Again - the sounds are not the language - they are just a means by which I can transmit my thought and ideas another.
Math is a language of description. It is purely logical. The "Laws" and "potulates" are like rules of grammar - telling us how to use the symbols - how to form our thoughts.
It is often called "The language of science" it is a way of describing things in very precise terms.
However - it is not very different from some branches of philosophy. Come up with some ideas of a base system - certain unprovable fundamental definitions (like "a point is a single position, and takes up no space") and then use those as the rules and dervie whole new forumlas to describe everything.
Just think Linux finnaly makes it into the BIG TIME.
Now YOU TOO can be infected with Macro Viruses!
Woo hoo. No more feeling left out the next time that a VB macro wants to "love you". Isn't that just soooo special?
I supose this does add some modicum of protection though. If multiple users use the same machine, one moron can't get EVERYONES files infected with the macro virus - and they can't easily destroy the OS....
Imagine it - a desktop OS where Users can't delete Operating system files. Their programs can't crash the OS - much less corrupt the system files.
Actually - this is one of the fundamental problems with represenatative democracy IMHO. As I have said, I don't really support non-local government (city/town level).
It is the representatives job to carry out the will of the people - to a certain extent. He shouldn't be an automoton who looks at the vote and says "people say this - we do it", but he also shouldn't be doing everything according to his own personal beliefs either.
Its a matter of balance. If what the people want is destructive and would do alot more harm than good - then he has to stand up and say "no".
Now there are times when a representative must realise what his place is. A perfect example is Adolph Guiliani of NYC. Remember when he threatened to pull funding for museams if they continued to display art that he found offensive?
I would argue that, even if he wanted it, and even if the people wanted it, it is morally wrong for him, as an agent of the government, to make a decision on funding based on whether the art offends him.
Thats not to say that he should or should not fund them. Just that it is wrong for him to be engaging in censorship. If that is his criteria, then its censorship - pure and simple.
So I disagree in that a representative of the people SHOULD listen to the people and do what they want, rather than what he wants. However, there are certain moral and ethical issues where he should not only ignore the people, but ignore his own personal feelings for the princible of the matter.
I understand what they are for. On a basic level, I agree wholeheartedly with them. Individuals should be free to live their lives however they choose.
However, economically, the libertarian platform is foolish at best. Laisez-faire capitalism works on a small scale with an active and involved populace. Large multinational corperations, who are responsible for making profit are not going to self regulate.
A corperation with enough money and a large enough product base can easily make any attempt to attack it through boycott infeasible at best. Corps like proctor and Gamble are immune to such actions because they can hide behind so many brand names that you are sure to be buying some of their products unknowingly.
Small government is beautiful. If it was up to me, there would be no government at all beyond the local city level - small enough where an individual can make a difference - or if they really don't like it - can move elsewhere.
The type of world where deregulation (especially economic) can possibly work is definitely not today - its at least a few generations off.
The idea that we can just cut off the regulations and let buisness regulate itself today and now is foolish at best - its downright irresponsible.
If they would stick to the relm of decriminilizing "consenual crimes" like drugs and prostitution, and other such things - I would be all for them. These are goals that will work in the short term.
> 99% of all the fathers out there peeked at
> more then their share of playboy's and
> penthouses growing up
I may not be a father (really - there are enough people in the world. I am seriously considering just getting that tube tied off - and I encourage all men to do the same - not one child - zero!) but I know I saw my fair share of bare skin when I was a kid.
FOund my fathers playboys at age 7. Didn't get into them until I was 12 though. At around that age I was jerking off every day after school - ocasionally twice a day. Noone told me about it - or showed me how...hand just naturally found gland and magic happened.
Thats the way it is with most people. Thats the way it has happened since around the time that thumbs became popular. (possibly longer but - they do make it so much easier).
> What worries me are some of these pervs out
> stalking kids in AOL chat rooms
Why? there are many more of them that arn't online.
> ured two 14-year-old girls over
Oh come now....14 - they got hair down there. They know whats going on. WHo wouldn't want to fuck teenagers? As one comic said "thats why there are laws against it. Our forefathers were out there going to congress 'hey they are fucking our daughters!'" well ok 14 is a bit young. Certainly, legality aside, 16 or so should be fair game. As long as you can stand listening to N Sync and the backdoor boys that is.
Course as my friends fiance points out - 2 girls is wated on most men anyway - we don't know what to do with just one of them.
Besides - as far as I can tell girls are much more honrey than guys anyway - they just hide it better and are a bit more discriminating.
> It might be a good idea to leave in words like
> "breast" and "Dick" since they can be talking
> about anatomy class, or someone's name.
> However, I can't think of a non-vulgar or
> non-pornographic instance of "cum guzzler" or
> "suck my dick" which would be fine to block in
> my opinion.
I can.
"I can't think of a non-pornographic instance of 'cum guzzler' or 'suck my dick'"
Well isn't that a non-pornographic instance RIGHT THERE!?! (Well, it certainly didn't give ME wood to read it...maybe it did for someone else?)
> The real fallacy here is not how unreliable
> censorware is
No the real fallacy is that FUD is the major driving force behind policy. There is NO evidence whatsoever that this is harmfull to children.
I dunno about YOU, but as a child I was exposed to porn. Completely by accident I was getting into things that "I shouldn't have" and I saw porn. The same has happened to about every other person I know. Either they found some of their parents stash (my friend's fiance was telling me about the time her 5 year old came into the room exclaiming "hey mommy you have to see this" only to find he found oneof her porno tapes) - or their friends find it and expose them.
Everyone that I know, who was exposed to porn, grew up perfectly normal. Why? because it *IS* a normal occurance.
The simple fact is this...parents want to protect children. They fear every possible thing that could happen. They are paranoid. Companies that make censorware - and people in congress making laws - are nothing more than preditors. They fan the flames and scare parents. They prey on that fear and use it to make a buck.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was more...
your free to salvage abandoned ships - unless they have enough value in them that some government might get offended and jumps in.
Afterall...they can change (er I mean re-interpret) such things at will. Whatver suits them at the moment you know.
You think that anything salvaged by the US military from German Uboats is being returned to the current German government?
"Whoever salvages something from an abandoned/sunken ship ownes it...oh unless it was a warship - then its owned by the government that owned it....oh yea unless WE want it...oh yea and if you bring it up on a tuesday then...."
-Steve
Weird....how can it hurt?
Shouldn't you have already applied to colledges Junior year and been accepted by about now?
Thats how everyone that I knew did it. Its why senior year doesn't matter - all you have to do is pass enough to graduate.
-Steve
Great suffering is relative.
To a person who has never had to pay bills, or be responsible for anything - not getting to go to chuck-e-cheese is suffering greatly - in their world.
Its all relative. Whether he suffered greatly or not is also besides the point. He "suffered" in that he was punished. Whether this was "great suffering" doesn't matter.
Martyrs are a silly concept anyway. Just because someone died or suffered for something doesn't make it right - it could just mean that they were stupid - or, at the VERY MOST that THEY believed it was right.
-Steve
1) Dictionary definitions are seldom completely in step with real current day usage (excpet perhaps for basic words like articles and propositions)
2) "great Sacrifice" is a qualitative judgement. Just because YOU do not see this as a "great sacrifice" is besides the point.
Seriously folks - this is a metaphore. Are we next going to be complaining when a poet calls the eyes of his lover "leakes of blue" as the size of eyeballs belittles the size of lakes?
It gets the point accross. Do you suggest a better metaphore for a person whose punishment (however small) is used as a rallying point to advance his beliefs?
-Steve
He made a statement against how things are going. he spoke out, in his own way - and he was punished for it.
What do you think martyr has come to mean?
A Martyr, is obviously a type of character from christian history/mythology who was killed for what they believe in - the martyrs were often held up as examples and their death became something to rally others together under. Thus their death served to help their cause.
So, by extension - he is a martyr. He was punished - and his unfair punishment is being used to bring attention to the issue and further his cause.
Its a perfectly acceptable metaphore. You deal with it.
-Steve
> Look, I dont know what you think a domain name
> is supposed to be, but it is not for
> illustrating your dumbass protected freedom
> of speech.
A domain name is a pointer. It is a rememberable name to help get people to information. The information was the opinion that "Guinness Sucks" so domain names lik e"guiness-sucks" are entirely apropriate as pointers to that information.
> People in opposition of Guinness aren't
> supporters of free speech, they are supporters
> of typo-squaters,
[snip]
> alert against Guinness without even reading any
> of the facts.
You mean without reading the text of the WIPO judgement against them? Well I DID, in fact, read it. The judgement has nothing to do with domain squatting. If anything it apeared that the judgement was based solely on 2 facts - 1) the guiness name was used and 2) the domain registrant did not respond to the arbitrator.
The information that he was a squatter - and just doing it for banner ad money - did not come out until it was said in a post - a post which I did not know about until later.
-Steve
Given the number of posts on any given topic on slashdot - I no longer find it possible to read them all. Hell - I barely find time to read all the stories.
If this is what he was doing - then he was doing nothing more than using their trademark to try and make money for himself.
However - that was NOT part of the WPIO decision (if it was, then I must have missed it - it was a large and rather boreing document - why don't such organizations require people who write their decisions and documents to be interesting and fun writters?) the decision was based more on the fact that their trademark was in the name.
I felt it safe to assume that if he was doing that, then it would have been listed as reasoning in the complaint part of the decision - afterall that is definitly a major reason to ask for it to be taken away.
Course - I still wont drink their beer - but now it is just because it does, indeed, suck. (where oh where can a person find a beer in Boston? A good beer. I have found them only once or twice - good dark rich beers - stuff served at a proper temperature - not freezing cold but just a little cool)
-Steve
> all I have so far is that some guy is pissed
> and trying to harm the image of a company.
> Whatever happened to innocent until proven
> guilty, eh?
A) He was giving his opinion - which is that guiness sucks. If his opinion harms them - then that is their problem. He has every righ to tell the world his opinion.
B) "Innocent until proven guilty" is for government actions. It is the right of an individual to be considered innocent until their guilt can be proved (unless its a civil matter - like uncle sam wants to take your house away because some paid informant said he saw drugs there - in the US anyway)
When it comes to public opinion - there is no "right" to anything (no matter what some PR people and lawyers will tell you). I have the right to pass personal judgement on any person for any reason. I have the right to not buy a drink from your store because you are Irish, or because the moon is full if I please.
In this case however - we have a company that took away a persons domain names because that person was voicing the opinion that their product sucks.
He was using their trademark to refer to their product. No ambiguity at all. I mean whats he suposed to do...have the domain "some-irish-beer-that-I-cant-name-sucks.com"?
It comes down to simple "Image control". They want to sweep away anything negative. Its bad enough that companies will spin information so that everything comes out about them as positive - but actively going out and removing "dissent" is just plain wrong.
-Steve
I disagree...
He had a problem with guiness beer - he has EVERY RIGHT to tell other people what he thinks about it. If it hurts guiness - then too bad.
Free Speech is a right - profit is not. If someone causes you to lose money because they are going around saying that your product sucks - then you should have 2 choices:
1) make a better product
2) lose money
A consumer has every right (no matter what any law says) to tell other consumers about products. As long as they do not lie - they have every right to give their honest opinion.
He wasn't diluting their trademark - he was using their trademark in a perfectly correct manner - he was using it to refer to THEIR PRODUCT.
> You boycotting Guiness isn't going to hurt the
> company
Boycotts of popular beer makers in the US back in the 80s got them to stop funding the contras.
...and for the record... guiness DOES suck. I like my beers dark - almost bread like. However I can't stand guiness - it just has this nasty flavor to it - not that its bitter (I like bitter) its just nasty - I can't even describe it. Maybe its the type of hops they use for dry hopping (I am assuming it is dry hopped from the flavor)
-Steve
> Relying solely on a firewall is the single
> biggest mistake a company can make.
> True, a proprely configured firewall can make
> a huge difference, but _real_ security involves
> securing every machine on the network.
I completely agree. I also find that firewalls tend to be more trrouble than they are worth. Give me a bunch of hard hosts over a few soft hosts and a firewall any day of the week.
However - here is the kicker. Microsoft seems to be designing their OSs (like plain old windows) with the idea that "Client machines are behind the firewall" in fact - it seems alot of vendors design things with that in mind.
If you CAN'T make the host secure - then definitly put it behind the firewall. Windows hosts shareing files? Oh yea - thats where they are designed to be!
-Steve
> True, but you (or the original AC) were talking
> about Unix, not Windows. You can't go into
> promiscious mode unless you're root on Unix.
True - of course under true64 if the admin throws the interface into promiscuous mode - by default it ends up setup so that any user can then sniff the network - kind of lame. Took some digging through docs to figure out how to avoid that.
(turned out to be simple - though I forget it now - one of those "things we needed to do once")
> And since most systems use shadow passwords,
> you can't get at the hashed passwords
> unless you're root, either.
Yup - and even then you still need to attack them. Good luck if the system uses cracklib (or equivalent). As an added bonus - the salt makes it so that its fairly CPU intensive to crack passwords in parrallel (probably doesn't apply to MD5 hashes - but they arn't as limited as the old crypt() stuff anyway)
-Steve
> (and please don't blame 'untrained users' - on a
> properly configured *nix system, an untrained
> user couldn't do any harm...)
That depends on your definition of "harm".
They certainly can do things like use the same password for your system as they use over unencrypted connections elsewhere.
Stuff like that can at least open the door to harm. Lets face it - no system is completely bug free - and once someone gets on by sniffing a password - its that much easier for them to use the latest root exploit
(assuming they need root - last time one of our users had a password sniffed - the guy who broke in just setup an IRC bouncer - fucking looser too - I got the job of logging and monitoring his IRC sessions while we were gathering evidence for the Authorities. Just sat around in IRC all day talking about how "we can take over this channel" or "We want that channel" - get a fucking life!)
-Steve
While I agree with you - It is stupid to have full fledge scripting languages built into email clients - and setup in wayhs that are just RIPE for abuse - its not like thats the only problem.
Its not like noone ever found a buffer overflow in pine that would expoit as soon as the victem read mail. (of course - ive only seen that once - maybe twice - and it got fixed quickly)
Then again - that is the beauty of unix - every user can pick their email client - there is no push or need to make EVERYONE use pine or elm or mutt (though I do prefer the latter).
-Steve
Well yes they can but - not necissarily by that definition :) - mostly because I wasn't trying to define cult - I was trying to define when the Gov should be stepping into a religous issue.
I think that if som epeople are doing something to harm a nonconsenting party - it should be treated the same whether they call it religous practice or not.
That said - I think the ONLY time that the government should step in to religous affairs (or personal affairs of any type) is when a non-consenting person is involved against their will.
-Steve
> I say, outlaw religion. Once the first few
> generations got over the "I'm outraged" stage
I look at it this way - Marx was right...
"Religion is the opium o the masses"
And you know what...thats great. I have no problem with individuals wishing to smoke opium! So I have no problem with them following some religion - if it works for you thats fucking great.
I think the church of satan had it right - stop subsidizing it. Tax them just like any other for-profit corperation. (at least until such day as taxes can be phased out - thats my main problem with libertarians - they want to abolish tax. Yes taxes are wrong - its extortion. However - much like toxic waste we can't just sweep i taway with our hands. Its something that has to be taken care of carefully and slowly - we are a few generations away from being realistically tax free)
-Steve
> I do agree with your basic premise, though I
> would add, as long as those "rituals" do no harm
> to others inside or outside of the "religion".
Ahhh well I meant that implicitly - Once again another lesson that one should always explicitly state everything.
How about "As long as they do not harm any non-consenting parties". Generally speaking - they don't. Its the rare crackpot group that do these things and give all such groups a bad name.
-Steve
> Whilst freedom of religion is an important part
> of a free society, let's not get so hung up on
> it that every crazed lunatic with a set of
> "beliefs" can pretend that they're a religious
> guru.
Yea like that damne dheritic Jesus guy from Nazareth! Where does he get off preaching that heresy anyway?
Ok seriously though...I think the best attitude I heard was when I mentioned a friend who was part of what I thought my abe a cult.... "Just because the people who run it may be bad, doesn't make the believers wrong"
If someone believes in something - truely believes in it - then it is a religion for them. Neither you nor anyone else has ANY right to try to stop them from believeing in it or practicing their rituals - whether they be dancing around a fire in the woods or eating stale bread given to them by some weird guy with a stiff collar.
-Steve
> Well...sorry....but sometimes, a disability
> makes for a better person.
You wont get any argument here. A very good friend of mine has a genetic disorder - I forget the name but his body muscle mass is severely decreased.
Nicest guy I ever met. Very intelligent.
However - I do think that it is wise for people with such disorders to not breed. I don't mean to say that a person who has had offspring is bad for having done it - its a personal choice, but -you get good people without genetic diseases too.
Personally, I have reservations about breeding myself (my father and I were both born epileptic - its treatable and mine went away around age 15 - but his never did). I don't know that I would feel comfortable having a child, knowing that there is a pretty good chance that they would have to live with that (even if it goes away - it means an entire childhood on drugs like dilantin and tegretol)
If other people can do it thats fine with me. I just don't feel right about forcing a person into a life like that.
Of course - I would unilatterally encourage everyone to stop breeding anyway. Theres plenty of humans now. We can cut back on production now.
-Steve
-Steve
Thats what I said - its a language.
What is a language? It is a set of rules that governs ideas. You can use a language to communicate with others - ie I can write symbols (which are no different in function than the alphabet for crepresenting english)
A language is completely mental. It exists in your mind. I use english to think about how I feel, or about what I want to do. I make sounds which represent things in the language - to communicate to others. Again - the sounds are not the language - they are just a means by which I can transmit my thought and ideas another.
Math is a language of description. It is purely logical. The "Laws" and "potulates" are like rules of grammar - telling us how to use the symbols - how to form our thoughts.
-Steve
Depends. In truth math is a language.
It is often called "The language of science" it is a way of describing things in very precise terms.
However - it is not very different from some branches of philosophy. Come up with some ideas of a base system - certain unprovable fundamental definitions (like "a point is a single position, and takes up no space") and then use those as the rules and dervie whole new forumlas to describe everything.
-Steve
Hmmm When you mentioned outlook it reminded me...
Just think Linux finnaly makes it into the BIG TIME.
Now YOU TOO can be infected with Macro Viruses!
Woo hoo. No more feeling left out the next time that a VB macro wants to "love you". Isn't that just soooo special?
I supose this does add some modicum of protection though. If multiple users use the same machine, one moron can't get EVERYONES files infected with the macro virus - and they can't easily destroy the OS....
Imagine it - a desktop OS where Users can't delete Operating system files. Their programs can't crash the OS - much less corrupt the system files.
Talk about a front line tech support wet dream.
-Steve
Agree and disagree.
Actually - this is one of the fundamental problems with represenatative democracy IMHO. As I have said, I don't really support non-local government (city/town level).
It is the representatives job to carry out the will of the people - to a certain extent. He shouldn't be an automoton who looks at the vote and says "people say this - we do it", but he also shouldn't be doing everything according to his own personal beliefs either.
Its a matter of balance. If what the people want is destructive and would do alot more harm than good - then he has to stand up and say "no".
Now there are times when a representative must realise what his place is. A perfect example is Adolph Guiliani of NYC. Remember when he threatened to pull funding for museams if they continued to display art that he found offensive?
I would argue that, even if he wanted it, and even if the people wanted it, it is morally wrong for him, as an agent of the government, to make a decision on funding based on whether the art offends him.
Thats not to say that he should or should not fund them. Just that it is wrong for him to be engaging in censorship. If that is his criteria, then its censorship - pure and simple.
So I disagree in that a representative of the people SHOULD listen to the people and do what they want, rather than what he wants. However, there are certain moral and ethical issues where he should not only ignore the people, but ignore his own personal feelings for the princible of the matter.
-Steve
I have a major problem with Libertarians.
I understand what they are for. On a basic level, I agree wholeheartedly with them. Individuals should be free to live their lives however they choose.
However, economically, the libertarian platform is foolish at best. Laisez-faire capitalism works on a small scale with an active and involved populace. Large multinational corperations, who are responsible for making profit are not going to self regulate.
A corperation with enough money and a large enough product base can easily make any attempt to attack it through boycott infeasible at best. Corps like proctor and Gamble are immune to such actions because they can hide behind so many brand names that you are sure to be buying some of their products unknowingly.
Small government is beautiful. If it was up to me, there would be no government at all beyond the local city level - small enough where an individual can make a difference - or if they really don't like it - can move elsewhere.
The type of world where deregulation (especially economic) can possibly work is definitely not today - its at least a few generations off.
The idea that we can just cut off the regulations and let buisness regulate itself today and now is foolish at best - its downright irresponsible.
If they would stick to the relm of decriminilizing "consenual crimes" like drugs and prostitution, and other such things - I would be all for them. These are goals that will work in the short term.
-Steve
> 99% of all the fathers out there peeked at
> more then their share of playboy's and
> penthouses growing up
I may not be a father (really - there are enough people in the world. I am seriously considering just getting that tube tied off - and I encourage all men to do the same - not one child - zero!) but I know I saw my fair share of bare skin when I was a kid.
FOund my fathers playboys at age 7. Didn't get into them until I was 12 though. At around that age I was jerking off every day after school - ocasionally twice a day. Noone told me about it - or showed me how...hand just naturally found gland and magic happened.
Thats the way it is with most people. Thats the way it has happened since around the time that thumbs became popular. (possibly longer but - they do make it so much easier).
> What worries me are some of these pervs out
> stalking kids in AOL chat rooms
Why? there are many more of them that arn't online.
> ured two 14-year-old girls over
Oh come now....14 - they got hair down there. They know whats going on. WHo wouldn't want to fuck teenagers? As one comic said "thats why there are laws against it. Our forefathers were out there going to congress 'hey they are fucking our daughters!'" well ok 14 is a bit young. Certainly, legality aside, 16 or so should be fair game. As long as you can stand listening to N Sync and the backdoor boys that is.
Course as my friends fiance points out - 2 girls is wated on most men anyway - we don't know what to do with just one of them.
Besides - as far as I can tell girls are much more honrey than guys anyway - they just hide it better and are a bit more discriminating.
-Steve
> It might be a good idea to leave in words like
> "breast" and "Dick" since they can be talking
> about anatomy class, or someone's name.
> However, I can't think of a non-vulgar or
> non-pornographic instance of "cum guzzler" or
> "suck my dick" which would be fine to block in
> my opinion.
I can.
"I can't think of a non-pornographic instance of 'cum guzzler' or 'suck my dick'"
Well isn't that a non-pornographic instance RIGHT THERE!?! (Well, it certainly didn't give ME wood to read it...maybe it did for someone else?)
> The real fallacy here is not how unreliable
> censorware is
No the real fallacy is that FUD is the major driving force behind policy. There is NO evidence whatsoever that this is harmfull to children.
I dunno about YOU, but as a child I was exposed to porn. Completely by accident I was getting into things that "I shouldn't have" and I saw porn. The same has happened to about every other person I know. Either they found some of their parents stash (my friend's fiance was telling me about the time her 5 year old came into the room exclaiming "hey mommy you have to see this" only to find he found oneof her porno tapes) - or their friends find it and expose them.
Everyone that I know, who was exposed to porn, grew up perfectly normal. Why? because it *IS* a normal occurance.
The simple fact is this...parents want to protect children. They fear every possible thing that could happen. They are paranoid. Companies that make censorware - and people in congress making laws - are nothing more than preditors. They fan the flames and scare parents. They prey on that fear and use it to make a buck.
-Steve