"Well regulated" meant "in good working order" in other trades, but in the military it meant that they can march as a unit.
It means your unit can pass a basic parade drill given by the military in the event that your State calls your unit up for military service. That's why the stuff about being necessary for the security of a State is in there.
Keep in mind, #1 and #2 don't say the same type of thing about two subjects. In the case of freedom of the press it says "congress shall make no law," and "the press" basically meant small businesses printing fake news and offensive opinions. In the case of the right to bear arms, it says a bunch of stuff about the right to be in a well-regulated militia, and that the right to bear arms shall not be "infringed." But "making no law" is much more strict than simply not infringing on a right. The second amendment leaves Congress with the power to make laws regulating guns, and regulating the bearing of arms, as long as after the executive branch implements the law your right to bear arms is still intact.
The Constitution says that Congress can't tell you what type of press to buy, but they can tell you what type of arms constitute those appropriate for para-military use, as long as in practice they don't "take yer guns away."
If a phrase is known to have a specific meaning beyond the meaning of the constituent words, that doesn't somehow preclude other meanings of that same combination of words. Just as a word having a meaning doesn't stop it from having a second meaning.
All the known meanings of a phrase are correct, just as all the known meanings of a word are correct. The only time the meaning is incorrect is when it is not internally consistent, or when the speaker decides that they used the wrong word.
Don't be a false pedant, learn that English is an open language and that complaints about what words are used should be focused on either internal consistency of the statement, or style. The vast majority of purported English language corrections are in fact merely false pedanticisms whose only real claim is an appeal to style.
Compare to the French language, which has an official Authority to tell you what is correct or not.
I don't think he misunderstood proprietary, rather he was using a broader definition to make a funny statement that is true as he said it, but has the same words as a false thing that pedants might jump at. It is perhaps a disguised invitation to think more carefully about the meaning of the words used, instead of just glancing at them to figure out which team is Virtuous.
But then he misunderstands "loophole," so that really ruins it for me. Both as word play, and as a valid point.
If you'd stop standing on your head, you could probably see plainly that it is the authors of the software who are reported as having done something, not the users of the software. Whoopsie, you were only off by *-1
While I normally am happy to join in complaining about people speaking for others, here he only declares that some "us" exists, and have a shared experience.
As he has actually followers in real life on this very topic, it seems rather obvious that he can represent anything he says as being the opinion of "us" instead of himself.
Notice you're the one saying his "us" would have to be all of Free Software, not him?
For values of "bad" that equal, "takes a position contrary to mine," sure.
But that isn't what "bad actor" actually means in English. He's acting in exactly the way that was anticipated by the copyright strategy of the Linux kernel. If they decided at this point that they were wrong that that strategy was good, well that is them realizing that they were bad in the past, it doesn't make the one guy who agreed with their original position into a "bad actor."
The accusation that he's a "bad actor" appears to be in "bad faith" as you actually do know what words mean, and what the history of this issue is.
He's being made a scapegoat entirely because so many "open source" people don't want to admit that the Free Software Foundation was right about copyright assignments. They have to run around lying to each other because they can't admit that St. Ignucius was Right!
Nope, that was just a giant wooshing sound, not a flushing sound.
These particular types of copyright violations don't result in cash payments, they result in the withdrawal of a free license. It doesn't result in billions of dollars in lost legal fees, because the non-monetary nature of the case substantially limits the legal work involved.
Also, there is nothing to fight when you're out of compliance; you can't use tactics like attacking the contract, because you'd only lose your license that way too. So if you're really in violation, that is a very very small amount of legal work for your lawyers; mostly just them explaining to you that you have have to either give away the source, or risk an injunction that halts distribution of your product. If you really used the code, and you can't write new code fast enough to prevent an injunction, there isn't much you can do to fight.
In the end under this system there will be about the same amount of work for the lawyers, as they still are in the loop managing the "cure." It could even end up being more work for them!
Bullshit, BSD has restrictions that don't work for everybody, it is just a lie to represent it the way you do. It is your favorite, that's great. But it doesn't have the least restrictions, and it isn't for any purpose.
There are more than 2 licenses in use, BTW. Look it up if you don't believe.
Nope, you still have the exact same problem because BSD has very strict compliance requirements that not everybody is even willing to engage in.
The weird part is that you seem to be claiming to have knowledge about different licenses, and yet even though you've been corrected about this point on this very website repeatedly, you still make the same idiotic claim about the BSD license. You spam the same words every time it comes up.
So look, No. The only license that lets users stop caring about it is the Apache 2 license. It is the only one that everybody, GPL, BSD/MIT, proprietary, they can all just use it and not worry.
Sounds like a bunch of "blah blah" to me. Guaranteed to be irrelevant to what I said. How can it be "more realistic," when you're just blathering about a totally different idea that doesn't counter or expand on what I said? I don't mind you hanging your comment there, but lets not pretend you were offering some sort of counter-point.
When somebody says something, if it is true or not has nothing to do with your sense of their authority, or what you measure their intent to be. Ideas are abstract, and human understanding is abstract. It does not matter who says a thing, when doing information analysis.
People who blather about reputation are simply wallowing in logical fallacy. That's fine, but they shouldn't presume that logical thinkers assign weight to it; it isn't even well-formed enough to fit onto the scale!
It may be that there was no change, and these people were never interested in, or making practical use of, knowledge in the first place. But their merely having a platform now to broadcast to each other might not add up to anything substantive; certainly the bare assertion that it has quantitative value doesn't have any weight.
Don't be a moron. Instead of posting those links and asserting that you are Right, fucking read them.
Somebody punching you is a low level misdemeanor, not even a felony. The link explains if you can use deadly force or not. (not) You can't even use a weapon. Simply displaying the weapon when the threat is a misdemeanor actually is likely to be a felony itself; a bystander might even legally shoot you in defense of the person you're threatening with the weapon!
What a maroon. Read your own fucking links, asshole.
I include, "asks me to do something that would be really non-secure and provides a link to make it convenient."
Security and convenience are a trade-off, if you're distributing real information to technical workers that they would take actions based on, you don't want to even try to make it convenient with links. You want to just give them the data: "Foo has problem Bar, please log into your Secure BlahBlah and don't forget to wipe the cargo port with the rubber chicken." No link. If they don't know how to access Secure BlahBlah, then they shouldn't be accessing it.
Here in the US, if the email was actually something important and I didn't respond, they'd have to notify me by registered mail instead. So things you'd actually have to respond to would all be for internal, company-controlled reasons where the technology can be matched with the use case.
The part you missed is that the purpose of the audit is to find out what the state of the situation is. It is not the purpose of the audit to assign or restrict Virtue.
So the whole, "Golly it isn't their fault but they look bad" angle is really weak. If you know better, simply refrain from thinking the wrong party is responsible, and take the message as, "there is no system, and the users aren't expert enough to do it right without a system." You don't hide that from ebil "papers" in order to protect people's Virtue, instead it is good for the People to know that there is no working system. Maybe some people later will react by putting a system in place?
Your response is what I'd expect from a representative of the Neckbeard Union or something, just trying to white knight it and protect people not under any attack.
Good idea, but you have some problems. If they're not in control of their clients and the clients were pre-fetching the images, wouldn't you expect it to be much higher than [some percent?] If the policy changes from team to team, you already gave up your whole "gubermint no choices" narrative.
Also at the other end, there are people like me who don't let the client display images even when I "open" (read: read) the email. It seems pretty silly to me that I think I might be getting a targeted attack message, and I wouldn't even look at it! A lot of those messages can infer information about what type of attack you're under. It is definitely worthwhile to scrutinize them closely so that you can be aware in advance that there might be other types of social engineering attacks made against you or your company by the same actor. Don't click the links, but don't just ignore all attacks, either.
So I did read the phishing email, but no, I didn't load a tracking image.
Don't derp on yourself, I have way way better than 20/20 vision.
Maybe you didn't comprehend a very very simple point, that was clearly made, because you did a knee-jerk "DERP!" like you always do? Fuck an A, how are you so stupid. How do you not understand such a simple point and yet blather on about 4k as if it is relevant to what I was saying?
And then at the end when you say "of course not," OK just stop there. Don't type more on that subject, because you already admitted it isn't relevant.
For your next trick, maybe you can measure the font size of a book and tell me how much better the resolution is if you have a finer dot pitch font. Because it isn't a different story, and if the experience is different that implies the reader actually missed the experience and talked about something else. If there is so little fucking story that I'm staring at pixels, why would even permit that crap on my screen? Why wouldn't I turn it off and do something else? Notice I said "good" movie, not whatever random shit you watch that doesn't even get your own interest.
Right, but using "one punch can kill" as an excuse for why you shot somebody doesn't describe self defense, it describes admitting to murder.
This is not theory, don't be an idiot. Self defense isn't based on making a promise that you were really super-duper scared even though the threat was only with fists. That's daft. There is an actual process to measure it. And "oh a punch can kill" are not magic words that make it legal to use a deadly weapon to defend against a minor assault.
No, you waved your hands and claimed n blah blah for every blah.
That's not what any of the linked studies (there were none) said. It did say that people wanted to study if such a thing were true, using methodology that would actually prove something totally different.
If it was a CDC study, you'd link to the CDC. It says right in your link that what actually happened was that the CDC contributed funding to study problems related to gun violence, and the thing you're linking to is a policy paper that outlines objectives of the people who received that funding.
Notice the bait-and-switch?
Yes, the CDC has spent money to study gun violence. Yes, the people who wrote that policy paper received some of that money. No, that does not mean that the CDC supports their agenda, and no it does not imply that the things those people hope to prove were already proved by the CDC. LOL
Slashdot Mirror
The NSA can break into any foreign computer with no repercussions at all.
-jcr
That's not true, their repercussion is in the form of continued funding.
I beamed this in from the other story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Well regulated" meant "in good working order" in other trades, but in the military it meant that they can march as a unit.
It means your unit can pass a basic parade drill given by the military in the event that your State calls your unit up for military service. That's why the stuff about being necessary for the security of a State is in there.
Keep in mind, #1 and #2 don't say the same type of thing about two subjects. In the case of freedom of the press it says "congress shall make no law," and "the press" basically meant small businesses printing fake news and offensive opinions. In the case of the right to bear arms, it says a bunch of stuff about the right to be in a well-regulated militia, and that the right to bear arms shall not be "infringed." But "making no law" is much more strict than simply not infringing on a right. The second amendment leaves Congress with the power to make laws regulating guns, and regulating the bearing of arms, as long as after the executive branch implements the law your right to bear arms is still intact.
The Constitution says that Congress can't tell you what type of press to buy, but they can tell you what type of arms constitute those appropriate for para-military use, as long as in practice they don't "take yer guns away."
That's exactly where this leads; the return of the local weekly printed newspaper!
That isn't how words work.
If a phrase is known to have a specific meaning beyond the meaning of the constituent words, that doesn't somehow preclude other meanings of that same combination of words. Just as a word having a meaning doesn't stop it from having a second meaning.
All the known meanings of a phrase are correct, just as all the known meanings of a word are correct. The only time the meaning is incorrect is when it is not internally consistent, or when the speaker decides that they used the wrong word.
Don't be a false pedant, learn that English is an open language and that complaints about what words are used should be focused on either internal consistency of the statement, or style. The vast majority of purported English language corrections are in fact merely false pedanticisms whose only real claim is an appeal to style.
Compare to the French language, which has an official Authority to tell you what is correct or not.
I don't think he misunderstood proprietary, rather he was using a broader definition to make a funny statement that is true as he said it, but has the same words as a false thing that pedants might jump at. It is perhaps a disguised invitation to think more carefully about the meaning of the words used, instead of just glancing at them to figure out which team is Virtuous.
But then he misunderstands "loophole," so that really ruins it for me. Both as word play, and as a valid point.
If you'd stop standing on your head, you could probably see plainly that it is the authors of the software who are reported as having done something, not the users of the software. Whoopsie, you were only off by *-1
While I normally am happy to join in complaining about people speaking for others, here he only declares that some "us" exists, and have a shared experience.
As he has actually followers in real life on this very topic, it seems rather obvious that he can represent anything he says as being the opinion of "us" instead of himself.
Notice you're the one saying his "us" would have to be all of Free Software, not him?
For values of "bad" that equal, "takes a position contrary to mine," sure.
But that isn't what "bad actor" actually means in English. He's acting in exactly the way that was anticipated by the copyright strategy of the Linux kernel. If they decided at this point that they were wrong that that strategy was good, well that is them realizing that they were bad in the past, it doesn't make the one guy who agreed with their original position into a "bad actor."
The accusation that he's a "bad actor" appears to be in "bad faith" as you actually do know what words mean, and what the history of this issue is.
He's being made a scapegoat entirely because so many "open source" people don't want to admit that the Free Software Foundation was right about copyright assignments. They have to run around lying to each other because they can't admit that St. Ignucius was Right!
Nope, that was just a giant wooshing sound, not a flushing sound.
These particular types of copyright violations don't result in cash payments, they result in the withdrawal of a free license. It doesn't result in billions of dollars in lost legal fees, because the non-monetary nature of the case substantially limits the legal work involved.
Also, there is nothing to fight when you're out of compliance; you can't use tactics like attacking the contract, because you'd only lose your license that way too. So if you're really in violation, that is a very very small amount of legal work for your lawyers; mostly just them explaining to you that you have have to either give away the source, or risk an injunction that halts distribution of your product. If you really used the code, and you can't write new code fast enough to prevent an injunction, there isn't much you can do to fight.
In the end under this system there will be about the same amount of work for the lawyers, as they still are in the loop managing the "cure." It could even end up being more work for them!
Bullshit, BSD has restrictions that don't work for everybody, it is just a lie to represent it the way you do. It is your favorite, that's great. But it doesn't have the least restrictions, and it isn't for any purpose.
There are more than 2 licenses in use, BTW. Look it up if you don't believe.
Nope, you still have the exact same problem because BSD has very strict compliance requirements that not everybody is even willing to engage in.
The weird part is that you seem to be claiming to have knowledge about different licenses, and yet even though you've been corrected about this point on this very website repeatedly, you still make the same idiotic claim about the BSD license. You spam the same words every time it comes up.
So look, No. The only license that lets users stop caring about it is the Apache 2 license. It is the only one that everybody, GPL, BSD/MIT, proprietary, they can all just use it and not worry.
Sounds like a bunch of "blah blah" to me. Guaranteed to be irrelevant to what I said. How can it be "more realistic," when you're just blathering about a totally different idea that doesn't counter or expand on what I said? I don't mind you hanging your comment there, but lets not pretend you were offering some sort of counter-point.
When somebody says something, if it is true or not has nothing to do with your sense of their authority, or what you measure their intent to be. Ideas are abstract, and human understanding is abstract. It does not matter who says a thing, when doing information analysis.
People who blather about reputation are simply wallowing in logical fallacy. That's fine, but they shouldn't presume that logical thinkers assign weight to it; it isn't even well-formed enough to fit onto the scale!
It may be that there was no change, and these people were never interested in, or making practical use of, knowledge in the first place. But their merely having a platform now to broadcast to each other might not add up to anything substantive; certainly the bare assertion that it has quantitative value doesn't have any weight.
Don't be a moron. Instead of posting those links and asserting that you are Right, fucking read them.
Somebody punching you is a low level misdemeanor, not even a felony. The link explains if you can use deadly force or not. (not) You can't even use a weapon. Simply displaying the weapon when the threat is a misdemeanor actually is likely to be a felony itself; a bystander might even legally shoot you in defense of the person you're threatening with the weapon!
What a maroon. Read your own fucking links, asshole.
I include, "asks me to do something that would be really non-secure and provides a link to make it convenient."
Security and convenience are a trade-off, if you're distributing real information to technical workers that they would take actions based on, you don't want to even try to make it convenient with links. You want to just give them the data: "Foo has problem Bar, please log into your Secure BlahBlah and don't forget to wipe the cargo port with the rubber chicken." No link. If they don't know how to access Secure BlahBlah, then they shouldn't be accessing it.
Here in the US, if the email was actually something important and I didn't respond, they'd have to notify me by registered mail instead. So things you'd actually have to respond to would all be for internal, company-controlled reasons where the technology can be matched with the use case.
The part you missed is that the purpose of the audit is to find out what the state of the situation is. It is not the purpose of the audit to assign or restrict Virtue.
So the whole, "Golly it isn't their fault but they look bad" angle is really weak. If you know better, simply refrain from thinking the wrong party is responsible, and take the message as, "there is no system, and the users aren't expert enough to do it right without a system." You don't hide that from ebil "papers" in order to protect people's Virtue, instead it is good for the People to know that there is no working system. Maybe some people later will react by putting a system in place?
Your response is what I'd expect from a representative of the Neckbeard Union or something, just trying to white knight it and protect people not under any attack.
Good idea, but you have some problems. If they're not in control of their clients and the clients were pre-fetching the images, wouldn't you expect it to be much higher than [some percent?] If the policy changes from team to team, you already gave up your whole "gubermint no choices" narrative.
Also at the other end, there are people like me who don't let the client display images even when I "open" (read: read) the email. It seems pretty silly to me that I think I might be getting a targeted attack message, and I wouldn't even look at it! A lot of those messages can infer information about what type of attack you're under. It is definitely worthwhile to scrutinize them closely so that you can be aware in advance that there might be other types of social engineering attacks made against you or your company by the same actor. Don't click the links, but don't just ignore all attacks, either.
So I did read the phishing email, but no, I didn't load a tracking image.
You do know that if there is js in an email, and you use the gmail web client, it doesn't pass that shit through?
No, you didn't. And yet! lol
I don't even think you were just leaning on an inappropriate pedanticism that isn't relevant. I think it is a worse problem.
Holy frak guys, just start the second civil war already. The rest of the world knows it's coming, might as well just get down to it.
In before Han shoots first!
No, it just depends on the exact values for "it," "all," "about," and "now."
Never argue from authority in the first place, and never listen from authority either!
Don't derp on yourself, I have way way better than 20/20 vision.
Maybe you didn't comprehend a very very simple point, that was clearly made, because you did a knee-jerk "DERP!" like you always do? Fuck an A, how are you so stupid. How do you not understand such a simple point and yet blather on about 4k as if it is relevant to what I was saying?
And then at the end when you say "of course not," OK just stop there. Don't type more on that subject, because you already admitted it isn't relevant.
For your next trick, maybe you can measure the font size of a book and tell me how much better the resolution is if you have a finer dot pitch font. Because it isn't a different story, and if the experience is different that implies the reader actually missed the experience and talked about something else. If there is so little fucking story that I'm staring at pixels, why would even permit that crap on my screen? Why wouldn't I turn it off and do something else? Notice I said "good" movie, not whatever random shit you watch that doesn't even get your own interest.
Right, but using "one punch can kill" as an excuse for why you shot somebody doesn't describe self defense, it describes admitting to murder.
This is not theory, don't be an idiot. Self defense isn't based on making a promise that you were really super-duper scared even though the threat was only with fists. That's daft. There is an actual process to measure it. And "oh a punch can kill" are not magic words that make it legal to use a deadly weapon to defend against a minor assault.
No, you waved your hands and claimed n blah blah for every blah.
That's not what any of the linked studies (there were none) said. It did say that people wanted to study if such a thing were true, using methodology that would actually prove something totally different.
If it was a CDC study, you'd link to the CDC. It says right in your link that what actually happened was that the CDC contributed funding to study problems related to gun violence, and the thing you're linking to is a policy paper that outlines objectives of the people who received that funding.
Notice the bait-and-switch?
Yes, the CDC has spent money to study gun violence. Yes, the people who wrote that policy paper received some of that money. No, that does not mean that the CDC supports their agenda, and no it does not imply that the things those people hope to prove were already proved by the CDC. LOL