I think it is important to note that Spamhaus is a service that people proactively utilize.
If we're inventing new terms, let's have them be sensible? "Proactive" and "utilize" (in this sense) are both pretty bad.
Proactive is just about redundant and doesn't exactly convey the sense that's intended. A person being proactive isn't "in favor of being active", they are "taking initiative". It's nice to have a simple term to express this, but let's invent something other than "proactive".
When one "utilizes" something they cause that thing to become ("-ize") useful ("util-"). They're not merely using it. They are converting or applying something so that it can be productive or effective where in its former state (unconverted or not thus applied) it was not. Spamhaus lists? Already useful.
It is important to note that Spamhaus is a service that many people take the initiative to use.
I know these terms have been around and aren't being invented here at this moment. I'm saying they're neologisms (or maybe in utilize's case a "neosemantism") that are best not promoted. The more you conflate meaning or get vague with meaning in language, the stupider you make us all. If you're going to change language, do it in an intelligent way. Please don't push us towards an idiocracy.
I thought there were a variety of Winsock implementations, each independently owned. And as I (cursorily) read it, Winsock the standard was not owned by MS.
As the first term is a comparative adjective, you'd want something syntactically the same. So maybe you should offer "ignoranter".
But, really, the GP was saying that the relatively more dumb people are growing dumber still. In a term one might refer to the relatively more dumb as the "dumber" as in "the dumber among us". Turning that into a comparative, conveying their being yet more dumb than the original state of being dumber, does indeed get us "dumberer".
Sometimes breaking the rules isn't mere ignorance. Sometimes it's cleverness.
I wonder about this. I'm sure it's a rather complex issue (that will be picked apart time again for years to come), but the one idea that leapt out at me was one you pointed out:
... HTML5 core part of browsers will likely be much better maintained & secured than [Flash], will help.
HTML5 may not be a silver bullet, but my intuition tells me we'll be much better off. But not having a clear idea of exactly why this is and spouting my intuition out, while perhaps a Slashdot tradition, is not very constructive, so I offer this intuition with this disclaimer.
I vaguely recall research that says you can't actually filter information effectively. Your conscious mind can only address so much information at once but your unconscious/subconscious mind is constantly taking in new data at higher bandwidth. On top of that your intellectual grasp of information is itself prone to failure from the usual logical fallacies.::shrug:: It's a hard call. You're probably doing the right thing by having the majority of your mix be the more trustworthy source.
67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
The real thing to take away here is that you're a fool if you're not listening to NPR.
Yes, that's a fine example case for vector animations, likely familiar to most here, perhaps reasonably representative of the works found at Newgrounds.com -- I've never been. I do like the Badgers animation, though. Very nice.
Yes, animations are a usage scenario. But there are a large number of uses for Flash/HTML5. I'm suggesting you look at the range of uses, distill them into a few categories, and discuss pros and cons in the context of each. Otherwise, saying "HTML5 isn't ready for prime time" is overly broad.
Once you can do that without adding more than 50% to the file size, and you can provide a write-up about the tools you used, only then will HTML5 be ready for prime time.
Prime time. For the sake of making Badgers.
I might suggest you look at the suitability of HTML5 based on usage scenario rather than as some quality of universal readiness.
While we're at it, your browser SSL encryption is only as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts.
Rather, its only at most as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts
Yes, this is what I'm saying. Maybe I could have written it more clearly.
And I suppose we really shouldn't be referring to any one system's security as a limiting factor when all the systems -- your computer, the server accessed, the CAs -- add in.
While we're at it, your browser SSL encryption is only as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts. Any time your browser shows a secure and validated SSL connection it's because someone in your authorities list said it was okay. Just one authority. That's all it takes.
Go look at the list of CAs your browser trusts.
I just checked mine and I see 86 certificates belonging to maybe 30 different organizations. If any single one of those 30 organizations has a compromised certificate, my browser could show a bogus SSL connection as valid. So, I connect to Bank Of America, and the connection appears like a good SSL connection, but that's only because the fake cert in this attack was authorized by some rogue operator at "TÜBTAK UEKAE Kök Sertifika Hizmet Salaycs - Sürüm 3" or whichever of the 30 companies. That's a pretty long chain to deal with for a weakest-link-screws-you scenario.
Maybe some folks here didn't realize that this is how the model works. That's part of the problem.
So I might suggest understanding the difference between an anonymized connection and an encrypted one. Folks should understand how Tor works before using it. Already we have a problem with people using SSL without understanding it.
Anyway, I installed Tor and Torbutton recently and kept running across notices of how Tor works and that I should be aware of how it works to receive the benefits of it.
Here's another way you can protect yourself against bogus SSL certs, by the way: Perspectives. See the demo. There's a Firefox extension.
Perspectives shows you an SSL cert's history. That is, how long that cert has been in use by the host you're SSL connecting to (as seen by a number of other hosts on the net). If the cert changed on you today, that's suspicious. If it changed today and you are the only person seeing that new cert, you might consider not using that connection for sensitive communication.
Looking at the matter with an oversimplistic view is potentially harmful.
But, as many folk aren't interested in thinking harder, I'll endorse the basic idea that standing up for yourself helps. Note that bullying is a dynamic that requires victims to complete it. It should probably be referred to as the Bully/Victim Dynamic to help people remember this fact. If you don't stand up for yourself, bullies will target you.
If you look into what makes bullies feel like they have to dominate others, you will gain a much deeper understanding of bullying.
Again, I highly recommend this article for anyone interested in understanding bullying better.
Now, the source quoted in this/. article is appallingly fourth-hand and diluted. Here are some other sources:
It seems likely to me that both of these things are involved in substantial degrees. Self-confidence promotes standing up for one's self, and standing up for one's self promotes self-confidence.
It's unlikely that most bullies might be superrational, but if you're not dealing with a bully, but with someone much more intelligent, you should "cooperate" -- whatever that means in this context.
"Dia" also means "across" or "between". If I were to take one sense among these as the best fit I'd say "words between [people]", thus describing number of participants (as more than one).
More precisely speaking, this is not a half-a-log so much as a half-a-dialog. Perhaps a "monolog", but that's in use and doesn't convey the fact that there's a dialog going on and we're being subject to just a portion of it. Maybe "tomolog" for cut up or "merolog" for partial or "ateleolog" for incomplete. But even these are a bit off by referring to "word" or "words" rather than "conversation". Perhaps "ateleodialog" or "merdialog" which almost calls to mind "merde".
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly a prescriptive version.
The American Heritage Dictionary's usage note for "utilize" is informative.
Just because it's in a printed book doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I think it is important to note that Spamhaus is a service that people proactively utilize.
If we're inventing new terms, let's have them be sensible? "Proactive" and "utilize" (in this sense) are both pretty bad.
Proactive is just about redundant and doesn't exactly convey the sense that's intended. A person being proactive isn't "in favor of being active", they are "taking initiative". It's nice to have a simple term to express this, but let's invent something other than "proactive".
When one "utilizes" something they cause that thing to become ("-ize") useful ("util-"). They're not merely using it. They are converting or applying something so that it can be productive or effective where in its former state (unconverted or not thus applied) it was not. Spamhaus lists? Already useful.
It is important to note that Spamhaus is a service that many people take the initiative to use.
I know these terms have been around and aren't being invented here at this moment. I'm saying they're neologisms (or maybe in utilize's case a "neosemantism") that are best not promoted. The more you conflate meaning or get vague with meaning in language, the stupider you make us all. If you're going to change language, do it in an intelligent way. Please don't push us towards an idiocracy.
and presumably was never exploited
...
I thought there were a variety of Winsock implementations, each independently owned. And as I (cursorily) read it, Winsock the standard was not owned by MS.
In Santa Cruz (CA) downtown: Lulu Carpenter's for nice ambiance and good coffee. Pergolesi's for more alternative younger crowd.
Midtown, The Buttery rocks. The pastries are delicious as are a good many of the staff.
When things get so big, I don't trust them at all.
You want some control, you've got to keep it small.
Hey.
Ah. Now I get it. Thanks for the explanation.
As the first term is a comparative adjective, you'd want something syntactically the same. So maybe you should offer "ignoranter".
But, really, the GP was saying that the relatively more dumb people are growing dumber still. In a term one might refer to the relatively more dumb as the "dumber" as in "the dumber among us". Turning that into a comparative, conveying their being yet more dumb than the original state of being dumber, does indeed get us "dumberer".
Sometimes breaking the rules isn't mere ignorance. Sometimes it's cleverness.
I wonder about this. I'm sure it's a rather complex issue (that will be picked apart time again for years to come), but the one idea that leapt out at me was one you pointed out:
... HTML5 core part of browsers will likely be much better maintained & secured than [Flash], will help.
HTML5 may not be a silver bullet, but my intuition tells me we'll be much better off. But not having a clear idea of exactly why this is and spouting my intuition out, while perhaps a Slashdot tradition, is not very constructive, so I offer this intuition with this disclaimer.
I vaguely recall research that says you can't actually filter information effectively. Your conscious mind can only address so much information at once but your unconscious/subconscious mind is constantly taking in new data at higher bandwidth. On top of that your intellectual grasp of information is itself prone to failure from the usual logical fallacies. ::shrug:: It's a hard call. You're probably doing the right thing by having the majority of your mix be the more trustworthy source.
I thought Fox viewers had been shown to be substantially misinformed?
Yeah, here we are:
The real thing to take away here is that you're a fool if you're not listening to NPR.
Yes, that's a fine example case for vector animations, likely familiar to most here, perhaps reasonably representative of the works found at Newgrounds.com -- I've never been. I do like the Badgers animation, though. Very nice.
Yes, animations are a usage scenario. But there are a large number of uses for Flash/HTML5. I'm suggesting you look at the range of uses, distill them into a few categories, and discuss pros and cons in the context of each. Otherwise, saying "HTML5 isn't ready for prime time" is overly broad.
Once you can do that without adding more than 50% to the file size, and you can provide a write-up about the tools you used, only then will HTML5 be ready for prime time.
Prime time. For the sake of making Badgers.
I might suggest you look at the suitability of HTML5 based on usage scenario rather than as some quality of universal readiness.
While we're at it, your browser SSL encryption is only as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts.
Rather, its only at most as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts
Yes, this is what I'm saying. Maybe I could have written it more clearly.
And I suppose we really shouldn't be referring to any one system's security as a limiting factor when all the systems -- your computer, the server accessed, the CAs -- add in.
While we're at it, your browser SSL encryption is only as secure as the least secure of the certificate authorities that your browser trusts. Any time your browser shows a secure and validated SSL connection it's because someone in your authorities list said it was okay. Just one authority. That's all it takes.
Go look at the list of CAs your browser trusts.
I just checked mine and I see 86 certificates belonging to maybe 30 different organizations. If any single one of those 30 organizations has a compromised certificate, my browser could show a bogus SSL connection as valid. So, I connect to Bank Of America, and the connection appears like a good SSL connection, but that's only because the fake cert in this attack was authorized by some rogue operator at "TÜBTAK UEKAE Kök Sertifika Hizmet Salaycs - Sürüm 3" or whichever of the 30 companies. That's a pretty long chain to deal with for a weakest-link-screws-you scenario.
Maybe some folks here didn't realize that this is how the model works. That's part of the problem.
So I might suggest understanding the difference between an anonymized connection and an encrypted one. Folks should understand how Tor works before using it. Already we have a problem with people using SSL without understanding it.
Anyway, I installed Tor and Torbutton recently and kept running across notices of how Tor works and that I should be aware of how it works to receive the benefits of it.
Here's another way you can protect yourself against bogus SSL certs, by the way: Perspectives. See the demo. There's a Firefox extension.
Perspectives shows you an SSL cert's history. That is, how long that cert has been in use by the host you're SSL connecting to (as seen by a number of other hosts on the net). If the cert changed on you today, that's suspicious. If it changed today and you are the only person seeing that new cert, you might consider not using that connection for sensitive communication.
More precisely, it is not the nodes themselves that are the risk, but the (unencrypted) communication coming from the exit nodes.
No, this is what happens when you put scientists on pot:
Mr. X.
Dangerously simplistic.
The world is more detailed and weirder than you realize. You would do better to grasp this fact and step out from the Dunning-Kruger zone.
Looking at the matter with an oversimplistic view is potentially harmful.
But, as many folk aren't interested in thinking harder, I'll endorse the basic idea that standing up for yourself helps. Note that bullying is a dynamic that requires victims to complete it. It should probably be referred to as the Bully/Victim Dynamic to help people remember this fact. If you don't stand up for yourself, bullies will target you.
If you look into what makes bullies feel like they have to dominate others, you will gain a much deeper understanding of bullying.
Again, I highly recommend this article for anyone interested in understanding bullying better.
Now, the source quoted in this /. article is appallingly fourth-hand and diluted. Here are some other sources:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article7133986.ece
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/health/18mind.html?pagewanted=print
And here's an abstract for the actual study (which took a while to track down): Mutual antipathies during early adolescence: More than just rejection
Beware false dichotomies, too.
It seems likely to me that both of these things are involved in substantial degrees. Self-confidence promotes standing up for one's self, and standing up for one's self promotes self-confidence.
That idea sounds unfamiliar and I can't make sense of it. Could you elaborate?
Is spitting on another kid at school an example?
Or are you referring more to something like the popular support for the US's "retaliatory" invasion of Iraq?
It's unlikely that most bullies might be superrational, but if you're not dealing with a bully, but with someone much more intelligent, you should "cooperate" -- whatever that means in this context.
Web of trust-like mechanism for SSL: Perspectives.
A web demo is available.
Not really a web-of-trust. More like a history-of-key, which also works well.
Maybe your brain just doesn't put in much effort most of the time?
"Dia" also means "across" or "between". If I were to take one sense among these as the best fit I'd say "words between [people]", thus describing number of participants (as more than one).
More precisely speaking, this is not a half-a-log so much as a half-a-dialog. Perhaps a "monolog", but that's in use and doesn't convey the fact that there's a dialog going on and we're being subject to just a portion of it. Maybe "tomolog" for cut up or "merolog" for partial or "ateleolog" for incomplete. But even these are a bit off by referring to "word" or "words" rather than "conversation". Perhaps "ateleodialog" or "merdialog" which almost calls to mind "merde".