You're right that It's not a fallacy. There isn't a definitive list of fallacies, they're just generally agreed to be significant patterns of reasoning, and that's what we need for forums too. A set of significant patterns of discussion could help people identify bad comments and threads: Forumcy. We already have the rudiments of such a classification (Thread jacking, First post, Don't feed the trolls, joke/pun thread) but it needs to be better formalized.
First, it's not callous to speak the truth. Health Care in the US makes the same trade-offs.
Second, you're leaving out the random, impersonal and national nature of the attacks. Government has a special duty to address the national issues which individuals can't or don't address. Government also has a greater obligation to intervene when individuals can't respond do to the impersonal nature of the issue. Like natural disasters or economic collapse.
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek...) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it...
The total eventual circulation will be 21 million bitcoins. There will never be more coins than that.
So if a Bitcoin is eventually worth $100 US Dollars, it'll be useless for most transactions? Not a good plan.
Are my Bitcoins safe?
As long as you make backups of your Bitcoin wallet, protect it with a strong password and keep keyloggers away from your computer.
The plan for protecting accounts is... you're on your own!
You can't have a situation with no server involved, ever, unless you're distributing the software on a friend-to-friend basis.
Not true. You could just send UDP packets randomly until you find a peer. It's a ridiculous strategy, but it could work for a large persistent cloud of peers. Optimizations could even make it practical (like remember 1000 peers when you close and try them when you restart.)
So physical instantiation is incredibly important when you consider the details of the hardware, and the system you're trying to model.
Why? We look at beings with brains and know they have minds. That's a valuable insight into what can cause a "mind" to exist. But making the physical representation of a brain is no better then making the algorithmic representation. This is cult-cargo thinking on a grand scale: build something that acts like a brain and therefore we'll make a "mind".
They not only have to profile all devices on almost all sites, they also have to get merchants to share who made a purchase. Vendors aren't going to share this for free and without any control. Then they'll have to get the EU to approve it.
If the US software patent system hurts them enough and keeps hurting them, they might start lobbying to change it.
Yea, but the kind of change we want. Software Patents are a subsidy to big business, and if they stop protecting US high tech companies they'll be changed so they do.
Why should the computer industry be any different? If you want to know the worst qualities of any product, look at what they advertise and you'll find it.
Microsoft: the eXPerience, Personal (it was my idea)
Apple: all about the individual
So with Microsoft we get the borg, and with Apple we get DRM?
I'd really like to see a microformat for reviews take off. It could start in parallel to existing link-counting schemes so we just need a critical mass implementing it. Counting links is easy for search engines but we could get much better information by saying what we mean instead of just a link, possibly with nofollow.
There is hReview but it's in really bad shape. There isn't any agreement on nomenclature for the reviews -- no scales or weighting schema, or any way to communicate a rating schema. Anyone know of better or more common microformats for reviews?
rel="nofollow" isn't new and it's useful for large websites with user submitted content. Slashdot, for example, adds it to outbound links to remove any incentive to increase page rank by spamming links. All the major search engines respect it AFAIK.
Clay Shirky suggested that society was "drunk" on TV because of all the free time we had, but didn't know what to do with. Change TV to Solitaire or Minesweeper or "online social games" and just looks like the same pattern: there's a void to be filled.
Maybe it works differently on Red Hat? My point stands though: you could find a distro that lets you stay on a 5/7 year old version and still get security upgrades.
Ironic that you're example is "When these end users find that they can't run Firefox n+1" because that's actually how Ubuntu works: you get the FF version it shipped with plus security updates. Maybe that's changed since 9.10 (9.04?), but it made me want to switch distros.
Some small groups of normal users never want to update, and others always want the latest. But most normal users realize they need to update to get new software and are scared to do so because it'll break something they already have. Rolling package sets could let them update with no skill (press "Upgrade") and confidence that it'll work in the end.
Your main objection seems to be that upgrades will break things, therefore people shouldn't do upgrades. But you don't get the new version of Freedom Office or FF by having 5+ year releases; or if you install new software on such a system it comes with so much baggage (libc.so.8?) that it's really no different then upgrading.
Maybe you think Wifi/Kernel is different than desktop software, and that we could protect the former while upgrading the latter? That works for servers where little changes and stability is a virtue, and maybe a visualized desktop/userspace could keep hardware protected while changing desktop software, but I don't know any system that does that, and you'd still have to update drivers sooner or latter. Plus, for desktop software, developers can either count absolutely on base components in a version ("Works with Ubuntu 10.04!"), or it needs to be written to standard interfaces with minimum versions. General standards are better for fast moving targets.
I haven't tried Arch, but everyone says positive things about how well rolling releases work. Six month releases or one month releases, it could work for Ubuntu too.
Use Red Hat/CentOS if that's what you want. (If Canonical is seriously thinking about this, that's probably why.) Most people want updates to the Kernel/Gnome/base libraries/etc... and they want to choose when to upgrade so they can do it when they have time to address issues. Regularly testing rolling packages together seems like a way to let people just apply security updates until they're ready to "upgrade" to the latest rolling package set.
And the design process is worse: If you design for Atom+FPGA and then want to move to an ASIC you have a bunch of work to do. If you start with a separate FPGA, just drop an ASIC in place.
If they had a password on the stream and people cracked it or multiple people were sharing an account authorized for only one stream, then yes that would be against the rules.
So in your interpretation "the rules" are whatever a non-governmental organization says they are? We need legal vs. illegal to be clearly defined by government, not ad-hoc rules by each server operator.
The technology makes a few rules simple, clear and universal:
* Anyone can request any URL.
* It's the server's responsibility to secure content.
* Any content served is public, unless it has restrictions in-force.
I think people want to say something like "if you break a lock or do anything tricky, then that's illegal". The US DMCA has enshrined the "breaking the lock" part of that sentiment, but the "do anything tricky" is still at issue. We, meaning Slashdot, can agree that granting bad security measures legal protection is foolish (it's impractical, encourages apathy, threatens free speech and impedes the development of real security) but I think non-technical people are caught by a simple logical error: they're told the intention of the server operator to secure the content after the fact, so guilt seems obvious, even though defining a servers intention has clear rules on the Internet; i.e. the server must enforce restrictions.
Well, the apparent fragility of the code is not speculation. Whatever is going on here is certainly very fragile.
Fragile in the sense that it doesn't cover all cases or even a reasonable majority, right? If that's what you mean by "fragile" then what would you call code to cheat on the test, which is targeted at just one or very few cases? Maybe you're just saying "fragile" to avoid any rude accusations, but that doesn't make it more accurate.
Whether it's innocent or purposeful is certainly speculation.
We do have some basis for that speculation: the character and history of the actors involved.
This suggests that the dead-code-elimination algorithm is somewhat fragile. In particular, testing has yet to turn up a single other piece of dead code it eliminates other than this one function in Sunspider. So Rob filed a bug about this apparent fragility with Microsoft and blogged about it. The rest is all speculation by third parties.
Isn't it speculation that this is an innocent "apparent fragility" in the code? This might be cheating. All we can do to assess the situation is look at the evidence of this incident, and consider the character of Microsoft and Mozilla. Honest people may differ in their assessment.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that It's not a fallacy. There isn't a definitive list of fallacies, they're just generally agreed to be significant patterns of reasoning, and that's what we need for forums too. A set of significant patterns of discussion could help people identify bad comments and threads: Forumcy. We already have the rudiments of such a classification (Thread jacking, First post, Don't feed the trolls, joke/pun thread) but it needs to be better formalized.
First, it's not callous to speak the truth. Health Care in the US makes the same trade-offs.
Second, you're leaving out the random, impersonal and national nature of the attacks. Government has a special duty to address the national issues which individuals can't or don't address. Government also has a greater obligation to intervene when individuals can't respond do to the impersonal nature of the issue. Like natural disasters or economic collapse.
That said, the TSA is going way to far.
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek...) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
The total eventual circulation will be 21 million bitcoins. There will never be more coins than that.
So if a Bitcoin is eventually worth $100 US Dollars, it'll be useless for most transactions? Not a good plan.
Are my Bitcoins safe? As long as you make backups of your Bitcoin wallet, protect it with a strong password and keep keyloggers away from your computer.
The plan for protecting accounts is... you're on your own!
Bootstrap is the interesting issue.
You can't have a situation with no server involved, ever, unless you're distributing the software on a friend-to-friend basis.
Not true. You could just send UDP packets randomly until you find a peer. It's a ridiculous strategy, but it could work for a large persistent cloud of peers. Optimizations could even make it practical (like remember 1000 peers when you close and try them when you restart.)
So physical instantiation is incredibly important when you consider the details of the hardware, and the system you're trying to model.
Why? We look at beings with brains and know they have minds. That's a valuable insight into what can cause a "mind" to exist. But making the physical representation of a brain is no better then making the algorithmic representation. This is cult-cargo thinking on a grand scale: build something that acts like a brain and therefore we'll make a "mind".
I think the goverment should prosecute in severe cases where monterary gain or where there is conterfit good involved.
I think they should prosecute Microsoft too; none of this could have happened without Microsoft trying to pretend it still OWNS something it sold.
They not only have to profile all devices on almost all sites, they also have to get merchants to share who made a purchase. Vendors aren't going to share this for free and without any control. Then they'll have to get the EU to approve it.
I the whole negation: NOT the kind of change we want.
If the US software patent system hurts them enough and keeps hurting them, they might start lobbying to change it.
Yea, but the kind of change we want. Software Patents are a subsidy to big business, and if they stop protecting US high tech companies they'll be changed so they do.
Why should the computer industry be any different? If you want to know the worst qualities of any product, look at what they advertise and you'll find it.
Microsoft: the eXPerience, Personal (it was my idea)
Apple: all about the individual
So with Microsoft we get the borg, and with Apple we get DRM?
I'd really like to see a microformat for reviews take off. It could start in parallel to existing link-counting schemes so we just need a critical mass implementing it. Counting links is easy for search engines but we could get much better information by saying what we mean instead of just a link, possibly with nofollow.
There is hReview but it's in really bad shape. There isn't any agreement on nomenclature for the reviews -- no scales or weighting schema, or any way to communicate a rating schema. Anyone know of better or more common microformats for reviews?
rel="nofollow" isn't new and it's useful for large websites with user submitted content. Slashdot, for example, adds it to outbound links to remove any incentive to increase page rank by spamming links. All the major search engines respect it AFAIK.
http://packages.ubuntu.com/maverick/gnome-desktop-environment It's the entire desktop, and YUM must have something similar. Is there nobody who uses CentOS and installs a desktop on it?
Clay Shirky suggested that society was "drunk" on TV because of all the free time we had, but didn't know what to do with. Change TV to Solitaire or Minesweeper or "online social games" and just looks like the same pattern: there's a void to be filled.
sudo apt-get install gnome-desktop
Maybe it works differently on Red Hat? My point stands though: you could find a distro that lets you stay on a 5/7 year old version and still get security upgrades.
Ironic that you're example is "When these end users find that they can't run Firefox n+1" because that's actually how Ubuntu works: you get the FF version it shipped with plus security updates. Maybe that's changed since 9.10 (9.04?), but it made me want to switch distros.
Some small groups of normal users never want to update, and others always want the latest. But most normal users realize they need to update to get new software and are scared to do so because it'll break something they already have. Rolling package sets could let them update with no skill (press "Upgrade") and confidence that it'll work in the end.
Your main objection seems to be that upgrades will break things, therefore people shouldn't do upgrades. But you don't get the new version of Freedom Office or FF by having 5+ year releases; or if you install new software on such a system it comes with so much baggage (libc.so.8?) that it's really no different then upgrading.
Maybe you think Wifi/Kernel is different than desktop software, and that we could protect the former while upgrading the latter? That works for servers where little changes and stability is a virtue, and maybe a visualized desktop/userspace could keep hardware protected while changing desktop software, but I don't know any system that does that, and you'd still have to update drivers sooner or latter. Plus, for desktop software, developers can either count absolutely on base components in a version ("Works with Ubuntu 10.04!"), or it needs to be written to standard interfaces with minimum versions. General standards are better for fast moving targets.
I haven't tried Arch, but everyone says positive things about how well rolling releases work. Six month releases or one month releases, it could work for Ubuntu too.
Use Red Hat/CentOS if that's what you want. (If Canonical is seriously thinking about this, that's probably why.) Most people want updates to the Kernel/Gnome/base libraries/etc... and they want to choose when to upgrade so they can do it when they have time to address issues. Regularly testing rolling packages together seems like a way to let people just apply security updates until they're ready to "upgrade" to the latest rolling package set.
And the design process is worse: If you design for Atom+FPGA and then want to move to an ASIC you have a bunch of work to do. If you start with a separate FPGA, just drop an ASIC in place.
Relax. They're splitting up Novell and SUSE, so at least part of the company will be quickly sold off again and survive. (Wonder which part?)
If they had a password on the stream and people cracked it or multiple people were sharing an account authorized for only one stream, then yes that would be against the rules.
So in your interpretation "the rules" are whatever a non-governmental organization says they are? We need legal vs. illegal to be clearly defined by government, not ad-hoc rules by each server operator.
The technology makes a few rules simple, clear and universal:
* Anyone can request any URL.
* It's the server's responsibility to secure content.
* Any content served is public, unless it has restrictions in-force.
I think people want to say something like "if you break a lock or do anything tricky, then that's illegal". The US DMCA has enshrined the "breaking the lock" part of that sentiment, but the "do anything tricky" is still at issue. We, meaning Slashdot, can agree that granting bad security measures legal protection is foolish (it's impractical, encourages apathy, threatens free speech and impedes the development of real security) but I think non-technical people are caught by a simple logical error: they're told the intention of the server operator to secure the content after the fact, so guilt seems obvious, even though defining a servers intention has clear rules on the Internet; i.e. the server must enforce restrictions.
Well, the apparent fragility of the code is not speculation. Whatever is going on here is certainly very fragile.
Fragile in the sense that it doesn't cover all cases or even a reasonable majority, right? If that's what you mean by "fragile" then what would you call code to cheat on the test, which is targeted at just one or very few cases? Maybe you're just saying "fragile" to avoid any rude accusations, but that doesn't make it more accurate.
Whether it's innocent or purposeful is certainly speculation.
We do have some basis for that speculation: the character and history of the actors involved.
This suggests that the dead-code-elimination algorithm is somewhat fragile. In particular, testing has yet to turn up a single other piece of dead code it eliminates other than this one function in Sunspider. So Rob filed a bug about this apparent fragility with Microsoft and blogged about it. The rest is all speculation by third parties.
Isn't it speculation that this is an innocent "apparent fragility" in the code? This might be cheating. All we can do to assess the situation is look at the evidence of this incident, and consider the character of Microsoft and Mozilla. Honest people may differ in their assessment.
Because you know, being alerted that your information just got stolen is much better than using proper security in the first place.... or not.
But if we did have an Add-on which "alerted that your information just got stolen" we could call it "Wake Up Sheeple!"
So why doesn't the service do this: Fix the HTML, diff the original and result, alert the developers of the changes?