3 ms·

OK, I just went through their presentation at your request, and I have the same opinion. I'm not the only one, according to their own page here: http://www.clip

by 13ren 18y ago

OK, I just went through their presentation at your request, and I have the same opinion. I'm not the only one, according to their own page here: http://www.clipperz.com/users/marco/blog/2007/12/24/how_dumb_are_we http://www.clipperz.com/users/marco/blog/2007/12/24/how_dumb... I know something about public/private key encryption (or once did). I'm not criticizing that, but their application of it. In their presentation, they say that they picked passwords as the hardest possible test of their idea (i.e. the one people are least likely to accept). I think this is where the "parody" aspect comes in, with their professed motive of proving a point, rather than picking the most likely candidate for adoption. I wasn't bad-mouthing them, but listing definite concerns. You might see the Douglas Adams reference as "bad-mouthing", except that what I'm referring to is his fictional idea of storing all your identification/passwords as one - i.e. what these guys are doing. I also don't think it's bad-mouthing to state my opinion that their PR connection to Stallman is tenuous, since they promote online storage in his name - which he appears to oppose (in the very article we are commenting on, I might add). But of course, they still could change the world through their ideas, ideology or technology - everyone has that chance if only they take it. I strongly believe in encouraging anyone who takes action (so it would be really cool if they proved me wrong - and I'd have something to learn which would be a bonus for me). But I also think it's important to discuss ideas with intellectual honestly. Those two views are at odds sometimes, and I don't always know how to resolve them. If you disagree with my criticism, you could focus on refuting it instead of labeling it as "bad-mouthing".

alecco 18y ago
This is better. You can of course disagree, but the opening line of your previous comment was quite childish and inflammatory, don't you agree?
- 13ren 18y ago
  Only if you don't know the book. Even then, I explained it in the next line (single point of vulnerability). But I can see that if you read the first sentence in isolation, and didn't know about the book, it could be interpreted as rude. It wasn't meant as rude. I'm sorry that it came across as offensive to you, and so I clarified in my follow up. BTW: They're excellent books (the second in the series is best IMO).
- 13ren 18y ago
  I should add that when I wrote that line: I honestly thought that was a Douglas Adam-style parody (from one of the later books). I wasn't trying to put the project down with that, but reporting my reaction to the site - I actually was laughing along with (what I thought was) their parody for a few minutes (it seemed, though maybe shorter). I don't recall when I started to think they might be serious, but it might been when I saw their page "How dumb are we?", and they were defending their position... It's true that it would have been more diplomatic to conceal my reaction. Also, I searched around for a reference to the Douglas Adams passage, but couldn't find it (I couldn't find my copy at home - all my books are in boxes). I'm pretty sure it's near the start of "Mostly Harmless", as a product of the "Infinidim" corporation, and something to do with a multi-dimensional bird... I would like you to see it, because then I think then you'd have a clear sense of my point of view (independent of your dis/agreement with it) Incidentally, labeling a comment as "childish" and "inflammatory" provides little information about the subject, and more about the emotional state of the labeler (I am sorry to have upset you). Giving the reasons for that emotional state are often a more compelling refutation - that is, if you can see the reasons (I find that very hard myself).

by 13ren 18y ago

alecco 18y ago

This is better. You can of course disagree, but the opening line of your previous comment was quite childish and inflammatory, don't you agree?

13ren 18y ago
Only if you don't know the book. Even then, I explained it in the next line (single point of vulnerability). But I can see that if you read the first sentence in isolation, and didn't know about the book, it could be interpreted as rude. It wasn't meant as rude. I'm sorry that it came across as offensive to you, and so I clarified in my follow up. BTW: They're excellent books (the second in the series is best IMO).
13ren 18y ago
I should add that when I wrote that line: I honestly thought that was a Douglas Adam-style parody (from one of the later books). I wasn't trying to put the project down with that, but reporting my reaction to the site - I actually was laughing along with (what I thought was) their parody for a few minutes (it seemed, though maybe shorter). I don't recall when I started to think they might be serious, but it might been when I saw their page "How dumb are we?", and they were defending their position... It's true that it would have been more diplomatic to conceal my reaction. Also, I searched around for a reference to the Douglas Adams passage, but couldn't find it (I couldn't find my copy at home - all my books are in boxes). I'm pretty sure it's near the start of "Mostly Harmless", as a product of the "Infinidim" corporation, and something to do with a multi-dimensional bird... I would like you to see it, because then I think then you'd have a clear sense of my point of view (independent of your dis/agreement with it) Incidentally, labeling a comment as "childish" and "inflammatory" provides little information about the subject, and more about the emotional state of the labeler (I am sorry to have upset you). Giving the reasons for that emotional state are often a more compelling refutation - that is, if you can see the reasons (I find that very hard myself).