adekok

20 ms·

151.
by adekok 9y ago
> What's the incentive for cops to plant drugs on people? Paying people to catch criminals incentivizes them to create criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
152.
by adekok 9y ago
When I was 10, I found a rotary bicycle lock + connected chain, locked alone to a post in a park. Having read up on locks even then (god knows how), I tried the method of "pull on it and spin the dials". About 30 seconds later, i
153.
by adekok 9y ago
> I don't think we disagree on what your position is? Yes, we do. Go back and read the history. I started off with a particular position, that you then misconstrued, and mis-characterized. > I think I'm taking you at a pos
154.
by adekok 9y ago
> But you leapt to the most indefensible one. Nonsense. His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims. Which is what I reacted to. Given the upvotes for my position and
155.
by adekok 9y ago
> He did not advocate a policy, but you took his comment as advocating an extreme policy. That's pedantically true, and more honestly false. Are you honestly going to claim that his description of "putting off victims" adv
156.
by adekok 9y ago
> You didn't show that it would never have the side effect. I used the example of insurance fraud. Please pay attention. Do we prosecute insurance fraud? Yes. Do such prosecutions dissuade victims from making real claims? No. Or
157.
by adekok 9y ago
> I think it's probably easiest to ignore the inchoate name calling Because it didn't happen. But you're free to feel superior to me based on lies about what I said. > Specifically I believe sexual assaults are under-r
158.
by adekok 9y ago
> The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. > You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact oppos
159.
by adekok 9y ago
Explain why. Be specific. I think the misunderstanding is that you think I'm saying insurance claims are equal in scope to sexual assault. That is (TBH) ridiculous. To the extent of deliberate blindness. What I'm actually doi
160.
by adekok 9y ago
> I still don't understand why some people have so much trouble with this concept and want to bias towards "guilty until proven innocent" thinking. Witch hunts are exciting. It's also empowering to believe that you&#
161.
by adekok 9y ago
So we shouldn't prosecute insurance fraud, because it will put off people who file real claims? Nonsense . Corrupting the justice system should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. How can you have justice when the justice s
162.
by adekok 9y ago
Sogo: zero maintenance. No problem upgrades. It's really, really, nice.
163.
by adekok 9y ago
I tried used Owncloud... and stopped. I tried using radicale... and stopped. The software was fragile, slow, and broke often. Maybe it's better now (a few years later). But at the time it was negatively impacting productivity. I&#x2
164.
by adekok 9y ago
You can take a clear-text password and authenticate it to AD via kerberos. If you have MS-CHAP data, you can't convert it to something which will be accepted by kerberos. You MUST send it to AD as MS-CHAP data (i.e. ntlm), and then AD
165.
by adekok 9y ago
ntlm is still used every day in WiFi authentication. PEAP authentication is MS-CHAP over TLS over EAP. And the only way for non-MS products to authenticate to Active Directory is via Samba and ntlm. Things would arguably be more secure
166.
by adekok 9y ago
My use-case is that I want to use the code I write as I see fit, using all of the rights I have available to me. If I assign copyright to the FSF, I lose many of those rights. So no, it's not about a specific situation. It's abo
167.
by adekok 9y ago
And... can you enforce copyright on such a program? No, because the FSF owns the copyright. They have to do it. Or maybe the program has mixed copyright (you and the FSF), in which case the same problem (and solution) applies for mixed-c
168.
by adekok 9y ago
> The FSF copyright assignment grants you back the right to do what you wish with your code, including sell exceptions. And can I enforce copyright for those exceptions? Clearly not, because the FSF owns the copyright.
169.
by adekok 9y ago
I don't understand the confusion here. It's not rocket science. > So you concede that it doesn't matter if you wrote over half the code? There's just no way you can conclude that from my comments. I explicitely sai
170.
by adekok 9y ago
Yes, you lack standing. The FSF owns copyright.
171.
by adekok 9y ago
> If someone uses a portion of your code you don't have copyright over, Then it's not my code, and I don't have rights on it, do I?
172.
by adekok 9y ago
> The copyright assignment papers you write aren't as unilateral as you might think. It means you are prohibited from using your own code except as how the FSF sees fit. That's what copyright assignment means . So if you want
173.
by adekok 9y ago
If they make it harder to contribute, you're guaranteed to get fewer contributions.
174.
by adekok 9y ago
> if you're a first-time contributor with a non-trivial contribution you're going to have to wait days/weeks as your copyright assignment papers make their way over snail-mail. I've always wondered how you could &quo
175.
by adekok 9y ago
> Do you have the data, the calculation of this arc, and the review of this method or not I don't, and neither do you. But appeals to ignorance are a well-known logical fallacy. My point (which you missed), is that it is entirely r
176.
by adekok 9y ago
> If it did enter the sea along this arc, wouldn't they have found it? Perhaps you're unclear on how large the ocean is, how deep the sea floor is, how rugged the sea floor is, and how little we know about it... even with all o
177.
by adekok 9y ago
Latency is why I could never use a WYSIWYG word processor. While I don't like VI that much, it's latency is low enough that it's not a problem. i.e. I press a key, and miracle of miracles, the character appears on the scre
178.
by adekok 9y ago
I submitted this with a different title from the web page to get more attention to the issue. Not many people care about FreeRADIUS. I suspect there will be more interest in the underlying issues. We run FreeRADIUS through four different
179.
Multiple Static Analyzers are not enough(freeradius.org)
2 points by adekok 9y ago|1 comments
180.
by adekok 9y ago
Did you watch / understand the video? The entire thing was about non-science departments faking the trappings of science. For another explanation, see "Cargo cult science" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki&#x2F

More ›