Jim
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 years ago
in Why Release Software Vulnerability Details? on Technosailor
Aaron:
Did you pay for the software? If not, and it's freely licensed and without a warranty, I'm afraid you don't have much of a leg to stand on. If it's open source, you certainly can go in and fix it yourself -- but you *can't* compel the author to do what you may think is "the right thing," regardless of what that is. That's part of the catch with FREE software, including plugins.
By the same token, once it's released into the wild, anyone can do whatever they want with it, including report flaws. The author may not like it, but they can't control what other people do with code they made freely available.
It's a free country, and it's free software . . . if the guy won't fix it, you'll have to do it yourself.
-- Jim
Did you pay for the software? If not, and it's freely licensed and without a warranty, I'm afraid you don't have much of a leg to stand on. If it's open source, you certainly can go in and fix it yourself -- but you *can't* compel the author to do what you may think is "the right thing," regardless of what that is. That's part of the catch with FREE software, including plugins.
By the same token, once it's released into the wild, anyone can do whatever they want with it, including report flaws. The author may not like it, but they can't control what other people do with code they made freely available.
It's a free country, and it's free software . . . if the guy won't fix it, you'll have to do it yourself.
-- Jim
2 years ago
in State Department Kooks Back Muslims in Cartoon Controversy on Technosailor
"The cartoon is not the cause for the outrage and destruction displayed in many Arab countries even if their religion forbids depictions of their profit. I think they are using the cartoon as an excuse to be outraged at the Western world, and show it."
I absolutely disagree. You can't group insurgent roadside bomb detonations with the people burning down the Danish embassy -- that's exactly like bombing Iraq 'cuz a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians crashed airliners into buildings.
Muslim clerics are currently calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, Eurpoean lives are being threatened in Gaza and elsehwere, Danish and French products are being boycotted, and Afghan police killed four people in riots today specifically because of the cartoons.
As for the 'Post's cartoon, re-read my original post: I never said anything about its content other than that I wasn't a big fan of either the paper or the cartoon itself. The Washington Post, just like the National Enquirer, has the right to print anything it wants -- subject to libel laws, of course -- without having to get approval from the government, a religious authority, and / or especially me. Furthermore, their right to do so is a right that many of us would defend to the death.
My point is that I think it's disgustingly duplicituous for the US media to (almost without exception) refuse to reprint the Mohammed cartoons "out of respect for Islam" -- a very minority religion in this country -- while running the 'Post's cartoon, which undoubtedly offended a much greater audience here. Either satirical cartoons -- ALL satirical cartoons -- are fair game, or they're not. Personally, I think Allah is about as real as the Tooth Fairy and the Grim Reaper, and really don't like CNN et al deciding what info I can and can't view -- but it's a free country and they can show whatever they like.
That doesn't mean I have to like it -- but certainly it doesn't give me the right to drive downtown and torch the nearest affiliate either, or threaten the author with torture and death.
I absolutely disagree. You can't group insurgent roadside bomb detonations with the people burning down the Danish embassy -- that's exactly like bombing Iraq 'cuz a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians crashed airliners into buildings.
Muslim clerics are currently calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, Eurpoean lives are being threatened in Gaza and elsehwere, Danish and French products are being boycotted, and Afghan police killed four people in riots today specifically because of the cartoons.
As for the 'Post's cartoon, re-read my original post: I never said anything about its content other than that I wasn't a big fan of either the paper or the cartoon itself. The Washington Post, just like the National Enquirer, has the right to print anything it wants -- subject to libel laws, of course -- without having to get approval from the government, a religious authority, and / or especially me. Furthermore, their right to do so is a right that many of us would defend to the death.
My point is that I think it's disgustingly duplicituous for the US media to (almost without exception) refuse to reprint the Mohammed cartoons "out of respect for Islam" -- a very minority religion in this country -- while running the 'Post's cartoon, which undoubtedly offended a much greater audience here. Either satirical cartoons -- ALL satirical cartoons -- are fair game, or they're not. Personally, I think Allah is about as real as the Tooth Fairy and the Grim Reaper, and really don't like CNN et al deciding what info I can and can't view -- but it's a free country and they can show whatever they like.
That doesn't mean I have to like it -- but certainly it doesn't give me the right to drive downtown and torch the nearest affiliate either, or threaten the author with torture and death.
2 years ago
in State Department Kooks Back Muslims in Cartoon Controversy on Technosailor
This is a win-win for the Administration. By appearing to suck up to the Muslims, they 1) win points with the Arab countries, potentially improving the US image over there and 2) win points with the Christian base who's terrified of the same thing happening here. Methinks this decision was well-thought out and quite calculated.
Part of being a civilized nation is respecting the beliefs of others. Ultra-secularists must (hopefully) eventually realize that they work against their goals when they go out of their way to piss off people of a certain dogma for the sake of "free speech" or art; likewise, the faithful have no right to impose their "beliefs against idolatry" on others, especially with violence. Somewhere in the middle there's a nice flat place most(but not all) of us find tractable.
Now, what really gets me jacked is the US media's refusal to run the cartoons "out of respect for Islam" while at the same time happily reprinting and televising the Washington Post's cartoon of an American soldier amputee. While I'm not exactly a fan of the 'Post or this particular cartoon, it's the blatant duplicity of the situation that I just can't stand.
Part of being a civilized nation is respecting the beliefs of others. Ultra-secularists must (hopefully) eventually realize that they work against their goals when they go out of their way to piss off people of a certain dogma for the sake of "free speech" or art; likewise, the faithful have no right to impose their "beliefs against idolatry" on others, especially with violence. Somewhere in the middle there's a nice flat place most(but not all) of us find tractable.
Now, what really gets me jacked is the US media's refusal to run the cartoons "out of respect for Islam" while at the same time happily reprinting and televising the Washington Post's cartoon of an American soldier amputee. While I'm not exactly a fan of the 'Post or this particular cartoon, it's the blatant duplicity of the situation that I just can't stand.