Strange how so many are citing security norms for (say) encryption but not the one that systems should always fail to the safest setting. (Which isn't always the most "functional".)
I actually prefer it the way it is. Yet I certainly appreciate the alternative concern and would support the change in deference to .. -Ali On Mar 20, 2013 1:52 PM, "Gregory Foster" <gfos...@entersection.org> wrote: If we're going to require people to use their brains, perhaps its not too much to ask that individuals take responsibility for paying attention to who they are speaking to. This is not a personally configurable setting on the mailing list software, and we're relegated to a dualistic choice that cannot satisfy all participants, yet we still must choose and have previously chosen. If this will be a recurring issue, perhaps we should structure a yearly survey/vote. gf On 3/20/13 12:37 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:02 +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: Isn't that a valid point? No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list, where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually deserved losing his job / life for hastily sending said email. Am I reading this correctly? You need to personally witness someone make a potentially fatal mistake before you'll take a risk seriously? If you're unwilling to employ foresight as a decision-making aide, you may not be taking full advantage of your prefrontal cortex. -- Gregory Foster || gfos...@entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
