On Dec 23, 11:57 pm, Ryan Waterer <[email protected]> wrote: > Earlier you had mentioned that if I take a particular stance, I'd be > mocked for that stance since I would be alone.
Stop putting words in my mouth! Please point out to me where I state that you were alone in this opinion. > I responded with some > examples of others who would take the same stance or something very > similar, and now you say I'm performing a logical fallacy for doing > so. Yes, I did say that. Because it IS a logical fallacy. Take your pick - bandwagon fallacy, appeal to popularity, or appeal to authority: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ > > I do not claim to be the brightest, nor the smartest, nor even most > proficient among us. You're on a roll. Not sure if this is putting words in my mouth or a logical fallacy, depends on how I'm supposed to read between the lines here. Either way, I don't understand how you NOT being the smartest, brightest, or proficientest person in this discussion lends credibility to your arguments. > The intention of my original "rant" was simply to > bring up a point that is rarely, if ever discussed in this group: > privacy and security. Stop posting random unrelated details to threads, then. If you hit 'reply', then other readers are going to frame your reply in the context of the post you're replying to. In your particular case, Fabrizio and I were discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of webapps vs. desktop apps. Thus, your privacy and security rant was taken by me as a motion of support for desktop apps, which made no sense whatsoever, as all your arguments apply equally to either method of building applications. Especially if you use obviously false hyperbole such as, and I quote: "Fundamentally, javascript is a broken piece of software". Your privacy rant, in the context of the post you were replying to, was either a red herring or a straw man logical fallacy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ > Fabrizio was appearing to be mocked for his views on privacy, and the Please point out the post in this thread where Fabrizio was getting mocked in regards to his privacy concerns. I can't find this anywhere. Fabrizio was corrected for seemingly forgetting that searching your email is endlessly more efficient than tagging them all by hand. I can see how one can read this as being 'mocked' (IMO, whatever mocking undertone was in there, he deserved it). Some sort of defense, ill advised or not, is understandable if you feel Fabrizio had a point worth defending with his I-tag-ten-thousand-emails plan, but that's not what you covered in your reply at all. > Vince Cerf has indicated that there is a problem with the way the > internet works regarding security. Yes, we covered this; the internet isn't perfect, but as we also covered, you're holding the internet up to some utopian standard, while giving desktop apps a free ride. > If I was that paranoid about my data being online I simply > wouldn't be online. Good luck with that. We covered this too; the internet is here, it's big, it's got decades of history behind it, trillions of dollars worth of invested capital, and here you're telling people that we should start over (which is kind of inherent in saying that there are 'fundamental flaws', no? The defining property of fundamental flaws is that they are inherent to the system and cannot be removed without starting over, pretty much). I'm telling you that saying that is not going to convince anyone, as that notion is utterly impractical. > I am not saying that I can not use the internet, or anyone use it. > I'm just trying to say that there are flaws. Yes. Again, how is this relevant to the already tangential point that Fabrizio and/or I was making about web apps vs. desktop apps? > What I do not like is that the > CEO of Google making absurd privacy and security statements. Those who understand the moral implications of privacy and heard what Eric Schmidt said pretty much all think that was a stupid thing to say. It's beyond this post to delve into why the "I have nothing to hide" concept is morally bankrupt and dangerous, and nobody so far has disputed this idea, so I'll leave a search for the arguments to this as an exercise to the interested reader. I cannot stress how much I agree with your apprehension at his words. Not, however, in any way relevant to this discussion. > I'd love to discuss more about what people do to help secure applications. We could do that, though I suggest, as the javaposse google group is fairly technically minded, that you open with more than just that one question. Give us some technical tricks to discuss. I'm also guessing that starting a new thread for this is going to be more fruitful than letting this one grow. > Would this be better served as a discussion > point regarding best practices at the roundup 2010 in Crested Butte? Privacy Best Practices. Yeah, that works. Go, go, universally applicable theme gadget :P - If you're going to the roundup, toss it on the agenda. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
