I have derailed this thread unintentionally. Please accept my apology for doing so.
--Ryan On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > -- 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.
