Adam D. McKenna writes:
> From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> :> > Not all prejudice is bad.
> :
> :Yes it is.
>
> It really isn't, however this isn't the forum for that discussion.
> Prejudice is the wrong word here anyway. Prejudice == judgement before
> evidence, which isn't what is happening here. The judgement has happened
> after repeated abuse.
No, I have no evidence to show that xx-yy-city.da.uu.net is going to
spam me. I'm definitely being prejudiced against dialups. Then
again, you can look at version X.Y of sendmail, notice that it has
security holes, and reasonably be prejudiced against version X.Y+1 or
X+1.Y of sendmail.
As Len Budney says, the problem with prejudice is when it's based on
correlation not causation. Are the security holes in sendmail caused
by intrinsic characteristics of the code? If that's the case, then
the prejudice against sendmail is legitimate. If the security holes
are there because of some methodologic mistake that the maintainer is
making, and he fixes the mistake, then the security holes are merely
correlated. Prejudice would then be unwarranted.
Humans are quick and easy pattern-matchers. It's unfortunate when
we're wrong, but sometimes life-saving when we're right. That's why
everyone is subject to prejudice and being prejudiced -- because all
the descendants of humans who weren't don't exist.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
