[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist
From: |
Anonymous |
Subject: |
Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Mar 2017 18:54:36 +0000 (UTC) |
Alfred M. Szmidt said:
> > The GNU Radio foundation isn't stopping anyone from downloading
> > GNU Radio.
>
> This was never claimed.
>
> That is exactly what was claimed, several times.
If this were true, you would have no problem quoting just one such
claim and linking to the post. You continue to get stung by failing
to support your own claims.
> > Cloudfare is not your computer. If you wish to run GNU radio, you
> > can do so on your own computer since GNU radio is free software.
>
> You're talking about something other than the problem I described in
> the quote. Please read this article:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
>
> Cloudfare is not a SaSS.
The point above doesn't require CloudFlare to be a SaaSS, nor did I
say it was in this post. The article I refered to describes the
problem of putting a corporate walled-garden between the user and the
artificts. Those problems wouldn't cease to be problems if CF were
not deemed a SaaSS.
Apart from being a red herring your claim is also incorrect, as
demonstrated in this post:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/security-discuss/2017-03/msg00064.html
> > which discriminately blocks some users from reaching the
> > documentation.
> >
> > Simply untrue, as has been shown by several list members.
>
> Citation needed.
>
> Go read the mailing list archives.
This has the same problem as your opening claim. When you cannot cite
sources, you cannot quote, you cannot pinpoint evidence you claim
exists, you have nothing.
More generally:
DDP> You don't "announce" proof, you share it. If they haven't shared
DDP> it, then it's not proof. "I promise I have evidence" isn't really
DDP> evidence.'
--Dwayne David Paul (in response to a CIA claim of proof)
--
Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable.
List archives will be monitored.
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Nomen Nescio, 2017/03/04
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Anonymous, 2017/03/04
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist,
Anonymous <=
- [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Nomen Nescio, 2017/03/08
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2017/03/09
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Jean Louis, 2017/03/09
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Mike Gerwitz, 2017/03/09
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Anonymous, 2017/03/09
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Mike Gerwitz, 2017/03/09
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Nomen Nescio, 2017/03/11
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Mike Gerwitz, 2017/03/11
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Brandon Invergo, 2017/03/11
- Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2017/03/09