Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] list reply-all
ali at packetknife.com
Wed Mar 20 11:03:54 PDT 2013
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 ..
On Mar 20, 2013 1:52 PM, "Gregory Foster" <gfoster at 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.
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 || gfoster at entersection.org
@gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the liberationtech