10/25 http://csua.com
Uber-lame.
\_ I suggest that various members of root staff and/or politburo
are violating the "not being a hoser" clause by sending such
a stupid message and shutting down a useful service.
\_ root/politburo had only requested that kchang remove the
faulty attribution feature. I think kchang took down the
rest of it all on his own.
\_ root/politburo clarified that the request was only for
the removal of the faulty attribution feature.
\_ politburo wields a big sword in front of kchang and
tells him to take out 24HourDiff, then asks him to
be nice and put back a useful archiver service.
You honestly think that after wielding your
big sword [and causing resentment], that he's going to
be nice to you again? You fucking fresh politburo
virgins just don't understand basic psychology.
\_ Inconceivable! amckee has managed projects with 30
engineers flung across the globe (though we were never
told why those engineers felt the need to flee), and the
the Psychology Dept has classified him as a Critical
Psycho Asset. How can he not know basic psychology?
This is in all ways inconceivable.
\_ I do not think that word means what you think it means
\_ It was still an stupid message. What's with the vague
innuendo? What's with the idiotic requirement in the
first place? Why is energy being spent on that? (Also,
the thing about not being a hoser basically suggests he had
to shut it down.)
\_ Well, amckee wrongly sorried someone based on kchang's
attribution. That must be immensely embarrassing for
amckee personally and the politburo in general. Of course
they want to shut it down. In fact, isn't amckee the
only documented case of someone actually doing bad
things (rather than merely threatening to do bad things)
based on kchang's attribution?
\_ I suspect part of the rationale is that, by identifying
users this way, it also opens up the door for
persecution of individuals that post stuff that people
don't find palatable for whatever reason. I'm just
guessing about that, though, based on hearsay that
I've heard. I haven't had a chance to decide for
myself whether this is really reasonable. *shrug*
\_ The biggest issue with the attribution feature
\_ The biggest problem with the attribution feature
is the fact that it was not reliable. Stating
as fact to the world that "baz wrote this", when
in fact it was written by foo is a problem.
\_ But you have to respect how this was handled (sarcasm)
No prior discussion a very widely used facility is
is going to be forceably shut down and then
"Last minute email from root ..."
\_ But you have to respect how this was handled
(sarcasm) No prior discussion a very widely
used facility is is going to be forceably
shut down and then "Last minute email from
root ..."
What does this refer to: "we don't think this
is a sorryable offense"? Are you so delusional
to think you could have sorried him for running
it in the first place (Politburo edicts now may have
retroactive liability?) or that if he didn't
comply then you would not have sorried him?
Was this an "order" on pain on being sorried or
was it a request? Is the politburo interested in
hearing requests to reactivate the service?
Thanks for the detailed coverage of the Video Game
Tournament though.
\_ your facts are confused.
\_ your facts are confused. -brett
\- is this kinda like how i took things
out of context when i provided links
to the entire paper trail? maybe you
can clarify? It seems the the PP
is asking for clarification.
"good night and good luck" --psb
\_ Uhm, are you addressing me or politburo? I'm
just taking a shot in the dark about why this
service is being blamed. If you're addressing me
then your hostility is very very misplaced.
\_ I would say he is speaking of the action by
Politburo. -someone else
\_ Get your facts straight.
\_ I agree with previous poster who says that process has been
bungled. There could have been plenty of discussion from soda
users via motd or listserv on what to do (if anything) about
kchang's logging feature, but this resource was not consulted.
This is the power of Politburo, but Politburo exercised this
power ... unwisely in this case.
\_ he was asked merely to put up a disclaimer about the inherent
inaccuracy of his system. he chose instead to shut it down.
\_ kchang was asked twice to remove a feature. kchang took
down his motd site. It was clarified by mrauser that
"Your welcome to turn it back on, but it would be nice
if you disabled the feature that attributed each post
to whomever you thought made it" kchang hasn't posted
the clarification on his website. -brett
\_ "[T]here is doubt regarding whether your use of CSUA
resources violates the 'not being a hoser' clause of the
CSUA policy" clearly sounds like a threat. Perhaps it is
unreasonable to expect kchang to play nice after being
threatened.
\_ [brett's clarification removed after I removed the point
requiring clarification]
\-So the position is "The pburo believes it is acceptable
for mr kchang to include a disclaimer about the accuracy
of the attributions and operate as before"?
(If you are replying to clarify, and are a root/pburo
person, it would be helpful if you would sign your name,
for obvious reasons). --psb
\_ I'm not a politburrito (anymore, thank god), but
given that there's not really anything keeping
someone else from doing this sort of thing, I don't
see the point in telling kchang or anyone else not
to do this. Asking to take into consideration its
effects on motd as a forum (and possibly turn it off)?
Sure. Personally, I draw a line at not noting
the inherent inaccuracy of this system. While
amckee should have known better anyway, I think
it's pretty lame to attribute posts to people
based on circumstantial information without noting
that the conclusions are circumstancial too --Jon
\_ Clarification please. Many of us have our personal
attribution scripts. Is it acceptable for us to run them?
Is it acceptable for kchang to release his scripts so other
people can run them? Strictly for each runner's personal
use and entertainment, of course.
\_ It's one thing to come to your own conclusions about
who wrote what, based on whatever methods you chose,
whether it be ps(1) info, w, fstat, the phase of the
moon, reading /dev/random, whatever. It's another to
tell others your conclusions ala KAIS without at least
letting others know how reliable your conclusions are
and how reliable your methods are. --Jon
\_ While all answers are replies, not all replies are
answers. I asked very specific questions, and I
am really look for answers, and not just replies.
Are we allowed to run our own scripts? Are we allowed
to run kchang's scripts, should he choose to release
them? -pp
\_ I think it's clear you're welcome to run anything
you like for your own personal use. You're being
asked not to take that same unreliable information
and post it to the public as if it was a source of
truth without noting it isn't reliable and is just
a poor guess at best. Having been accused of
posting things by other people when I wasn't even
around and then seeing my name next to some garbage
later on a public website is just plain wrong.
I've had 'magical kchang quality scripts' for years
before he started logging&attributing in public.
I have *never* used those scripts to "out" anyone.
They can't be 100% reliable and it's distasteful
and a gauche to do so anyway.
\_ Amusing, I had done the same thing. I figured
out who the anonymous Freeper was, but just\
kept it to myself. -ausman
out who the anonymous Freeper was, but just
kept it to myself. -ausman
\_ Are we talking about the same Berkeley students who are
supposed to be semi-intelligent enough to understand
that (a) something like motd posting attribution is
trivial and irrelevant (IT'S THE FUCKING MOTD, FFS) and
(b) they shouldn't necessarily take what an off-site
resource says at total 100% religious face value? -John
\_ it isn't just the motd. it is posted on a public
website as if it was truth. just because you don't
care doesn't mean others don't or that their opinions
on the subject of being falsely attributed to some
really horrendous things don't count.
\_ I read it on the Internet, so it must be true. I
guess I haven't been in the US for a while, so I
forgot how thin-skinned and whiny people are.
Give me a fucking break. -John
\_ they've gotten dumber since you left, Fuzzy.
that, and I making a distinction, even if it ends
an irrelevant one. -Jon
\_ Just because people have become dumber doesn't
mean you have to pander to them. -John
\_ in the end, it's not about them, but about
people who wrongly (knowingly or uncaringly)
attribute actions to others on false grounds
\- hey it's like FBI v. NWA again!
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/CSUA/3.chilling-effect
(see last paragraph)
them? Yes, I am aware there would be a scalability
problem. -pp
\_ It's common knowledge that kchang's toys
\_ I think kchang knows that his results
are inherently not accurate. I know
you and I know. I wouldn't call that
"common knowledge". --Jon
are inaccurate, so I don't think you can
claim he's actively "attributing actions"
uncaringly, just that his scripts are bad.
Are you claiming he did so knowingly and
intentionally? Because then politburo
should come out and say so. -John
\_ I think kchang knows that his results
are inherently not accurate. I know
you and I know. I wouldn't call that
"common knowledge". --Jon
\_ So anyone who finds my name incorrectly
associated with some garbage at his log
will know his toy is inaccurate and not
assume I wrote something that has my
name next to it? I've seen the stuff
come out in search engines and not all
of us use a name like "John" that will
get 8 zillion hits. No, you don't think
some person doing a background check will
know or care that it is wrong. They will
see it and take it at face value and that
is far more wrong than him turning off
his toy or at a minimum making it loud
and clear on each page that his
attributions are no better than random
spew and should not be taken seriously.
\_ And then they will take my kitten away
and make me do the dishes and I won't
be able to go to all the kewl places
because everyone will hate me...
Chill out dude. It's the motd and
there is a disclaimer. If you're
afraid of being tracked for your
beliefs and/or quirks, don't post.
\_ Missing point: I didn't post but
got attributed anyway.
\_ Just disclaim it. Like everyone
in BushCo does. Point to
disclaimer. If getting accused
of doing something offensive
on the net is going to ruin
your future life, your
current/future/both
life really sucks.
\_ You rarely get a chance to
disclaim anything. No one
is going to tell you why
they made a decision. As
far as my life/career, etc,
you have no clue. Either
way, great life or bad, I
shouldn't get smeared by a
broken script even if it had
zero effect on my life.
\_ So you're worried a
script will randomly ID
you as a poster of an
offensive item even if
you never post. As much as
I admire your paranoia, I
think you're nuts. You
need to ask root to delete
your account now just to
be super safe.
\_ If you're going to go work at a place
that does background checks by
browsing hozerish archives of student
bbs, I am speechless, and I am sorry
at how you have thrown away a good
Cal education. -John
\_ Nice, also not your place to
determine what sort of place might
read what and what it looks like
in a search engine to an outside
investigator. When you provide
all of us a dream job with no
background checks and we choose to
go elsewhere, then we'll talk.
\_ I like killin' babies. -hmiers
\_ All hail the power of the
press/goverment/religious
ideologues to locate this
misattributed quote to bring
down a USSC nominee!
\_ So the rest of the world should
adapt itself to your lack of
career clue? Get over yourself.
Nobody's interested that you
fiddle litle boys. I guess
turning this off REMOVES ALL
POSSIBILITY OF ANYONE PUBLICLY
SLANDERING YOU! -John
\_ I'm glad you are Knower Of
All. I feel better now that
you put up a straw man and
knocked it down for me.
\_ Am I wrong? -John
\_ Well, no. "The CSUA Politburo and members of Root Staff
request that you [kchang] remove the attribution feature
from your KAIS MOTD." *One* member of root staff wrote
that a disclaimer is sufficient in lieu of a full shut
down, but it seems clear the politburo and the root staff
as full bodies wanted the service shut down.
\_ Since I'm sick of reading datasheets, I'll keep on posting.
That "*one* member of root staff" was me. --Jon
in fact it was written by foo is the issue.
\_ Thanks for the clarification. -brett
\- hey it's like FBI v. NWA again!
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/CSUA/3.chilling-effect
(see last paragraph)
\_ Which is a reasonable request. kchang is just being a
baby. -emarkp
\_ It was phrased as a threat. As little respect as I have
for kchang, he never claimed his toys were
authoritative. The people being babies here are the
ones whining about "oh n0es, bad things are being
attributed to me on the internet!" Whatever. Rampant
whiny stupidity just pisses me off. -John
\_ It wasn't the first time someone had complained about
the inaccuracy of his attributions. His rampant
whiny arrogance pissed me off. -emarkp
\_ Care to explain why he is whiny and arrogant?
\_ Fair enough--like I said. Anyway, re-posting
wall & motd and making false attributions (or
b.s. ones and claiming they're authoritative)
doesn't require csua membership. Note
finger?lwall ... -John
\_ Forgeries (signing a post with someone
else's name) are an obvious possibility
of (semi)anonymous things like motd.
Saying that you've determined who made
a post to motd without saying how certain
or uncertain you are is something else.
\_ It's usually not considered good etiquette to piss on
people who provide a useful service for free.
All non-morons knew the vageries involved in the
attribution functionality and took them with a grain
of salt. I'm pretty sympathetic to kchang here.
Maybe he could create a version of KAIS MOTD that
requires authetentication so it it so longer
requires authentication so it would no longer
open to the world at large.
\_ like root@csua.berkeley.edu? |
http://csua.com/feed/