AHHHHHH!!!!Hackers!!!!

@chrisname: Hehehe.

@helios:
Okay... fair reasons. However... the second reason... um... I'm not sure about that one. The thing about personal computers is that the people who use them are also the people who have rights over them. Mafiaboy, as far as I know, used university servers (about 20, am I right?) to launch his attacks, not personal computers.

All in all, in today's society, revoking someone's means of connecting to the internet would be a very serious punishment.

-Albatross

blackcoder41 (1426)

Here are some solutions from people to computer viruses.

-Some people switch to a mac
-Some people switch to linux
-Some use softwares like deep freeze
-Some uses virtual machines to test things
-Some reinstall their OS over and over again

All in all, in today's society, revoking someone's means of connecting to the internet would be a very serious punishment.

I'm not saying it should be used as punishment (although it may not be a bad idea in some situations). I'm saying people should have to pass some sort of test before having that privilege in the first place.

Ah, so you're proposing a change to our society? I somehow didn't catch that part. That might not be such a bad idea... though then again, maybe it is a very bad idea. I dunno. I'll let you and Disch decide this one.

-Albatross

Last edited on

helios wrote:
I'm saying people should have to pass some sort of test before having that privilege in the first place.

That's a really dumb idea.

Your face is a really dumb idea.

That's what SHE said.

Oh wait....

Disch wrote:
That's a really dumb idea.

helios wrote:
Your face is a really dumb idea.

Disch wrote:
That's what SHE said. Oh wait....

Oops. :)

Anyways... Disch, why do you think helios' idea was a dumb one, and helios, why do you think ~~Disch's face is a dumb idea~~ that the test would benefit anyone? I could see people taking the test and then forgetting everything discussed in that test.

-Albatross

Last edited on

Disch, why do you think helios' idea was a dumb one

Because it's arbirtary, pointless, and elitist.

We might as well require people to take tests before they're allowed to go to the store, or go to the library, or socialize, etc, etc.

And what would be the point? A few people that some people find annoying would take a little longer to get to the internet.

Whose to say the people that find helios annoying don't have an equally valid argument as to why he should have to take some kind of test before being allowed internet access. Do we entertain that idea?

I'm a little surprised I even had to explain this. =P

Helios' compared it to driving, which I thought was equally absurd:

helios wrote:
Just like there's a lot of people who aren't allowed to drive, there's a lot of people who shouldn't be allowed to use computers; or at least not computers capable of transferring information in any way, which still leaves a lot of usability.

The difference is you can actually kill people with a car. You can't kill people with just an internet connection.

Hell, knives are more dangerous than the internet, and we don't need to take knife tests.

I just wanted to elicit the help of someone who might well be a lot better than me at explaining things. ;)

-Albatross

Incubbus (678)

I wanna see all of your faces, if one worse-case-scenarios crops out like some solar tower which passes through the athmosphere and disables every electronic device like some emp xD...

How about some test life?...

I could see people taking the test and then forgetting everything discussed in that test.

And what would be the point? A few people that some people find annoying would take a little longer to get to the internet.

Going back to the driving analogy, everyone knows you're not supposed to drink and drive, that you should wear a seat belt, and that you shouldn't speed, but people do it anyway. Does that make driver's licences pointless? No, because it improves the odds, if only by a little.

It's true that you can't kill people with a connection (unless you strangle them with the cable or something), but ineptitude can still cost material losses. In a state such as this one where a large part of the economy depends on the Internet working properly, can you really say that an idiot connected to it is completely harmless?
And I don't really see anything elitist about it. This isn't about restricting access to the Internet, it's about improving (not perfecting, which is impossible, given its size) its security.

People with ineptitude of the levels we're thinking of wouldn't have too much of a chance of getting to those positions, helios.

-Albatross

Don't misunderstand. The problem is not that a single inept is capable of vast amounts of damage. No, a single person can only do microscopic damage. The problem is in numbers. It's death by a million cuts, basically.

Your analogy is flawed.

Drivers licenses are given out based on totally different criteria. Including:
-) your response time
-) your ability to control the vehicle
-) your vision

These factors determine your ability to safely operate a car. Of course that doesn't stop you from recklessly operating one... but it weeds out people who can't safely operate one.

Everyone can safely operate an internet connection, so an internet license would be a waste of everyone's time.

You're right about one thing... everybody knows to wear their seat belt and not to drink and drive. But that's exactly why those things aren't the focus of driving tests.

It's true that you can't kill people with a connection (unless you strangle them with the cable or something), but ineptitude can still cost material losses.

It can only cost your material loss. Nobody besides Joe is in danger from Joe not knowing what he's doing. Play at your own risk.

But "risk" here is a stretch. Going back to my knife analogy, a knife is much more dangerous than an internet connection. Hell, a pencil is more dangerous.

In a state such as this one where a large part of the economy depends on the Internet working properly, can you really say that an idiot connected to it is completely harmless?

Considering how many idiots are currently on the internet, and how nothing significant has ever happened as a result of someone doing something stupid... yes. I'd say they're 100% completely harmless.

It's not like you can just connect to the internet and accidentally screw things up for other people. In order to actually do something negative, you really have to know what you're doing.

I guess you could screw things on a computer that other people share (like if your idiot brother uses your computer and messes everything up).

But:

1) That's a matter of restricting access to your computer, not restricting access to the internet
2) That can just as easily happen without the internet.

And I don't really see anything elitist about it

Perhaps because you're elistist? =P

Your argument is basically "I don't like X people. They should need a license before they're allowed on my internet"... only you're trying to rationalize it with completely absurd analogies.

The more I read these posts... the more I'm starting to think you're just pulling my leg and perpetuating this standpoint because it's funny how ridiculous it is.

EDIT:

Wow. I sound grumpy and hostile. Sorry helios, I don't mean to be a dick. I love ya, but this idea of yours really does seem completely crazy to me.

Last edited on

It's not like you can just connect to the internet and accidentally screw things up for other people.

Hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_botnet

Incubbus (678)

I do not find an serious harm, dealt to other people... especially in real life...

Those who got phished got to be the kind of internet-security-ignorant people which interacted with the emails content or went to dubious pages...

Aren't we geting to be a little bit worked up about this?

-Albatross