Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:22:05 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Modelling complexity (was: Re: matthew dillon) Message-ID: <3E49BDDD.15E09827@mindspring.com> References: <200302112347.h1BNlY138346@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > > I had a long message prepared to send, which refuted the naieve > > assertions in your previous message, but I did not send it. > > Given you didn't understand me in the first place, I appreciate > your restraint. =) Your hubris is incredible. I understood you perfectly. To fail to agree with you is not always a result of a failure to understand you. > > No, I'm telling you the constraints of the technology available > > for use have the same effect on its application as the laws of > > physics have on people. > > Most people can't get around the laws of physics and run into them > headlong when trying, in any case you can accept the notion that no > one has provably done so. Many people can get around the "constraints" > of electronic communications technology and do so daily, examples of > this abound...as I'm sure you are aware. No, they do not. > The difference is in what we both mean by "constraints", which of > course you will assert should be the same for both of us. Yes, I do. > The notion of "permitted behavior" has never stopped some people > from behaving otherwise; it is this notion in fact which _causes_ > unpermitted behavior to exist. There's no law of physics here, > people can and will misbehave. The question is not whether they > should or will, but if you are prepared for it. It is not about permission, it is about possibility, for any given situation. By designing the situation, you design the constraints, and therefore you limit the possibilities for behaviour. You are talking about "rules". "Rules" are meaningless, in that compliance with "rules" is always voluntary upon the complying person, unless the rules constitute a subset of natural law. For example, one can break the "rule" that you are not allowed to spit on the sidewalk, because the laws of physics do not prohibit the act. But a "rule" which states "objects must not fall up, in a gravitational field" may not be disobeyed, even by the most willful child: that "rule" is enforced by the laws of physics. > > For example, if all mail servers will only accept 5 messages > > per hour, and you are constrained to send outbound messages > > through your ISP's mail server, then no matter what kind of mail > > client you have, the maximum number of messages you will ever be > > able to send is 5 per hour, period. It might as well be a law of > > physics, as far as you are concerned. > > Not if you find some hackable server on another ISP and set up your > email spam machine there. =) What part of "all" didn't you understand? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E49BDDD.15E09827>