Readit NewsI find it next to impossible to type "Now" really fast without having it come out as "NOw" much of the time. (Why I'm using this example is that it's the first word of the "Now is the time ..." test sentence).
The timing required is strict. The Shift key must be down before the letter key is down.
Keys activate strictly and immediately on the down event.
Note that virtual buttons on most contemporary GUIs, clicked by mouse, do not work this way. You must click and release the button for it to activate. If you click OK on some dialog, but change your mind while still holding down the mouse button, you can back out of it, by moving the cursor out of the button's area. You also cannot click down outside of the button, then move into the button and release. The button must receive both mouse down and mouse up, without the pointer leaving the area, in order to activate.
I'd like a mode in which the down events of non-modifier keys are deliberately delayed by some configurable number of milliseconds, so that when the user hits a modifier key at around the same time, and that key lands a little bit late, it is still taken into account.
It would also be nice to be able to experiment with a mode in which keystrokes are generated by their up events, not down, and the modifier is sampled at that time.
Generation of keystroke based on the up event, beside been incompatible with repeating keys for long strokes, will slow down typing significantly, as it requires tracking timing pressing keys for longer duration. I'm pretty sure that this isn't only effect of me being used to track keypress timing on the way down, but an unavoidable result of the duration of the action.
Waiting for up event on contemporary GUI, when the contempt UI is a sluggish fit-to-nothing dirty touchscreen in a public kiosk is sensible. When you know an interface will yield more errors than intended input it is only sensible to assume that any input is a mistake unless the user is making an effort to validate it.
People like this lack basic civility. I'm sure a lot of the people around Robert did mind, they were just too polite to ask him to stop imposing his gratuitous noise on them.
I'm not sure I'm for changing the language all over, but I don't think dismissing issues that disturb a group that you don't belong to is a manner that fits a gentleman.
> Is murder immoral because god hate murder, or do god hate murder because it is immoral?
We agree here, but that isn't how religion solves the problem. Religious laws are also enforced by threats in the afterlife and violence in the present life, not merely by reason, so they do not need to solve the is-ought problem like secular laws do. Of course, religious law has other problems.
> Many will argue that no moral theory can be logically justified, and that the search for logical justification is category error
I agree completely, hence why it is impossible to derive rights that are logically justified without an appeal to God. The comment I was replying to claimed there were logically justified rights which have to follow from logically justified moral theories unless they are decreed from beyond reason, and since the latter is a category error, so is the former.
You are mixing law with moral/ethics. Secular law doesn't have is-ought problem, it is enforced by the state law enforcement forces. Pressure to abide to the laws doesn't entail or justify their morality.
> I agree completely, hence why it is impossible to derive rights that are logically justified without an appeal to God. The comment I was replying to claimed there were logically justified rights which have to follow from logically justified moral theories unless they are decreed from beyond reason, and since the latter is a category error, so is the former.
It wasn't. It was arguing for inherent rights. The claim for inherent rights can be justified. It can't be justified by logic just like it cannot be proved mathematically. But it can be justified ethically using reason.
So I still do not understand how we aren't saying the same thing. Rawls proposes a system of universal rights based on a particular moral theory, he does not prove that his system of rights is natural, it is artificial. In fact, Rawls is not a proponent of natural rights, he is a proponent of socially determined rights, hence his theory of the Veil that allows us to socially evaluate proposed rules.
I would argue that this definition is very narrow and limiting, it introduce weird dependency on our current scientific knowledge, and isn't very useful. For instance, when Hobbes proposed the social contract theory he was discussing natural rights but today we know that his natural science knowledge was incorrect and therefore he was actually describing artificial rights. To me this makes no sense. Instead, I will propose, that rights that are derived by reason, that are universal, and that do not depend on a specific state law or the social norms of a specific society are natural rights. They are natural in the sense that they are not dependent on any state or law but are inherent. Those rights are not granted by god, and they are not artificial law propositions. They are based on universal principals of reason and the reality of human existence.
This view and this definition of natural rights is not my invention. It's reflected in the language of the universal declaration of human rights - which recognizes a set of universal rights. The declaration isn't a legal document that legislate a binding law. It recognize rights that are not (let's hope, are not yet) generally accepted by all nations. Nevertheless those rights are not based on God or born by the act of composing and publishing the declaration, those are natural rights. They are natural despite being in opposition to humans natural behavior, despite their consistent violation. It is because those rights are natural that they can serve as basis and justification for international law and justice.
Rawls theory of rights is universal, it isn't about specific social norms, it discuss human society in principle. One might say that his ethics are based on theory of the human nature.
opkssh uses the OpenSSH AuthorizedKeysCommand configuration option like AWS instance-connect to add OpenID Connect validation to OpenSSH authentication.
``` opkssh login ```
Generates a valid ssh key in `~/.ssh/`
Then run bog standard ssh or sftp
``` ssh user@hostname ```
ssh will pull this ssh key from `~/.ssh/` and send it to sshd running on your server. If this key isn't in an AuthorizedKeys file sshd will send it to the AuthorizedKeysCommand which if configured to be `opkssh` will check your OpenID Connect credentials.