Slashdot Mirror

If you want to hear another view on linux, why don't you hop on over to Fox News which has some superior tech reporting. (Warning: site is java intensive)

Qouth Mr. Katz:

"This arguably makes Dr. Hunkapiller one of the most important men in the world, since his company controls most of the machinery that makes such mapping possible. It's hard to argue that Gates, for all his billions, will have a fraction of his influence. Cornering the code of the human genome is the kind of monopoly that makes Gates look like a street-corner vendor."

This is point where the whole comparison breaks down. Hunkapillar isn't a corporate man; he's a scientist. Gates wants power and influence, and Hunkapillar wants knowlege. It's a different quest. In fact, check out this quote from a Fox News article (Venter is Hunkapillar's business partner):

"Venter says it's not a gene monopoly he's after, but information. In fact, he plans to publish all the company's findings on the genome. By immediately publishing their work, Venter and colleagues intend to make the base knowledge of the human genome unpatentable."

So, they're trying to open source the human genome, not embrace and extend it! This represents a totally different mindset, and simply cannot be compared to Gates' capitalist obsessions.

Well, i bet someone is happy this didn't get out in the wild before then, eh?

Ham on rye, hold the mayo please.

• UniSci
  
• Space Telescope Science Institute
  
• MSNBC
  
• BBC
  
• CNN (buggy--text at bottom)
  
• Spaceflight Now
  
• Space.com
  
• USA Today (under weather... Bah!)
  
• Fox News
  
• Science Daily
  

Can you read?? WELL, CAN YOU?? Just how goddamn dumb are you?? It's right there, plain as day. Okay, if you can't read, here's a goddamn link right to the fucking story:

Actor Don Knotts Dead at 79

Jesus Christ crossed the Rio Grande, some of you people are dense.

Fox News reported the story, not CNN. The Fox News story quotes CNN spokeswoman Edna Johnson, "It wasn't a hacker. We were not hacked into. Have you ever participated in an online chat? Anyone can come in and register and participate on site. This person was registered and participating in the chat. He was a prankster. They give themselves a user name."

The title of this story, "CNN.com Chat With President Clinton Infiltrated by 'Prankster'," starts off reasonably enough, until you get to the last two paragraphs of the first section. Then the FoxNews - not CNN - editors-that-be (or somebody) start hyping the DDoS connection.

Q: What do I love most about shoddy journalism?
A: Unnamed "experts".

I generally don't read AC posts on Slashdot, but you calling FoxNews "the authorities" is the functional equivalent of me calling a F1rst p0ster a Slashdot editor. (Too bad you can't set comment thresholds when you watch TV!)

Like you, I hate it when case (2) occurs: if you (i.e., CNN) didn't think it through, you shouldn't get upset when it blows up in your face.

But let's not use the erroneously sourced arguments of the things-as-they-are crowd. That's how laws like UCITA get passed, and how Jack Valenti gets his way.

Fox News reported the story, not CNN. The Fox News story quotes CNN spokeswoman Edna Johnson, "It wasn't a hacker. We were not hacked into. Have you ever participated in an online chat? Anyone can come in and register and participate on site. This person was registered and participating in the chat. He was a prankster. They give themselves a user name."

The title of this story, "CNN.com Chat With President Clinton Infiltrated by 'Prankster'," starts off reasonably enough, until you get to the last two paragraphs of the first section. Then the FoxNews - not CNN - editors-that-be (or somebody) start hyping the DDoS connection.

Q: What do I love most about shoddy journalism?
A: Unnamed "experts".

I generally don't read AC posts on Slashdot, but you calling FoxNews "the authorities" is the functional equivalent of me calling a F1rst p0ster a Slashdot editor. (Too bad you can't set comment thresholds when you watch TV!)

Like you, I hate it when case (2) occurs: if you (i.e., CNN) didn't think it through, you shouldn't get upset when it blows up in your face.

But let's not use the erroneously sourced arguments of the things-as-they-are crowd. That's how laws like UCITA get passed, and how Jack Valenti gets his way.

Let me start by saying that I'm an avid FoxNews viewer and am usually pleased with the reporting. However, in your article online regarding the CNN chat with Clinton, I see very poor journalism. You quote several unnamed "experts" that said the disruption was a "hack". Firstly, if you look at the IRC protocol, RFC 1459, specifically section 4.1.2, you would notice that IRC allows one to change their nickname to anything they want. Because CNN chose poor IRC server software, they have several moments which knocked off all of the users and required them to reconnect. Because they had no security restricting who could own the nick President_Clinton, they were open to someone impersonating him. Because CNN chose poor software and didn't bother to install any type of security, there was no hacking needed.

In related news, I found the television reports on the "hacking" of major online powerhouses to be filled with buzzwords and little content. PLEASE, if you're going to report technical news, have someone who knows modern technology report it. At least go down to the server room and as one of your network administrators before running a story. Of course, with the mail problems over the last week, I'm not sure they know much anyways... they don't seem to know about things like redundant servers.

Find the FACTS, then report, so we can decide. Also, I'd like to see a report on the DeCSS lawsuits filed by the MPAA and DVDCCA in recent months, and not just from the MPAA's side.

http://www.foxnews.com/vtech/020400/d elta.sml.
Reportedly, Delta Airlines will announce this afternoon that they're doing the same thing.

Well, since Slashdotters generally think alike, anyone who wants another point of view on this should check this link.

Some of us aren't the best writers. And some of us don't have the facts.

I don't want to lie about our position, and I want to get the facts straight. Can somebody post a letter that has correct facts, but is forceful?

Somebody help those of us who know this is really, really bad, but not much else...

I've collected these emails: (it's a start, at least)

mailto:newsonline@bbc.co.uk mailto:TechNews@MSNBC.com mailto:World@MSNBC.com mailto:letters@msnbc.com mailto:Internight@MSNBC.com mailto:opinion@msnbc.com mailto:comments@foxnews.com mailto:feedback@nytimes.com

and the following webpages:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/ http://abc.go.com/email_abc/mail_home.html http://www.cbs.com/now/eframeset/1,1616,311,00.htm l?URL=%2Fnow%2Ffeedback%2F1%2C1611%2C311 %2C00%2Ehtml

"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"

According to the FOX obits, he died Saturday. We've probably seen film of him on a rocket sled, but the above link at Edwards AFB points out that going fast was a side effect of these sudden-stop tests. FOX says that Dr. Stapp popularized Murphy's Law.

... is here

You're assuming this guy believes God created AIDS. That's not the belief. Check this article .

A quote:
NEW YORK -- In a recent survey of African Americans, more than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was caused by a man-made virus developed by the federal government to kill black people.