I agree--they should be given new names, based on their contributions to the greater community. Eric Raymond shall henceforth be known as "Greasy Gun-nut, Basement-dweller's Hero." Richard Stallman shall be known as "Aging Hippie who still Believes he can Smash the System"
Actually, that's just too much typing. I tend to refer to them as esr and rms (if at all), because they're worth no more than the effort to type three lower-case letters.
I miss the good ol' days. 80 character lines, proper spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation. Three-line.sigs, headed by two hyphens and a space. Bottom-posting. Plaintext. Proper trimming and header attribution.
In retrospect, the irony was that netiquette fairly easily boiled down to, "don't be a lazy ass just because you're on the internet."
I think I'm going to head over to alt.retro and cry for a while now.
Interface is fine, when describing an interface. Interface as a verb is horrendous. ("I interfaced with her yesterday on that matter.")
Ping was 'stolen' from SONAR, because the ICMP echo-request protocol was modelled quite specifically on SONAR pings, and describes a very close analog. The model was used, and the word was carried over for that very reason.
Neither/. nor the original article seem to understand that not all bugs are security vulnerabilities. Is it the case that more than half the known BUGS in Vista are unpatched, or less than half the known SECURITY BUGS are unpatched?
Once again, we have a battle of the titans. Huge monolithic company against huge monolithic company. All altruism aside, the only goal is who can squeeze more out of the customer at the end of the day.
The one thing I've found fascinating about all of these battles is that for about 15 years now, Microsoft has been one of the titans. Even when they lose, they don't die, which makes me think that damage control is as good as a win, as far as MS is concerned.
Well, they're not really trying to make a 'safe' upload site for users--just an uncensored one. They're not promising the integrity of the pictures, in the event of a failure. They're not promising you won't be held responsible by third parties for what you've uploaded. They're promising that they won't remove your pictures based on content, within the confines of the law. That's all. No more, no less.
It's a substitution within a quote. When it's a single letter at the beginning of a sentence, it generally indicates a case change. Most often this is because the quoted part comes in the middle of a sentence, and the preceeding material isn't relevant to the quote.
I've been curious about something for ages regarding a very specific SR-71, namely A-12 #60-6933, permanently mounted on display at the San Diego aerospace museum.
That particular plane flew an insanely short life--something like 68 hours. Does anyone know why?
Solaris 10 03/05 has been certified at EAL4+, for specific configurations. There are a lot of limitations and exceptions to how it can declared secure in those configurations. (For instance, DHCP may be installed, but the functionality of it isn't included in the CC certification, so a certified S10 system with DHCP installed doesn't address the security risks of DHCP itself.)
The question, I guess, is what you're actually trying to accomplish. If it's a system running something called Trusted Solaris, then you buy the (Solaris8-based) software from Sun and install it according to their instructions on specific hardware. If it's Solaris with a CC certification, then you can get S10 03/05 and install it according to the certification notes. If it's a heavily secure Solaris, you can throw JASS at a current version of S10, and then customise it afterwards. (i.e. remove accounts with UID=0, set up heavy auditing, etc.) If it's a Solaris kernel with GNU tools that either (a) is heavily secure, or (b) is CC certified, then you're on your own. The former hasn't been done yet, and the latter isn't likely to be done, at least in the near future.
Trusted Solaris is heavily based on the Sun toolset and RBAC (role based access control) in particular. By stripping these bits out and replacing them with GNU packages, you've eliminated the possibility of Trusted Solaris.
TS is a _very_ different beast. Superuser privileges haven't just been removed from/etc/passwd, but actually taken out of the code. There is no 'uid_0 = God' principle. Also, TS is based on the Solaris 8 kernel and OS, so the idea of making any Solaris 10 kernel base trusted before Sun gets there is moot.
Finally, consider the premise of Trusted Solaris: A very specific and fixed environment which has an EAL4 CC certification. Any changes to that, and the 'trusted' part (and the certification) become invalid.
Actually, I've filed formal requests (and subsequent complaints) with the CRTC for allowing the CTV federal debates to exclude the party, despite their popular vote and national platform. I've also talked to the media about them, not as a party member but as a (more-or-less) citizen.
I'm not sure that they should be running the country, but a stronger Green party, like a stronger NDP, will help to keep the other two parties in line.
Well, if some Québecois want to separate, they're welcome to go--but they're not welcome to take part of our country. It's not like Quebec 'belongs' to the separatists, any more than Alberta 'belongs' to the idiotic western separatists.
As for the party, single-issue parties are inherently self-limiting. (That said, I'd be quite happy to see a requirement for all parties to provide at least a minimum statement on a set of major issues.)
However, people and/or parties who are philosophically opposed to the idea of a nation should not be allowed to run in national elections. "If you elect me as your federal representative, I will do my best to destroy the federation" should be illegal in a national election, if not outright. In Germany, for instance, this is high treason.
If Quebec wants to separate from Canada, then all of Canada should have a say in it. Right now, I'm feeling like if it came to a national referendum, I'd be inclined to vote in favour of turfing them all. However, the native population--which covers the majority of northern Quebec--will likely vote to stay, as will Montreal. If Quebec is distinct within Canada and deserves to separate, then why isn't northern Quebec distinct within Quebec, and deserving of the right to stay with Canada if Quebec separates?
Besides which, Quebec generally DOESN'T want to separate!! What they want is an autonomous government and freedom from federal transfer payments, debt, etc.; but they want to keep using the Canadian dollar and maintain Canada's trading agreements with foreign countries. If Quebec separates, they can (a) create their own currency, (b) take their percentage of the national debt, and (c) start making their own trade agreements with the rest of the world.
The liberals will generally do nothing about anything, anytime. The conservatives will screw things up worse and sell out to the US at the drop of a drool-covered hat. The NDP doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell at getting elected, but if they did, they'd attack business to the extent that the economy would tank. Then there's the Bloc, which should be illegal since they're a regional separatist party dedicated to destroying the country. Ironically, the Green party (which should by definition be a dedicated single-issue party) actually has a very comprehensive and well thought-out platform, but they haven't got a single seat in their history.
All things considered, doing nothing is not bad. Not good, but not bad.
Interesting angle on things! (and I sincerely wish that the moderator who bumped my post up had given it to your post instead.) The question is, is it art?
Some would say that anything which deliberately evokes emotion is art, and strong emotion implies good art. To some degree, the abstract expressionists exemplify this--the nature of the response is strictly personal, with no guidance from the work itself. If you look at a Bosch or a Velasquez, the art is clearly designed and executed to evoke a certain reaction (both thought and emotion) from the viewer. Pollock and company, on the other hand, strove to avoid 'forcing' an opinion on the viewer, trying to draw something personal and unique out of their subconscious. That's part of the source of the 'anything evocative is art' philosophy.
I personally don't subscribe to that belief. I believe that there is good art and bad art, and charlatanism masquerading as art. (Barnett Newman, I'm talking about YOU!) Being able to generate contempt and disgust for a creator is hardly artistic, in my mind.
Also, I should qualify my 'sex, violence, power' comment. What I object to is glorifying one (or more) of them as a seedy replacement for actual art. Does it provide any social or artistic value? Nothing in the Sopranos I've seen does.
You're right--I didn't need to post a 'your show sucks' post. However, I've been holding my breath (metaphorically) for too many years, waiting for this show to go away. I feel like I finally have a chance to let my breath out and say, "THANK GOD!!!"
As far as a 'waste of resources,' I'd be perfectly happy if they put their effort towards shows that are worthwhile. They don't have to be shows that I want to watch (there are tons of shows out there that are decent or mediocre or quite good that I don't watch), but they shouldn't deliberately try to be the worst show the creators can get away with.
That's what I feel about the Sopranos: It's not that I hate it (which I do), but it's one of the very very rare shows I consider to be created as deliberately bad-but-enticing. It has made its audience from shocking and then manipulating people ("ooh, naked boobs on American TV!!!"), rather than creating a good story. It is anti-entertainment.
Entirely my opinion, I realise, and no more valid than that of anyone else. Still, this show has always stood in my mind as an example of how the entertainment industry avoids having to create entertainment, and I'm glad to see it gone. (Random aside: I mentioned Friends, which similarly exemplifies how TV makes comedies that aren't funny--without the laugh track, the show wouldn't have lasted two seasons.)
OK, I may be in a minority here, but I'm ecstatic that this show is finally over. Glorified sex, glorified violence, and power. The typical bullshit of "holding a mirror up to society" is more of a lie with this show than most movies that similarly glorify street violence, etc. Worse, they lower society's standard of acceptable behaviour.
The last show I was this happy to see check out was Friends. Finally, another execrable piece of shite not wasting any more resources that could be used for a worthwhile purposes.
Option B is the desired case for a few years. After some time, Monsanto (or whoever) raises the price of the seed. Suddenly going back to Option A has become more expensive, because the seed supply has dwindled over the years.
In the meantime, Monsanto has reformulated their pesticides so that they'll destroy everything on the ground, except for their own seeds. Without modern pesticides, the yield will drop by a further 40% for generic seeds.
So Monsanto comes up with a product that gives a boost to the farmer and guts the traditional seed economy. Then, when they have forced lock-in, they can tighten the screws until the farmers are living at a subsistence level, and can't go back.
As an interesting aside, it wouldn't take a lot more paranoia to imagine Monsanto extending into the farming business directly. By buying up family farms as they go under, they could control much of the market, and not have to worry about competition in the seed business.
"Could ZFS be instructed to only scrub the storage when the platters are spinning? If it's been half an hour since the last user access, pause the scrub and spin the drives down..."
Short answer is no. You could potentially write a script, but it would be a lot of mucking about for little cause. Spinning up a RAID set is expensive and slow, and in Unix-land, disk access is generally non-zero even during idle times.
Honest question--are you, as a voting citizen, working towards holding your government accountable for their actions?
Re:Can someone please explain to me...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Pretty much. Someone else has pointed out the danger of hardware that will only run authorized and licensed software--and it potentially is a problem. On the other hand, I've never believed that a software license has any authority to legally specify anything about the hardware on which it runs. The 'anti-Tivoisation" clause of the GPLv3 is, in my opinion, RMS officially stating his contempt for all things capitalistic and potentially profit-making. He is about as anti-business as a human being can be, and he's working hard to drive the GPL to a 'pure' state, where no company can use GPL software.
I'd be very surprised if you couldn't give them formal notice that they weren't welcome, and then have a summary judgement brought against them if they persisted. A good corporate attorney must be able to find a way of accomplishing this.
That's quite funny--only because we had an almost identical situation right around the same time. A plumber opened a valve on a cooling water line that was supposed to be dry, because it wasn't hooked up yet. It wasn't dry, and our near-line storage got soaked, along with all of the sub-floor cabling. No data loss, though.
True enough, but you have to be very careful in reading the terms of the contract. "Idiot admins" aren't covered, which is fair enough, but when the product is sold (rebranded) and supported through Sun, idiot Sun admins are exempted as well.
We had a 36-hour outage on a 9960 that was the joint fault of bad documentation and bad support. No compensation.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree--they should be given new names, based on their contributions to the greater community.
Eric Raymond shall henceforth be known as "Greasy Gun-nut, Basement-dweller's Hero."
Richard Stallman shall be known as "Aging Hippie who still Believes he can Smash the System"
Actually, that's just too much typing. I tend to refer to them as esr and rms (if at all), because they're worth no more than the effort to type three lower-case letters.
As Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) once said, "Verbing weirds life."
*sniff*
.sigs, headed by two hyphens and a space. Bottom-posting. Plaintext. Proper trimming and header attribution.
I miss the good ol' days.
80 character lines, proper spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation. Three-line
In retrospect, the irony was that netiquette fairly easily boiled down to, "don't be a lazy ass just because you're on the internet."
I think I'm going to head over to alt.retro and cry for a while now.
Some off my opinions here.
Interface is fine, when describing an interface. Interface as a verb is horrendous. ("I interfaced with her yesterday on that matter.")
Ping was 'stolen' from SONAR, because the ICMP echo-request protocol was modelled quite specifically on SONAR pings, and describes a very close analog. The model was used, and the word was carried over for that very reason.
Well that's interesting. I've never heard snowclone used in reference to anything internet-related. In fact, I've never heard it before.
Hard to be very annoying when you're the only one who's heard of it. Care to throw some context around it?
Neither /. nor the original article seem to understand that not all bugs are security vulnerabilities. Is it the case that more than half the known BUGS in Vista are unpatched, or less than half the known SECURITY BUGS are unpatched?
Potentially huge difference.
Once again, we have a battle of the titans. Huge monolithic company against huge monolithic company. All altruism aside, the only goal is who can squeeze more out of the customer at the end of the day.
The one thing I've found fascinating about all of these battles is that for about 15 years now, Microsoft has been one of the titans. Even when they lose, they don't die, which makes me think that damage control is as good as a win, as far as MS is concerned.
Well, they're not really trying to make a 'safe' upload site for users--just an uncensored one.
They're not promising the integrity of the pictures, in the event of a failure. They're not promising you won't be held responsible by third parties for what you've uploaded. They're promising that they won't remove your pictures based on content, within the confines of the law. That's all. No more, no less.
It's a substitution within a quote. When it's a single letter at the beginning of a sentence, it generally indicates a case change. Most often this is because the quoted part comes in the middle of a sentence, and the preceeding material isn't relevant to the quote.
I've been curious about something for ages regarding a very specific SR-71, namely A-12 #60-6933, permanently mounted on display at the San Diego aerospace museum.
That particular plane flew an insanely short life--something like 68 hours. Does anyone know why?
That's true, and in a sense they have.
Solaris 10 03/05 has been certified at EAL4+, for specific configurations. There are a lot of limitations and exceptions to how it can declared secure in those configurations. (For instance, DHCP may be installed, but the functionality of it isn't included in the CC certification, so a certified S10 system with DHCP installed doesn't address the security risks of DHCP itself.)
The question, I guess, is what you're actually trying to accomplish. If it's a system running something called Trusted Solaris, then you buy the (Solaris8-based) software from Sun and install it according to their instructions on specific hardware. If it's Solaris with a CC certification, then you can get S10 03/05 and install it according to the certification notes. If it's a heavily secure Solaris, you can throw JASS at a current version of S10, and then customise it afterwards. (i.e. remove accounts with UID=0, set up heavy auditing, etc.) If it's a Solaris kernel with GNU tools that either (a) is heavily secure, or (b) is CC certified, then you're on your own. The former hasn't been done yet, and the latter isn't likely to be done, at least in the near future.
Short answer, probably not possible.
/etc/passwd, but actually taken out of the code. There is no 'uid_0 = God' principle. Also, TS is based on the Solaris 8 kernel and OS, so the idea of making any Solaris 10 kernel base trusted before Sun gets there is moot.
Trusted Solaris is heavily based on the Sun toolset and RBAC (role based access control) in particular. By stripping these bits out and replacing them with GNU packages, you've eliminated the possibility of Trusted Solaris.
TS is a _very_ different beast. Superuser privileges haven't just been removed from
Finally, consider the premise of Trusted Solaris: A very specific and fixed environment which has an EAL4 CC certification. Any changes to that, and the 'trusted' part (and the certification) become invalid.
So in short, the answer is no.
Actually, I've filed formal requests (and subsequent complaints) with the CRTC for allowing the CTV federal debates to exclude the party, despite their popular vote and national platform. I've also talked to the media about them, not as a party member but as a (more-or-less) citizen.
I'm not sure that they should be running the country, but a stronger Green party, like a stronger NDP, will help to keep the other two parties in line.
Well, if some Québecois want to separate, they're welcome to go--but they're not welcome to take part of our country. It's not like Quebec 'belongs' to the separatists, any more than Alberta 'belongs' to the idiotic western separatists.
As for the party, single-issue parties are inherently self-limiting. (That said, I'd be quite happy to see a requirement for all parties to provide at least a minimum statement on a set of major issues.)
However, people and/or parties who are philosophically opposed to the idea of a nation should not be allowed to run in national elections. "If you elect me as your federal representative, I will do my best to destroy the federation" should be illegal in a national election, if not outright. In Germany, for instance, this is high treason.
If Quebec wants to separate from Canada, then all of Canada should have a say in it. Right now, I'm feeling like if it came to a national referendum, I'd be inclined to vote in favour of turfing them all. However, the native population--which covers the majority of northern Quebec--will likely vote to stay, as will Montreal. If Quebec is distinct within Canada and deserves to separate, then why isn't northern Quebec distinct within Quebec, and deserving of the right to stay with Canada if Quebec separates?
Besides which, Quebec generally DOESN'T want to separate!! What they want is an autonomous government and freedom from federal transfer payments, debt, etc.; but they want to keep using the Canadian dollar and maintain Canada's trading agreements with foreign countries. If Quebec separates, they can (a) create their own currency, (b) take their percentage of the national debt, and (c) start making their own trade agreements with the rest of the world.
Well, it's all a measure of evil.
The liberals will generally do nothing about anything, anytime. The conservatives will screw things up worse and sell out to the US at the drop of a drool-covered hat. The NDP doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell at getting elected, but if they did, they'd attack business to the extent that the economy would tank. Then there's the Bloc, which should be illegal since they're a regional separatist party dedicated to destroying the country. Ironically, the Green party (which should by definition be a dedicated single-issue party) actually has a very comprehensive and well thought-out platform, but they haven't got a single seat in their history.
All things considered, doing nothing is not bad. Not good, but not bad.
Interesting angle on things! (and I sincerely wish that the moderator who bumped my post up had given it to your post instead.) The question is, is it art?
Some would say that anything which deliberately evokes emotion is art, and strong emotion implies good art. To some degree, the abstract expressionists exemplify this--the nature of the response is strictly personal, with no guidance from the work itself. If you look at a Bosch or a Velasquez, the art is clearly designed and executed to evoke a certain reaction (both thought and emotion) from the viewer. Pollock and company, on the other hand, strove to avoid 'forcing' an opinion on the viewer, trying to draw something personal and unique out of their subconscious. That's part of the source of the 'anything evocative is art' philosophy.
I personally don't subscribe to that belief. I believe that there is good art and bad art, and charlatanism masquerading as art. (Barnett Newman, I'm talking about YOU!) Being able to generate contempt and disgust for a creator is hardly artistic, in my mind.
Also, I should qualify my 'sex, violence, power' comment. What I object to is glorifying one (or more) of them as a seedy replacement for actual art. Does it provide any social or artistic value? Nothing in the Sopranos I've seen does.
You're right--I didn't need to post a 'your show sucks' post. However, I've been holding my breath (metaphorically) for too many years, waiting for this show to go away. I feel like I finally have a chance to let my breath out and say, "THANK GOD!!!"
As far as a 'waste of resources,' I'd be perfectly happy if they put their effort towards shows that are worthwhile. They don't have to be shows that I want to watch (there are tons of shows out there that are decent or mediocre or quite good that I don't watch), but they shouldn't deliberately try to be the worst show the creators can get away with.
That's what I feel about the Sopranos: It's not that I hate it (which I do), but it's one of the very very rare shows I consider to be created as deliberately bad-but-enticing. It has made its audience from shocking and then manipulating people ("ooh, naked boobs on American TV!!!"), rather than creating a good story. It is anti-entertainment.
Entirely my opinion, I realise, and no more valid than that of anyone else. Still, this show has always stood in my mind as an example of how the entertainment industry avoids having to create entertainment, and I'm glad to see it gone.
(Random aside: I mentioned Friends, which similarly exemplifies how TV makes comedies that aren't funny--without the laugh track, the show wouldn't have lasted two seasons.)
OK, I may be in a minority here, but I'm ecstatic that this show is finally over. Glorified sex, glorified violence, and power. The typical bullshit of "holding a mirror up to society" is more of a lie with this show than most movies that similarly glorify street violence, etc. Worse, they lower society's standard of acceptable behaviour.
The last show I was this happy to see check out was Friends. Finally, another execrable piece of shite not wasting any more resources that could be used for a worthwhile purposes.
The problem comes in the long term.
Option B is the desired case for a few years. After some time, Monsanto (or whoever) raises the price of the seed. Suddenly going back to Option A has become more expensive, because the seed supply has dwindled over the years.
In the meantime, Monsanto has reformulated their pesticides so that they'll destroy everything on the ground, except for their own seeds. Without modern pesticides, the yield will drop by a further 40% for generic seeds.
So Monsanto comes up with a product that gives a boost to the farmer and guts the traditional seed economy. Then, when they have forced lock-in, they can tighten the screws until the farmers are living at a subsistence level, and can't go back.
As an interesting aside, it wouldn't take a lot more paranoia to imagine Monsanto extending into the farming business directly. By buying up family farms as they go under, they could control much of the market, and not have to worry about competition in the seed business.
"Could ZFS be instructed to only scrub the storage when the platters are spinning? If it's been half an hour since the last user access, pause the scrub and spin the drives down..."
Short answer is no. You could potentially write a script, but it would be a lot of mucking about for little cause. Spinning up a RAID set is expensive and slow, and in Unix-land, disk access is generally non-zero even during idle times.
So what are YOU doing to get them impeached?
Honest question--are you, as a voting citizen, working towards holding your government accountable for their actions?
Pretty much. Someone else has pointed out the danger of hardware that will only run authorized and licensed software--and it potentially is a problem. On the other hand, I've never believed that a software license has any authority to legally specify anything about the hardware on which it runs. The 'anti-Tivoisation" clause of the GPLv3 is, in my opinion, RMS officially stating his contempt for all things capitalistic and potentially profit-making. He is about as anti-business as a human being can be, and he's working hard to drive the GPL to a 'pure' state, where no company can use GPL software.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
I'd be very surprised if you couldn't give them formal notice that they weren't welcome, and then have a summary judgement brought against them if they persisted. A good corporate attorney must be able to find a way of accomplishing this.
That's quite funny--only because we had an almost identical situation right around the same time. A plumber opened a valve on a cooling water line that was supposed to be dry, because it wasn't hooked up yet. It wasn't dry, and our near-line storage got soaked, along with all of the sub-floor cabling. No data loss, though.
True enough, but you have to be very careful in reading the terms of the contract. "Idiot admins" aren't covered, which is fair enough, but when the product is sold (rebranded) and supported through Sun, idiot Sun admins are exempted as well.
We had a 36-hour outage on a 9960 that was the joint fault of bad documentation and bad support. No compensation.