Another beauty I stumbled over was gamefaq.com. An ugly site with porn that uses -extremely- annoying Javascript to automatically pop up a window when you close it. You go in, you can't get out, unless you close the browser or think to disable Javascript.
The pilgrims did found a large part of the community that later on became an independent U.S.A.
Yes, but that was a few hundred years afterwards. There was a fair gap of time between "pilgrim settlers" and "founding fathers." A lot can happen in that amount of time. Just look how much the US (or your own country) has changed in the last few hundred years.
What if they need to look up information on child abuse - maybe they are being abused, or they know someone who might be being abused, either in their own family, or a friend?
Eh, if they even think they are being abused, no, I wouldn't say the library is a good stop. They should go to the police, or a counselor, or a school teacher, or a neighbor, or....
Then, the editor-in-chief at Marvel wrested control away from Clermont and made him make Jean Grey/Phoenix die because she had killed a bunch of aliens while she was in a power-mad state of delerium. Clermont was crushed.
Really... I did not know this. Kudos to whomever made that call, it was a good move. Too bad the TV show whimped out on that call. Then again, the TV show always was pretty damned pathetic. Take horrible actors, mix well with horrible animation and decent stills, combine with some of the old good plotlines and water then down into non-existance.
Somehow, I would think they would have to maintain backwards compatibility just so that people with monitors bought without this encryption can use it. I just bought a new 21" monitor recently that I fully expect to last for five years, most likely a decade. Would it be incompatible with this new standard? Would Intel manufacture decryption modules that could be attached to a standard monitor? (IE, some device placed between the monitor cable and cable-port on the monitor) And if it were so, I would imagine someone could easily capture the video that way. Wishful thinking, I suppose.:) I just like to be able to take screenshots and occassionally capture video.
The MPAA, RIAA, etc. do not hold closed standards above profits. A boycott of all closed standards will indeed force them to open up.
You are ascribing far far FAR more power to the open standards/open source groups than actually exists (open source has little power, open standards has some, but certainly not enough to make the MPAA bend).
My dream is for many operating systems (BSD, Linux, Windows, BeOS, MacOS, GNU (aka "the HURD"), Eros, etc.) to all have 5-30% market share.
This would only work if operating systems interoperated well. They don't. Companies would then have to make 8 different versions of a game or application, with each version probably costing more and doing less than software does now. If there were completely common, powerful, high-level API's that were the same across all these platforms, then maybe developing for all of them wouldn't be so hard. But I think having eight equal-strength operating systems would be even more of a nightmare/headache than the current situation.
What a silly response! I hope it was in jest. }:> It has the feel of 'troll' to it, but I know that sadly, there ARE Linux users who feel like this...
You're claiming that it's his fault that 509b doesn't work in Linux in PnP mode?
"The solution for everyone else isn't good enough for me"
Exactly. It's a kludge, not a solution. If the driver were better, it would be able to handle the card in PnP mode. But it doesn't. This is in no way a flame of the driver developers. But the poster here shouldn't bitch when the workaround for a flaw isn't good enough for someone.
Why is it alright for big media and big business to disparage Linux (and by proxy Linux users)?
They usually do it without being completely insulting. Ie, they aren't flames. We're talking about flames here, not about discussion, dissention, or criticism.
But I believe it IS an effective form of advocacy.
No it's not. What does it do? It gives the other side a greater reason to just ignore you completely, muttering about how we're all loonies and assholes. Which, if we flame on in email, we pretty much are.
Nothing has ever been accomplished by a screamed "Hey you dumbf***!" other than get one or two heads to turn for a moment or two. Rational discourse and argument actually gets things done. When you scream, you do little but shut yourself down, and you find yourself left out of the loop for good reason.
I don't deal with flamers, no matter what they might be trying to convince me of. Why should I bother?
I almost think this needs to be moderated up, only because it explains a lot.:)
That is, many people seem to like Linux not because they really like the operating system itself, but because they're striking out against Microsoft. A chunk of Linuxers are in perpetual protest mode. And in email, every voice is equal, no matter how immature the person is.
In fact, Linux has often been marketed by advocates as an actual rebellion. That it's not just an alternative (which attracts some fools), but a rebellion (which attracts many more).
Remember back when the Halloween papers came out that at least some Microsoft execs wanted to decommoditize and proprietize protocols? They really couldn't do it before without involving some type of encryption, without someone just reverse engineering it. The next logical step was to make the process easier -- just make it illegal for anyone to reverse engineer your product.
Of course, this was before MS was declared a monopoly, so they might be more careful about using this UCITA stipulation. But if someone else wants to use UCITA to prohibit any type of reverse engineering, what is to stop them?
Why is it that anyone who ever has a dissenting opinion "paid" by the opposition? Why do "DeCSS is bad" posts always get marked as paid for by the MPAA? Why is everyone who says they like NT more than Linux attacked as being a plant of Microsoft? Some people...
... how he listed "illegal use" and "unauthorized use," as if they were seperate, but both things that must be stamped out.
I think the biggest problem that the MPAA is facing with the DeCSS case is that they're trying to stamp out illegal distribution by axing both illegal AND legal copying and viewing. The overkill here is what has people up in arms. If it were a measure that somehow prevented only piracy, we wouldn't have had nearly the amount of outcry that we have had. But no one likes it when their freedoms are slashed because someone suspects that they might abuse it.
I'm not saying you're taking your faith lightly, I'm saying that if you ask me to believe in God because the consequences are bad if I'm wrong, then that's asking me to take faith lightly. I do not believe that a good reason for conversion is "well, the consequences are dire if you're wrong." If I believe, it will be because I actually believe in God, not because it's a safer choice. And I can't just believe in something because I decide to or because it's safer to. I can tell myself I believe, but it really won't be true.
Don't know if it's related but the seti@home site has been down for a few hours.
I doubt it. SETI@HOME is hardly known for their stability. They're down rather often. Also, it was only their small subnet which seemed to be down. (ie, unpingable) Network connection to the rest of Berkeley seemed fine.
If Christians are wrong, then it really doesn't matter much, because the same thing will happen to all people when they die. If Christians turn out to be right, and you aren't one of them, then your gonna miss out on the biggest party that ever will happen, and it will make this past New Year's parties look like those people were all asleep. I know which event I'd want to plan for, do you?
This is an extremely bad argument, and one that many Christians have tossed at me (I'm agnostic) through the years, especially back when I went to a Catholic high school. You see, I believe something because I actually believe, not because I wake up one morning and say "hey, I'm going to believe in God today!" or not because someone says "Hey, believe in God!" and I say "ok." That's not how it works, at least for me. Some people simply can believe at the drop of a hat, but those people can believe just about anything. If there is a God, I don't think he would look to kindly upon those who went through some of the motions but didn't truly believe.
Not that this would be proffesional journalism at all, but I think it'd be very interresting if someone like Roblimo would post an article that unknown to us was actually a Katz article. How many people would we see flaming away then?
Why, we'd see even more people flaming away. First of all, no one would be fooled. Katz has a certain style that, if his writings were jumbled in with another dozen anonymous Slashdot article writers, would be easily identifiable. Slashdot readers would get mad that Rob tried to deceive them, and they'd flame away even more. }:P
Well, I am running the tool, and folks should know that it looks as though it is written to keep allocating memory as long as it can.. my system has 128megs of RAM and 256megs of swap, and the find_ddos program has totally exhausted my swap space.
How very odd. I had almost the exact opposite experience. It ran for awhile, reported all was well, and didn't use more than several megabytes of memory.
Perhaps. Or maybe, as the Onion so wonderfully parodied, "Hackers (who broke into government computers) admitted hacking tide.com didn't give the same thrill."
And, most intriguingly, if you're getting paid by the ad impression, would you care?
Maybe, maybe not. Your advertisers would certainly care after some time. After all, they're paying site money to show these ads to PEOPLE. If the advertisers are getting a lot of hits from a DoS attack, they'll get mad -- that's simply lost money.
Please tell me you're joking? I thought that/. at least wouldn't be filled with people professing Security through Obscurity!
There is a big difference between "Obscurity as your only security" and "Obscurity is a part of our security plan."
Yes, we know that if you only use Security through Obscurity, you have a bad plan. This does not mean that obscurity is unimportant! It is a valid part of a good security policy. It is only a problem if obscurity replaces other security plans.
I suppose it all depends on your definition of space. If you define space as "the limited volume that contains all the 'stuff,'" then yes, I agree that space would be limited.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that was a few hundred years afterwards. There was a fair gap of time between "pilgrim settlers" and "founding fathers." A lot can happen in that amount of time. Just look how much the US (or your own country) has changed in the last few hundred years.
Eh, if they even think they are being abused, no, I wouldn't say the library is a good stop. They should go to the police, or a counselor, or a school teacher, or a neighbor, or....
Really... I did not know this. Kudos to whomever made that call, it was a good move. Too bad the TV show whimped out on that call. Then again, the TV show always was pretty damned pathetic. Take horrible actors, mix well with horrible animation and decent stills, combine with some of the old good plotlines and water then down into non-existance.
You are ascribing far far FAR more power to the open standards/open source groups than actually exists (open source has little power, open standards has some, but certainly not enough to make the MPAA bend).
This would only work if operating systems interoperated well. They don't. Companies would then have to make 8 different versions of a game or application, with each version probably costing more and doing less than software does now. If there were completely common, powerful, high-level API's that were the same across all these platforms, then maybe developing for all of them wouldn't be so hard. But I think having eight equal-strength operating systems would be even more of a nightmare/headache than the current situation.
You're claiming that it's his fault that 509b doesn't work in Linux in PnP mode?
"The solution for everyone else isn't good enough for me"
Exactly. It's a kludge, not a solution. If the driver were better, it would be able to handle the card in PnP mode. But it doesn't. This is in no way a flame of the driver developers. But the poster here shouldn't bitch when the workaround for a flaw isn't good enough for someone.
They usually do it without being completely insulting. Ie, they aren't flames. We're talking about flames here, not about discussion, dissention, or criticism.
But I believe it IS an effective form of advocacy.
No it's not. What does it do? It gives the other side a greater reason to just ignore you completely, muttering about how we're all loonies and assholes. Which, if we flame on in email, we pretty much are.
Nothing has ever been accomplished by a screamed "Hey you dumbf***!" other than get one or two heads to turn for a moment or two. Rational discourse and argument actually gets things done. When you scream, you do little but shut yourself down, and you find yourself left out of the loop for good reason.
I don't deal with flamers, no matter what they might be trying to convince me of. Why should I bother?
That is, many people seem to like Linux not because they really like the operating system itself, but because they're striking out against Microsoft. A chunk of Linuxers are in perpetual protest mode. And in email, every voice is equal, no matter how immature the person is.
Of course, this was before MS was declared a monopoly, so they might be more careful about using this UCITA stipulation. But if someone else wants to use UCITA to prohibit any type of reverse engineering, what is to stop them?
Why is it that anyone who ever has a dissenting opinion "paid" by the opposition? Why do "DeCSS is bad" posts always get marked as paid for by the MPAA? Why is everyone who says they like NT more than Linux attacked as being a plant of Microsoft? Some people...
I think the biggest problem that the MPAA is facing with the DeCSS case is that they're trying to stamp out illegal distribution by axing both illegal AND legal copying and viewing. The overkill here is what has people up in arms. If it were a measure that somehow prevented only piracy, we wouldn't have had nearly the amount of outcry that we have had. But no one likes it when their freedoms are slashed because someone suspects that they might abuse it.
I doubt it. SETI@HOME is hardly known for their stability. They're down rather often. Also, it was only their small subnet which seemed to be down. (ie, unpingable) Network connection to the rest of Berkeley seemed fine.
This is an extremely bad argument, and one that many Christians have tossed at me (I'm agnostic) through the years, especially back when I went to a Catholic high school. You see, I believe something because I actually believe, not because I wake up one morning and say "hey, I'm going to believe in God today!" or not because someone says "Hey, believe in God!" and I say "ok." That's not how it works, at least for me. Some people simply can believe at the drop of a hat, but those people can believe just about anything. If there is a God, I don't think he would look to kindly upon those who went through some of the motions but didn't truly believe.
Why, we'd see even more people flaming away. First of all, no one would be fooled. Katz has a certain style that, if his writings were jumbled in with another dozen anonymous Slashdot article writers, would be easily identifiable. Slashdot readers would get mad that Rob tried to deceive them, and they'd flame away even more. }:P
How very odd. I had almost the exact opposite experience. It ran for awhile, reported all was well, and didn't use more than several megabytes of memory.
Maybe, maybe not. Your advertisers would certainly care after some time. After all, they're paying site money to show these ads to PEOPLE. If the advertisers are getting a lot of hits from a DoS attack, they'll get mad -- that's simply lost money.
There is a big difference between "Obscurity as your only security" and "Obscurity is a part of our security plan."
Yes, we know that if you only use Security through Obscurity, you have a bad plan. This does not mean that obscurity is unimportant! It is a valid part of a good security policy. It is only a problem if obscurity replaces other security plans.
I've always been rather partial to CERT's alert