From the article; "However, for the system to work, a lot of legal and diplomatic work has to be undertaken so that other countries would agree to such an arrangement and participate in it. "
In other words... the FAA has an idea. It needs lots more in the way of international treaties to *work*, but they have an *idea*.
Yup; I've had this issue, too, running tech support. The number of times I asked "what's the password..." and was told:
sa/sa
sa/password
sa/*blank*
sa/admin
sa/administrator
Even when a password is set, it's often not strong. To put it mildly.
I've been sitting here reading/. for a couple of months now. I read most of the articles, less of the comments, and keep my threshold at 1, because "first post" and other troll material doesn't interest me.
What I notice here, with the responses to this article (and, indeed, any like it) are that (wow!) some people agree, some people disagree, and others couldn't care less.
Gee, that sounds like society as a whole, doncha think?
What bothers me are not flames, or offtopic posts, as those are easily avoided. What bothers me, as a reader and someone who might like to comment on occasion, are inappropriate flames.
Some (made up, names mean nothing) samples: PosterX: I'm a windows user, and have always liked.... /.ResponderY: WINDOZE sUcKs! LiNuX RuleZ! Trash that system and go CLI!
PosterW: I'm not sure I agree. If I want to change memory settings like shared memory, I need to recompile, and that's too much work... /.ResponderZ: If you can't recompile the kernel, get out of the kitchen!
News article: CompanyQ releases new Windows software for.... ./ResponderR: Why do we care? X-program does that already on Linux. Post something we care about!
I can VERY MUCH understand anyone not wanting to post here. If I, as generic PosterX, dare to post anything here that doesn't directly affect Linux/open source in a positive manner, I'm going to get my nuts verbally chopped off. Lord forbid I should question the GPL, or suggest that ANY project is not suitable for an open-source solution!
As many other commenters have noted here, the problem is (IMO) with the speed of response, and the lack of judgement../ResponderX can say "hey, that's not what I like!", develop and send a response or email, and forget about it in seconds. posterY, on the other hand, now has to deal with hordes of incoming email, up to all of which may be irrelevant "You suck" messages. And folks, I don't care if you think words mean nothing - read 'em long or often enough, and it *will* start to bother you!
Anyways, I feel like I'm done blabbing on for now. The point?
Kneejerk responses aren't necessarily appropriate. Free speech is - but please think first. Maybe there's a reason other people think in different ways - and have different opinions. Try to respect that.
What I absolutely DISAGREE with, however, is Katz' assertion that someone who speaks out against "pornography" is somehow diluting free speech. Free speech is free if and only if BOTH sides of the issue are heard.
OK, true and not true. The problem here, as I see it, is that we have the "pro-porn"/"free-speech" folks on one side - and, generally, they are "right". They want to promote free speech, and therefor feel porn should be allowed. Ok. And we have the "anti-porn"/"anti-free-speech" side - which is what Katz was talking about. This side says porn is bad - and therefore should not be available online (or at all). This is the problem - not that they dislike porn, but that they want to stop everyone from getting at it. That - and not the anti-porn stance - is anti-free-speech.
In other words, if you only hear speech about how good sex is, how wonderful pornography is, how liberating it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH. If you only hear speech about how terrible sex is, how horrible pornography is, how exploitative it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH EITHER. Katz is confusing his particular moral stance (sexuality on the net is liberating) with free speech (which is an open exchange of ALL ideas, be they right or wrong).
I agree with your consensus - if you can only ever hear one side, then that's not free speech. However, when one side wants the other to shut up and go away, that's anti-free-speech, regardless of the main topic of the argument. Just my thoughts. -\rgb{00ffff,Strauss}
Oh, I can see it now. The 200+ comments, all reading something like: "Linux is on the upswing, why would it fade? It's going to take off!".
Just a quick reminder: It's the linux hysteria that's going to fade (according to the report; I reserve judgement). Not the market share; not the value; not the number of users. But look for Linux IPOs to be less spectacular; look for linux announcements from companies to slow down (partially because, hey, many are already on the bandwagon!); and, look for Linux stock prices to drop. Possibly a lot. The day traders and capital gains types will eventually figure out that a company that doesn't make money (with apologies, many do not, at least yet, turn a profit) isn't a "good" investment.
As many people have pointed out, there is a plethora of good documentation for Linux - O'Reilly and other books, HOWTOs, man pages, HTML and PDF docs, you name it. Further, there's all the person-to-person resources; Ask slashot:), IRC, comp.linux.*, and, of course, your friendly neighborhood guru.
The trick is, "newbies" need not just the raw information (use command X to do Y) but the reasons behind it -- and, more importantly, HOW to find out both the answers and the reasons.
I've spent several years helping friends, family, workmates, and others figure out their computers, be they Windoze, *nix, or other. It took me most of those years to figure out that, if you just tell them "Do X", they will, and then they'll be back. On the other hand, tell them "Do X, here's why, and here's where to find out more" - and preferably take them on the trip in the process - they'll remember. At least for a while - real memory takes repetition, after all, and if they're only setting up a new box every 2-5 years, well, don't expect much;)
The point is, it's not just the docs. It's not just newbies being silly. It's also those of us willing to teach them - sometimes, it takes the effort of learning to teach first, too.
<RANT> I've seen a number of posts here from people who say "nuts to the newbies... if that can't do it themselves, scr*w 'em". Or to that effect. Folks, if we want Linux to "win", we -- as the proponents of Linux -- *CANNOT* afford to take that attitude - it simply does not work. </RANT>
-Strauss
Another article, better reporting than the Almanac
on
Brightest Moon Fallacy
·
· Score: 1
The Toronto Star for a slightly better report. At least the Star figured out the last real bright moon first, and so was correctly reporting 69 years.
One solution, anyway. Simply tell the spider not to index anything more than X levels deep into a site. Where, of course, X is a relatively small number - say, 5. Alternately, for this sample, look closely at the URL. If you're looking at/foo/foo/foo/bar.html, then there "must" be something wrong with the path, so stop looking there and move back out.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article; "However, for the system to work, a lot of legal and diplomatic work has to be undertaken so that other countries would agree to such an arrangement and participate in it. "
In other words... the FAA has an idea. It needs lots more in the way of international treaties to *work*, but they have an *idea*.
Yup; I've had this issue, too, running tech support. The number of times I asked "what's the password..." and was told:
sa/sa
sa/password
sa/*blank*
sa/admin
sa/administrator
Even when a password is set, it's often not strong. To put it mildly.
I've been sitting here reading /. for a couple of months now. I read most of the articles, less of the comments, and keep my threshold at 1, because "first post" and other troll material doesn't interest me.
./ResponderX can say "hey, that's not what I like!", develop and send a response or email, and forget about it in seconds. posterY, on the other hand, now has to deal with hordes of incoming email, up to all of which may be irrelevant "You suck" messages. And folks, I don't care if you think words mean nothing - read 'em long or often enough, and it *will* start to bother you!
What I notice here, with the responses to this article (and, indeed, any like it) are that (wow!) some people agree, some people disagree, and others couldn't care less.
Gee, that sounds like society as a whole, doncha think?
What bothers me are not flames, or offtopic posts, as those are easily avoided. What bothers me, as a reader and someone who might like to comment on occasion, are inappropriate flames.
Some (made up, names mean nothing) samples:
PosterX: I'm a windows user, and have always liked....
/.ResponderY: WINDOZE sUcKs! LiNuX RuleZ! Trash that system and go CLI!
PosterW: I'm not sure I agree. If I want to change memory settings like shared memory, I need to recompile, and that's too much work...
/.ResponderZ: If you can't recompile the kernel, get out of the kitchen!
News article: CompanyQ releases new Windows software for....
./ResponderR: Why do we care? X-program does that already on Linux. Post something we care about!
I can VERY MUCH understand anyone not wanting to post here. If I, as generic PosterX, dare to post anything here that doesn't directly affect Linux/open source in a positive manner, I'm going to get my nuts verbally chopped off. Lord forbid I should question the GPL, or suggest that ANY project is not suitable for an open-source solution!
As many other commenters have noted here, the problem is (IMO) with the speed of response, and the lack of judgement.
Anyways, I feel like I'm done blabbing on for now. The point?
Kneejerk responses aren't necessarily appropriate. Free speech is - but please think first. Maybe there's a reason other people think in different ways - and have different opinions. Try to respect that.
Regards,
Strauss
OK, true and not true. The problem here, as I see it, is that we have the "pro-porn"/"free-speech" folks on one side - and, generally, they are "right". They want to promote free speech, and therefor feel porn should be allowed. Ok. And we have the "anti-porn"/"anti-free-speech" side - which is what Katz was talking about. This side says porn is bad - and therefore should not be available online (or at all). This is the problem - not that they dislike porn, but that they want to stop everyone from getting at it. That - and not the anti-porn stance - is anti-free-speech.
In other words, if you only hear speech about how good sex is, how wonderful pornography is, how liberating it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH. If you only hear speech about how terrible sex is, how horrible pornography is, how exploitative it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH EITHER. Katz is confusing his particular moral stance (sexuality on the net is liberating) with free speech (which is an open exchange of ALL ideas, be they right or wrong).
I agree with your consensus - if you can only ever hear one side, then that's not free speech. However, when one side wants the other to shut up and go away, that's anti-free-speech, regardless of the main topic of the argument. Just my thoughts. -\rgb{00ffff,Strauss}
Just a quick reminder: It's the linux hysteria that's going to fade (according to the report; I reserve judgement). Not the market share; not the value; not the number of users. But look for Linux IPOs to be less spectacular; look for linux announcements from companies to slow down (partially because, hey, many are already on the bandwagon!); and, look for Linux stock prices to drop. Possibly a lot. The day traders and capital gains types will eventually figure out that a company that doesn't make money (with apologies, many do not, at least yet, turn a profit) isn't a "good" investment.
Just some thoughts.
-Strauss
The trick is, "newbies" need not just the raw information (use command X to do Y) but the reasons behind it -- and, more importantly, HOW to find out both the answers and the reasons.
I've spent several years helping friends, family, workmates, and others figure out their computers, be they Windoze, *nix, or other. It took me most of those years to figure out that, if you just tell them "Do X", they will, and then they'll be back. On the other hand, tell them "Do X, here's why, and here's where to find out more" - and preferably take them on the trip in the process - they'll remember. At least for a while - real memory takes repetition, after all, and if they're only setting up a new box every 2-5 years, well, don't expect much ;)
The point is, it's not just the docs. It's not just newbies being silly. It's also those of us willing to teach them - sometimes, it takes the effort of learning to teach first, too.
<RANT>
I've seen a number of posts here from people who say "nuts to the newbies... if that can't do it themselves, scr*w 'em". Or to that effect. Folks, if we want Linux to "win", we -- as the proponents of Linux -- *CANNOT* afford to take that attitude - it simply does not work.
</RANT>
-Strauss
-Strauss
One solution, anyway. Simply tell the spider not to index anything more than X levels deep into a site. Where, of course, X is a relatively small number - say, 5. Alternately, for this sample, look closely at the URL. If you're looking at /foo/foo/foo/bar.html, then there "must" be something wrong with the path, so stop looking there and move back out.