"2. You really think she's anti-hacker. I didn't get that from her book at all..plse explain."
Regardless of what anyone's views of what Mitnick did or didn't do, there is much truth to him saying that the entire first section of her book (I assume you're speaking of Cyberpunk) was by and large potentially libelous material, speaking of incidents like they were the absolute truth when, in fact, they were, at best, third hand information. How would you feel if you were awaiting trial and someone labeled you as the "Dark Side Journalist"?
The *point* was whether or not someone would need to access to a major node to sniff your data.
Yes, this internet is a public network.
No, it does not apply to what I'm saying. Otherwise I could just sit on my dialup link, fire up a sniffer and watch every bit of traffic on the internet go by.
Also, the post I was replying to was the not the original post.
I was always under the impression that if your traffic passes through any sort of localized network it can be sniffed, like an @Home subnet, University network, network at your job etc. Your theory would really only apply to to DSL or dialup and then only if the machine you were contacting was also connected directly to the internet with no sort of network attached to it.
Sorry for the offtopicness, but does anyone remember Thomas M. Disch's Amnesia? That was probably one of the best written (and definitely the longest) text games I've played.
My god, you'd think a Slashdot reader would be the type to hurl accusations before even knowing the facts... : )
As I understand it, the subscription fee will *only* be for those wishing to use the "deluxe" service of napster, where garanteed quality mp3's will be offered. No, they won't be profitting from your cherished semi-fragment of a Metallica song. The free part of the service will remain as is (although I wouldn't be surprised if they skimped on the search servers for it), while they'll offer good connections and high quality stuff to the people who pay. This has been in the Napster FAQ for months people...
I wouldn't say your wasting the USPS's resources. If anything, you're helping them out... don't think they'll let the junk mailer get out of it without paying.
"technology is making people dumber: It is teaching them how to assemble massive amounts of information, of arcane minutia, without simultaneously teaching them how to assemble those bits of information into integrated bodies of knowledge"
The public school system has been doing this for the past 50 years at least. This is a sympton of society in general, not a net specific one.
As to the public's general apathy, how is now any different than any portion of the century in which television was available. Public interest has always taken a back seat to public diversion. Did the Romans need marketers to convince them to watch the gladiatorial matches for days on end, not even leaving to bathe or see to their homes?
"Corporate Regulation vs. Government Regulation" is just rubbish. Sure, corps are dishonest, greedy, and completely driven by profit, but unless Steve Jackson's vision of cyberpunk becomes reality, they don't have at their disposal a heavily armed force to exert their will upon you. Who does? Why our friendly government, just looking out for our best interests.
Honestly, the rest of the article doesn't even deserve comment. As soon as the 300 lb. gorilla of anti-internet propagana, the phantom pedophile, the whole thing just became sensationalistic. Most people lose all sense of rational thought when you talk about the "children". I don't blame them one bit either, but the fact remains, that when you hit upon a very sensitive and volatile subject, they will most likely believe anything they are told, regardless of how credible it is. Carr's philosophy of limited speech should be applied to him and his thinly veiled attempt to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.
Sure sounded like a troll to me as well. That whole open source means free (false), so open source developers are a bunch of commie pinkos (false) argument. By using your wholely uninformed and ridiculous methodology, one could also argue that closed sourced software is created by a greedy capitalist profiteers who will intentionally introduce bugs that don't show up initially so you will be forced to buy their next product that offers no improvements. Or hell, they could be so greedy, they could also introduce backdoors so they could spam your customers, steal your business, etc.
The point is, your argument implies that someone would go to the trouble of developing a huge, complex piece of software merely to sabotage it. Any maniac that actually would waste the time to do that would either be a) Unknown, and therefore there is little chance of the software getting a good word of mouth (are you going to use mission critical software you've never heard of?) or b) known to be raving lunatic. You can argue that you weren't trolling, but you might save your reputation as a critical thinker by saying you were ; ).
I suppose the Visual Studio.NET open beta, the enourmous amount of MS beta newsgroups, and their loyalty to beta testers are evidence that they don't like "outside" people. Sure, for several betas, one must "break in" to prove themselves as a quality tester (not just some idiot who just wants free stuff and doesn't file reports). For their game testers, they often reward them with gratis copies of the finished product.
These kind of mistakes totally negate Rob's argument against a K5 type submission system. They're not *reviewing* anything, just some cursory skimming for keywords or submissions by "preferred" individuals.
What does Rob do anyway? He doesn't work on the code that much anymore. Hell, he even has someone else read his mail for him! If going over submissions is his only responsibility now, you'd think he try a little harder to give a damn.
I've use Slackware before with no problems, and I think the whole idea that Slackware is "hard" is largely outdated. Yes, Slackware used to be more difficult to pick up than something like Redhat, but recently Slackware is not any more difficult or more educational than anything else. Really, is './configure && make && make install' that much more difficult than 'rpm -Uvh' or 'apt-get install'? Slackware even has it's own package management system now too.
Sure, it's supposed to be the most "UNIX-like" distribution, but what is really UNIX nowadays; with Sun's own CEO calling Solaris "Sun's implementation of Linux"?
Re:What all Linux Package Managers Lack...
on
RPM Package Manager
·
· Score: 1
You're running UNSTABLE, what the hell did you expect?!?! Stability?!
I love it when people bitch about how "unfriendly" Debian is when they are explicity told that things will "randomly break" when running unstable. That's why unstable is not released.
The worst part is that you're getting the better end of the deal running unstable Debian. Try running Mandrake Cooker or Rawhide... then you'll have something to complain about.
Well, the W3 recommended the CSS1 spec, and IE, Netscape6, Mozilla, and Opera follow it religiously. Hell, most of them support some of CSS2. Most of the "standards" people talk about being unsupported are, in fact, unfinished. While the base XML standard was solid for a while, other standards that were needed to make it web viable, such as XSLT were not (although I think it just became "stable" recently). No browser vendor in their right mind is going to implement something that is subject to change.
Also, some of the standards are a bit "ambitious", and are therefore hard to implement without breaking backwards compatibility. Some are just a pain to code into a browser (like CSS2's drop shadow effect that should be able to affect any text it is applied to). Sure, someone like MS that has a "Microsoft Universe" to work with will implement silly browser specific stuff, but they will still support standards. Arguably, standards, in part, made IE come out on top in the browser wars. Sure, aspects of their monopoly put pressure on Netscape to make stupid mistakes, and also probably cut down on their overall workforce, slowing them down. The main aspect is that people will always want the web to work better, and standards do just that. The browser makers will cater to that desire or they will perish. Old Netscape died because it didn't move with the times fast enough.
It's not just about device independance, it's about a change in concept. Tables were not intended to be formatting elements, but to contained tabulated information. Previously, there was no other way to do the same kind of formatting that tables accomplished, therefore they were used as such.
Now we have Dynamic Positioning, which negates the necessity to use tables for formatting. It can do everything tables can do, and much, much more. Being able to look at positioning attributes in their own seperate file eases upkeep by an infinite amount when compared to wading through multiple levels of tables that will break if just one of the tables is off by a bit.
Dyanmic Positioning is a CSS element, therefore seperating Style from Content(tm). If everyone started using tables only for their intended purpose, the searching capabilities would expand tenfold. TD stands for Table Data, not "A place to to put yet another grossly overused left-hand nav buried within 10 nested tables".
It's already released (well, as beta at least). MS sent out the beta kit for Visual Studio.NET about a month ago, anyone can get it and try it out. A few weeks ago, ActiveState released the Visual Perl plugin for VS.NET, along with Perl for.NET.
I'd say.NET already has a strong presence, for better or for worse. The Question really is when it's actually going to be released as a final product.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's all that easy, then quit bitching and compile mozilla yourself.
Well, if the debugging info bothers you that much, then you can download the 20MB source and compile it without debugging info...
:)
That already exists. It's called 'Slashdot Stats'. Look for it in your preferences.
Regardless of what anyone's views of what Mitnick did or didn't do, there is much truth to him saying that the entire first section of her book (I assume you're speaking of Cyberpunk) was by and large potentially libelous material, speaking of incidents like they were the absolute truth when, in fact, they were, at best, third hand information. How would you feel if you were awaiting trial and someone labeled you as the "Dark Side Journalist"?
The *point* was whether or not someone would need to access to a major node to sniff your data. Yes, this internet is a public network. No, it does not apply to what I'm saying. Otherwise I could just sit on my dialup link, fire up a sniffer and watch every bit of traffic on the internet go by. Also, the post I was replying to was the not the original post.
I was always under the impression that if your traffic passes through any sort of localized network it can be sniffed, like an @Home subnet, University network, network at your job etc. Your theory would really only apply to to DSL or dialup and then only if the machine you were contacting was also connected directly to the internet with no sort of network attached to it.
Sorry for the offtopicness, but does anyone remember Thomas M. Disch's Amnesia? That was probably one of the best written (and definitely the longest) text games I've played.
My god, you'd think a Slashdot reader would be the type to hurl accusations before even knowing the facts... : )
As I understand it, the subscription fee will *only* be for those wishing to use the "deluxe" service of napster, where garanteed quality mp3's will be offered. No, they won't be profitting from your cherished semi-fragment of a Metallica song. The free part of the service will remain as is (although I wouldn't be surprised if they skimped on the search servers for it), while they'll offer good connections and high quality stuff to the people who pay. This has been in the Napster FAQ for months people...
Actually, your thinking about one of the blind kids he knew that actually clued him in to the whole whistle thing in the first place.
Umm, it won't screw up any of the post office's machinery unless they OPEN IT. In which case, I'd say they deserve it.
I wouldn't say your wasting the USPS's resources. If anything, you're helping them out... don't think they'll let the junk mailer get out of it without paying.
you'll never know...
MS used to have their own UNIX. After they sold the rights to, a term of the contract was that they never produce another version of UNIX.
So, I doubt that's going to happen.
The public school system has been doing this for the past 50 years at least. This is a sympton of society in general, not a net specific one.
As to the public's general apathy, how is now any different than any portion of the century in which television was available. Public interest has always taken a back seat to public diversion. Did the Romans need marketers to convince them to watch the gladiatorial matches for days on end, not even leaving to bathe or see to their homes?
"Corporate Regulation vs. Government Regulation" is just rubbish. Sure, corps are dishonest, greedy, and completely driven by profit, but unless Steve Jackson's vision of cyberpunk becomes reality, they don't have at their disposal a heavily armed force to exert their will upon you. Who does? Why our friendly government, just looking out for our best interests.
Honestly, the rest of the article doesn't even deserve comment. As soon as the 300 lb. gorilla of anti-internet propagana, the phantom pedophile, the whole thing just became sensationalistic. Most people lose all sense of rational thought when you talk about the "children". I don't blame them one bit either, but the fact remains, that when you hit upon a very sensitive and volatile subject, they will most likely believe anything they are told, regardless of how credible it is. Carr's philosophy of limited speech should be applied to him and his thinly veiled attempt to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.
Sure sounded like a troll to me as well. That whole open source means free (false), so open source developers are a bunch of commie pinkos (false) argument. By using your wholely uninformed and ridiculous methodology, one could also argue that closed sourced software is created by a greedy capitalist profiteers who will intentionally introduce bugs that don't show up initially so you will be forced to buy their next product that offers no improvements. Or hell, they could be so greedy, they could also introduce backdoors so they could spam your customers, steal your business, etc.
The point is, your argument implies that someone would go to the trouble of developing a huge, complex piece of software merely to sabotage it. Any maniac that actually would waste the time to do that would either be a) Unknown, and therefore there is little chance of the software getting a good word of mouth (are you going to use mission critical software you've never heard of?) or b) known to be raving lunatic. You can argue that you weren't trolling, but you might save your reputation as a critical thinker by saying you were ; ).
Do you use Linux? Opera's linux browser is beta. I'm not going to pay for something that isn't finished. A nag screen for a beta version is stupid.
I suppose the Visual Studio.NET open beta, the enourmous amount of MS beta newsgroups, and their loyalty to beta testers are evidence that they don't like "outside" people. Sure, for several betas, one must "break in" to prove themselves as a quality tester (not just some idiot who just wants free stuff and doesn't file reports). For their game testers, they often reward them with gratis copies of the finished product.
These kind of mistakes totally negate Rob's argument against a K5 type submission system. They're not *reviewing* anything, just some cursory skimming for keywords or submissions by "preferred" individuals.
What does Rob do anyway? He doesn't work on the code that much anymore. Hell, he even has someone else read his mail for him! If going over submissions is his only responsibility now, you'd think he try a little harder to give a damn.
All the demos run fine in IE5 here...
I've use Slackware before with no problems, and I think the whole idea that Slackware is "hard" is largely outdated. Yes, Slackware used to be more difficult to pick up than something like Redhat, but recently Slackware is not any more difficult or more educational than anything else. Really, is './configure && make && make install' that much more difficult than 'rpm -Uvh' or 'apt-get install'? Slackware even has it's own package management system now too.
Sure, it's supposed to be the most "UNIX-like" distribution, but what is really UNIX nowadays; with Sun's own CEO calling Solaris "Sun's implementation of Linux"?
You're running UNSTABLE, what the hell did you expect?!?! Stability?!
I love it when people bitch about how "unfriendly" Debian is when they are explicity told that things will "randomly break" when running unstable. That's why unstable is not released.
The worst part is that you're getting the better end of the deal running unstable Debian. Try running Mandrake Cooker or Rawhide... then you'll have something to complain about.
Well, the W3 recommended the CSS1 spec, and IE, Netscape6, Mozilla, and Opera follow it religiously. Hell, most of them support some of CSS2. Most of the "standards" people talk about being unsupported are, in fact, unfinished. While the base XML standard was solid for a while, other standards that were needed to make it web viable, such as XSLT were not (although I think it just became "stable" recently). No browser vendor in their right mind is going to implement something that is subject to change.
Also, some of the standards are a bit "ambitious", and are therefore hard to implement without breaking backwards compatibility. Some are just a pain to code into a browser (like CSS2's drop shadow effect that should be able to affect any text it is applied to). Sure, someone like MS that has a "Microsoft Universe" to work with will implement silly browser specific stuff, but they will still support standards. Arguably, standards, in part, made IE come out on top in the browser wars. Sure, aspects of their monopoly put pressure on Netscape to make stupid mistakes, and also probably cut down on their overall workforce, slowing them down. The main aspect is that people will always want the web to work better, and standards do just that. The browser makers will cater to that desire or they will perish. Old Netscape died because it didn't move with the times fast enough.
Yes, XHTML Basic is for internet devices, as it is just a subset for XHTML 1.0, which is a recommended standard for the web as a whole.
It's not just about device independance, it's about a change in concept. Tables were not intended to be formatting elements, but to contained tabulated information. Previously, there was no other way to do the same kind of formatting that tables accomplished, therefore they were used as such.
Now we have Dynamic Positioning, which negates the necessity to use tables for formatting. It can do everything tables can do, and much, much more. Being able to look at positioning attributes in their own seperate file eases upkeep by an infinite amount when compared to wading through multiple levels of tables that will break if just one of the tables is off by a bit.
Dyanmic Positioning is a CSS element, therefore seperating Style from Content(tm). If everyone started using tables only for their intended purpose, the searching capabilities would expand tenfold. TD stands for Table Data, not "A place to to put yet another grossly overused left-hand nav buried within 10 nested tables".
It's already released (well, as beta at least). MS sent out the beta kit for Visual Studio .NET about a month ago, anyone can get it and try it out. A few weeks ago, ActiveState released the Visual Perl plugin for VS.NET, along with Perl for .NET.
I'd say .NET already has a strong presence, for better or for worse. The Question really is when it's actually going to be released as a final product.