Not really and Slashdot really highlights it because far too often people who disagree with the poster will mod that post down for no other reason other than that.
The reason why/. doesn't have much spam is because there is no market, how many people on Slashdot would want to buy P3n15 3nh@nc3rz?
Exactly. We need warning labels on things that are really harmful. There is a difference between something that is harmful if you drink 2 liters of it and something where 5 drops can kill you, but warning labels often lack this important difference. Warning labels don't help society but rather harms them because no one will read the label because they expect it to be all stupid things so people ignore things that are really dangerous.
More and more people are switching to things like Ubuntu for small business things like file-servers and the like.
Its cheap, its easy and its stable. I'm sure if you look through all of the businesses running servers, very few of them are ran by real "admins" but rather by the employee who "knows about computers"
There are more and more small businesses (5, 10 or so employees) realizing that they can get things done easier if they had a server. Because the business can't really afford to hire a sysadmin or a full-time tech person, its generally the employee who "knows computers" (you know, the person who has to help the boss check his e-mail every day, etc.) and since they don't have the knowledge of a skilled *Nix admin, a GUI makes their administration a lot easier.
So with the increasing use of servers among non-admins, it only makes sense for a growth in GUI-based solutions.
Yes, and that really is no big deal. If I want to change the volume of my music, I just go to my music app, in Android (and presumably in iOS 4 since it has multitasking too) and change it there then go back to my e-Reader app and the like. Just like how the keys WASD move my character around in a FPS and type out WASD when I'm in my web browser, the rocker keys can turn a page in an e-reader app and change the volume in the music player and act like a camera button in a camera app.
Works just fine for Android, the GP2x and about every other device I've owned that doesn't have an Apple sticker on it.
And quite honestly, scrolling through rocker buttons like the volume buttons on my Android phone is easier than using my Nook's back and forward button and that is a dedicated e-reader!
Not to mention that it turns an entire battle scene into a bloodless cakewalk. I mean, granted the books weren't gorefests but come on, a huge battle with really no casualties on either side? No one bleeds when shot with an arrow or attacked with a sword?
Ah, yes, totally a troll comment. Despite the fact that every single one of my points can be backed up with facts if the moderator wasn't a complete dumbass.
Lets see here, Sony disabled an entire feature to try to avoid homebrew (the OtherOS feature), and keeps on patching and trying to block people from jailbreaking their PS3s.
Microsoft bans people from Xbox Live if they detect they are using a console that is modified in any way.
Nintendo simply releases a patch about every 6 months that removes the Homebrew channel and within a week or so, Team Twiizers and the like come up with a way around it and homebrew continues like normal.
As for the second one, look at "No More Heroes", a profanity-laced violent game for the Wii and Manhunt 2 was also released for the Wii with a whole host of other violent games.
And no, Microsoft and Sony don't allow AO porn games on their consoles either so that is a moot point.
I've considered affirmative action, but it solves none of the core problems of racism, its simply racist in the motivation.
The very idea that some ethnic groups need help "leveling the playing field" implies that the majority is superior to the minority and it is in the same vein of the "white man's burden" that minorities would never achieve greatness if it wasn't for the "superiority" of the majority culture.
If someone believes that all people are created equally without regard to race, then there is no need to support affirmative action because someone, no matter their race, could become just as qualified as the majority which also needs to work just as hard as the minorities to reach the qualifications.
The only justification of affirmative action in 2010, is if you believe that minority races have deficiencies that the majority race does not, such as a lower-than-average intelligence or the like and would thus need more help to succeed.
A good affirmative action program uses a variety of methods to achieve the goal of increasing diversity, including using race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant.
Could it be more clear right there? Yeah they say its not a "primary" method of choosing applicants, but something tells me if I decided to make race a "non-primary" condition in hiring a workforce in order to "have an ethnically homogeneous workforce" I would be branded a racist, but if I do the same thing in order to create a "diverse" workplace suddenly thats not racist? Anytime you use race as a factor in choosing an applicant it is racism.
Applicants should be chosen solely by their qualifications. If they happen to be qualified and white, black, hispanic, asian, gay, strait, female, male, transvestite, american indian, etc. then you should hire them because they are qualified not because they are white, black, hispanic, asian, gay, strait, female, male, transvestite, american indian, etc. but that isn't what affirmative action is, affirmative action is setting a higher standard for people of the majority and loosening your standards to hire minorities. It is a double standard based on race/gender/etc.
For example, when universities offer a scholarship to increase "diversity" by, say, giving $1,000 to applicants who are latino, black or asian with a 3.5 GPA but only give a $500 scholarship for people in the majority that is just as racist as giving $1,000 to someone if they were white and only $500 if they were in the minority.
The very goal of "increasing diversity" is a racist goal, it assumes either that without special help minorities would not be able to legitimately have just as good of qualifications as the majority or something negative about the majority.
We should not aim to "increase diversity" but rather aim to have a fair system that puts everyone on a level playing field, which is to give preferential treatment to no one, white, black, hispanic, asian, etc. but rather completely ignore race as any part of the decision.
Why shouldn't buttons be multi-purpose though? There are 3 buttons on an iPhone 4 and one switch. One of the buttons is used to exit the app, the other two should be used as needed. There are a lot of ways that buttons can be used for more than one purpose. For example, in the camera app, there would be no need to have music playing, if you want to change the volume of your phone you could just use the silent/loud switch included. Rocker buttons are very nice for page scrolling when holding a phone in vertical mode and would be useful in the camera app. Android lets apps switch functions of the buttons and its not frustrating, its very convenient on a touch-phone with very few physical buttons.
Nintendo learned that they shouldn't restrict programs based on some censorship code.
While it is true that Nintendo isn't that indie friendly, they are the most friendly out of the 3 when it comes to homebrew development.
and they are strict about adult games.
[Citation needed] Nintendo is no more strict about "adult" games than Sony or Microsoft is. The reason why you don't see a huge amount of mature titles for the Wii is more self-censorship and studios reluctant to spend a lot of money developing a game for what is seen as a "kiddy" console.
The problem with Android is that even though it lets you see what other apps can do, Google doesn't offer something simple like a checkbox to turn off their capabilities when people don't want them to run. Once Google implements something like that, it will be smooth sailing for Android.
But you've also got the black box problem, everything you run on the iPhone is based on trust with Apple, for all we know, there -could- very well be malicious apps in the app store that got through. The difference is, its a lot easier to detect malware running on Android than on iOS.
When will Apple learn what Nintendo learned back in the 90s, consumers don't like censorship and will but their games from the platform that doesn't have censorship.
If Apple intends their iPhone to be more than "the obsolete product that started a revolution" they need to change their policies. People want to use the devices that they paid for in the ways they want, otherwise, a rival platform (probably Android) will have a "killer app" rejected from the Apple app store and Apple will pay the price like Nintendo did with Mortal Kombat.
Same here, if a company runs an annoying commercial it makes me less likely to buy that product. If a company's ads manage to get through my hosts file, I'm not going to buy from them. Internet advertising is scummy to begin with, and if I see an ad online for some virus scaner/spam blocker/etc I'm going to think its malware and not even bother with it.
The thing that is broken about it is that it is racist. If we abolish affirmative action and concentrate simply on equal-opportunity employment the system is no longer racist because the system no longer differentiate between race as a primary method of choosing applicants.
No affirmative action does not level the playing field. The only way that someone would think that affirmative action levels a playing field is if they were racist and believe that minorities cannot compete based on qualifications alone.
What levels the playing field is employment based solely on qualifications, totally ignoring race. Same thing with education and the like.
If we really want to take racism out of the equation, we shouldn't use race as a basis for anything, but affirmative action is not like that, affirmative action is simply racism because you give preferential treatment to someone based solely on their birth. Affirmative action takes the statement "All men are created equal" and turns it into "All men are created equal but some men are created more equal than others".
So long as affirmative action remains, racism will remain.
A good affirmative action program uses a variety of methods to achieve the goal of increasing diversity, including using race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant.
Now, anytime you include "race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant" that is racism right there.
Race and gender shouldn't matter it should be equal and should be based solely on qualifications.
More structural solutions are required to promote economic and educational equality, including a long overdue and practical Marshall Plan to eliminate poverty in the United States, and an education-focused restitution trust fund.
In other words, Nader is comparing war-ravaged Europe to the mentality of minorities. That simply by being a minority they need extra assistance in getting an education. How is that not racist?
Any time you use race to determine how much you are going to give someone as a scholarship, that right there is racist, especially when you are using taxpayer funds to do that.
At the federal level, authentic minority set-asides and affirmative-action arrangements are a modest way to support the growth of businesses owned and controlled by people of color. Affirmative action is a modest means for businesses to redress historic discrimination. Affirmative action at universities is an important tool to promote campus diversity and educational equality.
Again, Nader is using racist language. This idea of "diversity" being a huge goal is simply racist rhetoric. It sounds more or less like Animal Farm "All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others".
Nader is either saying one of two things here, he is either saying that non-minority races have little to add to society or he is saying that minority races, given an equal playing field have no chance because they can never get enough qualifications to fairly compete with non-minorities.
The Justice Department should intervene to oppose judicial rulings against affirmative action in higher education and other spheres.
And here again, Nader is arguing in favor of racism demanding that any rules against racism be struck down.
Based on his own website, I think it is safe to say that Nader's view of affirmative action is racist.
I actually preferred The Hobbit to the LoTR trilogy by far. The Hobbit was much better written, I actually enjoyed reading through the entire book while it seemed like I had to force myself to read the LoTR trilogy. While LoTR had a better plot, when it comes to the actual book, I much preferred The Hobbit.
While it could be said that -any- movie wasn't as good as the book, I really thought that the LoTR trilogy was really, really well done. Now, if you want to see a good book series get murdered in film, look at the Narnia movies...
Not really, while I admire the FSF and admire Stallman for his code contribution, a Nader/Stallman ticket would be disastrous for the country. Especially the Nader part. Straight from his website he endorses racism in the form of affirmative action. Affirmative action is nothing more than basic racism, choosing someone because of their race or gender in order to fulfill a bullshit dream of "increasing diversity". Unless you believe that minorities are incapable of being as qualified as white people or women more incapable compared to men, you shouldn't support affirmative action, you should instead choose to have free-market solutions where everyone is level and people are chosen because of their qualifications, not excluding a white male with superior credentials in order to take a black female with fewer qualifications. Nader also mistakenly believes that government can be a solution for problems when historically governments have just made bad situations worse. Nader also maintains a laughable belief in moving away from safe, effective nuclear energy with more subsidies for solar energy despite nuclear power being more safe and cost-effective. He also proposes adding in new taxes which would slow down an already stagnating economy, etc.
The other reasons it won't be in the press: It didn't make it to space and it seems like everyone else is doing it too. Yeah, its a nice accomplishment, yeah, they should be proud of it but its not unique in the least, it seems like the past year everyone has been doing essentially what they have done.
Because the US doesn't think and uses paranoia to erode rights. We were attacked using a plane so therefore "OMG ITS A PLANE IT COULD BE A TERRORIST ATTACK!!!1111!111!" is in most people's minds whereas really a bus hijacking doesn't stick in people's minds.
The entire thing is about control, the US government, like every other government wants as much fine-grained control as possible over their citizens. If they can get it through mass cooperation, they will do it. No, I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, what I am saying though is that 9/11 simply opened up a major way for the US government to gain more control and have a large amount of public support.
Yeah, because we know how often bomb threats end up being real bombs, especially when e-mailed. Quite honestly, unless someone physically comes in, shows a suspicious package and says "I have a bomb" no one should be worried at all. Lets face it, there really hasn't been a single incident where a bomb threat was called in and carried out. There have been lots of bombings but if your idea is to blow shit up, or kill people, you don't call in threats. Our idea of "OMG A BOMB THREAT WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!1111!111!11!" has no basis in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really and Slashdot really highlights it because far too often people who disagree with the poster will mod that post down for no other reason other than that.
/. doesn't have much spam is because there is no market, how many people on Slashdot would want to buy P3n15 3nh@nc3rz?
The reason why
Exactly. We need warning labels on things that are really harmful. There is a difference between something that is harmful if you drink 2 liters of it and something where 5 drops can kill you, but warning labels often lack this important difference. Warning labels don't help society but rather harms them because no one will read the label because they expect it to be all stupid things so people ignore things that are really dangerous.
More and more people are switching to things like Ubuntu for small business things like file-servers and the like.
Its cheap, its easy and its stable. I'm sure if you look through all of the businesses running servers, very few of them are ran by real "admins" but rather by the employee who "knows about computers"
There are more and more small businesses (5, 10 or so employees) realizing that they can get things done easier if they had a server. Because the business can't really afford to hire a sysadmin or a full-time tech person, its generally the employee who "knows computers" (you know, the person who has to help the boss check his e-mail every day, etc.) and since they don't have the knowledge of a skilled *Nix admin, a GUI makes their administration a lot easier.
So with the increasing use of servers among non-admins, it only makes sense for a growth in GUI-based solutions.
Yes, and that really is no big deal. If I want to change the volume of my music, I just go to my music app, in Android (and presumably in iOS 4 since it has multitasking too) and change it there then go back to my e-Reader app and the like. Just like how the keys WASD move my character around in a FPS and type out WASD when I'm in my web browser, the rocker keys can turn a page in an e-reader app and change the volume in the music player and act like a camera button in a camera app.
Works just fine for Android, the GP2x and about every other device I've owned that doesn't have an Apple sticker on it.
And quite honestly, scrolling through rocker buttons like the volume buttons on my Android phone is easier than using my Nook's back and forward button and that is a dedicated e-reader!
Not to mention that it turns an entire battle scene into a bloodless cakewalk. I mean, granted the books weren't gorefests but come on, a huge battle with really no casualties on either side? No one bleeds when shot with an arrow or attacked with a sword?
Ah, yes, totally a troll comment. Despite the fact that every single one of my points can be backed up with facts if the moderator wasn't a complete dumbass.
Lets see here, Sony disabled an entire feature to try to avoid homebrew (the OtherOS feature), and keeps on patching and trying to block people from jailbreaking their PS3s.
Microsoft bans people from Xbox Live if they detect they are using a console that is modified in any way.
Nintendo simply releases a patch about every 6 months that removes the Homebrew channel and within a week or so, Team Twiizers and the like come up with a way around it and homebrew continues like normal.
As for the second one, look at "No More Heroes", a profanity-laced violent game for the Wii and Manhunt 2 was also released for the Wii with a whole host of other violent games.
And no, Microsoft and Sony don't allow AO porn games on their consoles either so that is a moot point.
I've considered affirmative action, but it solves none of the core problems of racism, its simply racist in the motivation.
The very idea that some ethnic groups need help "leveling the playing field" implies that the majority is superior to the minority and it is in the same vein of the "white man's burden" that minorities would never achieve greatness if it wasn't for the "superiority" of the majority culture.
If someone believes that all people are created equally without regard to race, then there is no need to support affirmative action because someone, no matter their race, could become just as qualified as the majority which also needs to work just as hard as the minorities to reach the qualifications.
The only justification of affirmative action in 2010, is if you believe that minority races have deficiencies that the majority race does not, such as a lower-than-average intelligence or the like and would thus need more help to succeed.
A good affirmative action program uses a variety of methods to achieve the goal of increasing diversity, including using race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant.
Could it be more clear right there? Yeah they say its not a "primary" method of choosing applicants, but something tells me if I decided to make race a "non-primary" condition in hiring a workforce in order to "have an ethnically homogeneous workforce" I would be branded a racist, but if I do the same thing in order to create a "diverse" workplace suddenly thats not racist? Anytime you use race as a factor in choosing an applicant it is racism.
Applicants should be chosen solely by their qualifications. If they happen to be qualified and white, black, hispanic, asian, gay, strait, female, male, transvestite, american indian, etc. then you should hire them because they are qualified not because they are white, black, hispanic, asian, gay, strait, female, male, transvestite, american indian, etc. but that isn't what affirmative action is, affirmative action is setting a higher standard for people of the majority and loosening your standards to hire minorities. It is a double standard based on race/gender/etc.
For example, when universities offer a scholarship to increase "diversity" by, say, giving $1,000 to applicants who are latino, black or asian with a 3.5 GPA but only give a $500 scholarship for people in the majority that is just as racist as giving $1,000 to someone if they were white and only $500 if they were in the minority.
The very goal of "increasing diversity" is a racist goal, it assumes either that without special help minorities would not be able to legitimately have just as good of qualifications as the majority or something negative about the majority.
We should not aim to "increase diversity" but rather aim to have a fair system that puts everyone on a level playing field, which is to give preferential treatment to no one, white, black, hispanic, asian, etc. but rather completely ignore race as any part of the decision.
Why shouldn't buttons be multi-purpose though? There are 3 buttons on an iPhone 4 and one switch. One of the buttons is used to exit the app, the other two should be used as needed. There are a lot of ways that buttons can be used for more than one purpose. For example, in the camera app, there would be no need to have music playing, if you want to change the volume of your phone you could just use the silent/loud switch included. Rocker buttons are very nice for page scrolling when holding a phone in vertical mode and would be useful in the camera app. Android lets apps switch functions of the buttons and its not frustrating, its very convenient on a touch-phone with very few physical buttons.
While it is true that Nintendo isn't that indie friendly, they are the most friendly out of the 3 when it comes to homebrew development.
and they are strict about adult games.
[Citation needed] Nintendo is no more strict about "adult" games than Sony or Microsoft is. The reason why you don't see a huge amount of mature titles for the Wii is more self-censorship and studios reluctant to spend a lot of money developing a game for what is seen as a "kiddy" console.
The problem with Android is that even though it lets you see what other apps can do, Google doesn't offer something simple like a checkbox to turn off their capabilities when people don't want them to run. Once Google implements something like that, it will be smooth sailing for Android.
But you've also got the black box problem, everything you run on the iPhone is based on trust with Apple, for all we know, there -could- very well be malicious apps in the app store that got through. The difference is, its a lot easier to detect malware running on Android than on iOS.
When will Apple learn what Nintendo learned back in the 90s, consumers don't like censorship and will but their games from the platform that doesn't have censorship.
If Apple intends their iPhone to be more than "the obsolete product that started a revolution" they need to change their policies. People want to use the devices that they paid for in the ways they want, otherwise, a rival platform (probably Android) will have a "killer app" rejected from the Apple app store and Apple will pay the price like Nintendo did with Mortal Kombat.
Same here, if a company runs an annoying commercial it makes me less likely to buy that product. If a company's ads manage to get through my hosts file, I'm not going to buy from them. Internet advertising is scummy to begin with, and if I see an ad online for some virus scaner/spam blocker/etc I'm going to think its malware and not even bother with it.
The thing that is broken about it is that it is racist. If we abolish affirmative action and concentrate simply on equal-opportunity employment the system is no longer racist because the system no longer differentiate between race as a primary method of choosing applicants.
No affirmative action does not level the playing field. The only way that someone would think that affirmative action levels a playing field is if they were racist and believe that minorities cannot compete based on qualifications alone.
What levels the playing field is employment based solely on qualifications, totally ignoring race. Same thing with education and the like.
If we really want to take racism out of the equation, we shouldn't use race as a basis for anything, but affirmative action is not like that, affirmative action is simply racism because you give preferential treatment to someone based solely on their birth. Affirmative action takes the statement "All men are created equal" and turns it into "All men are created equal but some men are created more equal than others".
So long as affirmative action remains, racism will remain.
A good affirmative action program uses a variety of methods to achieve the goal of increasing diversity, including using race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant.
Now, anytime you include "race and gender as one of many factors in evaluating the suitability of an applicant" that is racism right there.
Race and gender shouldn't matter it should be equal and should be based solely on qualifications.
More structural solutions are required to promote economic and educational equality, including a long overdue and practical Marshall Plan to eliminate poverty in the United States, and an education-focused restitution trust fund.
In other words, Nader is comparing war-ravaged Europe to the mentality of minorities. That simply by being a minority they need extra assistance in getting an education. How is that not racist?
Any time you use race to determine how much you are going to give someone as a scholarship, that right there is racist, especially when you are using taxpayer funds to do that.
At the federal level, authentic minority set-asides and affirmative-action arrangements are a modest way to support the growth of businesses owned and controlled by people of color. Affirmative action is a modest means for businesses to redress historic discrimination. Affirmative action at universities is an important tool to promote campus diversity and educational equality.
Again, Nader is using racist language. This idea of "diversity" being a huge goal is simply racist rhetoric. It sounds more or less like Animal Farm "All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others".
Nader is either saying one of two things here, he is either saying that non-minority races have little to add to society or he is saying that minority races, given an equal playing field have no chance because they can never get enough qualifications to fairly compete with non-minorities.
The Justice Department should intervene to oppose judicial rulings against affirmative action in higher education and other spheres.
And here again, Nader is arguing in favor of racism demanding that any rules against racism be struck down.
Based on his own website, I think it is safe to say that Nader's view of affirmative action is racist.
I actually preferred The Hobbit to the LoTR trilogy by far. The Hobbit was much better written, I actually enjoyed reading through the entire book while it seemed like I had to force myself to read the LoTR trilogy. While LoTR had a better plot, when it comes to the actual book, I much preferred The Hobbit.
While it could be said that -any- movie wasn't as good as the book, I really thought that the LoTR trilogy was really, really well done. Now, if you want to see a good book series get murdered in film, look at the Narnia movies...
Not really, while I admire the FSF and admire Stallman for his code contribution, a Nader/Stallman ticket would be disastrous for the country. Especially the Nader part. Straight from his website he endorses racism in the form of affirmative action. Affirmative action is nothing more than basic racism, choosing someone because of their race or gender in order to fulfill a bullshit dream of "increasing diversity". Unless you believe that minorities are incapable of being as qualified as white people or women more incapable compared to men, you shouldn't support affirmative action, you should instead choose to have free-market solutions where everyone is level and people are chosen because of their qualifications, not excluding a white male with superior credentials in order to take a black female with fewer qualifications. Nader also mistakenly believes that government can be a solution for problems when historically governments have just made bad situations worse. Nader also maintains a laughable belief in moving away from safe, effective nuclear energy with more subsidies for solar energy despite nuclear power being more safe and cost-effective. He also proposes adding in new taxes which would slow down an already stagnating economy, etc.
The other reasons it won't be in the press: It didn't make it to space and it seems like everyone else is doing it too. Yeah, its a nice accomplishment, yeah, they should be proud of it but its not unique in the least, it seems like the past year everyone has been doing essentially what they have done.
Because the US doesn't think and uses paranoia to erode rights. We were attacked using a plane so therefore "OMG ITS A PLANE IT COULD BE A TERRORIST ATTACK!!!1111!111!" is in most people's minds whereas really a bus hijacking doesn't stick in people's minds.
The entire thing is about control, the US government, like every other government wants as much fine-grained control as possible over their citizens. If they can get it through mass cooperation, they will do it. No, I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, what I am saying though is that 9/11 simply opened up a major way for the US government to gain more control and have a large amount of public support.
I don't know about you, but a company which disables features is not a company I'm going to be buying from.
Yeah, because we know how often bomb threats end up being real bombs, especially when e-mailed. Quite honestly, unless someone physically comes in, shows a suspicious package and says "I have a bomb" no one should be worried at all. Lets face it, there really hasn't been a single incident where a bomb threat was called in and carried out. There have been lots of bombings but if your idea is to blow shit up, or kill people, you don't call in threats. Our idea of "OMG A BOMB THREAT WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!1111!111!11!" has no basis in fact.