Uhhhh...that's what they're doing. If you would have acutally looked at the page, you would have seen it reloads 12 different pages within frames over and over.
>Installing the MS patch will start a string of error messages and BSODs that will make you pull >your hair out!
Actually, the patch is irrelevant to these particular symptoms.
P.S. The point is, you don't even have to open the attachments, dumbass. I'm looking forward to lots more viruses like this that exploit the stupid "executable-as-document" thing M$ likes to promote.
Due to your enlightening comments, I now understand that only commercial enterprises can write browsers. Also, I thought Opera was going to release for Linux (non-free, non-gratis), but you've set me straight, Anonymous Coward.
if we could all collectively 1/bathe,2/haircuts,3/tans,4/workout..we could much better match the jet-sets ability to do the thing that REALLY matters...pick up chicks.
Then what's the point? Anyone who bathes, tans, gets haircuts, works out, etc. picks up chicks more easily. Like I said before, it's more of a question of power (and social skills) than hackerdom. Your boss is more likely to an "elite" than you are, and that's all there is to it- whether you're 'net-literate or not.
So, what you're saying is, you've never gone to an auto mechanic because what they do is such unskilled, low-level work that you could do yourself (since you're such a genius you write your own device drivers)?
I'll believe that when People magazine does a cover-page-graphic profile on the fabulous lifestyles of the Rich and Brain Surgeons.
Writing your device drivers, admittedly, is not something everyone can do, but it is NOT rocket science. It doesn't make you powerful, either. Also, the "jet-set" --> "net-set" theory doesn't have to do with writing your own device drivers. According to the article, it's Internet literacy that counts.
The ability to use the Internet does not grant people social skills. I think we can all find an example of this in someone we know. And why were the "Jet-Set" so popular and envied? Because they provided society with some service? Because they were masters of new technology? Because of their tans? People don't envy the programmers who build products or create new ways to interface, etc.- they envy the CEOs. They envy money. But of course, to quote the article: ``A central fact is that wealth and social power, which mattered most in the old jet set, does not matter at all in cyberspace.'' I keep forgetting. (Of course, you have to be in the very small minority of the world population that can afford a computer and has access to the Internet.) If your ability to use the Internet is what makes you popular, expect your conversations to consist of offering advice to clueless newbies, et al. When cars became mass-produced, did auto mechanics become celebrities? Think about it.
This is the most thoughtful post in this thread yet.
A lot of people here seem to be making a large logical fallacy by assuming that:
A: Communism = bad B: Closed source = bad C: Closed cource = Communism
and working from there (working backwards from the conclusion). Also, people seem to have a need to align software development models on one particular system of production. But it doesn't work out that way.
Remeber what RMS has said about Free software and why it isn't Communist- you can replicate a program infintely easier than replicating a commercial product, like, say, a car. So right there, you have to see you're dealing with an entirely different way of looking at the process of production.
There is also the question of motivation for open sourcing software- a lot of times, necessity being the mother of invention, people open source a program they've written because they need a program that does something like that (e.g., Apache). It's akin to a post-Marxist socialist world, where people build a dam not because they need something to do, want credit for building the thing, or want to charge people for the electricity produced-- they just needed a dam to be built. And everybody who can pitches in, because they'll be benefitting from it.
As for closed source development, let's just look at the facts and say that since software companies charge for their software and (in some cases) deriving profit from the sale of that software, they are capitalists. Simple, no? They are the ones exploiting their software programmers of their labor-power, to put it in Marxian terms.
I think there's a fair amount of truth in what it's saying about open-source not working for companies. After all, if the open-source community can develop for these companies (who all distribute code under their own versions of "open-source" licensing), then why wouldn't they just do it themselves, without the prodding of some major software developer?
But there's a bigger point here- the concept and the goals of companies who want more programmers for free jibe with the idea of free software. The open-source model of software development works best when it belongs to the open-source community. Licenses like Apple's or Netscape aren't really all that helpful (and in the case of the Apple license, insulting).
The way these major companies are handling the open-source momentum is just plain exploitative. But then, is anyone really surprised?
Y'know, you hear all this crap about "code forking" and so forth...These people obviously don't understand the dynamics of the way the Linux kernel work. As long as oversight is centralised (like Linus and AC), then the kernel won't fork. Anyway, Linus owns the copyright to the name, so anything not endorsed by him becomes something else.
As for incompatibility between versions, the closest we've come is libc5/glibc2 crap. Which is really easy to remedy.
Different package types? Compile from source! I use RedHat, but I only use rpms for libraries (and, of course, the base install).
As long as it's still Linux, it'll still be compatible.
Here's the whole report (remember, matt.htm isn't static!) XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX 03/16/99 21:02:58 ET XXXXX BUSINESS @ THE SPEED OF BOUGHT TIME magazine [March 22, 1999] features Bill Gates on its cover this week. The world's richest man gives the world 12 steps for the world's businesses to survive in a new digital world -- a sneak peek from his forthcoming book, BUSINESS @ THE SPEED OF THOUGHT. But in all of the excitement, TIME editors fail to point out that the book's publisher, WARNER BOOKS, is owned by the same parent company, TIME WARNER, that owns TIME magazine! Corporate synergy turned sinergy? Nowhere in the editorial copy of the nation's most trusted news weekly is the reader informed that this week's cover story is an active promotion for a company product, the Bill Gates book, set to be released next week. "This is not news, this is an infocommerical!" declared a senior editor for a competing weekly. Have TIME editors thrown journalistic integrity out the window by shamelessly hyping a TIME WARNER product for sales? "We do books all of the time, like Tom Wolfe's book last year," a TIME magazine editor explained. "We report news. Bill Gates is news. Drudge, if you had a book, we would consider writing about it." Case closed. Flattery will get you everywhere. The Gates book looks impressive and is a very important literary work that deserves every cover! _________________________________________________ Reports are moved when circumstances warrant (c)DRUDGE REPORT 1999 Not for reproduction without permission of the author
Slashdot Mirror
Just trying to access C:/CON/CON will BSOD any Win95/Win98 box. Doesn't work on NT, though- I've tried. You can try it out HERE.
Uhhhh...that's what they're doing. If you would have acutally looked at the page, you would have seen it reloads 12 different pages within frames over and over.
>your hair out!
Actually, the patch is irrelevant to these particular symptoms.
P.S. The point is, you don't even have to open the attachments, dumbass. I'm looking forward to lots more viruses like this that exploit the stupid "executable-as-document" thing M$ likes to promote.
Due to your enlightening comments, I now understand that only commercial enterprises can write browsers. Also, I thought Opera was going to release for Linux (non-free, non-gratis), but you've set me straight, Anonymous Coward.
So, being defrocked doesn't have as much of a stigma attached, right?
Then what's the point? Anyone who bathes, tans, gets haircuts, works out, etc. picks up chicks more easily. Like I said before, it's more of a question of power (and social skills) than hackerdom. Your boss is more likely to an "elite" than you are, and that's all there is to it- whether you're 'net-literate or not.
I'll believe that when People magazine does a cover-page-graphic profile on the fabulous lifestyles of the Rich and Brain Surgeons.
Writing your device drivers, admittedly, is not something everyone can do, but it is NOT rocket science. It doesn't make you powerful, either. Also, the "jet-set" --> "net-set" theory doesn't have to do with writing your own device drivers. According to the article, it's Internet literacy that counts.
The ability to use the Internet does not grant people social skills. I think we can all find an example of this in someone we know.
And why were the "Jet-Set" so popular and envied? Because they provided society with some service? Because they were masters of new technology? Because of their tans?
People don't envy the programmers who build products or create new ways to interface, etc.- they envy the CEOs. They envy money.
But of course, to quote the article: ``A central fact is that wealth and social power, which mattered most in the old jet set, does not matter at all in cyberspace.''
I keep forgetting. (Of course, you have to be in the very small minority of the world population that can afford a computer and has access to the Internet.)
If your ability to use the Internet is what makes you popular, expect your conversations to consist of offering advice to clueless newbies, et al.
When cars became mass-produced, did auto mechanics become celebrities? Think about it.
A lot of people here seem to be making a large logical fallacy by assuming that:
A: Communism = bad
B: Closed source = bad
C: Closed cource = Communism
and working from there (working backwards from the conclusion). Also, people seem to have a need to align software development models on one particular system of production. But it doesn't work out that way.
Remeber what RMS has said about Free software and why it isn't Communist- you can replicate a program infintely easier than replicating a commercial product, like, say, a car. So right there, you have to see you're dealing with an entirely different way of looking at the process of production.
There is also the question of motivation for open sourcing software- a lot of times, necessity being the mother of invention, people open source a program they've written because they need a program that does something like that (e.g., Apache). It's akin to a post-Marxist socialist world, where people build a dam not because they need something to do, want credit for building the thing, or want to charge people for the electricity produced-- they just needed a dam to be built. And everybody who can pitches in, because they'll be benefitting from it.
As for closed source development, let's just look at the facts and say that since software companies charge for their software and (in some cases) deriving profit from the sale of that software, they are capitalists. Simple, no? They are the ones exploiting their software programmers of their labor-power, to put it in Marxian terms.
I'd go on, but I think you get the point.
But there's a bigger point here- the concept and the goals of companies who want more programmers for free jibe with the idea of free software. The open-source model of software development works best when it belongs to the open-source community. Licenses like Apple's or Netscape aren't really all that helpful (and in the case of the Apple license, insulting).
The way these major companies are handling the open-source momentum is just plain exploitative. But then, is anyone really surprised?
As for incompatibility between versions, the closest we've come is libc5/glibc2 crap. Which is really easy to remedy.
Different package types? Compile from source! I use RedHat, but I only use rpms for libraries (and, of course, the base install).
As long as it's still Linux, it'll still be compatible.
Here's the whole report (remember, matt.htm isn't static!) XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX 03/16/99 21:02:58 ET XXXXX BUSINESS @ THE SPEED OF BOUGHT TIME magazine [March 22, 1999] features Bill Gates on its cover this week. The world's richest man gives the world 12 steps for the world's businesses to survive in a new digital world -- a sneak peek from his forthcoming book, BUSINESS @ THE SPEED OF THOUGHT. But in all of the excitement, TIME editors fail to point out that the book's publisher, WARNER BOOKS, is owned by the same parent company, TIME WARNER, that owns TIME magazine! Corporate synergy turned sinergy? Nowhere in the editorial copy of the nation's most trusted news weekly is the reader informed that this week's cover story is an active promotion for a company product, the Bill Gates book, set to be released next week. "This is not news, this is an infocommerical!" declared a senior editor for a competing weekly. Have TIME editors thrown journalistic integrity out the window by shamelessly hyping a TIME WARNER product for sales? "We do books all of the time, like Tom Wolfe's book last year," a TIME magazine editor explained. "We report news. Bill Gates is news. Drudge, if you had a book, we would consider writing about it." Case closed. Flattery will get you everywhere. The Gates book looks impressive and is a very important literary work that deserves every cover! _________________________________________________ Reports are moved when circumstances warrant (c)DRUDGE REPORT 1999 Not for reproduction without permission of the author
The Nation is more in line with the left wing of the old American Democratic party before they shifted to the center. Hardly ultra-left wing.
She should use StarOffice. It kicks ass, plus it has filters for MS Word 95 and 97, so she can shut up about document portability.
:)
Stupid pop-culture airhead.