Don't be ridiculous. This war has nothing to do with WMDs or UN resolutions and everything to do with oil. Case in point: Israel has been ignoring UN resolutions for thirty years and have had WMDs for as long. And what does the US do? It supports them. Also, please note that the UN is against an attack on Iraq. How do you reconcile that fact with your "the UN knows this"-rhetoric? Bringing up Hitler and WWII is also really quite disingenious, as it's not like the reasons the US joined the war at all was as noble as you seem to think. Must... not... bite...
I could go on and on, but what's the point? Anyone who hasn't already understood what this war will be fought for will never.
Agreed. It wastes a lot of people's time when editors or story authors (in the absense of competent editors) try to show how "with it" they are by not expanding acronyms, especially when they have not recently been used in a slashot headline.
You could not possibly be serious. If you have read any single issue of any newspaper during the last year you must have seen that acronym. And the latter part of your comment is just hilarious. It hasn't featured in a Slashdot headline, so you couldn't know about it? Want them to clarify who Saddam is too? He doesn't frequent Slashdot headlines all to often either.
Sorry for flamebating/trolling/whatever, but really, try to get out of your cubicle just a little more often, willya?
Credit where credit is due, slightly OT
on
Saddam's Inbox Hacked
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Just in case that is actually modded up and someone finds it funny, I didn't come up with it myself. I read it in a Plastic discussion a while ago. I can't remember which, however, and I can't remember who said it, so I guess this isn't much help tracing down the original source. I just didn't want credit for such a brilliant acronym unless I came up with it myself.
Saddam's personal homepage is right now being subjected to what appears to be a large scale DDOS attack. After Saddam has butchered his sysadmin and the hackers, he's coming for you Jamie...
None of your examples show open-source software displacing a preexisting proprietary app that was #1 in its category.
Really? You think that there were no operating systems before 1999? Or no Internet? Or that ASP is not proprietary (sure, ASP is a language, if you're going to nitpick, but the software associated with it is proprietary)?
And those were just off the top of my head. Like I said, of course there are other examples. Don't be disingenious.
For all the open-source software movement's successes, I'm not aware of any case in which an entrenched proprietary program was pushed out of first place in the market by open-source software.
Linux was in 1999 (I don't know how it is today) the most widely used server operating system on the internet.
Apache is the top web server.
PHP has surpassed ASP in terms of number of users and is now the most widely used server side scripting language.
Sendmail is the leading email server (over, for example, Microsoft Exchange).
OpenSSH is the Internet's most widely used implementation of SSH.
Granted, some of these may never have pushed anything other than other OSS/FS products out of first place (such as Apache, whose predecessor was the NCSA web server), but aren't there a gazillion other examples anyway? I have a hard time taking anyone who makes such bold assertions, without even trying to first evaluate them, seriously.
People are saying by and large, `It might be easier for me to move my Unix apps to Linux than to Windows,' although we're pretty close to making that untrue.
Somehow I doubt this. Anyone has any idea what he's talking about?
So your complaint does not really concern the system, but rather the potential users of it. It is not at all clear that this is what you meant by your original post, if it indeed was.
Nice to know that somebody actually read replies to their comments even if the story is more than 15 minutes old though.
First one I really think should be in your faq, but that I haven't been able to find there: why did you choose the name of an millenia old epos about a Scandinavian warrior for something that does not even seem distantly related?
Secondly, do you read Slashdot, and if so, what do you think about all the troll jokes about Beowulfs? Was at least funny in the beginning to hear about people "imagining" clusters of just about anything?
Ok, so it was more than two questions. Sue me.
Tangetial != off topic
on
Slack
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Have you really nothing better to waste your mod points on?
That's why I said "mostly" - I know some of his books deal with the regular tin-foil hat paranoia the submitter was referring to.
Remember also that Dick was insane during the last years of his life, probably schizophrenic. He was not only stalked by the FBI, but by aliens, God, and pretty much everything else as well.
Re:get it at a little less
on
Slack
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
True. But moderators usually mods down even the first "Amazon is cheaper"-post, believing that this is already common knowledge. This is what I wanted to avoid.
But of course it's redundant if it's already been said.
get it at a little less
on
Slack
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As usual, this book is a couple of bucks less at Amazon, or even more than a couple if you don't mind a used copy.
And moderators, this isn't redundant. A lot of people actually think Slashdot links the cheapest site.
Yeah, or even Thomas Jefferson. Or the ancient Greeks.
Agreed. Not only is he a relatively obscure (for the masses, that is) dead sci-fi author, he was also not very interested in politics, his books do mostly deal with metaphysical issues rather than the more "mundane" paranoia considered here, and the greeks predated him by a couple of thousand years.
The writeups on this place are sometimes so silly as to defy reason.
with the amusing conclusion that BeOS isn't dead after all!
Not dead, but probably dying. And a couple of hundred trolls are willing to prove it to you. In related news, Natalie Portman was recently found to naked and petrified pour hot grits down the pants of a beowolf cluster.
This is probably a good time to check the "No Score +1 Bonus" button.
User A types: rm -rf/shared_network_drive User B types: rm -rf/shared_network_drive
The difference is that User A was trying to delete everyone's stuff, while User B, knowing how the permissions on the files work, was just trying to find a lazy way to delete those files that he has permissions on because he was trying to clear his own junk out of the/shared_network_drive. He was being sloppy, but not malicious.
How does the software know the difference?
How do you know the difference? Nothing differs between the users issuing these commands other than their intent. This is not something a human sysadmin could know either. Given that there is no system in the world, including a human element or not, that could say who had what in mind in the scenario you describe, you are unfair in requiring this of the system in question.
So, it isn't perfect. But did you really expect it to be? Any system will necessarily have to provide a number of false positives (such as the one you described). This does not imply that it couldn't work very well overall.
Also, it could be argued that a warning really should go off even if the user had no malicious intent, as using rm -rf on other people's files because of pure lazyness is not something that should be encouraged anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention "remote hole."
Ok, now it's getting yucky. I'll quit.
Brings a whole new meaning to "man in the middle attack," doesn't it?
Don't be ridiculous. This war has nothing to do with WMDs or UN resolutions and everything to do with oil. Case in point: Israel has been ignoring UN resolutions for thirty years and have had WMDs for as long. And what does the US do? It supports them. Also, please note that the UN is against an attack on Iraq. How do you reconcile that fact with your "the UN knows this"-rhetoric? Bringing up Hitler and WWII is also really quite disingenious, as it's not like the reasons the US joined the war at all was as noble as you seem to think. Must... not... bite...
I could go on and on, but what's the point? Anyone who hasn't already understood what this war will be fought for will never.
Agreed. It wastes a lot of people's time when editors or story authors (in the absense of competent editors) try to show how "with it" they are by not expanding acronyms, especially when they have not recently been used in a slashot headline.
You could not possibly be serious. If you have read any single issue of any newspaper during the last year you must have seen that acronym. And the latter part of your comment is just hilarious. It hasn't featured in a Slashdot headline, so you couldn't know about it? Want them to clarify who Saddam is too? He doesn't frequent Slashdot headlines all to often either.
Sorry for flamebating/trolling/whatever, but really, try to get out of your cubicle just a little more often, willya?
Just in case that is actually modded up and someone finds it funny, I didn't come up with it myself. I read it in a Plastic discussion a while ago. I can't remember which, however, and I can't remember who said it, so I guess this isn't much help tracing down the original source. I just didn't want credit for such a brilliant acronym unless I came up with it myself.
Saddam's personal homepage is right now being subjected to what appears to be a large scale DDOS attack. After Saddam has butchered his sysadmin and the hackers, he's coming for you Jamie...
Or was it only that I thought it should be?
Sure, your job is safe, but how about your life?
I vaguely recall a similar picture of a suicide setup. I'm serious.
None of your examples show open-source software displacing a preexisting proprietary app that was #1 in its category.
Really? You think that there were no operating systems before 1999? Or no Internet? Or that ASP is not proprietary (sure, ASP is a language, if you're going to nitpick, but the software associated with it is proprietary)?
And those were just off the top of my head. Like I said, of course there are other examples. Don't be disingenious.
For all the open-source software movement's successes, I'm not aware of any case in which an entrenched proprietary program was pushed out of first place in the market by open-source software.
Linux was in 1999 (I don't know how it is today) the most widely used server operating system on the internet.
Apache is the top web server.
PHP has surpassed ASP in terms of number of users and is now the most widely used server side scripting language.
Sendmail is the leading email server (over, for example, Microsoft Exchange).
OpenSSH is the Internet's most widely used implementation of SSH.
Granted, some of these may never have pushed anything other than other OSS/FS products out of first place (such as Apache, whose predecessor was the NCSA web server), but aren't there a gazillion other examples anyway? I have a hard time taking anyone who makes such bold assertions, without even trying to first evaluate them, seriously.
People are saying by and large, `It might be easier for me to move my Unix apps to Linux than to Windows,' although we're pretty close to making that untrue.
Somehow I doubt this. Anyone has any idea what he's talking about?
Ballmer sees Free Software as Enemy No. 1
Well, why not? It is.
So your complaint does not really concern the system, but rather the potential users of it. It is not at all clear that this is what you meant by your original post, if it indeed was.
Nice to know that somebody actually read replies to their comments even if the story is more than 15 minutes old though.
I know all this. I'm not saying he wasn't a good author or that he wasn't paranoid. What I meant to say was rather something like this.
That's "a millennia," not "an millenia." Sorry. I can't even stand my own spelling mistakes.
First one I really think should be in your faq, but that I haven't been able to find there: why did you choose the name of an millenia old epos about a Scandinavian warrior for something that does not even seem distantly related?
Secondly, do you read Slashdot, and if so, what do you think about all the troll jokes about Beowulfs? Was at least funny in the beginning to hear about people "imagining" clusters of just about anything?
Ok, so it was more than two questions. Sue me.
Have you really nothing better to waste your mod points on?
That's why I said "mostly" - I know some of his books deal with the regular tin-foil hat paranoia the submitter was referring to.
Remember also that Dick was insane during the last years of his life, probably schizophrenic. He was not only stalked by the FBI, but by aliens, God, and pretty much everything else as well.
True. But moderators usually mods down even the first "Amazon is cheaper"-post, believing that this is already common knowledge. This is what I wanted to avoid.
But of course it's redundant if it's already been said.
As usual, this book is a couple of bucks less at Amazon, or even more than a couple if you don't mind a used copy.
And moderators, this isn't redundant. A lot of people actually think Slashdot links the cheapest site.
Yeah, or even Thomas Jefferson. Or the ancient Greeks.
Agreed. Not only is he a relatively obscure (for the masses, that is) dead sci-fi author, he was also not very interested in politics, his books do mostly deal with metaphysical issues rather than the more "mundane" paranoia considered here, and the greeks predated him by a couple of thousand years.
The writeups on this place are sometimes so silly as to defy reason.
Maybe Philip K. Dick was right to be paranoid about governments.
Was this an attempt to sound clever? If it was, it failed spectacularly, for reasons too numerous to be worthy of explanation.
with the amusing conclusion that BeOS isn't dead after all!
Not dead, but probably dying. And a couple of hundred trolls are willing to prove it to you. In related news, Natalie Portman was recently found to naked and petrified pour hot grits down the pants of a beowolf cluster.
This is probably a good time to check the "No Score +1 Bonus" button.
Any time someone mentions a "success rate" without also mentioning the false positive rate, they're feeding you garbage
How about the other way round?
I'd be much more impressed by a claim of an 0.001% false alarm rate than I am by a 94% success rate.
Tsssk... I can get you 0% any time of the day.
User A types: rm -rf /shared_network_drive /shared_network_drive
/shared_network_drive. He was being sloppy, but not malicious.
User B types: rm -rf
The difference is that User A was trying to delete everyone's stuff, while User B, knowing how the permissions on the files work, was just trying to find a lazy way to delete those files that he has permissions on because he was trying to clear his own junk out of the
How does the software know the difference?
How do you know the difference? Nothing differs between the users issuing these commands other than their intent. This is not something a human sysadmin could know either. Given that there is no system in the world, including a human element or not, that could say who had what in mind in the scenario you describe, you are unfair in requiring this of the system in question.
So, it isn't perfect. But did you really expect it to be? Any system will necessarily have to provide a number of false positives (such as the one you described). This does not imply that it couldn't work very well overall.
Also, it could be argued that a warning really should go off even if the user had no malicious intent, as using rm -rf on other people's files because of pure lazyness is not something that should be encouraged anyhow.