If social status isn't granted without literacy, then it motivates people to be literate. It's a Pygmalion (Shaw) situation: money doesn't make one good enough, the top tiers of society should require sophistication as well. I don't like the term 'social progress' because it implies a destination, some perfect utopian state that can be achieved. I'd call it 'social betterment.'
People can and do fill books with the same garbage as the worst Hollywood films (Satan Burger by Mellick, Inherent Vice by Pynchon). But trash literature has existed for a long time and rarely has it been mistaken for quality literature (*cough*Bukowski*cough*). Regardless, even reading trash keeps the mind engaged and active in a way that TV does not. It's easy to zone out into the TV and still get what's going on. You can't do that with books.
"The penny dreadfuls were printed on cheap pulp paper and were aimed primarily at working class adolescents." aka 'the videogames of the time.'
To read Dickens when it first came out you had to be subscribed to the serial the story was printed in and get each one. Hardbacks, especially quality literature, were luxury items. But yes, I must concede that I wrote that neglecting the penny dreadfuls and the Horatio Algers of the world.
I agree. I have books that are almost 100 years old, and while they aren't in the greatest condition, they also weren't stored in an optimal environment. Some I inherited, some I found at Goodwill. Most of them are cheap paperbacks and some are falling apart, but none are crumbling to dust. The hardbacks seem to hold up very well.
I agree with the first statement, but after that you've got it ass-backwards: the problem with the school system is that the Constitution forbids it from being federal. An amendment is needed to correct this.
Here in Ohio, schools ARE funded locally. In fact, it's that way in many states. All it does is create a classist system: the rich who send their children to private schools and pay the most in property taxes vote down school levies and everyone else sufferers as a result (this also helps out their athletics: better facilities and equipment). Or, in a situation where there isn't a nearby private school, the rich will get on the school boards, local commissions, ect. and get the districts drawn out to keep all the rich kids together in one school that has way more money to spend than the inner city schools. In my county, there is a school district that is shaped like a U, bending through all the high-tax dollar parts along the edges of town while avoiding the unfavorable parts (the only part of the district that's actually IN town is a commercial area with no houses -- the businesses pay a lot in taxes).
So what does this mean? In Ohio, if you're black or poor, public education is underfunded and of very poor quality (teachers prefer to work in the rural/wealthy districts b/c the kids are better behaved, their parents care more, and the private schools pay shit). If you're wealthy, you've got it made. If you live in a rural district, you better hope there are more commuter workers than farmers and trailer park residents, because the only part of education the farmers give a damn about is FFA and the trailer park residents don't give a damn about any part of it. The quality of Ohio schools directly correlates with the local wealth, which has been continually decreasing everywhere since the early 2000s.
My freshman class was 500 strong. The graduating class was ~150-200.
But is this new? Go back 100 years. How many under-20 people had their own book collections?
If you're looking at the population as a whole, probably less. Books were quite expensive one hundred years ago and is was fashionable to write in only the most dense prose which required quite an education to understand. But if you just looked at the literate -- then I would say many more. Today, more people can read and write but far less of those people actually read books. And the standard is so low. How many 'literate' people who have H.S. diplomas can read A Tale of Two Cities and actually get through it, let alone understand it?
My grandmother didn't have an opportunity to go to college but many of my classics I inherited from her. She grew up during the Prohibition era so that's almost 100 years. It seems to me that with that generation one was either wholly ignorant or quite well educated. It took much more to simply graduate high school, but it meant more back then.
Basically, what I'm saying is that 100 years ago a child from an affluent family probably had an extensive book collection. A child from a poor family probably didn't have a single book and probably couldn't read. But children from affluent families today rarely have extensive book collections despite having the means and the education necessary. They have video games and computers. But most kids have at least one or two books laying around. Perhaps something they received as a present or some required reading for school.
There was a time when being upper-middle or upper class meant that one was educated. One couldn't get along socially or economically without it. For instance, here's a situation I'm sure some of you can relate with: You criticize a rich athlete/businessman/celebrity/politician for some decision or for saying something dumb and someone retorts with, "But they're rich." There was a time when the upper classes staunchly believed that money doesn't buy class. Today, money and class are considered one in the same.
Dreamcast was the XBox 1. It ran a version of Windows CE.
How come these LulzSec guys keep on indirectly benefiting Microsoft? They've targeted both Sony and Nintendo (of course, they took it easy on N b/c they "Liked the N64").
I feel old, like my chief complaint against these kids is "get off my lawn," but I don't get where this generation of kids get their motivation. They seem to really care about video game companies, more than most hackers of my generation.
And like most Slashdotters, I belong to a generation where Microsoft was the big evil company (and some of you particularly old geezers may remember a time when IBM was the big threat to the tech world). I still believe that Microsoft is the biggest threat to what technology could and should be. They have a corporate vision of a technological future that clashes with the ideologies of the FOSS movement. That's why the 'evil' label was applied to them -- it's flat out evil to try to get every world government and corporation dependent on your products because that's seeking a position of power greater than any government. But I don't see anything Sony has done as evil. Shady, yes, but Sony doesn't have the means let alone the vision to have the type of negative impact Microsoft has on the world of technology.
Which brings us back to this new generation of hacker kids: Is their worldview limited to the world of video games? Furthermore, people of my generation who hated Microsoft did productive things to fight them such as write FOSS programs to directly compete with commercial MS products. Or sometimes more minor things: convince their boss to use something else ('gee, boss, no one ever got fired for buying IBM'), ensure that websites they design commercially work on all browsers on all platforms (there was a time when a lazy web designer could get away with only worrying about IE/Windows), and of course be vocal about FOSS or at least vocally support MS competitors. We wanted to slay the beast, but we weren't willing to go black-hat to do it (well, I'm sure there were some, but it certainly wasn't a phenomenon like it is now).
But Microsoft seems to be completely off of these Lulz kids radar. While I don't think it's some MS-conspiracy, I do think there's an easy explanation: These kids have XBox360s and Windows PCs and they're too young to remember the MS DoJ case let alone any of the early Gates antics. They liked the Dreamcast, that makes sense, they were probably in elementary school that year (and hell, you could pirate games easy as pie).
So basically, get the fuck off my lawn. If you want to take up a cause, at least take up one that is worth fighting for. Sony shoots themselves in the foot often enough that they don't need anyone doing it for them. But that's the whole story with these kids: they don't go after Blackwater, they go after the CIA. They don't go after Fox News or MSNBC (both equally corrupt on opposite sides of the spectrum), they go after PBS, one of the only respectable news sources left. What a bunch of fucking geniuses.
(And just in case someone wants to argue that these kids are good for security: If I broke into every house in my neighborhood, security would likely increase, but freedoms will decrease. Who will be LOLing when anonymity is gone from the internet because of a group called "Anonymous" and a group called "LulzSec"? All these bastards are doing is giving legislatures an excuse to limit internet freedom.)
I'm very anti-Microsoft and I encourage my boss to use alternatives whenever possible, but I think you're being a bit harsh by saying, "You deserve what you got." You make it sound like the guy did something wrong. Obviously Silverlight provided what his business needed and because MS pledged long-term support it seemed like a viable solution.
I don't know the specifics of the parent's project, but let's look at some potential alternatives: Flash, Javascript, Java. Adobe's no better than MS, so there's no moral high ground there. Plus, Flash has all that terrible backwards compatibility and security vulnerabilities, so even if you think Adobe does have the moral high-ground, as an employee it's still your duty to go with the better product. Javascript takes a bit more know-how than fiddling around with Flash/Silverlight and even with that know-how it will take more time. In the business world, time is money. Java is slow, even well coded Java. It may be useful for back-end stuff, but Java web apps suck and always have. And it takes even more know-how and time than Javascript.
If you want to discourage this guy from using MS products, perhaps you could have said something a bit more constructive than "You deserve what you got." Something like, "Maybe in the future you shouldn't take their word for it." I know, this is Slashdot, home of anti-social nerds, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil to one another.
(note: I normally wouldn't respond to an asshole AC comment like this, but some jackasses modded this "insightful.")
I agree, this is certainly a case where it's best not to read the article. It's like feeding trolls. ..if the troll got paid for it. It's unfortunate that the editors allow this type of junk to make it to the main page. While I understand that it's a community site and that's what drives absurd speculation stories to the front page, the editors need to have some form of veto to prevent these leeches from making money off fake news.
Seriously, I'm disappointed about the state of the country and all as well, but that doesn't mean society's about to collapse. People aren't starving and those who have reason to revolt are too dumb to understand why and could never get organized anyway. It won't happen as long as there's food stamps and American Idol or whatever dumbass show it is that people are watching these days.
As long as money works people don't care. The dollar didn't fail us in 08/09, so I don't see why it wouldn't be safe long term. I'm not really sure what your argument is. Are you railing against the Federal Reserve?
"Meanwhile you have Federal powers trying to make it illegal to put anything other than Federal Reserve notes and arresting anyone who dares try."
I really don't get what this is supposed to mean. Mostly because it's grammatically incorrect nonsense. I think you're supporting individual currencies for individual states/private banks. But I don't see where you would get this idea (Ron Paul, maybe?). It didn't work in the 1800s and it won't work now, especially considering how many businesses are multinational these days. If Lehman Brother's had their own currency and I had millions of it buried in my backyard, it would be worthless to me today. If I had millions in pre-Depression U.S. Dollars buried in my backyard, the only thing detracting from their value would be inflation (they'd be worth less today than when I buried them). That's why the government monopolizes minting. If they didn't, there would be no guarantee that people had faith in the currency's value, and the currency's only real value is one's faith in it.
I agree with most of your points, but I have to disagree with the part where you said "the U.S. simply defines so many things to be crimes that it becomes difficult for people to live their lives without being criminals." While this is technically true, with the major exception of those in prison for marijuana related crimes, most Americans in prison are there because they did something that is justifiably illegal. Almost every first world nation has so many laws, statutes, ordinances, ect. that it's impossible to really be knowledgeable enough of the law to always live according to it. But the punishment for most 'crimes' is a fine, community service, and maybe some jail time in county (just think, your incarceration numbers don't even include those in local jails, that's even more U.S. citizens behind bars). Anyway, if one has committed an offense that could land them in prison, I find it hard to believe that they didn't know the action was both immoral and illegal when they took it. Almost everyone in prison is there for violence, theft, or drugs or some combination of the three. I'm no lawyer, but there are few cases I can think of that don't fit that criteria (treason. ..can't think of another). Even Bernie Madoff's case can be broken down to a one of theft.
I think the U.S. prison population stems from a variety of other reasons:
1. Lack of an effective educational system
2. A shrinking middle class -- wealth disparity, disappearance of blue-collar jobs, ect.
3. A glorification of the criminal lifestyle that is popular among the poor and uneducated
4. For-profit prisons pushing through legislation to stiffen penalties for things like drug possession
5. The decline of religion with no suitable ethical replacement (face it, "Thou shall not kill" is better than "Thou shall not snitch")
The rootkit is an old issue and Sony didn't get away with it. The data breaches could happen to any corporation in the crosshairs of a large hacker group. The exploding batteries were completely overblown -- defective products happen, they took care of it. Inventing fake movie critics is funny and dishonest, but it doesn't make me think they deserve to be a target of hacker vigilantism. Removing of advertised features happens. No one used Linux on PS3 so they stopped supporting it. Big whoop. Obnoxious viral marketing? Uh oh, we're getting in some murky moral waters! Those 'environmental activists' are idiots who are willing to lie to get attention and don't give a damn about actual science (yeah, I clicked the link to see which organizations you were referring to).
Then there's the best link of all. "Seen as one of the worst two companies in America." I love that little tournament. How Apple outeviled Microsoft, who couldn't even make it out of the first round. AT&T outeviled Verizon even though one is no better than the other. Time Warner outeviled Facebook. But the greatest thing is that your claim is false: according to this highly scientific internet poll, BP and B of A are the two most evil corporations in America. Ticketmaster is beats Sony out, and B of A beats Ticketmaster out.
It can distract you from a deeper appreciation of the issue.
Oh, yeah, because it's an issue that requires deep appreciation. . ./sarcasm
I understood the vitriolic emotion surrounding the Wikileaks issues. Those were matters of life and death, liberty and oppression. But these kids discredit themselves by prioritizing Sony above the many actually important causes that they could champion. "Oh no! Sony's a corporation of greedy asshats! We gotta show them!" Please. All these kids are doing is helping out Sony's competitors, other greedy asshats. They're also helping congress pass anti-internet freedom laws. But it's worth it, is it not, because Sony doesn't support Linux on PS3 anymore?
If anything, it just shows how fucking immature kids are these days. Instead of championing a cause that actually matters they go after their video game company for not being a shining beacon of capitalist integrity. Meanwhile, Microsoft is the beneficiary of all this nonsense. Way to show those evil companies, guys!
I don't lie, hide, or pretend anything when it comes to eating meat. When I see a large steer grazing it makes me want steak.
I don't kill my own kills because 1) I can't afford to buy my own cows 2) I have no place to store said cows 3) I don't have what's necessary to kill a cow and then store all that meat.
AND
4) Even if 1-3 were fulfilled, I would still buy my beef because it is much cheaper and much more efficient.
I'm sure that killing pigs and cows is gross as fuck, but if that was my only way to get bacon and beef. ..well, I wouldn't hesitate.
Why don't you stop traveling to places you can't walk to, while you're all about that hippy bullshit?
That's the first ethical thing I've heard of Zuckerberg doing. I'm not holding my breath to see if there ever will be a second.
What's doing something ethical? Does sleep count?
I think you meant ethical in the sense of 'doing good,' but I don't see how killing animals is doing good. I'm not saying it's bad, it seems to be ethically neutral to me.
Zuckerberg killing farm animals is no different to me than Charlie Sheen fucking porn stars. It's something some rich guy is doing with his money that has no effect on me or anyone else. It's not an ethical issue. It really just shows how out of touch Zuckerberg is -- you've gotta be out of touch if you think you have to kill to appreciate life. What's next, is he going to go to prison to learn to appreciate his freedom? Personally, I think he should give all his money away so he can learn to appreciate wealth.
I have the opposite experience conferencing with a business partner in Europe. Skype works fine if we do audio only, but if we throw in video it becomes unreliable. With Google Talk the video is smoother, but unfortunately we had to abandon it for a while b/c some malware interfered with his audio. I guess it ended up being a good thing, poor guy would have never guessed his computer was infected otherwise. Silly Windows users.
No they won't. The only people who will think that are those who already knew about all that stuff.
The only thing on that list that will be remembered is "This is the company whose game console did not allow them to play multiplayer for a month." Which probably won't affect their phone purchase.
And why would it be better that they buy a cheap Korean-made piece of shit from Samsung or LG? They can bypass Sony without taking that massive step down in quality -- Motorola, Nokia, RIM, Apple. . . What type of cheapskate are you? Almost good enough isn't good enough. Hardware quality aside, the Koreans make the worst software interfaces for the western world.
The Joe Schmoes I know aren't angry at Sony right now, they're angry at hackers and it's only because their PS3 wasn't playing online.
Most of the things you mentioned were poor corporate decisions. Nothing I'd consider malicious. Sony employees have demonstrated ineptitude time and time again. I get it. But this attack on Sony is only helping the even more evil corporation over in Redmond.
Sony's not trying to lock governments into their technologies. Almost everything they sell is a consumer device. If you don't like what they do as a company, don't buy their products. I don't have that luxury with Microsoft: I need Windows and Office for work and my tax dollars inevitably go toward putting Windows on government computers.
I don't think you understand the difference between morals and 'don't something you don't like.' Sony makes a lot of dumb decisions, I'll give you that, but they are way down on my list of EVIL CORPORATIONS. Why don't these black hats go after BP for trashing the Gulf of Mexico, or Oracle for ruining Java and buying out all their competitors, or Rupert Murdoch for intentionally spreading misinformation? What happened to the Bradley Manning cause? What about telecommunications companies around the world that willingly hand over information to governments? These kids have a very narrow world view. Real moral issues don't matter to them because Sony won't let them run Linux on their Playstation.
Give me a fucking break. Linux wasn't even useful on the PS3. It was a novelty that didn't do much to increase sales because the people who cared about it were still butt-hurt about the rootkit fiasco.
These morons who are attacking Sony's networks are probably going to be the same ones bitching and moaning when Microsoft has a console monopoly in five years. As of now, they might as well be working for MS. People aren't going to abandon their PS3 for a Wii. Sony's still the lesser of two evils next to Microsoft as far as I'm concerned.
It's funny, the first time I read Neuromancer years ago everything in it seemed so far fetched. Sorry Mr. Gibson, it appears you were right on a number of things. Black hats may become a solution for everyone -- vigilantes, interest groups, corporations, criminals, ect. Why rob a bank with guns when you can combine hacking and social engineering to make money appear from nowhere and appear legitimate? If a politician's opponent is raising massive funds with a website, it can be taken down with a DDoS and attributed to 'anonymous' internet users. A competing corporation plans to debut a product online at a certain date? Too easy.
Sony makes things easy on these black hats. They seem to think Sony epitomizes corporate evil (between playing on their XBoxes and dicking around on Windows. ..). What's going to happen when the targets become more controversial and polarize this black hat community? And then another polarizing issue and then another. You can't expect everyone who parades under the banner of Anonymous to be on the same page ideologically. What they're really doing is setting a precedent: if you're willing to skirt the law, black hat solutions are viable for taking down opponents who rely on digital networking.
If one good thing can come of it, I would say it's this: people may start taking anonymity on the internet seriously. The Facebook model of 'privacy shouldn't exist' will be put to the test.
Thunderbolt is designed more to replace eSATA and FireWire than USB.
Neither one of which has taken the world by storm... Frankly we don't really need a replacement for either of those. They're fine but niche.
Why does it have to take the world by storm to be successful? Remember, Apple has never been the 'Mac in every home' type of company. Sure, their consumer devices (iPod/iPhone) have blown up beyond niche, but I think the reason Apple is always so successful is because they plan for niche. Final Cut Pro, for example, is a niche product. Macs are a niche product that Final Cut runs on. Thunderbolt's the type of thing that would appeal to Final Cut Pro users.
All your talk about what the market wants isn't incorrect, you're just incorrect in assuming that Apple actually cares about replacing USB with this technology. If Thunderbolt really takes off and replaces USB, it's a win for Apple because once again they'll appear forward-thinking and ahead of everyone else. If Thunderbolt's success is limited to A/V nuts that use Apple's pro software, it's still a win for Apple b/c it gives those A/V nuts a reason to stick with Apple hardware/software. That's how it was with Firewire. A lot of people consider Firewire a failure b/c USB is so standard, but Firewire achieved all the goals Apple set out for it. Especially before USB 2 became common, Firewire sold a lot of Macs. What more does Apple want, really?
Prison camps? The United States incarcerates a higher percentage of their population than any other country.
Freedom isn't black and white.
I would argue that in a first world country education is a positive right that most Americans are deprived of. Too many Americans come from the same perspective as you: "our shit may stink but your shit stinks worse."
Furthermore, taking aim at China's population problem is a cheap shot. How does a country limit population growth without imposing someone's supposed rights? If America was presented with the same problem our leaders wouldn't have the resolve or fortitude to do ANYTHING about it because every solution would offend someone -- that's why we can't seem to solve other problems like healthcare and education. Why we can't get major engineering projects off the ground like high speed rail. In China, I have the freedom to take high-speed rail from one city to another. In America, those who are FORTUNATE enough to have money to own a car may have the PRIVILEGE of driving on a road from one city to the next. I've met people who have never left this county, let alone the state, and it's not for lack of want. In the mid-west, without a car, you're a second-class citizen. Keep fully associating freedom with negative rights and that's what you get: America, where everyone thinks they're free but only the rich actually are.
These hackers hate Sony because of all the evil things Sony has done. So they're driving users off to Microsoft. . .
It's not like anyone who will abandon the PS3 because of this is going to switch over to a Wii. They may go the Nintendo route when the new system comes out but not now. These kids don't seem to realize that Microsoft has a much richer history of evil than Sony does.
So what happens if they succeed in this endeavor? XBox will dominate the market and everyone will be locked into a MS platform. That's when the REAL evil starts. Just look at Windows and Office. Do these kids have any perspective as to what they're doing? Unless Google gets into gaming (which I don't see happening) there's no non-evil company to take Sony's place.
If these kids wanted to remove the evil from game systems they'd go after game systems in general: program emulators, distribute ROMS that can be burned on to DVDs/Blu-Rays, and then allow people to hook a Linux box up to their TV and run all the console games. Make a PS3/XBox WINE. Of course, that would require hard work and a dedication toward something productive. But then they wouldn't be attacking the gamer community itself, they'd be aiding it and only attacking these 'evil' companies.
Slashdot Mirror
If social status isn't granted without literacy, then it motivates people to be literate. It's a Pygmalion (Shaw) situation: money doesn't make one good enough, the top tiers of society should require sophistication as well. I don't like the term 'social progress' because it implies a destination, some perfect utopian state that can be achieved. I'd call it 'social betterment.'
People can and do fill books with the same garbage as the worst Hollywood films (Satan Burger by Mellick, Inherent Vice by Pynchon). But trash literature has existed for a long time and rarely has it been mistaken for quality literature (*cough*Bukowski*cough*). Regardless, even reading trash keeps the mind engaged and active in a way that TV does not. It's easy to zone out into the TV and still get what's going on. You can't do that with books.
"The penny dreadfuls were printed on cheap pulp paper and were aimed primarily at working class adolescents." aka 'the videogames of the time.'
To read Dickens when it first came out you had to be subscribed to the serial the story was printed in and get each one. Hardbacks, especially quality literature, were luxury items. But yes, I must concede that I wrote that neglecting the penny dreadfuls and the Horatio Algers of the world.
I agree. I have books that are almost 100 years old, and while they aren't in the greatest condition, they also weren't stored in an optimal environment. Some I inherited, some I found at Goodwill. Most of them are cheap paperbacks and some are falling apart, but none are crumbling to dust. The hardbacks seem to hold up very well.
I agree with the first statement, but after that you've got it ass-backwards: the problem with the school system is that the Constitution forbids it from being federal. An amendment is needed to correct this.
Here in Ohio, schools ARE funded locally. In fact, it's that way in many states. All it does is create a classist system: the rich who send their children to private schools and pay the most in property taxes vote down school levies and everyone else sufferers as a result (this also helps out their athletics: better facilities and equipment). Or, in a situation where there isn't a nearby private school, the rich will get on the school boards, local commissions, ect. and get the districts drawn out to keep all the rich kids together in one school that has way more money to spend than the inner city schools. In my county, there is a school district that is shaped like a U, bending through all the high-tax dollar parts along the edges of town while avoiding the unfavorable parts (the only part of the district that's actually IN town is a commercial area with no houses -- the businesses pay a lot in taxes).
So what does this mean? In Ohio, if you're black or poor, public education is underfunded and of very poor quality (teachers prefer to work in the rural/wealthy districts b/c the kids are better behaved, their parents care more, and the private schools pay shit). If you're wealthy, you've got it made. If you live in a rural district, you better hope there are more commuter workers than farmers and trailer park residents, because the only part of education the farmers give a damn about is FFA and the trailer park residents don't give a damn about any part of it. The quality of Ohio schools directly correlates with the local wealth, which has been continually decreasing everywhere since the early 2000s.
My freshman class was 500 strong. The graduating class was ~150-200.
But is this new? Go back 100 years. How many under-20 people had their own book collections?
If you're looking at the population as a whole, probably less. Books were quite expensive one hundred years ago and is was fashionable to write in only the most dense prose which required quite an education to understand. But if you just looked at the literate -- then I would say many more. Today, more people can read and write but far less of those people actually read books. And the standard is so low. How many 'literate' people who have H.S. diplomas can read A Tale of Two Cities and actually get through it, let alone understand it?
My grandmother didn't have an opportunity to go to college but many of my classics I inherited from her. She grew up during the Prohibition era so that's almost 100 years. It seems to me that with that generation one was either wholly ignorant or quite well educated. It took much more to simply graduate high school, but it meant more back then.
Basically, what I'm saying is that 100 years ago a child from an affluent family probably had an extensive book collection. A child from a poor family probably didn't have a single book and probably couldn't read. But children from affluent families today rarely have extensive book collections despite having the means and the education necessary. They have video games and computers. But most kids have at least one or two books laying around. Perhaps something they received as a present or some required reading for school.
There was a time when being upper-middle or upper class meant that one was educated. One couldn't get along socially or economically without it. For instance, here's a situation I'm sure some of you can relate with: You criticize a rich athlete/businessman/celebrity/politician for some decision or for saying something dumb and someone retorts with, "But they're rich." There was a time when the upper classes staunchly believed that money doesn't buy class. Today, money and class are considered one in the same.
Dreamcast was the XBox 1. It ran a version of Windows CE.
How come these LulzSec guys keep on indirectly benefiting Microsoft? They've targeted both Sony and Nintendo (of course, they took it easy on N b/c they "Liked the N64").
I feel old, like my chief complaint against these kids is "get off my lawn," but I don't get where this generation of kids get their motivation. They seem to really care about video game companies, more than most hackers of my generation.
And like most Slashdotters, I belong to a generation where Microsoft was the big evil company (and some of you particularly old geezers may remember a time when IBM was the big threat to the tech world). I still believe that Microsoft is the biggest threat to what technology could and should be. They have a corporate vision of a technological future that clashes with the ideologies of the FOSS movement. That's why the 'evil' label was applied to them -- it's flat out evil to try to get every world government and corporation dependent on your products because that's seeking a position of power greater than any government. But I don't see anything Sony has done as evil. Shady, yes, but Sony doesn't have the means let alone the vision to have the type of negative impact Microsoft has on the world of technology.
Which brings us back to this new generation of hacker kids: Is their worldview limited to the world of video games? Furthermore, people of my generation who hated Microsoft did productive things to fight them such as write FOSS programs to directly compete with commercial MS products. Or sometimes more minor things: convince their boss to use something else ('gee, boss, no one ever got fired for buying IBM'), ensure that websites they design commercially work on all browsers on all platforms (there was a time when a lazy web designer could get away with only worrying about IE/Windows), and of course be vocal about FOSS or at least vocally support MS competitors. We wanted to slay the beast, but we weren't willing to go black-hat to do it (well, I'm sure there were some, but it certainly wasn't a phenomenon like it is now).
But Microsoft seems to be completely off of these Lulz kids radar. While I don't think it's some MS-conspiracy, I do think there's an easy explanation: These kids have XBox360s and Windows PCs and they're too young to remember the MS DoJ case let alone any of the early Gates antics. They liked the Dreamcast, that makes sense, they were probably in elementary school that year (and hell, you could pirate games easy as pie).
So basically, get the fuck off my lawn. If you want to take up a cause, at least take up one that is worth fighting for. Sony shoots themselves in the foot often enough that they don't need anyone doing it for them. But that's the whole story with these kids: they don't go after Blackwater, they go after the CIA. They don't go after Fox News or MSNBC (both equally corrupt on opposite sides of the spectrum), they go after PBS, one of the only respectable news sources left. What a bunch of fucking geniuses.
(And just in case someone wants to argue that these kids are good for security: If I broke into every house in my neighborhood, security would likely increase, but freedoms will decrease. Who will be LOLing when anonymity is gone from the internet because of a group called "Anonymous" and a group called "LulzSec"? All these bastards are doing is giving legislatures an excuse to limit internet freedom.)
I'm very anti-Microsoft and I encourage my boss to use alternatives whenever possible, but I think you're being a bit harsh by saying, "You deserve what you got." You make it sound like the guy did something wrong. Obviously Silverlight provided what his business needed and because MS pledged long-term support it seemed like a viable solution.
I don't know the specifics of the parent's project, but let's look at some potential alternatives: Flash, Javascript, Java. Adobe's no better than MS, so there's no moral high ground there. Plus, Flash has all that terrible backwards compatibility and security vulnerabilities, so even if you think Adobe does have the moral high-ground, as an employee it's still your duty to go with the better product. Javascript takes a bit more know-how than fiddling around with Flash/Silverlight and even with that know-how it will take more time. In the business world, time is money. Java is slow, even well coded Java. It may be useful for back-end stuff, but Java web apps suck and always have. And it takes even more know-how and time than Javascript.
If you want to discourage this guy from using MS products, perhaps you could have said something a bit more constructive than "You deserve what you got." Something like, "Maybe in the future you shouldn't take their word for it." I know, this is Slashdot, home of anti-social nerds, but that doesn't mean we can't be civil to one another.
(note: I normally wouldn't respond to an asshole AC comment like this, but some jackasses modded this "insightful.")
Why? This 'story' probably isn't even true.
I agree, this is certainly a case where it's best not to read the article. It's like feeding trolls. . .if the troll got paid for it. It's unfortunate that the editors allow this type of junk to make it to the main page. While I understand that it's a community site and that's what drives absurd speculation stories to the front page, the editors need to have some form of veto to prevent these leeches from making money off fake news.
Exaggerate much?
Seriously, I'm disappointed about the state of the country and all as well, but that doesn't mean society's about to collapse. People aren't starving and those who have reason to revolt are too dumb to understand why and could never get organized anyway. It won't happen as long as there's food stamps and American Idol or whatever dumbass show it is that people are watching these days.
As long as money works people don't care. The dollar didn't fail us in 08/09, so I don't see why it wouldn't be safe long term. I'm not really sure what your argument is. Are you railing against the Federal Reserve?
"Meanwhile you have Federal powers trying to make it illegal to put anything other than Federal Reserve notes and arresting anyone who dares try."
I really don't get what this is supposed to mean. Mostly because it's grammatically incorrect nonsense. I think you're supporting individual currencies for individual states/private banks. But I don't see where you would get this idea (Ron Paul, maybe?). It didn't work in the 1800s and it won't work now, especially considering how many businesses are multinational these days. If Lehman Brother's had their own currency and I had millions of it buried in my backyard, it would be worthless to me today. If I had millions in pre-Depression U.S. Dollars buried in my backyard, the only thing detracting from their value would be inflation (they'd be worth less today than when I buried them). That's why the government monopolizes minting. If they didn't, there would be no guarantee that people had faith in the currency's value, and the currency's only real value is one's faith in it.
I agree with most of your points, but I have to disagree with the part where you said "the U.S. simply defines so many things to be crimes that it becomes difficult for people to live their lives without being criminals." While this is technically true, with the major exception of those in prison for marijuana related crimes, most Americans in prison are there because they did something that is justifiably illegal. Almost every first world nation has so many laws, statutes, ordinances, ect. that it's impossible to really be knowledgeable enough of the law to always live according to it. But the punishment for most 'crimes' is a fine, community service, and maybe some jail time in county (just think, your incarceration numbers don't even include those in local jails, that's even more U.S. citizens behind bars). Anyway, if one has committed an offense that could land them in prison, I find it hard to believe that they didn't know the action was both immoral and illegal when they took it. Almost everyone in prison is there for violence, theft, or drugs or some combination of the three. I'm no lawyer, but there are few cases I can think of that don't fit that criteria (treason. . .can't think of another). Even Bernie Madoff's case can be broken down to a one of theft.
I think the U.S. prison population stems from a variety of other reasons:
1. Lack of an effective educational system
2. A shrinking middle class -- wealth disparity, disappearance of blue-collar jobs, ect.
3. A glorification of the criminal lifestyle that is popular among the poor and uneducated
4. For-profit prisons pushing through legislation to stiffen penalties for things like drug possession
5. The decline of religion with no suitable ethical replacement (face it, "Thou shall not kill" is better than "Thou shall not snitch")
The rootkit is an old issue and Sony didn't get away with it. The data breaches could happen to any corporation in the crosshairs of a large hacker group. The exploding batteries were completely overblown -- defective products happen, they took care of it. Inventing fake movie critics is funny and dishonest, but it doesn't make me think they deserve to be a target of hacker vigilantism. Removing of advertised features happens. No one used Linux on PS3 so they stopped supporting it. Big whoop. Obnoxious viral marketing? Uh oh, we're getting in some murky moral waters! Those 'environmental activists' are idiots who are willing to lie to get attention and don't give a damn about actual science (yeah, I clicked the link to see which organizations you were referring to).
Then there's the best link of all. "Seen as one of the worst two companies in America." I love that little tournament. How Apple outeviled Microsoft, who couldn't even make it out of the first round. AT&T outeviled Verizon even though one is no better than the other. Time Warner outeviled Facebook. But the greatest thing is that your claim is false: according to this highly scientific internet poll, BP and B of A are the two most evil corporations in America. Ticketmaster is beats Sony out, and B of A beats Ticketmaster out.
Of course, the truly evil companies in America aren't represented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide
It can distract you from a deeper appreciation of the issue.
Oh, yeah, because it's an issue that requires deep appreciation. . . /sarcasm
I understood the vitriolic emotion surrounding the Wikileaks issues. Those were matters of life and death, liberty and oppression. But these kids discredit themselves by prioritizing Sony above the many actually important causes that they could champion. "Oh no! Sony's a corporation of greedy asshats! We gotta show them!" Please. All these kids are doing is helping out Sony's competitors, other greedy asshats. They're also helping congress pass anti-internet freedom laws. But it's worth it, is it not, because Sony doesn't support Linux on PS3 anymore?
If anything, it just shows how fucking immature kids are these days. Instead of championing a cause that actually matters they go after their video game company for not being a shining beacon of capitalist integrity. Meanwhile, Microsoft is the beneficiary of all this nonsense. Way to show those evil companies, guys!
Any examples of how Google acts as if patents don't apply to them? You made the statement as if it's self-evident.
I don't lie, hide, or pretend anything when it comes to eating meat. When I see a large steer grazing it makes me want steak.
I don't kill my own kills because 1) I can't afford to buy my own cows 2) I have no place to store said cows 3) I don't have what's necessary to kill a cow and then store all that meat.
AND
4) Even if 1-3 were fulfilled, I would still buy my beef because it is much cheaper and much more efficient.
I'm sure that killing pigs and cows is gross as fuck, but if that was my only way to get bacon and beef. . .well, I wouldn't hesitate.
Why don't you stop traveling to places you can't walk to, while you're all about that hippy bullshit?
That's the first ethical thing I've heard of Zuckerberg doing. I'm not holding my breath to see if there ever will be a second.
What's doing something ethical? Does sleep count?
I think you meant ethical in the sense of 'doing good,' but I don't see how killing animals is doing good. I'm not saying it's bad, it seems to be ethically neutral to me.
Zuckerberg killing farm animals is no different to me than Charlie Sheen fucking porn stars. It's something some rich guy is doing with his money that has no effect on me or anyone else. It's not an ethical issue. It really just shows how out of touch Zuckerberg is -- you've gotta be out of touch if you think you have to kill to appreciate life. What's next, is he going to go to prison to learn to appreciate his freedom? Personally, I think he should give all his money away so he can learn to appreciate wealth.
this is 2011 and the Age of Blogs. Get with the program
Who needs information when you have presumption?
I have the opposite experience conferencing with a business partner in Europe. Skype works fine if we do audio only, but if we throw in video it becomes unreliable. With Google Talk the video is smoother, but unfortunately we had to abandon it for a while b/c some malware interfered with his audio. I guess it ended up being a good thing, poor guy would have never guessed his computer was infected otherwise. Silly Windows users.
No they won't. The only people who will think that are those who already knew about all that stuff.
The only thing on that list that will be remembered is "This is the company whose game console did not allow them to play multiplayer for a month." Which probably won't affect their phone purchase.
And why would it be better that they buy a cheap Korean-made piece of shit from Samsung or LG? They can bypass Sony without taking that massive step down in quality -- Motorola, Nokia, RIM, Apple. . . What type of cheapskate are you? Almost good enough isn't good enough. Hardware quality aside, the Koreans make the worst software interfaces for the western world.
The Joe Schmoes I know aren't angry at Sony right now, they're angry at hackers and it's only because their PS3 wasn't playing online.
Did they kick your puppy, too?
Most of the things you mentioned were poor corporate decisions. Nothing I'd consider malicious. Sony employees have demonstrated ineptitude time and time again. I get it. But this attack on Sony is only helping the even more evil corporation over in Redmond.
Sony's not trying to lock governments into their technologies. Almost everything they sell is a consumer device. If you don't like what they do as a company, don't buy their products. I don't have that luxury with Microsoft: I need Windows and Office for work and my tax dollars inevitably go toward putting Windows on government computers.
I don't think you understand the difference between morals and 'don't something you don't like.' Sony makes a lot of dumb decisions, I'll give you that, but they are way down on my list of EVIL CORPORATIONS. Why don't these black hats go after BP for trashing the Gulf of Mexico, or Oracle for ruining Java and buying out all their competitors, or Rupert Murdoch for intentionally spreading misinformation? What happened to the Bradley Manning cause? What about telecommunications companies around the world that willingly hand over information to governments? These kids have a very narrow world view. Real moral issues don't matter to them because Sony won't let them run Linux on their Playstation.
Give me a fucking break. Linux wasn't even useful on the PS3. It was a novelty that didn't do much to increase sales because the people who cared about it were still butt-hurt about the rootkit fiasco.
These morons who are attacking Sony's networks are probably going to be the same ones bitching and moaning when Microsoft has a console monopoly in five years. As of now, they might as well be working for MS. People aren't going to abandon their PS3 for a Wii. Sony's still the lesser of two evils next to Microsoft as far as I'm concerned.
Or ruin other companies.
It's funny, the first time I read Neuromancer years ago everything in it seemed so far fetched. Sorry Mr. Gibson, it appears you were right on a number of things. Black hats may become a solution for everyone -- vigilantes, interest groups, corporations, criminals, ect. Why rob a bank with guns when you can combine hacking and social engineering to make money appear from nowhere and appear legitimate? If a politician's opponent is raising massive funds with a website, it can be taken down with a DDoS and attributed to 'anonymous' internet users. A competing corporation plans to debut a product online at a certain date? Too easy.
Sony makes things easy on these black hats. They seem to think Sony epitomizes corporate evil (between playing on their XBoxes and dicking around on Windows. . .). What's going to happen when the targets become more controversial and polarize this black hat community? And then another polarizing issue and then another. You can't expect everyone who parades under the banner of Anonymous to be on the same page ideologically. What they're really doing is setting a precedent: if you're willing to skirt the law, black hat solutions are viable for taking down opponents who rely on digital networking.
If one good thing can come of it, I would say it's this: people may start taking anonymity on the internet seriously. The Facebook model of 'privacy shouldn't exist' will be put to the test.
Thunderbolt is designed more to replace eSATA and FireWire than USB.
Neither one of which has taken the world by storm... Frankly we don't really need a replacement for either of those. They're fine but niche.
Why does it have to take the world by storm to be successful? Remember, Apple has never been the 'Mac in every home' type of company. Sure, their consumer devices (iPod/iPhone) have blown up beyond niche, but I think the reason Apple is always so successful is because they plan for niche. Final Cut Pro, for example, is a niche product. Macs are a niche product that Final Cut runs on. Thunderbolt's the type of thing that would appeal to Final Cut Pro users.
All your talk about what the market wants isn't incorrect, you're just incorrect in assuming that Apple actually cares about replacing USB with this technology. If Thunderbolt really takes off and replaces USB, it's a win for Apple because once again they'll appear forward-thinking and ahead of everyone else. If Thunderbolt's success is limited to A/V nuts that use Apple's pro software, it's still a win for Apple b/c it gives those A/V nuts a reason to stick with Apple hardware/software. That's how it was with Firewire. A lot of people consider Firewire a failure b/c USB is so standard, but Firewire achieved all the goals Apple set out for it. Especially before USB 2 became common, Firewire sold a lot of Macs. What more does Apple want, really?
Prison camps? The United States incarcerates a higher percentage of their population than any other country.
Freedom isn't black and white.
I would argue that in a first world country education is a positive right that most Americans are deprived of. Too many Americans come from the same perspective as you: "our shit may stink but your shit stinks worse."
Furthermore, taking aim at China's population problem is a cheap shot. How does a country limit population growth without imposing someone's supposed rights? If America was presented with the same problem our leaders wouldn't have the resolve or fortitude to do ANYTHING about it because every solution would offend someone -- that's why we can't seem to solve other problems like healthcare and education. Why we can't get major engineering projects off the ground like high speed rail. In China, I have the freedom to take high-speed rail from one city to another. In America, those who are FORTUNATE enough to have money to own a car may have the PRIVILEGE of driving on a road from one city to the next. I've met people who have never left this county, let alone the state, and it's not for lack of want. In the mid-west, without a car, you're a second-class citizen. Keep fully associating freedom with negative rights and that's what you get: America, where everyone thinks they're free but only the rich actually are.
These hackers hate Sony because of all the evil things Sony has done. So they're driving users off to Microsoft. . .
It's not like anyone who will abandon the PS3 because of this is going to switch over to a Wii. They may go the Nintendo route when the new system comes out but not now. These kids don't seem to realize that Microsoft has a much richer history of evil than Sony does.
So what happens if they succeed in this endeavor? XBox will dominate the market and everyone will be locked into a MS platform. That's when the REAL evil starts. Just look at Windows and Office. Do these kids have any perspective as to what they're doing? Unless Google gets into gaming (which I don't see happening) there's no non-evil company to take Sony's place.
If these kids wanted to remove the evil from game systems they'd go after game systems in general: program emulators, distribute ROMS that can be burned on to DVDs/Blu-Rays, and then allow people to hook a Linux box up to their TV and run all the console games. Make a PS3/XBox WINE. Of course, that would require hard work and a dedication toward something productive. But then they wouldn't be attacking the gamer community itself, they'd be aiding it and only attacking these 'evil' companies.
Quick, if all of us put in our 0.01 cents on this we can still outbid Microsoft!
I think we'd all need to put in at least 2 cents.