Haven't you heard? Clinton is going to declare martial law on Nov. 6, and there will be no election! He is going to make himself dictator not only of the U.S., but of the world, with the help of organizations like the UN, who have secretly inteneded this all along! The problems in Israel are the beginnings of WWIII! ...Or so my born-again christian/conspiracy theorist friend tells me.
Personally, I'm voting for Nader or Brown, I haven't decided yet.
I also think that basing foreign policy on religion is a bad idea, though I can certainly believe Dubya would do it. I think the U.S. government should stay out of it.
It is true that the gimp is ill-equipped to do professional-quality print work. Such work requires the use of specific palettes, such as pantone, so that the printed results will be exactly predictable and consistently print exactly the same, etc.
However, for images that are intended to be viewed on a computer screen, there's nothing better, IMHO. I believe that that's what the gimp developers really intended it for, anyway. You can tell by the way the default measurements are all in pixels, and the default resolution is 72x72 pixels per inch.
I don't really think it's true that the gimp is behind in plug-ins, either. Though some of the plug-ins can be somewhat unstable, there are a lot of them. Not all of them come with the distribution, you can get them from the gimp's page. Plug-ins for photoshop usually cost a lot of money, from what I understand.
Personally, I find the gimp's UI to be very intuitive.
Irecently recieved a copy of Coriolis's Gimp, the Official Handbook. It is excellent, from what I've read so far. It goes into a lot of very technical information about color models, etc., and also covers the plug-ins very welleven some of the ones that don't come with the standard distribution.
Hmmn...
As an art student, I have somewhat mixed feelings on this.
In the end, though, I don't really think that mixing art and computers is harmful. Computers are just another medium artists have the option of working with. I certainly don't expect to see them replace more traditional forms of art, such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, etc.
Many people brought up the same issues when artists started using photography as a meduim for art. "But the camera did all the work, all the artist had to do was snap the picture." Many people still feel this way, but for the most part, photography has been accepted as a valid artistic medium. I have taken photography classes, and I can tell you that there is much more to it than just snapping pictures.
Remember, the computer is not generating the art all by itself. A real human being has to tell it what to do, what colors to put where, etc. The computer can be used as a tool for creating art, but I don't forsee machines replacing us or our art.
I think variety and choice are both good things, in art and in life. Whatever ideas any particular artist wants to express, the more tools available to them, the more likely they can find the one they feel is right for the task.
Various groups of people always seem to be looking for the "magic bullet" when it comes to the cause and cure for crime and violence in society. Especially when the violence was committed by someone very young. Many people seem to just want a scapegoat, something that they can point to as the cause. I think it should be fairly obvious though, that there is never such a simple explanation for any specific act of violence, or for violence in general. It is a very common belief that exposure to violent movies, videogames, etc. desensitizes the viewer. Whether or not this is true, the affect that viewing anything has on a person depends very much on their set of values with which they can evaluate it. Studies have shown that when parents view television with their children, and discuss what they are seeing with the child, it greatly affects the way in which the child thinks about what he/she is watching.
Personally, I don't really play any RPGs or gory video games, but I don't really think there's any causation between viewing violence and committing violence.
I believe that many of the main causes of violence in our society are social and economic factors. Many parents don't spend enough time with their kids, and never give them any context with which to interpret the violence they see. This is much more of a problem than the fact that the kids are being exposed to violence. Inequality and oppression, both social and economic, also seem to sometimes lead to violence. There also seem to be people who for no apparent reason are just pre-disposed towards violence. Mental illness can sometimes be a factor. All of these things and many more can lead to violence. Any specific act of violence is likely to have its roots in several of these factors.
Trying to blame violence on television/movies/videogames/music is just a cheap way to opt out of asking deeper, more disturbing questions.
If this is so, which it seems to be, as it's mentioned in several other posts, it's not very surprising.
Wouldn't it be nice, though, if enough sites
would use wildcard certificates anyway, so that it
became such a burden to IE users that they either
would get fed up and switch browsers or Microsoft
would have to realize that the browser's functionality
was taking such a hit because of it that they had
to change it.
I can imagine that if people using IE want to check their
accounts on their bank's secure server, they would not be happy
to get a message like this:
We're sorry, but due to intentional incompatibilies in Microsoft
Internet Explorer, you can not view this page. Please
try again with a different browser.
This would be such an inconvenience for users
that MS would have to fix it! Too bad so few companies are willing
to risk evoking the wrath of Microsoft.
I would have to agree with this. If you know
how to make opportunities for yourself, there
is no fear factor. If you are always willing
to learn new skills, there will always be someone
out there who needs you. If you are very
knowledgable, especially about technology, you
can afford to be choosy about where you work,
because they need you more than you need them.
I also think that there are still plenty
of people out there who are driven to be more
productive out of loyalty rather than fear. Especially in
small companies, because it seems that the
smaller the scale of the company, the more
likely the managers and owners will be competent,
and the more likely they will know and care about
their employees and vice-versa.
I suppose the fact that I'm a feminist doesn't
really have anything to do with it, however, it
is the primary factor in my caring to clarify
information about studies done that exposed
disparities in pay between men and women.
I also think I may not have made my point quite clear in
my previous post.
The point I was trying to make was this:
In the Original "So it's a choice we make" post,
the theory was presented that these disparities
in pay are due to lifestyle choice differences
between men and women. I was trying to say that whether or not there are those
differences in choice would not affect the outcome
of those studies, because the men and women who
were compared in them had made similar life choices.
The men who choose a higher paying job that
requires more hours are being compared to women
who also chose that kind of job, and therefore,the
studies point to some kind of inequality as
the cause of the disparity, and not lifestyle
choices.
Not to be picky, but the statistics on the
disparity in wages/salaries between genders
are based on men and women in equivalent
jobs. So, while it may be true that women are
more likely choose jobs with more sensible hours,
they are not the ones whose salaries are being
compared to the men who are working 60 hours a
week.
Sorry, I'm just a little bit of a feminist:-
You mean, there are operating systems out there
other than windows, and they're free?
Honestly, though, I don't think this is an
attempt by big, evil microsoft to crush free
software though I'm sure they would if they
could. I think that it just never occurred
to whoever wrote the "Naked PCs" article that
anyone would want anything other than windows.
I think it really just goes to show how out of touch
people at M$ are. It is really funny though, and kind of sad, too..
If I went to a computer store
and explained that I was going to install Linux,
FreeBSD, or any other free OS, and did not want
to pay for windows, I would hope that they would
believe me, and respect that wish. If they didn't,
they would certainly lose my business.
i bought a dvd player because i want the high quality picture and sound, as well as the lack of deterioration if i ever have kids, i want them to be able to watch my Monty Python dvds
i bought a zone-free dvd player, at a much higher cost than a code compliant player, because i am a big fan of anime. currently, i own almost the entire rurouni kenshin series and the ova's on import dvd. it is expensive, but well worth it to me. however, import anime is not the only thing i watch on my dvd player. i have perfectly legal copies of many american releases as well, and certainly have no intention of pirating anything
i have reason to believe that this new measure may very well affect my particular dvd player, and make future dvd releases un-playable.
i bought my dvd player well before the DeCSS controversy began, but ever since, my hatred of the MPAA has been growing exponentially. i actually have an anti-MPAA bumper sticker on my car i don't want to support such a restricted standard, but right now, it is the only way to get the level of quality i want.
as it stands, my choices are to be a hypocrite, but be able to watch movies with an extremely clear picture and dolby surround which will not deteriorate over the years, or to make due with a vastly inferior standard which does not carry the same restrictions.
either way, i, a consumer, lose.
ideally businesses succeed because they fill a need in such a way as to benefit the consumer. instead, they have given me quite a dilemma. if it weren't for corporate greed and paranoia, this could easily be avoided.
because of many of the same kinds of issues, i do not and will not own any M$ software. but in this case, there are multiple alternatives. with linux and freeBSD, i can do anything i might have needed windows for, and more, without all the restrictions imposed by monopolistic corporate greed.
in the case of dvd's, though, there is no alternative that adequately fulfills my requirements, and i don't see that changing the parties that make up the MPAA have a stranglehold on the mainstream motion picture industry. it really makes me feel that i have no choice no other options. i predict that most people in this situation will continue to buy dvd's, but keep a deep resentment for those who have forced them into supporting a standard that strictly limits their own freedom of choice.
if my requirements for sound and picture quality are to be fulfilled, i have no choice except the choice to not have those requirements fulfilled at all. does that make sense?
i really resent that.
maybe there's some perfectly obviousl answer to this question that i'm missing, but it seems to me that if all these so-called geeks in the technology industry really want to see SDMI sink, they could just crack it themselves. I'm sure they wouldn't be eligible for the $prize, but the quotes from the interviews make it sound as if they really want to see it cracked and have a bit of a personal stake in the matter. if they could show how easy it would be to crack, as they seem to be sure it is, wouldn't that be just as good as some random hacker? of course they would have to show that an ordinary hacker and not one who already has intimate knowledge of the development of SDMI could do it. they certainly seem sure that it can be easily broken in all those qoutes, so why not prove it themselves?
i also find it interesting that everyone is so concerned about the artists. as it is, most musicians on major record labels are getting totally screwed. being that SDMI is the recording industry's baby, i really doubt that that would change.
I don't think the point of this is even so much whether SDMI encryption is crackable. Certainly they want to make it as strong as possible. However, I think that the real point is that when and if it goes into use, they can make it illegal to crack it and distribute unauthorized players, just like DeCSS. And of course all authorized players will have to pay liscensing fees and and will be strictly limited in their features, i.e. binary only, no capabilities for converting to onther non-encrypted formats such as mp3, etc. Certainly anyone who values their freedom should boycot the hack contest, there's no reason to help them. In the end, though, I don't think it will matter, as long as they have the DMCA behind them. Anyone who created or distributed a hack would have to do so at the risk of prosecution.
One of the things I've always loved about the internet is it's degree of accessibility to the individual, not only for getting information, but for disseminating it. If you want to get your ideas heard on television, it's going to cost you a lot more money than a web page or a post on usenet. Consequently, the views expressed are going to be those of the wealthy and powerful. The problem with this, obviously, is that the wealthy, powerful individuals and companies are not generally going to have the same interests as the much larger group of non-wealthy, non-powerful individuals. Television primarily promotes the status-quo. Why would those groups want anything to change, when they are doing so well?
Unfortunately, many of those who could benefit from political change are buying into it. Lots of people believe everything they see on T.V.
Technology like the internet, on the other hand, though it is becoming more and more commercial, is still much more accessible to the little guy. For me, it has almost completely replaced television broadcasts.
The internet is host to a much broader range of views and opinions from a much larger sampling of social and economic classes.
So, I guess that my main point is (sorry it took so long) that whether or not technology can promote democracy depends on whether that technology is in the hands of the people.
I don't think that technology in the hands of the politicians really promotes democracy as much. It is just as important for the politicians to listen to the people as vice-versa.
Many posters have already brought up the point that we don't really have a democracy and wouldn't really want one. I think it is important for everyone to be heard, but for no one's rights to be trampled in the process. The danger in a true Democracy is that while the majority may benefit, the minorities likely will not.
Personally, the internet has encouraged me to be more political. I keep up-to date on the issues, and often send email and faxes to my senators. Unfortunately, I generally get a form-letter response saying thank-you, but I disagree with you (and of course not responding at all to any specific points included in my original message). I think that experiences like that have done more to discourage people from taking part in politics than anything else. It's not pleasant to be thought of as nothing more than another check on a public opinion poll.
I am going to vote this year, but not for either Bush or Gore.
i'm replying to this because you at least had the guts to log in and post as yourself, unlike mr. or ms. "linux users should be butchered".
of course, you are welcome to have whatever opinion of linux you want. however, i love linux, freeBSD, and the whole open source movement, and can't help but defend it.
yes, it's true that capitalism is all about making money, but what's so great about that? with companies like microsoft, it has not resulted in a better product (not in my opinion, anyway).
the idea behind capitalism and free-market enterprise was that through competition for the consumers' almighty dollar, a better cheaper product was supposed to result, and consumers were supposed to benefit.
personally, i don't buy into the idea of "social darwinism", which, btw, is a terrible injustice to darwin himself, or survival of the fittest within society. herbert spencer (1820-1903) was the main proponent of this idea, which stated that those who were not successful in society were obviously just innately inferior. many people of the time were very eager to see this idea accepted, because it could be used to justify discrimination on the basis of race or economic standing. factory owners felt more justified in exploiting their workers, whites felt more justified in mistreating blacks, etc..
now to get back on topic a bit...
capitalism may be about making money, but Linux isn't. certainly there are many people who want to make money from linux, and i would like to see many of them succeed. i also want to see linux make enough money to support continuing development and improvement, which it obviously is doing.
but i think that for most of the people who develop linux and open source software in general, it is not about money at all. it is about taking control and creating a product with the features that they really want and need, and then sharing it with others. in turn, they benefit from any improvements that anyone else has made. this whole system creates a sense of community and product loyalty that definitely can't be found within big corporations full of "suits" and PHBs. none of this has a whole lot to do with capitalism, and i for one love that about it. there is no other way for a technically-oriented computer-lover to get such a wealth of development tools, for example. especially so inexpensively. so, linux and open source are about benefitting the individual, not about making profits for a large corporation by screwing the individuals.
made by the people for the people!!!
as debian would say, when code matters more than commercials.
i'm not a solaris user or an admin, however, this article by David Dittrich analyzes some source code for stacheldracht, which was found by a security investigator in a stolen account. apparently there were makefiles for both linux and solaris. it doesn't run as well on linux,though, which is probably why it has been found only on solaris systems. the article also compares and contrasts the different DoS attack tools, i.e. TFN, TFN2K, trinoo, and stacheldracht.
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't you heard? Clinton is going to declare martial law on Nov. 6, and there will be no election! He is going to make himself dictator not only of the U.S., but of the world, with the help of organizations like the UN, who have secretly inteneded this all along! The problems in Israel are the beginnings of WWIII!
...Or so my born-again christian/conspiracy theorist friend tells me.
Personally, I'm voting for Nader or Brown, I haven't decided yet.
I also think that basing foreign policy on religion is a bad idea, though I can certainly believe Dubya would do it. I think the U.S. government should stay out of it.
It is true that the gimp is ill-equipped to do professional-quality print work. Such work requires the use of specific palettes, such as pantone, so that the printed results will be exactly predictable and consistently print exactly the same, etc.
However, for images that are intended to be viewed on a computer screen, there's nothing better, IMHO. I believe that that's what the gimp developers really intended it for, anyway. You can tell by the way the default measurements are all in pixels, and the default resolution is 72x72 pixels per inch.
I don't really think it's true that the gimp is behind in plug-ins, either. Though some of the plug-ins can be somewhat unstable, there are a lot of them. Not all of them come with the distribution, you can get them from the gimp's page. Plug-ins for photoshop usually cost a lot of money, from what I understand.
Personally, I find the gimp's UI to be very intuitive.
Irecently recieved a copy of Coriolis's Gimp, the Official Handbook. It is excellent, from what I've read so far. It goes into a lot of very technical information about color models, etc., and also covers the plug-ins very welleven some of the ones that don't come with the standard distribution.
Hmmn...
As an art student, I have somewhat mixed feelings on this.
In the end, though, I don't really think that mixing art and computers is harmful. Computers are just another medium artists have the option of working with. I certainly don't expect to see them replace more traditional forms of art, such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, etc.
Many people brought up the same issues when artists started using photography as a meduim for art. "But the camera did all the work, all the artist had to do was snap the picture." Many people still feel this way, but for the most part, photography has been accepted as a valid artistic medium. I have taken photography classes, and I can tell you that there is much more to it than just snapping pictures.
Remember, the computer is not generating the art all by itself. A real human being has to tell it what to do, what colors to put where, etc. The computer can be used as a tool for creating art, but I don't forsee machines replacing us or our art.
I think variety and choice are both good things, in art and in life. Whatever ideas any particular artist wants to express, the more tools available to them, the more likely they can find the one they feel is right for the task.
Various groups of people always seem to be looking for the "magic bullet" when it comes to the cause and cure for crime and violence in society. Especially when the violence was committed by someone very young. Many people seem to just want a scapegoat, something that they can point to as the cause. I think it should be fairly obvious though, that there is never such a simple explanation for any specific act of violence, or for violence in general. It is a very common belief that exposure to violent movies, videogames, etc. desensitizes the viewer. Whether or not this is true, the affect that viewing anything has on a person depends very much on their set of values with which they can evaluate it. Studies have shown that when parents view television with their children, and discuss what they are seeing with the child, it greatly affects the way in which the child thinks about what he/she is watching.
Personally, I don't really play any RPGs or gory video games, but I don't really think there's any causation between viewing violence and committing violence.
I believe that many of the main causes of violence in our society are social and economic factors. Many parents don't spend enough time with their kids, and never give them any context with which to interpret the violence they see. This is much more of a problem than the fact that the kids are being exposed to violence. Inequality and oppression, both social and economic, also seem to sometimes lead to violence. There also seem to be people who for no apparent reason are just pre-disposed towards violence. Mental illness can sometimes be a factor. All of these things and many more can lead to violence. Any specific act of violence is likely to have its roots in several of these factors.
Trying to blame violence on television/movies/videogames/music is just a cheap way to opt out of asking deeper, more disturbing questions.
If this is so, which it seems to be, as it's mentioned in several other posts, it's not very surprising.
Wouldn't it be nice, though, if enough sites would use wildcard certificates anyway, so that it became such a burden to IE users that they either would get fed up and switch browsers or Microsoft would have to realize that the browser's functionality was taking such a hit because of it that they had to change it.
I can imagine that if people using IE want to check their accounts on their bank's secure server, they would not be happy to get a message like this:
We're sorry, but due to intentional incompatibilies in Microsoft Internet Explorer, you can not view this page. Please try again with a different browser.
This would be such an inconvenience for users that MS would have to fix it! Too bad so few companies are willing to risk evoking the wrath of Microsoft.
I would have to agree with this. If you know how to make opportunities for yourself, there is no fear factor. If you are always willing to learn new skills, there will always be someone out there who needs you. If you are very knowledgable, especially about technology, you can afford to be choosy about where you work, because they need you more than you need them.
I also think that there are still plenty of people out there who are driven to be more productive out of loyalty rather than fear. Especially in small companies, because it seems that the smaller the scale of the company, the more likely the managers and owners will be competent, and the more likely they will know and care about their employees and vice-versa.
I suppose the fact that I'm a feminist doesn't really have anything to do with it, however, it is the primary factor in my caring to clarify information about studies done that exposed disparities in pay between men and women.
I also think I may not have made my point quite clear in my previous post.
The point I was trying to make was this:
In the Original "So it's a choice we make" post, the theory was presented that these disparities in pay are due to lifestyle choice differences between men and women. I was trying to say that whether or not there are those differences in choice would not affect the outcome of those studies, because the men and women who were compared in them had made similar life choices. The men who choose a higher paying job that requires more hours are being compared to women who also chose that kind of job, and therefore,the studies point to some kind of inequality as the cause of the disparity, and not lifestyle choices.
Not to be picky, but the statistics on the disparity in wages/salaries between genders are based on men and women in equivalent jobs. :-
So, while it may be true that women are more likely choose jobs with more sensible hours, they are not the ones whose salaries are being compared to the men who are working 60 hours a week.
Sorry, I'm just a little bit of a feminist
You mean, there are operating systems out there other than windows, and they're free?
Honestly, though, I don't think this is an attempt by big, evil microsoft to crush free software though I'm sure they would if they could. I think that it just never occurred to whoever wrote the "Naked PCs" article that anyone would want anything other than windows.
I think it really just goes to show how out of touch people at M$ are. It is really funny though, and kind of sad, too..
If I went to a computer store and explained that I was going to install Linux, FreeBSD, or any other free OS, and did not want to pay for windows, I would hope that they would believe me, and respect that wish. If they didn't, they would certainly lose my business.
i bought a dvd player because i want the high quality picture and sound, as well as the lack of deterioration if i ever have kids, i want them to be able to watch my Monty Python dvds
i bought a zone-free dvd player, at a much higher cost than a code compliant player, because i am a big fan of anime. currently, i own almost the entire rurouni kenshin series and the ova's on import dvd. it is expensive, but well worth it to me. however, import anime is not the only thing i watch on my dvd player. i have perfectly legal copies of many american releases as well, and certainly have no intention of pirating anything
i have reason to believe that this new measure may very well affect my particular dvd player, and make future dvd releases un-playable.
i bought my dvd player well before the DeCSS controversy began, but ever since, my hatred of the MPAA has been growing exponentially. i actually have an anti-MPAA bumper sticker on my car i don't want to support such a restricted standard, but right now, it is the only way to get the level of quality i want.
as it stands, my choices are to be a hypocrite, but be able to watch movies with an extremely clear picture and dolby surround which will not deteriorate over the years, or to make due with a vastly inferior standard which does not carry the same restrictions.
either way, i, a consumer, lose.
ideally businesses succeed because they fill a need in such a way as to benefit the consumer. instead, they have given me quite a dilemma. if it weren't for corporate greed and paranoia, this could easily be avoided.
because of many of the same kinds of issues, i do not and will not own any M$ software. but in this case, there are multiple alternatives. with linux and freeBSD, i can do anything i might have needed windows for, and more, without all the restrictions imposed by monopolistic corporate greed.
in the case of dvd's, though, there is no alternative that adequately fulfills my requirements, and i don't see that changing the parties that make up the MPAA have a stranglehold on the mainstream motion picture industry. it really makes me feel that i have no choice no other options. i predict that most people in this situation will continue to buy dvd's, but keep a deep resentment for those who have forced them into supporting a standard that strictly limits their own freedom of choice.
if my requirements for sound and picture quality are to be fulfilled, i have no choice except the choice to not have those requirements fulfilled at all. does that make sense?
i really resent that.
maybe there's some perfectly obviousl answer to this question that i'm missing, but it seems to me that if all these so-called geeks in the technology industry really want to see SDMI sink, they could just crack it themselves. I'm sure they wouldn't be eligible for the $prize, but the quotes from the interviews make it sound as if they really want to see it cracked and have a bit of a personal stake in the matter. if they could show how easy it would be to crack, as they seem to be sure it is, wouldn't that be just as good as some random hacker? of course they would have to show that an ordinary hacker and not one who already has intimate knowledge of the development of SDMI could do it. they certainly seem sure that it can be easily broken in all those qoutes, so why not prove it themselves?
i also find it interesting that everyone is so concerned about the artists. as it is, most musicians on major record labels are getting totally screwed. being that SDMI is the recording industry's baby, i really doubt that that would change.
I don't think the point of this is even so much whether SDMI encryption is crackable. Certainly they want to make it as strong as possible. However, I think that the real point is that when and if it goes into use, they can make it illegal to crack it and distribute unauthorized players, just like DeCSS. And of course all authorized players will have to pay liscensing fees and and will be strictly limited in their features, i.e. binary only, no capabilities for converting to onther non-encrypted formats such as mp3, etc. Certainly anyone who values their freedom should boycot the hack contest, there's no reason to help them. In the end, though, I don't think it will matter, as long as they have the DMCA behind them. Anyone who created or distributed a hack would have to do so at the risk of prosecution.
One of the things I've always loved about the internet is it's degree of accessibility to the individual, not only for getting information, but for disseminating it. If you want to get your ideas heard on television, it's going to cost you a lot more money than a web page or a post on usenet. Consequently, the views expressed are going to be those of the wealthy and powerful. The problem with this, obviously, is that the wealthy, powerful individuals and companies are not generally going to have the same interests as the much larger group of non-wealthy, non-powerful individuals. Television primarily promotes the status-quo. Why would those groups want anything to change, when they are doing so well?
Unfortunately, many of those who could benefit from political change are buying into it. Lots of people believe everything they see on T.V.
Technology like the internet, on the other hand, though it is becoming more and more commercial, is still much more accessible to the little guy. For me, it has almost completely replaced television broadcasts.
The internet is host to a much broader range of views and opinions from a much larger sampling of social and economic classes.
So, I guess that my main point is (sorry it took so long) that whether or not technology can promote democracy depends on whether that technology is in the hands of the people.
I don't think that technology in the hands of the politicians really promotes democracy as much. It is just as important for the politicians to listen to the people as vice-versa.
Many posters have already brought up the point that we don't really have a democracy and wouldn't really want one. I think it is important for everyone to be heard, but for no one's rights to be trampled in the process. The danger in a true Democracy is that while the majority may benefit, the minorities likely will not.
Personally, the internet has encouraged me to be more political. I keep up-to date on the issues, and often send email and faxes to my senators. Unfortunately, I generally get a form-letter response saying thank-you, but I disagree with you (and of course not responding at all to any specific points included in my original message). I think that experiences like that have done more to discourage people from taking part in politics than anything else. It's not pleasant to be thought of as nothing more than another check on a public opinion poll.
I am going to vote this year, but not for either Bush or Gore.
i'm replying to this because you at least had the guts to log in and post as yourself, unlike mr. or ms. "linux users should be butchered".
of course, you are welcome to have whatever opinion of linux you want. however, i love linux, freeBSD, and the whole open source movement, and can't help but defend it.
yes, it's true that capitalism is all about making money, but what's so great about that? with companies like microsoft, it has not resulted in a better product (not in my opinion, anyway).
the idea behind capitalism and free-market enterprise was that through competition for the consumers' almighty dollar, a better cheaper product was supposed to result, and consumers were supposed to benefit.
personally, i don't buy into the idea of "social darwinism", which, btw, is a terrible injustice to darwin himself, or survival of the fittest within society. herbert spencer (1820-1903) was the main proponent of this idea, which stated that those who were not successful in society were obviously just innately inferior. many people of the time were very eager to see this idea accepted, because it could be used to justify discrimination on the basis of race or economic standing. factory owners felt more justified in exploiting their workers, whites felt more justified in mistreating blacks, etc..
now to get back on topic a bit...
capitalism may be about making money, but Linux isn't. certainly there are many people who want to make money from linux, and i would like to see many of them succeed. i also want to see linux make enough money to support continuing development and improvement, which it obviously is doing.
but i think that for most of the people who develop linux and open source software in general, it is not about money at all. it is about taking control and creating a product with the features that they really want and need, and then sharing it with others. in turn, they benefit from any improvements that anyone else has made. this whole system creates a sense of community and product loyalty that definitely can't be found within big corporations full of "suits" and PHBs. none of this has a whole lot to do with capitalism, and i for one love that about it. there is no other way for a technically-oriented computer-lover to get such a wealth of development tools, for example. especially so inexpensively. so, linux and open source are about benefitting the individual, not about making profits for a large corporation by screwing the individuals.
made by the people for the people!!!
as debian would say, when code matters more than commercials.
'kay, i'm done.
--christy mccarthy
i'm not a solaris user or an admin, however, this article by David Dittrich analyzes some source code for stacheldracht, which was found by a security investigator in a stolen account. apparently there were makefiles for both linux and solaris. it doesn't run as well on linux,though, which is probably why it has been found only on solaris systems. the article also compares and contrasts the different DoS attack tools, i.e. TFN, TFN2K, trinoo, and stacheldracht.