Basically I read them as "ok, you have to trust us not to make conffetti out of your pc, but we choose not to trust you not to make conffetti out of our project..."
Is this really so unreasonable, though? Distributed.net is a public organization offering membership to anyone and everyone. As such, it has a certain amount of credibility, as none of these people have had confetti made of their PCs. On the other hand, by virtue of being public with unrestricted membership, d.net is quite at risk for unsavory people doing unsavory things. Mistrust is a necessary evil. In short, -you- don't have to accept distributed.net, but -they- have to accept -you-. As such, different trust levels are appropriate.
Don't forget: If we lived in a perfect enough world that this sort of security was unneeded, the projects which distributed.net is currently working on wouldn't even exist.
I get real tired of the few times I actually read the comments being full of flamebait and trolls. I'm sick of Slashdot being a continual form of immaturity battle...
Welcome to the reality of a public forum. Terrifying, isn't it?
Some posters have been criticizing NBC for making this movie, saying it's akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. To me, it seems more like showing a movie about fire in a crowded theatre. No one in their right mind would watch a fictional movie and freak out thinking it's reality. (How much of a global panic did the movie Jurassic Park creat?) Obviously some people are going to freak out over this movie, but then again, some people freaked out over Jurassic Park, too. You just didn't hear about it because no one took them seriously (rightly so, of course). Sure there's going to be some Y2K hysteria, but to blame it on this movie is downright offensive coming from an intelligent person. Do you think DOOM and Army of Darkness made the Columbine killers do what they did? Grow up. This is a movie; probably a stupid one. If you don't care for it, stop caring about it.
Fuel the panic? Don't think that that the concept of Y2K panic being the worst part of the event is an original idea. Look at what the media's been doing in the last few months. I've seen no 'the end of the world is coming, just so you know' articles in this timespan; every article I see is 'x is certified Y2K compliant,' or articles about how it's a bad idea to stockpile food and water. In short, if we live in a society where fictional made-for-TV movies bear more credence in the average American's mind than the news.. then Y2K is the least of our problems. slightly disjointed thoughts courtesy of neil
I don't think any intelligent reader, cogniscent of what the article was about, would misinterpret my post. I'm not going to worry about the idiot fringe who might misunderstand, and I'm not responsible for anything they might do because of misunderstanding (especially since reading the comments carries an implicit prerequisite of understanding the article). Bottom line, I'm not going to water my posts down so that they're `safe' for the lowest common denominator. As a side note: if you run valiantly to the defense of the lowest common denominator, don't be surprised when you're mistaken for one of them.
Obviously you've only been using the Internet for a few weeks (how are those 50 free hours holding up?) so I'll do you a favor and fill you in.
Although it's fairly obvious from actually reading the comment anyway, the Good Times virus warning has been around for who knows how long. I first got it about 6 years ago, I think (and have gotten it 5 or 6 times since). Practically everyone who has an e-mail address has gotten it. Yes, it's a hoax. It's obviously a hoax. It's the oldest hoax in the virus hoax book, and countless debunkings have been written, centering around the very important point:
"You can't get a virus just from reading an e-mail message."
Oops. Microsoft certainly is redefining the way we think about computing...
The FCC released a warning last Wednesday concerning a matter of major importance to any regular user of the Internet. Apparently a new computer virus has been engineered by a user of AMERICA ONLINE that is unparalleled in its destructive capability. Other more well-known viruses such as "Stoned", "Airwolf" and "Michaelangelo" pale in comparison to the prospects of this newest creation by a warped mentality.
What makes this virus so terrifying, said the FCC, is the fact that no program needs to be exchanged for a new computer to be infected. It can be spread through the existing e-mail systems of the Internet. Once a computer is infected, one of several things can happen. If the computer contains a hard drive, that will most likely be destroyed. If the program is not stopped, the computer's processor will be placed in an nth-complexity infinite binary loop -which can severely damage the processor if left running that way too long.
Unfortunately, most novice computer users will not realize what is happening until it is far too late. Luckily, there is one sure means of detecting what is now known as the "Good Times" virus. It always travels to new computers the same way in a text email message with the subject line reading "Good Times". Avoiding infection is easy once the file has been received- not reading it! The act of loading the file into the mail server's ASCII buffer causes the "Good Times" mainline program to initialize and execute.
The program is highly intelligent- it will send copies of itself to everyone whose e-mail address is contained in a receive-mail file or a sent-mail file, if it can find one. It will then proceed to trash the computer it is running on. The bottom line here is - if you receive a file with the subject line "Good Times", delete it immediately! Do not read it" Rest assured that whoever's name was on the "From" line was surely struck by the virus. Warn your friends and local system users of this newest threat to the Internet! It could save them a lot of time and money.
--- cut here ---
ah yes. it's true what they say about fiction becoming reality. and we have microsoft to thank.:)
The way I calculated it was by figuring out how many megaflops my computer had, then dividing the overall keyrate by my accumulated keyrate to see how many of my-equivalent-computers were doing d.net. Multiplying that by my number of mflops gives an extremely rough estimate of d.net's `score,' but a better one than guessing how many computers each e-mail address has. As I said, I think I erred on the low side (probably on the very low side, since d.net is at least a several-hundred-thousand-processor machine and ASCI Red is only 9,632-processor).
I did a little quick (and inaccurate) math using distributed.net's rc5-64 project statistics and extrapolating TFlops (the main unit of comparison used in this study) from the total keys/second as compared to my computer's keys/second. My results, which I strongly believe err on the low side, show that the computers -currently- working on RC5-64 total a computing power of 11.5 teraflops, or almost 6 times the power of ASCI Red. Woohoo! --neil
Carnegie Mellon randomly checked the public portions of 250 students' computer accounts...71 students had posted MP3's with copyright-protected songs on Web sites...
Sure sounds like web pages to me. Not that these articles are typically well-informed.
As far as I can tell from reading the article, these 'surprise inspections' just meant a quick check of the users' public html directories; the abstract definitely gives a feel of a knock on the dorm room door or the like. Nonetheless, I guess the day of the 'stern warning' is over./me makes a note to be more paranoid in the future.
Indeed. If Google sees words together a lot it'll form internal connections between them. 'evil' gets seen with Microsoft a lot; a word like 'more' or 'than' which appears on MS's home site closes the deal. Also see many other well-known evil corporations, like Sun or Disney. Virtually identical results will occur for 'sucks,' 'blows,' you name it. The web has spoken...
`Insightful?' Come on, people, is it really that bizarre and incomprehensible a fact about human beings that they don't always do what's good for them? Do you walk into a fast-food restaurant and see people eating salty, fatty, unhealthy junk food and think 'I just don't know why they eat this instead of health food! It boggles the mind!' Do you see students playing video games and goofing off when they should be studying and need a genius like this poster to explain exactly why to you? It's basic human nature, people. Why else would I read slashdot comments when I know I'm just going to get pissed off...
Am I the only person who can see that this post is a joke? 'Little more than long term prostitution?' I'll say one thing.. you guys tend to fit one nerd stereotype dead on---extreme gullibility.
..if there's one thing Slashdot readers are good at, it's coming up with unique reactions to controversial ideas that cause most people to shut down their critical thinking abilities and issue emotional, knee-jerk responses.
What? This sounds like FUD to me! Micro$oft-lover! This is flamebait! Linux rules!
an important point to consider in this oft-cited example is that by the time Stephen Hawking's disease became apparent, he was in his 20s, married, and had a Ph.D. not quite a baby and not quite apropos to this discussion. --neil
do what i did and find an old IBM super-clicky kbd...surplus sales and garage sales are good (though i'm told they have them at wal*mart too). the keycaps come off and are all the same shape for easy rearrangement.
just fyi, 'left-handed dvorak' is intended for people who only -have- a left hand. those with two, regardless of dominance, should use standard dvorak. especially those who currently use qwerty.:)
I hardly think that somebody is flattering himself if he says he's a "pseudo" anything. Sounds more like self-deprecation to me. What if some Slashdot contributor called himself a pseudo-geek or a pseudo-hacker? Is that a compliment? Suppose I said that your post is full of pseudo-intelligence. Wouldn't you take that as an insult? this works in theory. but look at the facts. he obviously -does- think he's a journalist, in at least some capacity, as you so saliently point out in your next sentence:
Taco is telling us that he sees both sides of this story. On the one hand, he wants to be able to get ahold of someone like Linus. On the other hand, he wants journalists to leave him alone, particularly the clueless ones. That is entirely appropriate commentary. appropriate commentary it may be, but why is his commentary more important than anyone else's? someone must think it is, because it gets put on the front page.. who thinks that his opinion is this important? why, it's rob himself! did i say something about flattering himself up there?
And then you top it all off with a spelling flame! Sheesh! i have nothing against computer geeks who can't spell. if you'd paid attention to the context, you'd notice that i -do- have something against journalists who can't spell. it's all relatively straightforward, but i always have to repeat myself 'round these parts.
as for 'find a better target,' even if that -were- a reasonable response, i'd have a lot of trouble finding one. and 'judge not lest ye be judged?' what do you even -mean- by that? i assume you're not using that in a general sense, because that much hypocrisy in that little text would make any human's head explode, or at least that's what i'd like to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this really so unreasonable, though? Distributed.net is a public organization offering membership to anyone and everyone. As such, it has a certain amount of credibility, as none of these people have had confetti made of their PCs. On the other hand, by virtue of being public with unrestricted membership, d.net is quite at risk for unsavory people doing unsavory things. Mistrust is a necessary evil. In short, -you- don't have to accept distributed.net, but -they- have to accept -you-. As such, different trust levels are appropriate.
Don't forget: If we lived in a perfect enough world that this sort of security was unneeded, the projects which distributed.net is currently working on wouldn't even exist.
--neil
Welcome to the reality of a public forum. Terrifying, isn't it?
--neil
Fuel the panic? Don't think that that the concept of Y2K panic being the worst part of the event is an original idea. Look at what the media's been doing in the last few months. I've seen no 'the end of the world is coming, just so you know' articles in this timespan; every article I see is 'x is certified Y2K compliant,' or articles about how it's a bad idea to stockpile food and water. In short, if we live in a society where fictional made-for-TV movies bear more credence in the average American's mind than the news.. then Y2K is the least of our problems. slightly disjointed thoughts courtesy of neil
Where I come from, 1 is an odd number.
It was. However, there isn't going to be -another- one for a good long time. See? You should've appreciated them while you had them.
--neil
Although it's fairly obvious from actually reading the comment anyway, the Good Times virus warning has been around for who knows how long. I first got it about 6 years ago, I think (and have gotten it 5 or 6 times since). Practically everyone who has an e-mail address has gotten it. Yes, it's a hoax. It's obviously a hoax. It's the oldest hoax in the virus hoax book, and countless debunkings have been written, centering around the very important point:
"You can't get a virus just from reading an e-mail message."
Oops. Microsoft certainly is redefining the way we think about computing...
--neil
The FCC released a warning last Wednesday concerning a matter of major importance to any regular user of the Internet. Apparently a new computer virus has been engineered by a user of AMERICA ONLINE that is unparalleled in its destructive capability. Other more well-known viruses such as "Stoned", "Airwolf" and "Michaelangelo" pale in comparison to the prospects of this newest creation by a warped
:)
mentality.
What makes this virus so terrifying, said the FCC, is the fact that no program needs to be exchanged for a new computer to be infected. It can be spread through the existing e-mail systems of the Internet. Once a computer is infected, one of several things can happen. If the computer contains a hard drive, that will most likely be destroyed. If the program is not stopped, the computer's processor will be placed in
an nth-complexity infinite binary loop -which can severely damage the processor if left running that way too long.
Unfortunately, most novice computer users will not realize what is happening until it is far too late. Luckily, there is one sure means of detecting what is now known as the "Good Times" virus. It always travels to new computers the same way in a text email message with the subject line reading "Good Times". Avoiding infection is easy once the file has been received- not reading it! The act of loading the file into the mail server's ASCII buffer causes the "Good Times" mainline program to initialize and execute.
The program is highly intelligent- it will send copies of itself to everyone whose e-mail address is contained in a receive-mail file or a sent-mail file, if it can find one. It will then proceed to trash the computer it is running on. The bottom line here is - if you receive a file with the subject line "Good Times", delete it immediately! Do not read it" Rest assured that whoever's name was on the "From" line was surely struck by the virus. Warn your friends and local system users of this newest threat to the Internet! It could save them a lot of time and money.
--- cut here ---
ah yes. it's true what they say about fiction becoming reality. and we have microsoft to thank.
--neil
The way I calculated it was by figuring out how many megaflops my computer had, then dividing the overall keyrate by my accumulated keyrate to see how many of my-equivalent-computers were doing d.net. Multiplying that by my number of mflops gives an extremely rough estimate of d.net's `score,' but a better one than guessing how many computers each e-mail address has. As I said, I think I erred on the low side (probably on the very low side, since d.net is at least a several-hundred-thousand-processor machine and ASCI Red is only 9,632-processor).
I'd be willing to bet they're chaste too.
I did a little quick (and inaccurate) math using distributed.net's rc5-64 project statistics and extrapolating TFlops (the main unit of comparison used in this study) from the total keys/second as compared to my computer's keys/second. My results, which I strongly believe err on the low side, show that the computers -currently- working on RC5-64 total a computing power of 11.5 teraflops, or almost 6 times the power of ASCI Red. Woohoo! --neil
Sure sounds like web pages to me. Not that these articles are typically well-informed.
--neil
--neil
Agreeing not does me!
--neil
You get the point.
--neil
"Really?!"
--neil
AC IS CORNERED AS A TROLL
--neil
--neil
an important point to consider in this oft-cited example is that by the time Stephen Hawking's disease became apparent, he was in his 20s, married, and had a Ph.D. not quite a baby and not quite apropos to this discussion. --neil
i think the employees of redhat, caldera, suse, va, &c, actually work on redhat, caldera, suse, va, &c, respectively, full-time.
--neil
do what i did and find an old IBM super-clicky kbd...surplus sales and garage sales are good (though i'm told they have them at wal*mart too). the keycaps come off and are all the same shape for easy rearrangement.
--neil
just fyi, 'left-handed dvorak' is intended for people who only -have- a left hand. those with two, regardless of dominance, should use standard dvorak. especially those who currently use qwerty. :)
--neil
this works in theory. but look at the facts. he obviously -does- think he's a journalist, in at least some capacity, as you so saliently point out in your next sentence:
Taco is telling us that he sees both sides of this story. On the one hand, he wants to be able to get ahold of someone like Linus. On the other hand, he wants journalists to leave him alone, particularly the clueless ones. That is entirely appropriate commentary.
appropriate commentary it may be, but why is his commentary more important than anyone else's? someone must think it is, because it gets put on the front page.. who thinks that his opinion is this important? why, it's rob himself! did i say something about flattering himself up there?
And then you top it all off with a spelling flame! Sheesh!
i have nothing against computer geeks who can't spell. if you'd paid attention to the context, you'd notice that i -do- have something against journalists who can't spell. it's all relatively straightforward, but i always have to repeat myself 'round these parts.
--neil
as for 'find a better target,' even if that -were- a reasonable response, i'd have a lot of trouble finding one. and 'judge not lest ye be judged?' what do you even -mean- by that? i assume you're not using that in a general sense, because that much hypocrisy in that little text would make any human's head explode, or at least that's what i'd like to believe.
--neil