OK, I gotcha. I'm not against either features or ease of use (or stability:) but I'd rather have simplicity and "transparency" so I can see how things work and reconfigure them or write scripts to reconfigure them, export data, etc. Too many people coming over from the windows world don't realize the benefits because they've never operated in that world. And they haven't operated in that world because Microsoft (where they employ many people who know better) actively stamps out simplicity and transparency so they can maintain their monopoly. That's the evil of Bill Gates, Charles Simonyi, Gordon Lettwin, et al in a nutshell.
gosh I hate Outlook! It's so amazing to me to see people like it. I'm not trying to flame you or troll, I just want to understand: How can you like both Linux and Outlook? Linux has command lines, and transparent ascii text for config files and for mailfiles. Outlook is completely proprietary, hides information, doesn't do simple things like show the email address of correspondents, doesn't obey simple preferences like "plain text" formatting... oh I could go on.
It'll help Linux in the officeOutlook? Lookout linux: sounds like you want Linux to add all the features I was fleeing from.
It's called free speech and it's called diversity.
different people have different opinions about disclosing security holes. Clearly, if you know about a hole, disclosing it will warn people of a problem that bad guys might already know about, but it will also tell the bad guys about something they might not know about. There is no right answer to what the best policy is. In one circumstance it might help you. In another, it might harm.
But, if you believe in free speech, and freedom to explore, and in preserving diversity of opinion, live with it. I will note that the folks who complain most bitterly about disclosure are the companies who sell the buggy software, not their customers who are at risk.
the liability is not in deleting. but if somebody posts something like "Daniel Schorr got fired for lying" or "Nina Totenburg got fired for plagiarism", if you delete other stuff the claim can be made you should have deleted this stuff. Though, I tried to pick stuff I've heard is true so I wouldn't be guilty of it.
To me, this is a point in favour of the "little brother" approach - if there are people who are clueless enough to let it happen, they should be punished until they fix the problem.
right! and while we're more or less in agreement, I want to change your spin. It's not punishment, it's managing abusive access to a scarce and privately financed resource given over to public use, and it's managing it in a very open way and giving people recourse.
Ah, yes. The good old days. Don't like your neighbour? Don't worry. Just start spreading a rumour that she's a promiscuous little wench or whatever the narrow-minded small town mentality deems immoral at the time
or post something made up to Slashdot, or unfairly moderate it down just because you are a moderator... you've failed to make your case. The difference is just as much in attitude and the actual thoughts in people's heads as it is in the system.
the fact is that there are more promiscous little wenches in the world today, and because it's become more acceptable, and we have more AIDs and unwed mothers as a result. Don't get me wrong, those are probably good things, but don't blame the messengers.
For the judge to be impressed by the professor's argument... well, who cares? CS professors, law professors, judges, they're all so similar it's just I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine, the cognitive and professional elites taking care of their own interests. I think the important question is business-related reverse engineering.
Business speech is already not protected like other speech, and "intellectual property" claims get expanded all the time to the extent that creativity is being stifled. Sure protect innovation, but mouse click patents and codecs that we all need to listen to music and encrypted artificial barriers so we all need to pay tariffs for commodity services... these things should not be protected. Reverse engineering must be protected.
Hey, my favorite acronym for a reverse engineering enterprise: RevEngE
I wonder if we could raise enough $$$ through contributions to pay for the lawsuits necessary to help kuro5hin shake the system down? I'd kick in a few hundred.
if you delete, you are exercising editorial control and you become legally liable for civil lawsuits from people who think they've been libelled, infringed, or even spindled. The "many moderators" model is an attempt to get the benefits of "dropping" junk without incurring the liability.
I'm looking forward to a net that has more trust-based culpability and security. Where anonymity is for people who don't abuse it.
No! I'm not advocating for big brother. Let me give a small example. Kuro5hin should have turned off (via firewall/packet filter) the abusers. The other people who used addresses in those same ranges would have the recourse of going to their ISP and getting the miscreants kicked off. Then, kuro5hin could turn the IPs back on. It's a "little brother" approach, the typical way social systems worked in the old days in small towns, where the vandal's mother generally knew about the vandalism before the perp got home.
It's a little bit the way ORBS works, and though they attract a lot of anger, it seems to work pretty well to me. If the trust network got ubiquitous enough, even large criminal conspiracies like Network Solutions could be brought under control.
I think it starts with ISPs cooperating in attacking abuse.
hey, if you flip the write protect tab on the disk, your installation would be pretty secure: if your ever compromised, take it off the net and reboot: it'll be back to the way it was. Then, patch the security hole that was exploited (with the write protect off) and bring it back online.
Re:Humans get along remarkably well
on
Geek Flavor
·
· Score: 1
Surely you don't mean to say that the thousands of wildebeests moving in a pack across africa all know each other like close buddies?
I did say "mostly"; very few things are absolute. Many herd and pack animals do "know" who is in their herd and who is not. I'll bet if you took a few wildebeest from a few different herds and put them together, they'd be very uncomfortable and restless, even if you showed them a good movie.
what about the harsh conditions that typify the the burial into porous rock... ?:)
Humans get along remarkably well
on
Geek Flavor
·
· Score: 5
Humans CAN'T get along, people are impaired from helping each other
I understand the point of and the lamentation in your post. However, I heard an anthropologist point out an interesting fact, how well humans do get along, better than most other species. Humans are willing to sit quietly next to total strangers in a dark movie theater or in a crowded train. Other animals are mostly not capable of this sort of feat.
because trademarks have nothing to do with being part of the language. They have to do with being associated with a product. "Windows" and "Palm" and "International Business Machines" are all words from the language, as is "Mandrake". Trademarks are about registering the association between your use of a word in commerce.
However, trademarked words can become generic which I think Olympics has, since if you asked anybody they'd tell you that "Special Olympics", "Math Olympics", "Gay Olympics", etc. make sense and have nothing to do with the IOC. These sorts of actions by the IOC result in an Olympic Stain:) on their reputation.
I thought the constitution prohibited laws that single out individuals for special treatment, presumably including "individual" organizations...? can somebody explain this to me?
Vague? Please, that's pathetic. I asked a very substantive question in the post you replied to, which, had you answered it, might have illuminated you on the meaning of abstraction. How about "an education is worse than worthless if you think you have one and don't know how to apply it"
The BSD's comprise complete systems. Linux is a kernel only.
linux is a kernel available (and useless) plain, or via a number of distros in which it is bundled with a number of tools and utilities. How are the various BSD flavors different? they're bundled with mostly the same tools and utilities
I know that you already know what I'm pointing out, but you are willfully pretending you don't know what I'm talking about because its the only way you could think of to score some putative rhetorical points.
BSD zealots (and I don't say that pejoratively) routinely point out the advantages of their kernel, far more than they point out the advantages of their disk partitions or filesystem formats. But in any case, name an aspect of BSD that you like. Can that aspect be integrated with or made to work with linux or within one of the standard linux distros? Wouldn't that make the world incrementally better? When the integration is complete, you couldd pop in a distro disc and the installer would install all the various kernels and you could boot the one you wanted, or alternate and may the best kernel win.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but several GNU/Linux clients do... :)
go get 'im, timothy!
well, that is what watermark means, though they wouldn't necessarily "stick" if converted via a different and lossy compression algorithm.
OK, I gotcha. I'm not against either features or ease of use (or stability :) but I'd rather have simplicity and "transparency" so I can see how things work and reconfigure them or write scripts to reconfigure them, export data, etc. Too many people coming over from the windows world don't realize the benefits because they've never operated in that world. And they haven't operated in that world because Microsoft (where they employ many people who know better) actively stamps out simplicity and transparency so they can maintain their monopoly. That's the evil of Bill Gates, Charles Simonyi, Gordon Lettwin, et al in a nutshell.
It'll help Linux in the officeOutlook? Lookout linux: sounds like you want Linux to add all the features I was fleeing from.
Let me add my appreciation for Kuro5hin's sysadmins to the appreciation that Slashdot's SA's deserve.
different people have different opinions about disclosing security holes. Clearly, if you know about a hole, disclosing it will warn people of a problem that bad guys might already know about, but it will also tell the bad guys about something they might not know about. There is no right answer to what the best policy is. In one circumstance it might help you. In another, it might harm.
But, if you believe in free speech, and freedom to explore, and in preserving diversity of opinion, live with it. I will note that the folks who complain most bitterly about disclosure are the companies who sell the buggy software, not their customers who are at risk.
the liability is not in deleting. but if somebody posts something like "Daniel Schorr got fired for lying" or "Nina Totenburg got fired for plagiarism", if you delete other stuff the claim can be made you should have deleted this stuff. Though, I tried to pick stuff I've heard is true so I wouldn't be guilty of it.
right! and while we're more or less in agreement, I want to change your spin. It's not punishment, it's managing abusive access to a scarce and privately financed resource given over to public use, and it's managing it in a very open way and giving people recourse.
shut 'em off automatically. I can't believe that the attacker 0wnz more than a very small percentage of available IPs.
or post something made up to Slashdot, or unfairly moderate it down just because you are a moderator... you've failed to make your case. The difference is just as much in attitude and the actual thoughts in people's heads as it is in the system.
the fact is that there are more promiscous little wenches in the world today, and because it's become more acceptable, and we have more AIDs and unwed mothers as a result. Don't get me wrong, those are probably good things, but don't blame the messengers.
Business speech is already not protected like other speech, and "intellectual property" claims get expanded all the time to the extent that creativity is being stifled. Sure protect innovation, but mouse click patents and codecs that we all need to listen to music and encrypted artificial barriers so we all need to pay tariffs for commodity services... these things should not be protected. Reverse engineering must be protected.
Hey, my favorite acronym for a reverse engineering enterprise: RevEngE
I wonder if we could raise enough $$$ through contributions to pay for the lawsuits necessary to help kuro5hin shake the system down? I'd kick in a few hundred.
if you delete, you are exercising editorial control and you become legally liable for civil lawsuits from people who think they've been libelled, infringed, or even spindled. The "many moderators" model is an attempt to get the benefits of "dropping" junk without incurring the liability.
No! I'm not advocating for big brother. Let me give a small example. Kuro5hin should have turned off (via firewall/packet filter) the abusers. The other people who used addresses in those same ranges would have the recourse of going to their ISP and getting the miscreants kicked off. Then, kuro5hin could turn the IPs back on. It's a "little brother" approach, the typical way social systems worked in the old days in small towns, where the vandal's mother generally knew about the vandalism before the perp got home.
It's a little bit the way ORBS works, and though they attract a lot of anger, it seems to work pretty well to me. If the trust network got ubiquitous enough, even large criminal conspiracies like Network Solutions could be brought under control.
I think it starts with ISPs cooperating in attacking abuse.
does anything outside of /var need to be writeable (as in, all the time)? /proc isn't on the disk, and /dev doesn't really need to be writeable...
hey, if you flip the write protect tab on the disk, your installation would be pretty secure: if your ever compromised, take it off the net and reboot: it'll be back to the way it was. Then, patch the security hole that was exploited (with the write protect off) and bring it back online.
Surely you don't mean to say that the thousands of wildebeests moving in a pack across africa all know each other like close buddies?
I did say "mostly"; very few things are absolute. Many herd and pack animals do "know" who is in their herd and who is not. I'll bet if you took a few wildebeest from a few different herds and put them together, they'd be very uncomfortable and restless, even if you showed them a good movie.
what about the harsh conditions that typify the the burial into porous rock... ? :)
I understand the point of and the lamentation in your post. However, I heard an anthropologist point out an interesting fact, how well humans do get along, better than most other species. Humans are willing to sit quietly next to total strangers in a dark movie theater or in a crowded train. Other animals are mostly not capable of this sort of feat.
Illegal? but the links I've seen are downright helpful! They said, "help this little lady conform to community standards! Buy her some panties!
what does it mean for a GUI to "scale... to the server". Wouldn't a desktop be the ne plus ultra for a GUI?
because trademarks have nothing to do with being part of the language. They have to do with being associated with a product. "Windows" and "Palm" and "International Business Machines" are all words from the language, as is "Mandrake". Trademarks are about registering the association between your use of a word in commerce.
However, trademarked words can become generic which I think Olympics has, since if you asked anybody they'd tell you that "Special Olympics", "Math Olympics", "Gay Olympics", etc. make sense and have nothing to do with the IOC. These sorts of actions by the IOC result in an Olympic Stain :) on their reputation.
I thought the constitution prohibited laws that single out individuals for special treatment, presumably including "individual" organizations...? can somebody explain this to me?
The BSD's comprise complete systems. Linux is a kernel only.
linux is a kernel available (and useless) plain, or via a number of distros in which it is bundled with a number of tools and utilities. How are the various BSD flavors different? they're bundled with mostly the same tools and utilities
I know that you already know what I'm pointing out, but you are willfully pretending you don't know what I'm talking about because its the only way you could think of to score some putative rhetorical points.
BSD zealots (and I don't say that pejoratively) routinely point out the advantages of their kernel, far more than they point out the advantages of their disk partitions or filesystem formats. But in any case, name an aspect of BSD that you like. Can that aspect be integrated with or made to work with linux or within one of the standard linux distros? Wouldn't that make the world incrementally better? When the integration is complete, you couldd pop in a distro disc and the installer would install all the various kernels and you could boot the one you wanted, or alternate and may the best kernel win.