The only way I can respond to this incredibly foolish post is to reiterate a point Howard Zinn has made repeatedly. Times like these are when it is absolutely vital that we dissent, because right now it is more than the usual politics, it is now a matter of life and death. Afghan civilians will most likely die (or already have, reports are sketchy). This blurs if not eliminates the morality of our actions, making it once again even more vital that we stop and think about what our nation is doing. Even if you come to the conclusion that what we are doing is right, you should still look long and hard, and think deeply and critically before offering your blind (and it is blind, there is almost no information about the retaliatory actions except what we are getting from the U.S. government) support for military action.
First off, an excellent point about the complex nature of bias in the mainstream media. We do however need to define what we are talking about. When we say "mainstream" do we mean American mainstream or international mainstream? The coverage of the protests in the Toronto Globe and Mail (essentially the Canadian NY Times) was excellent, it was very balanced and talked about all sides of the issue. The NYT itself, on the other hand, didn't much deviate from the "protesters stupid, leaders smart" "protesters evil, police good" line. If you place the coverage side by side the difference in balance is startling. We also have to define what we mean by alternative media. If we mean things like the Workers Vanguard, yeah, it's mindless propaganda from the other side. However, if you look at magazines like Z Magazine or The Nation, its a lot more intelligent, and does tend to talk about the other side.
Another thing to keep in mind with the mainstream American media is what they mean by both sides. Watching the Fox News Channel and hearing their "liberal" on the show (Hannity & Colmes I believe) say "Obviously we're all for free trade" does enormous damage (you can find more moderated examples of this in most mainstream coverage, Fox is just the most blatant example). Not only does this not actually give both "sides" (and we must be careful here, there are always more than two sides) but it makes the viewer think they have heard both sides, thus shaping the terms of the debate such that any funamental questioning or alternatives are totally absent, and presumed not to exist at all. I'd suggest you head over to Znet if you want an example of good alternative journalism. Sorry for the length and all the parentheticals, but this is a topic worthy of books worth of discussion.
As to the whole rich vs. everyone else syndrome, you have to remember that they are typically working, even if unaware of it, from the Marxist analysis of class strugle. On the other hand, if you look at the mainstream media, they work from the assumption that the CEO and the factory worker have the same interests. Both views are overly simplistic. Then again, most good alternative media tends to have more complex sociological analyses than rich v. poor, so you do get a more honest attempt to actually analyze what the major causes of problems are, albeit from a progressive slant.
Well, on that ambiguous note, I will once again reiterate that the best thing to do is read everything (books from the sociology and political science section of your bookstore are great background material), and come to your own conclusions. Just don't assume that any one source is giving you the whole story, because they never are.
Hmm...As an ideologically flexible "extreme lefty" type, I feel I must step in. Objectivity is basically impossible, and often not even desirable. Ever read a history book the tried to play up Hitler's good side? The best we can do is acknowledge our biases, and take everything we hear with an informed grain of salt.
Sites like indymedia recognize that most of the mainstream media acts as a mouthpiece for the interests of the companies that own them, and yet pretend to be objective. The lefties at least admit their biases and say outright that their news is aimed towards progressive social change. Does this mean falsifying information? No, it means highlighting those things ignored or distorted by the major media, and adding your own perspective to the issue.
They allow anyone to submit a story because they realize that everyone will have a slightly different slant. If we listen to everyone, or as near to everyone as is reasonably possible we have a better chance of coming to understand exactly what is happening and, just as important, what it means. The ultimate point of information is not an avalanche of disconected facts, but the usefullness of those facts in forming a better understanding of the world. Since meaning is subjective, pretending to objectivity when covering the type of events they tend to cover is just silly.
The ultimate point of all this? Listen to all the various sources, but remember their biases, and examine your own.
Your comment as to who will get hurt is the most fallacious thing I've heard in a long time, and that's saying something. Are you honestly so far out of touch with the world that you believe if all piracy dried up tomorrow, the guy packing videos would see a dime of whatever extra profits there might be (and that's an argument in and of itself)? Of course not, they'll go to the corporation's profits. And if the piracy does go up, it will come out of corporate profits because the guy packing videos can go make the money he was making before somwhere else. The corporation has to pay (approx.) the going labor rate or they won't have anyone working for them. Ahh, the joys of a market economy...
I would like to remind you that, first off, Israel is very stable, within its voting population. Second, it appears your view of the world is the distorted one. While Europe (most of it) and North America, and Israel are good at handling close elections, think about Africa, and South America, and much of Asia. India has gotten good at the mass democracy thing, but most of the countries in the aforementioned regions would be in utter chaos. These countries also happen to take up a whole hell of a lot more space than America and Europe. Should I bother to mention Russia?
This is a good example of where it pays to read the linked article. In this case the article mentions that burnup on re-entry is caused by the speeds necessary for orbit. With entry of asteroids it is the speed that got them to earth that is the problem. Since she will be starting at a stable speed relative to the earth, and her only speed will be that due to gravity, she won't have any real friction/heat problems.
But until we have contradictory evidence, we assume the theory is correct and move from there. If we do not assume the theory of gravitation is correct, and spend all of our time watching for it to fail, we couldn't create sciences largely based on it such as astrophysics. Same thing with evolution, much of modern biology is based on it.
The problem with that amazingly bad logic and anology is that I can produce contradictory evidence. Nine is an "uneven" as you put it, number, and it is not a prime. Show me a piece of matter not behaving as the theory of gravity dictates.
It's called boycotting, not banning. Banning is what we are trying to avoid. Boycotting is a way to excercise one's freedom, banning is a restriction of it.
I try to see things from your point of view, but I just can't get my head that far up my ass.
I didn't say it was a normal government organization, just that it was one. You are correct, the Post Office, from the cashflow perspective is a free standing organization. I believe someone has already mentioned that this gives us the worst aspects of a corporation and the government. This is a rather acurate description. You get the god-awful organizational mess brought on by the fact that all of its rules and regulations are written by the government, and the tendancy towards greedy and just plain unethical business practices as a product of having to support themselves. That's why we have Elvis on a stamp.
Actually, it really is a gov't organization. Destroying a mail box is a federal crime, because it is considered federal property. Blowing up a mail box is categorized as an act of terrorism (use of explosives in destruction of federal property). You cannot refuse the service of the USPS. Since their property is considered property of the federal government, I'd call them a government org.
Actually, that's a rather bad example. Movie ratings are an industry enforced practice, there is no government intervention whatsoever.
On another topic, this law probably is constitutional. The supreme court has often ruled that the constitution does not apply to minors. Then again, every now and then they do give them rights, such as political speach('60s, elementary school kids wearing black bands in protest of the Vietnam War). It is, however, unlikely that they will extend those freedoms to violence in forms of speech, as they have refused to extend it to sex in forms of speech.
While they are not restrained by any particular law, it is basically understood that only appeals court judges make new law. Judges at this level will usually only throw a case out as unconstitutional if there is prior case law on the matter, such as many first and fourth amendment issues. This is uncharted territory, and as such, the judge is acting reasonably to stay within the letter of the law. Trial judges do not exist to interpret the laws as they see fit, merely to apply what the higher ups have decided is the correct interpretation. Barring any judgements from above, they are largely obligated to follow the law, however absurd it is. Anyone remember the evolution trials (Scopes in particular)? The law may be unconstitutional, but they still violated it, and there were no rulings on the books that said it was unconsitutional, so they were forced to proceed.
No offense, but you are really missing the point. Whether or not there is any philosophical or ethical reasoning to it, the letter of the law has been violated. At the level the case is at now, that is all the judge is allowed to look at. Access Control means simply that, anything that regulates access to something, in this case copyrighted information. No one should be allowed to put up arbitrary roadblocks? Agreed, but one has been erected none the less. Such is life and the legal system, and carping about how unfair it is does little to alter the fact.
Actually, its not even that he hasn't read the comics, he simply must not have paid attention while the movie was playing. I was with a friend who had never heard of the X-Men prior to the movie, and she thought one of the best aspects of the film was the fact that Magneto was a sypathetic character. Did Katz think the opening scene in Poland was just there for the hell of it? Or the fact that Magneto wasn't trying to kill the world leaders, but rather make them understand?
Actually, while you can substitute for the protein gained from eating animals, it is extremely difficult to get the rounded diet neccesary for a human on a vegetarian diet. Humans, naturally are omnivorous, but leaning towards carnivorous, much like bears. Plants are an acceptable temporary substitute, but meat is preferable.
No matter if VH1 and the radio station are paying for it, neither I nor our illustrious poster are paying anything for it, and he simply stated that receiving music without paying is wrong. And speaking of trolls, another person making the enormous logical fallacy of equivicating theft and intelectual property rights violations? Stealing a car is illegal because they no longer have the car, not because you have it. The purpose of the law is to protect people from harm, therefore you must show that the artists and recording companies are being materially harmed by your downloading mp3s. Since the way I decide if I'm going to buy a CD is by listening to some of the songs, via mp3, that haven't been released as singles. In this case I am not costing them money, my downloading of an mp3, in violation of their copyrights, is actually making them money.
I think a more accurate statement would be that music will GO BACK TO being classified as a service. Recorded music for profit is a very recent development. For centuries musicians managed to live off of performances. The great composers lived off actually conducting a performance of their piece(a little more complicated than that, help from nobility, blah blah blah). The musicians got paid for performing. It could be that the concept of record once reap forever is a minor blip on the musical radar. We may see popular musicians actually have to go back to playing music for a living, imagine that. Most musicians, those without recording contracts, already have to do this, and many of them manage to eek out a decent living.
It is not idiotic to hold an opinion different from someone elses. It is idiotic to hold an opinion which you have no grounds for holding. To say that someone who is gay automatically has a sexual identity problem, has no basis in reality. The only possible source of that is either gross ignorance, or listening to one to many redneck preachers. So please, don't refrain from voicing your opinions, but try to ground them in reality before inflicting them on the rest of us.
I didn't mean a hero as in some great man, I meant it as in someone for the masses to look at. We went to the moon for two reasons: the cold war, and because Kennedy said we would. The only reason the latter reason mattered is because he got shot before we saw how massively expensive it would be. And people do give up their homes and livelihoods, every great expansion has been characterized by it. The problem right now is that people are happy. An odd problem, but the reason so many gave up relative security was the horrid conditions they were in, and the promise of something much better. We have the latter, but without the former, we're going nowhere for now.
On a side note, I am not some golden age theory moron who thinks that things were great way back when. However, to say that there have never been heroes or visionaries is to fall victim to a rather pernicious form of modernism, one that tells us that there were never any great heroes, that humanity would have got there anyway, it was all inevitable. If you are looking for those who saw beyond their time, look to Thomas Paine, look to Da Vinci. Lincoln? Definitely revised to a higher standard, the Emancipation Proclamtion was after all an attempt to undermine the economic viability of the south, not the to reach the noble goal of equality often ascribed to it, but he did hold the nation together through one of its worse storms. Washington? Without his leadership as a general, his innovative use of guerilla warefare, and his Christmas attack, the revolution would have failed. FDR? A damn good diplomat, and managed to get America to do the right thing, even if it took a little manipulation, and a little dragging. No, there are not mythic, perfect men. There are, however, those who stand head and shoulders above much of the rest of their era. They are still flawed human beings, but without them dragging the rest of humanity kicking and screaming into the future we likely would still be a few thousand years back technologically and scientifically.
If you are looking for the greatest impediment to space travel, I suggest you take a good look in the mirror. It is you, and people like you, the ones who see no value in science for science's sake. If you see no inherent betterment of humanity in the exploration of space, I truely feel sorry for you. The greatest problem is that America, and much of the rest of the world have become jaded. We are in on of the periods in history where we have no visionaries and heroes to lead us in noble directions. This isn't to say that there is nothing interesting happening in the computer world, but it can't compare to the exploration of the final frontier. The Human Genome project? A welcome oddity. We are lucky that unlocking the secrets of human existence, and using it to improve the quality of life for all happens to yield major economic benefits. If you notice on all the news shows, the annoncement of the completion of this project was met with the question, when will the first products based on this hit the shelves? I suspect that we will not return to a focus on space, or any other pure science, until we are compelled either by neccesity such as the cold war, or the urging of a dead president or some such, as with JFK.
Soda Cans dont need names. Neither do term papers (I am writing a paper on gravitational mechanics, I shall call it "Newton").
The point here, is that computer systems force people to think in ways that are completely un-natural and non-logical. The words "AND/OR" mean exactly opposite between real life and computers.
Actually, logical thinking, in its formal state, is the basis for most of the mothods in which computers operate. In its informal state, things on computers represent ideas and not physical objects. They are collections of code, or characters, not the paper they are printed on. Philosophers have been in the habit of carefully labeling ideas so that everyone knows what everyone else is talking about for many centuries. People think in different ways. To me, the organization of computers seems very natural, and, as I have discussed above, it is undoubtedly logical.
Prejudices are inane, but generalizations truely are the highest form of thinking. In this case its really not too much of a stretch. Its definitional. A script kiddie is, by definition, someone who uses other people's scripts, which they usually do not understand, to do damage to systems. True, some do understand them. But to defend against an attack by them, you need to understand some fundamentals about the vast majority of them, such as their lack of knowledge.
I don't think he was advocating keeping the holes secret. The problem is, people who wouldn't have a clue how to use any of the exploits based on the technical information itself, can download scripts written by people who do know what they are doing. As much as I am for openness, perhaps not distributing "h4x0r1ng for idiots" script kits wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.
Actually we did find out...it turns out that in the version of the kernel used in this benchmarking there are some legitimate problems in the area cited. The purpose of posting something like this is so the people who know these things can post them, and help everyone else who reads slashdot to know more about the Linux operating system, its strengths and its weaknesses. Without discussions like this its quite probable that someone would see one of these tests and think "Oh, just more anti-Linux FUD" or they would think "I guess this proves Linux really isn't ready for serious use as a server." This way people can find out the truth from people who are more likely to know than they. Then again, why am I re-iterating this? Isn't this largely the point of the Slashdot comments system?
And on another note...+3, Insightful? You're kidding, right?
Slashdot Mirror
The only way I can respond to this incredibly foolish post is to reiterate a point Howard Zinn has made repeatedly. Times like these are when it is absolutely vital that we dissent, because right now it is more than the usual politics, it is now a matter of life and death. Afghan civilians will most likely die (or already have, reports are sketchy). This blurs if not eliminates the morality of our actions, making it once again even more vital that we stop and think about what our nation is doing. Even if you come to the conclusion that what we are doing is right, you should still look long and hard, and think deeply and critically before offering your blind (and it is blind, there is almost no information about the retaliatory actions except what we are getting from the U.S. government) support for military action.
Another thing to keep in mind with the mainstream American media is what they mean by both sides. Watching the Fox News Channel and hearing their "liberal" on the show (Hannity & Colmes I believe) say "Obviously we're all for free trade" does enormous damage (you can find more moderated examples of this in most mainstream coverage, Fox is just the most blatant example). Not only does this not actually give both "sides" (and we must be careful here, there are always more than two sides) but it makes the viewer think they have heard both sides, thus shaping the terms of the debate such that any funamental questioning or alternatives are totally absent, and presumed not to exist at all. I'd suggest you head over to Znet if you want an example of good alternative journalism. Sorry for the length and all the parentheticals, but this is a topic worthy of books worth of discussion.
As to the whole rich vs. everyone else syndrome, you have to remember that they are typically working, even if unaware of it, from the Marxist analysis of class strugle. On the other hand, if you look at the mainstream media, they work from the assumption that the CEO and the factory worker have the same interests. Both views are overly simplistic. Then again, most good alternative media tends to have more complex sociological analyses than rich v. poor, so you do get a more honest attempt to actually analyze what the major causes of problems are, albeit from a progressive slant.
Well, on that ambiguous note, I will once again reiterate that the best thing to do is read everything (books from the sociology and political science section of your bookstore are great background material), and come to your own conclusions. Just don't assume that any one source is giving you the whole story, because they never are.
Sites like indymedia recognize that most of the mainstream media acts as a mouthpiece for the interests of the companies that own them, and yet pretend to be objective. The lefties at least admit their biases and say outright that their news is aimed towards progressive social change. Does this mean falsifying information? No, it means highlighting those things ignored or distorted by the major media, and adding your own perspective to the issue.
They allow anyone to submit a story because they realize that everyone will have a slightly different slant. If we listen to everyone, or as near to everyone as is reasonably possible we have a better chance of coming to understand exactly what is happening and, just as important, what it means. The ultimate point of information is not an avalanche of disconected facts, but the usefullness of those facts in forming a better understanding of the world. Since meaning is subjective, pretending to objectivity when covering the type of events they tend to cover is just silly.
The ultimate point of all this? Listen to all the various sources, but remember their biases, and examine your own.
Your comment as to who will get hurt is the most fallacious thing I've heard in a long time, and that's saying something. Are you honestly so far out of touch with the world that you believe if all piracy dried up tomorrow, the guy packing videos would see a dime of whatever extra profits there might be (and that's an argument in and of itself)? Of course not, they'll go to the corporation's profits. And if the piracy does go up, it will come out of corporate profits because the guy packing videos can go make the money he was making before somwhere else. The corporation has to pay (approx.) the going labor rate or they won't have anyone working for them. Ahh, the joys of a market economy...
I would like to remind you that, first off, Israel is very stable, within its voting population. Second, it appears your view of the world is the distorted one. While Europe (most of it) and North America, and Israel are good at handling close elections, think about Africa, and South America, and much of Asia. India has gotten good at the mass democracy thing, but most of the countries in the aforementioned regions would be in utter chaos. These countries also happen to take up a whole hell of a lot more space than America and Europe. Should I bother to mention Russia?
This is a good example of where it pays to read the linked article. In this case the article mentions that burnup on re-entry is caused by the speeds necessary for orbit. With entry of asteroids it is the speed that got them to earth that is the problem. Since she will be starting at a stable speed relative to the earth, and her only speed will be that due to gravity, she won't have any real friction/heat problems.
But until we have contradictory evidence, we assume the theory is correct and move from there. If we do not assume the theory of gravitation is correct, and spend all of our time watching for it to fail, we couldn't create sciences largely based on it such as astrophysics. Same thing with evolution, much of modern biology is based on it.
The problem with that amazingly bad logic and anology is that I can produce contradictory evidence. Nine is an "uneven" as you put it, number, and it is not a prime. Show me a piece of matter not behaving as the theory of gravity dictates.
It's called boycotting, not banning. Banning is what we are trying to avoid. Boycotting is a way to excercise one's freedom, banning is a restriction of it. I try to see things from your point of view, but I just can't get my head that far up my ass.
I didn't say it was a normal government organization, just that it was one. You are correct, the Post Office, from the cashflow perspective is a free standing organization. I believe someone has already mentioned that this gives us the worst aspects of a corporation and the government. This is a rather acurate description. You get the god-awful organizational mess brought on by the fact that all of its rules and regulations are written by the government, and the tendancy towards greedy and just plain unethical business practices as a product of having to support themselves. That's why we have Elvis on a stamp.
Actually, it really is a gov't organization. Destroying a mail box is a federal crime, because it is considered federal property. Blowing up a mail box is categorized as an act of terrorism (use of explosives in destruction of federal property). You cannot refuse the service of the USPS. Since their property is considered property of the federal government, I'd call them a government org.
On another topic, this law probably is constitutional. The supreme court has often ruled that the constitution does not apply to minors. Then again, every now and then they do give them rights, such as political speach('60s, elementary school kids wearing black bands in protest of the Vietnam War). It is, however, unlikely that they will extend those freedoms to violence in forms of speech, as they have refused to extend it to sex in forms of speech.
While they are not restrained by any particular law, it is basically understood that only appeals court judges make new law. Judges at this level will usually only throw a case out as unconstitutional if there is prior case law on the matter, such as many first and fourth amendment issues. This is uncharted territory, and as such, the judge is acting reasonably to stay within the letter of the law. Trial judges do not exist to interpret the laws as they see fit, merely to apply what the higher ups have decided is the correct interpretation. Barring any judgements from above, they are largely obligated to follow the law, however absurd it is. Anyone remember the evolution trials (Scopes in particular)? The law may be unconstitutional, but they still violated it, and there were no rulings on the books that said it was unconsitutional, so they were forced to proceed.
No offense, but you are really missing the point. Whether or not there is any philosophical or ethical reasoning to it, the letter of the law has been violated. At the level the case is at now, that is all the judge is allowed to look at. Access Control means simply that, anything that regulates access to something, in this case copyrighted information. No one should be allowed to put up arbitrary roadblocks? Agreed, but one has been erected none the less. Such is life and the legal system, and carping about how unfair it is does little to alter the fact.
Actually, its not even that he hasn't read the comics, he simply must not have paid attention while the movie was playing. I was with a friend who had never heard of the X-Men prior to the movie, and she thought one of the best aspects of the film was the fact that Magneto was a sypathetic character. Did Katz think the opening scene in Poland was just there for the hell of it? Or the fact that Magneto wasn't trying to kill the world leaders, but rather make them understand?
Actually, while you can substitute for the protein gained from eating animals, it is extremely difficult to get the rounded diet neccesary for a human on a vegetarian diet. Humans, naturally are omnivorous, but leaning towards carnivorous, much like bears. Plants are an acceptable temporary substitute, but meat is preferable.
No matter if VH1 and the radio station are paying for it, neither I nor our illustrious poster are paying anything for it, and he simply stated that receiving music without paying is wrong. And speaking of trolls, another person making the enormous logical fallacy of equivicating theft and intelectual property rights violations? Stealing a car is illegal because they no longer have the car, not because you have it. The purpose of the law is to protect people from harm, therefore you must show that the artists and recording companies are being materially harmed by your downloading mp3s. Since the way I decide if I'm going to buy a CD is by listening to some of the songs, via mp3, that haven't been released as singles. In this case I am not costing them money, my downloading of an mp3, in violation of their copyrights, is actually making them money.
I think a more accurate statement would be that music will GO BACK TO being classified as a service. Recorded music for profit is a very recent development. For centuries musicians managed to live off of performances. The great composers lived off actually conducting a performance of their piece(a little more complicated than that, help from nobility, blah blah blah). The musicians got paid for performing. It could be that the concept of record once reap forever is a minor blip on the musical radar. We may see popular musicians actually have to go back to playing music for a living, imagine that. Most musicians, those without recording contracts, already have to do this, and many of them manage to eek out a decent living.
It is not idiotic to hold an opinion different from someone elses. It is idiotic to hold an opinion which you have no grounds for holding. To say that someone who is gay automatically has a sexual identity problem, has no basis in reality. The only possible source of that is either gross ignorance, or listening to one to many redneck preachers. So please, don't refrain from voicing your opinions, but try to ground them in reality before inflicting them on the rest of us.
On a side note, I am not some golden age theory moron who thinks that things were great way back when. However, to say that there have never been heroes or visionaries is to fall victim to a rather pernicious form of modernism, one that tells us that there were never any great heroes, that humanity would have got there anyway, it was all inevitable. If you are looking for those who saw beyond their time, look to Thomas Paine, look to Da Vinci. Lincoln? Definitely revised to a higher standard, the Emancipation Proclamtion was after all an attempt to undermine the economic viability of the south, not the to reach the noble goal of equality often ascribed to it, but he did hold the nation together through one of its worse storms. Washington? Without his leadership as a general, his innovative use of guerilla warefare, and his Christmas attack, the revolution would have failed. FDR? A damn good diplomat, and managed to get America to do the right thing, even if it took a little manipulation, and a little dragging. No, there are not mythic, perfect men. There are, however, those who stand head and shoulders above much of the rest of their era. They are still flawed human beings, but without them dragging the rest of humanity kicking and screaming into the future we likely would still be a few thousand years back technologically and scientifically.
If you are looking for the greatest impediment to space travel, I suggest you take a good look in the mirror. It is you, and people like you, the ones who see no value in science for science's sake. If you see no inherent betterment of humanity in the exploration of space, I truely feel sorry for you. The greatest problem is that America, and much of the rest of the world have become jaded. We are in on of the periods in history where we have no visionaries and heroes to lead us in noble directions. This isn't to say that there is nothing interesting happening in the computer world, but it can't compare to the exploration of the final frontier. The Human Genome project? A welcome oddity. We are lucky that unlocking the secrets of human existence, and using it to improve the quality of life for all happens to yield major economic benefits. If you notice on all the news shows, the annoncement of the completion of this project was met with the question, when will the first products based on this hit the shelves? I suspect that we will not return to a focus on space, or any other pure science, until we are compelled either by neccesity such as the cold war, or the urging of a dead president or some such, as with JFK.
The point here, is that computer systems force people to think in ways that are completely un-natural and non-logical. The words "AND/OR" mean exactly opposite between real life and computers.
Actually, logical thinking, in its formal state, is the basis for most of the mothods in which computers operate. In its informal state, things on computers represent ideas and not physical objects. They are collections of code, or characters, not the paper they are printed on. Philosophers have been in the habit of carefully labeling ideas so that everyone knows what everyone else is talking about for many centuries. People think in different ways. To me, the organization of computers seems very natural, and, as I have discussed above, it is undoubtedly logical.
Prejudices are inane, but generalizations truely are the highest form of thinking. In this case its really not too much of a stretch. Its definitional. A script kiddie is, by definition, someone who uses other people's scripts, which they usually do not understand, to do damage to systems. True, some do understand them. But to defend against an attack by them, you need to understand some fundamentals about the vast majority of them, such as their lack of knowledge.
I don't think he was advocating keeping the holes secret. The problem is, people who wouldn't have a clue how to use any of the exploits based on the technical information itself, can download scripts written by people who do know what they are doing. As much as I am for openness, perhaps not distributing "h4x0r1ng for idiots" script kits wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.
And on another note...+3, Insightful? You're kidding, right?