My guess is that NPR has been looking to take a piece out of Fox news ever since they got understandably bitchslapped for a biased interview with Fox heavyweight Bill O'Reilly.
Matt Groenig may have mentioned it as humourous fiction in an interview but that doesn't mean his words can't be shouted from the rooftops as a serious remark... (as in the scene from "My Cousin Vinny" where Bill Gambini (Ralph Macchio), in a jailcell hears the charges against him and repeats dumfoundedly, "I shot him?" which becomes the "I shot him." confessional in the courtroom.)
Look at any economic supply/demand curve, and you'll see that an increase in supply always corresponds to an increase in demance. However, an increase in demand doesn't always mean an increase in price. Continuing with your analogy, if the company were to suddenly issue a million additional shares you can bet that the daily traded volume would increase. Of course, the price would also collapse.:-)
In large metropolitan areas, traffic systems operate a lot like financial markets. As the supply of quick routes increases, so does the demand. This is why building highways doesn't always result in faster commutes. In this case, the same effect will result in a more efficient traffic system, but not necessarily a faster one.
I agreed with her until she made the following statement:
In other words, record company executives are in approximately the same position that manufacturing workers were in during the '80s and '90s: Their jobs have been made redundant by technology.
Uhh... no... the manufacturing crisis in the 80s, 90s and today are caused by offshore relocation not by file sharing. (the same malaise that is now affecting white collar jobs)
As an aside, does anyone know what will it take for the media to understand the *REAL* jobs issue in the United States?
You don't have to look very far to see that this trend is already happening in full force. The macroeconomic trends all support the theory that widespread offshoring is already taking place. How else to explain that US factory productivity is up, yet US employment is down and hours worked are down? And what about the dollar's decline, and the rise of gold prices? Clearly foreigners are no longer finding little reason to invest in the United States other than political stability. And recent events such as 9/11 and the "War on Terror" have chipped away at that.
The point is that creating an architecture which encourages "interactive" features with a higher priority than security sets up the problem to begin with. I don't care if patches finally get released, the OS is full of software that encourages poor security (NetMeeting anyone?) and is not *designed* to be secure.
Ah, I see. You mean like Sendmail was a few years ago... But sendmail fixed those holes and has continued on with a pretty damn workable architecture.
The Windows architecture is not "fundamentally insecure". The exploits are not attacks at the "fundamental" level. If they were, Microsoft would not be able to release patches for them A MONTH BEFORE ANY EXPLOITS EXISTED!
He is trying to imply that people's failure to auto-update is somehow related to Windows' risk of virus/worm attack.
Tring to imply? No, I think he's pretty much said it outright. So why don't you argue his point instead of challenging the premise of the argument. I'd love to see you successfully argue that the failure of an admin to apply a patch is UNRELATED to the risk of a virus/worm.
Moreover, Microsoft made the patch available A FUCKING MONTH prior to the attack.
Listen up. If Microsoft finds a bug in their software, builds a fix, successfully tests it, and releases it LONG BEFORE ANY ATTACKS TAKE PLACE, then sends you about 15 emails a day telling you in no uncertain terms "DUDE, YOU NEED TO APPLY THIS PATCH RIGHT NOW". Then you read the front page of the Boston Herald and it says the same fucking thing, and you STILL DON'T PATCH YOUR SYSTEM.... then you are saying that this failure represents a fundamental flaw in the architecture? Which fucking drugs are you on?!
This is the kind of drivel that makes slashdotters seem as CLOSED MINDED as Microsofties.
> I just read somewhere (DrudgeReport?) that four nuke plants here in the Northeast are being shut down BECAUSE of the outage...
Perhaps, but unlikely. Coal and Natural Gas plants are usually the first to limit output, because they're easier (and less risky) to fiddle with. Nuclear plants can be shut down very quickly, but once shut down, they take a great deal of time (several days) to restart. For this reason, Nuclear plants are almost always encouraged to run at maximum output.
"They showed the audience's emotions intensified as the inaudible sound vibrations, too low for the human ear to perceive, were blasted out during a 50-minute piano recital... Some physical affects were also experienced, including tingling in the back of the neck and a strange feeling in the stomach."
Inanimate objects were also strangely affected by jumping off countertops, showing their incredible, pitiful anguish for the music's deep feelings. Buildings showed their emotion by creating cracks in their foundations, no doubt in sympathy for the bifircated feelings expressed in song.
Offtopic, I know, but I can't resist adding my $.02
I gave up on NPR as an objective source of news during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. NPR covered it live, and during the program breaks kept playing the song, "We shall overcome".
A few years ago NPR was caught with their pants down when it was discovered that they were funneling their contributor lists to the DNC for further shakedowns. As a non-profit partially funded by the federal government, this was illegal on many counts.
In the US, people run as Democrats to try to *prevent* Republicans from controlling others (Ideologically, Republicans want to do this by reducing the size of government through tax cuts even at the risk of damaging social programs that form the safety net of a moral, democratic society are undermined)
FALSE. In the US, people run as Democrats to try to raise taxes, and claim that taxes must be raised because the rich don't pay enough to provide services for the poor. Unfortunately, the rich do pay enough taxes to provide services for the poor, but the government simply does not provide them efficiently.
People run as Republicans to *prevent* Democrats from controlling others (Ideologically, Democrats want to do this by regulating industries, opposing tort reform, and creating new social programs to benefit even the poorest citizen, even at the risk of stifling economic growth that can eventually raise the living standards of all.)
FALSE. People run as Republicans to try to reduce public services, and claim that services must be reduced because the poor overuse public services. Unfortunately, the poor do not overuse public services, the government simply does not provide them efficiently.
In this manner, both parties can create class warfare that effectively gridlocks efforts to do what really needs to be done: Reform Government and get rid of waste, corruption and pork!
Yes, this is also the mechanism that corporations use. Most corporations choose to incorporate in Delaware because the laws are corporate-friendly and the taxes are low. Delaware, the smallest state in the union, needs the corporate income to overcome its small citizen tax base.
Unfortunately, A major barrier to applying this concept of competition to Internet taxes, is that all of these states are colluding together (in a non-competitive way?) to raise taxes. Imagine if all the oil companies got together to determine future price hikes? There'd be an outcry.
You have to view government as the business it really is, driven by profit and market share like any other business. Those in power are not there to benefit you -- they are there precisely to benefit themselves.
To a limited extent, you're right. But the counteracting force to this is civics and morality. Unfortunately, civics is non-existant in our schools today. And as for morality, well, I won't even start on the barriers to teaching kids even basic respect.
So where does it stop, and who draws the line? Transparency is also the key here, as many longtime slashdot readers will also agree.
Here's a key discovery of mine from Slashdot: The ability to moderate a comment is more powerful than the ability to submit a comment.
How did I learn this nugget of knowledge? Look at my history, and you'll find that although I often post the alternative (i.e. "commercial") viewpoint, I'm not a "troll" in the traditional sense.
Yet I appear to have been banned from ever moderating. It has been at least 6-9 months, and I read slashdot several times a day. Every day.
My semi-alternative viewpoint in this forum has resulted in my sanction to the fringes of read-only activism.
Ultimately, "trolldom" is just another grey area of battleground where some will go overboard, and some will not do enough. Slashdot is naturally in the middle of this difficult new area of content management.
I understand the difficulties involved and risks. I don't blame Slashdot. In fact, I've learned a nugget of knowledge from the experience.
I just wish my relatively nonradical ideas didn't result is such obvious squelching of my voice here.
Maybe Slashdot has sold (yes, "sold", as in don't let the.org fool you this is a for-profit) their method for preventing "trolls" to Slackware.
A longtime multi-day reader, and longtime "metamoderator", It has been 6 months to a year since I've been invited to moderate. My suspicion is that it's because I often contribute a "commercial" viewpoint.
But Slashdot's approach of moderation seems to work well. I just worry about the man behind the curtain.
I really can't complain too loudly, because my voice can be heard. It's just not amplified by those who paid for the seats in congress.
...I consider the negligently increasing spread of neuroacoustic data reduction critical, since nobody has yet analyzed the health consequences, and of all by the nationally planned introduction as new TV and radio broadcast standards a future avoidance will become almost impossible.
I consider the negligently applied use of run-on sentences and poor grammer a standard for future avoidance.
This guy claim to be "a researcher of neuronomy and consciousness physics". Huh? Do a google or yahoo on 'neuronomy'.. not exactly an established field. But he did paste in a pretty complex picture of the inner ear, so perhaps he's a researcher of note.
Well, first of all, if customers are buying it, maybe they are not as concerned about security as you are. Maybe they care about a nice "childish" interface more. Secondly, I don't understand how you miraculously jump to the conclusion that 3 service packs = bad software.
Microsoft products are used in many, many, many more integration scenarios than any other products. Microsoft products touch nearly EVERYTHING. This means there are more opportunities for errors as well. Doesn't that deserve some consideration?
Ultimately, I think you have spelled out the real reason for your jump to conclude that MS = bad software: "...i hate how they do business. at some point, a person takes a side in this little "war', and i'm firmly on the side of open-source. " .
So there it is, out in the open for all to see. You're not in favor of improving products, you're not trying to improve the "growth of a technology". You're on a mission to change the nature of corporations and capitalism.
I think that's a noble effort, but if you have to spread FUD and falsehoods to accomplish it, I think you should question your position...
Along with the physical space change, maybe slashdot should move it's domain name space... to "slanderdot.com", or "org" (ha, yeah right VA Software Corporation is a not-for-profit).
For the longest time everyone here has been criticizing Microsoft because they have poor security. So they start fixing it. They release patches. Then everyone criticizes the fact that they release all these patches. They are only being responsive to your criticism. Now an objective panel gives them a reward for their efforts, and everyone here is angry!
You know, I really thought everyone here genuinely wanted Microsoft to improve security. I thought we all were in it for the benefit of all. I thought that was what the Linux community was all about. But clearly the intent here is more religion than technical. Either you are part of my religion, or you are to be destroyed. How's that better than your perceptions of how Microsoft acts?
You know, maybe the.ORG domain name really is more appropriate, since it's a religion and all.
So who is working on certifying Linux? Is anyone going to actually try to improve the net, or are we going to just keep pulling Microsoft down?
Most of our offices do use Microsoft on most of the standard user desktops... but it's open source hacked-to-hell code that runs everything else around here! Well, aside from the gallons and gallons of coffee and Mountain Dew that runs the people..
I'm confused. If open source is so good, then why does it have to be "hacked-to-hell" ?
And what about the argument that says that unless your code is written extremely carefully, allowing potential intruders to understand the code that runs your systems is big "no-no"?
Slashdot Mirror
Matt Groenig may have mentioned it as humourous fiction in an interview but that doesn't mean his words can't be shouted from the rooftops as a serious remark... (as in the scene from "My Cousin Vinny" where Bill Gambini (Ralph Macchio), in a jailcell hears the charges against him and repeats dumfoundedly, "I shot him?" which becomes the "I shot him." confessional in the courtroom.)
Look at any economic supply/demand curve, and you'll see that an increase in supply always corresponds to an increase in demance. However, an increase in demand doesn't always mean an increase in price. Continuing with your analogy, if the company were to suddenly issue a million additional shares you can bet that the daily traded volume would increase. Of course, the price would also collapse. :-)
In large metropolitan areas, traffic systems operate a lot like financial markets. As the supply of quick routes increases, so does the demand. This is why building highways doesn't always result in faster commutes. In this case, the same effect will result in a more efficient traffic system, but not necessarily a faster one.
Uhh... no... the manufacturing crisis in the 80s, 90s and today are caused by offshore relocation not by file sharing. (the same malaise that is now affecting white collar jobs)
As an aside, does anyone know what will it take for the media to understand the *REAL* jobs issue in the United States?
You don't have to look very far to see that this trend is already happening in full force. The macroeconomic trends all support the theory that widespread offshoring is already taking place. How else to explain that US factory productivity is up, yet US employment is down and hours worked are down? And what about the dollar's decline, and the rise of gold prices? Clearly foreigners are no longer finding little reason to invest in the United States other than political stability. And recent events such as 9/11 and the "War on Terror" have chipped away at that.
Uhhh... the poster forgot to mention it was August 27, 1998
Clearly, most of us here on /. have never considered that line of thinking.
He's referring to: The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene.
Ah, I see. You mean like Sendmail was a few years ago... But sendmail fixed those holes and has continued on with a pretty damn workable architecture.
The Windows architecture is not "fundamentally insecure". The exploits are not attacks at the "fundamental" level. If they were, Microsoft would not be able to release patches for them A MONTH BEFORE ANY EXPLOITS EXISTED!
Tring to imply? No, I think he's pretty much said it outright. So why don't you argue his point instead of challenging the premise of the argument. I'd love to see you successfully argue that the failure of an admin to apply a patch is UNRELATED to the risk of a virus/worm.
Moreover, Microsoft made the patch available A FUCKING MONTH prior to the attack.
Listen up. If Microsoft finds a bug in their software, builds a fix, successfully tests it, and releases it LONG BEFORE ANY ATTACKS TAKE PLACE, then sends you about 15 emails a day telling you in no uncertain terms "DUDE, YOU NEED TO APPLY THIS PATCH RIGHT NOW". Then you read the front page of the Boston Herald and it says the same fucking thing, and you STILL DON'T PATCH YOUR SYSTEM.... then you are saying that this failure represents a fundamental flaw in the architecture? Which fucking drugs are you on?!
This is the kind of drivel that makes slashdotters seem as CLOSED MINDED as Microsofties.
Perhaps, but unlikely. Coal and Natural Gas plants are usually the first to limit output, because they're easier (and less risky) to fiddle with. Nuclear plants can be shut down very quickly, but once shut down, they take a great deal of time (several days) to restart. For this reason, Nuclear plants are almost always encouraged to run at maximum output.
With all the brainpower on /. I'm sure we can discover a way.
... because 2 posts into the Slashdot thread, and the website is done-for?
I think it's their webserver that is running without a CPU.
Inanimate objects were also strangely affected by jumping off countertops, showing their incredible, pitiful anguish for the music's deep feelings. Buildings showed their emotion by creating cracks in their foundations, no doubt in sympathy for the bifircated feelings expressed in song.
I gave up on NPR as an objective source of news during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. NPR covered it live, and during the program breaks kept playing the song, "We shall overcome".
A few years ago NPR was caught with their pants down when it was discovered that they were funneling their contributor lists to the DNC for further shakedowns. As a non-profit partially funded by the federal government, this was illegal on many counts.
...what would the US government offer the people in return to justify the tax?
Freedom. From jail, that is.
In the US, people run as Democrats to try to *prevent* Republicans from controlling others (Ideologically, Republicans want to do this by reducing the size of government through tax cuts even at the risk of damaging social programs that form the safety net of a moral, democratic society are undermined)
FALSE. In the US, people run as Democrats to try to raise taxes, and claim that taxes must be raised because the rich don't pay enough to provide services for the poor. Unfortunately, the rich do pay enough taxes to provide services for the poor, but the government simply does not provide them efficiently.
People run as Republicans to *prevent* Democrats from controlling others (Ideologically, Democrats want to do this by regulating industries, opposing tort reform, and creating new social programs to benefit even the poorest citizen, even at the risk of stifling economic growth that can eventually raise the living standards of all.)
FALSE. People run as Republicans to try to reduce public services, and claim that services must be reduced because the poor overuse public services. Unfortunately, the poor do not overuse public services, the government simply does not provide them efficiently.
In this manner, both parties can create class warfare that effectively gridlocks efforts to do what really needs to be done: Reform Government and get rid of waste, corruption and pork!
Unfortunately, A major barrier to applying this concept of competition to Internet taxes, is that all of these states are colluding together (in a non-competitive way?) to raise taxes. Imagine if all the oil companies got together to determine future price hikes? There'd be an outcry.
You have to view government as the business it really is, driven by profit and market share like any other business. Those in power are not there to benefit you -- they are there precisely to benefit themselves.
To a limited extent, you're right. But the counteracting force to this is civics and morality. Unfortunately, civics is non-existant in our schools today. And as for morality, well, I won't even start on the barriers to teaching kids even basic respect.
[Insert the man with censored lips icon here]
So where does it stop, and who draws the line? Transparency is also the key here, as many longtime slashdot readers will also agree.
Here's a key discovery of mine from Slashdot: The ability to moderate a comment is more powerful than the ability to submit a comment.
How did I learn this nugget of knowledge? Look at my history, and you'll find that although I often post the alternative (i.e. "commercial") viewpoint, I'm not a "troll" in the traditional sense.
Yet I appear to have been banned from ever moderating. It has been at least 6-9 months, and I read slashdot several times a day. Every day.
My semi-alternative viewpoint in this forum has resulted in my sanction to the fringes of read-only activism.
Ultimately, "trolldom" is just another grey area of battleground where some will go overboard, and some will not do enough. Slashdot is naturally in the middle of this difficult new area of content management.
I understand the difficulties involved and risks. I don't blame Slashdot. In fact, I've learned a nugget of knowledge from the experience.
I just wish my relatively nonradical ideas didn't result is such obvious squelching of my voice here.
Signed,
a horrible, horrible "Troll"
Maybe Slashdot has sold (yes, "sold", as in don't let the .org fool you this is a for-profit) their method for preventing "trolls" to Slackware.
A longtime multi-day reader, and longtime "metamoderator", It has been 6 months to a year since I've been invited to moderate. My suspicion is that it's because I often contribute a "commercial" viewpoint.
But Slashdot's approach of moderation seems to work well. I just worry about the man behind the curtain.
I really can't complain too loudly, because my voice can be heard. It's just not amplified by those who paid for the seats in congress.
Perhaps that's the answer to "trolls" ??
I consider the negligently applied use of run-on sentences and poor grammer a standard for future avoidance.
This guy claim to be "a researcher of neuronomy and consciousness physics". Huh? Do a google or yahoo on 'neuronomy'.. not exactly an established field. But he did paste in a pretty complex picture of the inner ear, so perhaps he's a researcher of note.
Microsoft products are used in many, many, many more integration scenarios than any other products. Microsoft products touch nearly EVERYTHING. This means there are more opportunities for errors as well. Doesn't that deserve some consideration?
Ultimately, I think you have spelled out the real reason for your jump to conclude that MS = bad software: "...i hate how they do business. at some point, a person takes a side in this little "war', and i'm firmly on the side of open-source. " .
So there it is, out in the open for all to see. You're not in favor of improving products, you're not trying to improve the "growth of a technology". You're on a mission to change the nature of corporations and capitalism.
I think that's a noble effort, but if you have to spread FUD and falsehoods to accomplish it, I think you should question your position...
For the longest time everyone here has been criticizing Microsoft because they have poor security. So they start fixing it. They release patches. Then everyone criticizes the fact that they release all these patches. They are only being responsive to your criticism. Now an objective panel gives them a reward for their efforts, and everyone here is angry!
You know, I really thought everyone here genuinely wanted Microsoft to improve security. I thought we all were in it for the benefit of all. I thought that was what the Linux community was all about. But clearly the intent here is more religion than technical. Either you are part of my religion, or you are to be destroyed. How's that better than your perceptions of how Microsoft acts?
You know, maybe the .ORG domain name really is more appropriate, since it's a religion and all.
So who is working on certifying Linux? Is anyone going to actually try to improve the net, or are we going to just keep pulling Microsoft down?
I'm confused. If open source is so good, then why does it have to be "hacked-to-hell" ?
And what about the argument that says that unless your code is written extremely carefully, allowing potential intruders to understand the code that runs your systems is big "no-no"?