I don't use my real name on the internet.
This is no small thing, because Facebook will throw you off their network for using a fake name, and while I find facebook to be ubelievably drab and awful, I suffer a penalty in relationships from not being on it, since nearly everybody I know has some kind of presense on Facebook, I'd rather not trust the NSA with my personal information, but since i am not a criminal, the potential negative consequences involved are finite. I could be harassed for my views, though they're not particularly extreme, or falsely accused of a crime,
But there are a billion people on the internet, and they've got a billion agendas, and i know from experience that some of them can truly be evil motherfuckers. There's no sense in trying to measure or aniticipate what can happen, what they're going to individually decide or figure out. I'm probably safe. I'm a 55 year old male with not much money. Nobody's going to want to stalk me for anything, but I refuse to participate in this crazy experiment whereby we turn down the privacy settings for civilization, and see who thrives, and who gets hurt. Zuck you, Fuckerberg!
They didn't force us to use Google Plus before now, yet they made enough money to fill Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool. They're changing the terms of the arrangement in a way that will make users more vulnerable to everything from trolls to stalkers to idenity thieves, and have Google positioned to take our information in a more comprehensive and intrusive way. All the time they're telling us they're doing it to deal with trolls, but they could have easily allowed us to globally remove offending users from our youtube with a couple of clicks.
As a 55 year old male attic dweller, I'm not worth stalking, and my identity isn't worth stealing, but I feel bound by a sense of community not to bend over for the GOOGLE PhalLUS, Migrating is going to require archiving seven years of Gmail, and about 200 youtube uploads, finding a new blog host and possibly learning some blogging software. I am annoyed, especially when corporate fanboys tell me I have no right to complain because Google didn't charge me moiney for allowing them to put ads on the videos I uploaded that got a third of a million views.
It's important to understand that the Google user isn't the customer. We're the product, which Google sells to advertisers. The advertisers are the cusomer, and they want MOOOOORE INFORMATION. And the customer is always right.
"Control" here means that youtube comments don't wind up being posted anywhere but in youtube.
Well, until someone decides to copy them, anyway. Trying to control stuff you post on the public Internet is... optimistic.
If someone wants to copy something that I post, that's fine. I'm talking about my own actions.
In any case, I think you're under some misapprehension that Google+ is somehow distinct from YouTube. YouTube comments aren't "being posted" on Google+. It's the same system.
Whatever that means, YouTube and Google+ are two different websites in the most basic literal sense; they have different urls. By default, if I post a comment on YouTube once, it will now appear twice, at two different addresses, One address begins with www.youtube.com. The other begins with https://plus.google.com./ It's just a default, but it pissed me off.
It's impossible to anticipate every angle for how they're going to exploit your information when they've got a whole office building filled with smart motherfuckers whose full-time job is thinking up new angles.
They're using the nasty, loathsome, combatative aspect of YouTube comments to justify this requirement. Because, real names mean people have to stand behind their comments, yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah. They could have easily given us the means to globally delete objectionable posters from our youtube on an individual basis, but that would have been too simple, and wouldn't have led to very much exploitable personal information.
I had my first real experience with Google Plus this weekend, thanks to the new youtube comments policy. Basically, I did a lot of searches for "Fuck Google Plus", and gave a "+1" to everything that came up. I have to admit, it was fun for a couple of days, but then i couldn't think of anything else I wanted to use it for.
I hear Google's going to force us to integrate google plus with their services a lot more in the future, so I'm thinking about alternatives to Gmail and Blogger, and youtube, at least as I've known it. Most are going to complain for a while, and then learn to live with live with it, but I'm just too much of a control freak, "Control" here means that youtube comments don't wind up being posted anywhere but in youtube. I don't like when shit happens between websites. I quit Facebook after I absently clicked on a video of "Miley Cyrus shows off new bikini body" in HULU, and Facebook informed everyone I went to high school with.
Email, motherfuckers. It's brilliant. You send something, and it goes where you send it.
I used to use ELive. I had to pay 15 dollars to get a patch to install it to the hard drive, but it was worth it. It was beautifully organized, and highly functional. I don't use it now because it was based on debian stable and I wanted access to newer packages.
I don't really understand Enlightenment, but it's not just eye candy. In the past, it seems to have needed to be given some shape by the user to be truly functioning, and I wasn't able to figure out how to do that.
How it's going to be, maybe, but surely there are limits to what a govenrment can do to its people's rights and still have it be "the way it ought to be."
Here's the thing: if decisions are made ex parte and in secret, the odds that these decisions will be strictly limited to include only cases of "gambling, child pronography, and copyright infringement" are just about zero per cent.
>>Nope -- a "police source" tells the New York Daily News that it "appears that a campaign staffer wiped the hard drives accidentally after mistakenly inserting a Linux system disc into a Windows machine."
And accidentally clicking the install button, and accidentally choosing a partition to format, and accidentally clicking the "format" button, and accidentally answering "yes" when asked "are you sure?"
Well, he's lucky he wasn't in the US. Even after he got out, we would have put his name and picture on a public registry, made him stay a hundred yards away from all schools and playgrounds, and monitored his movement with GPS... AFTER he got out of prison.
>>Yes, it does matter if they're exactly the same. If that student doesn't go on to college (at least right away), and wants to get a job in the community that requires computer literacy, they won't be able to say that they have multi-year experience working in a Windows environment.
And if he does, that means that he gets to compete with every other fucking kid in the world.
>Or, if they get sat in front of a computer as part of the interview, and the HR drone sees that they don't know where anything is, that is that.
Well, sure. No one should show up for a Windows-based job interview without familiarizing themselves with the interface. Are you suggesting that requires a computer lab? Couldn't someone who needed it get a look at a Windows-based computer somewhere? I hear they're actually pretty common.
So, unfortunately, as far as making someone viably employable is concerned, a lab running anything other than Windows (or, MAYBE, OS X) may as well not exist.
Facepalmed so hard, I may have to be treated for a concussion.
Linux made Google possible. I mean that literally. No Linux, no Google. Can you imagine if all those thousands of networked PCs all required a separate license?
Because of the free as in beer aspect (and the friendliness to old hardware) Knowledge of Linux is a valuable resource for entrepreneurs and start-ups.
A Public school education is only free if you don't value your time. To put it another way, the time spent is wasted if you don't value learning.
That's what we're talking about. Migrating to Linux was difficult, painful, and time consuming for me, because I had to learn some stuff. I learned the stuff, and now it's all awesome all the time. What is the point of a computer lab if it isn't for kids to learn stuff about computers?
You generally don't need to use the command line to use linux at the desktop, but let's talk about the command line for a minute. it's my favorite example of investing in learning. People tale about the command line being hard, but it's not harder to use than the GUI. Often, it's easier to use. LOTS easier! But it's hard to learn. The thing is, learning is a one time thing. You learn something, and if it's useful, you don't have to learn it agian. The time wasted clickclickclicking through menus is ongoing.
People need to understand that "hard to use" and "hard to learn" are two different things.
And to get back to the command line for just a second, I'm not saying that the command line is better than the GUI. That's a false choice. In linux the command line is part of the Desktop. I'm saying that two tools are better than one.
I think you are misremembering some things, but maybe I am, too. I started with Linux ten years ago (August 2002), and most distros were already defaulting on ext3, and according to wikipedia, ext3was introduced in 2001. What I seem to remember is a move from ext3 to reiserfs by debian (unstable, it never got to stable), opensuse, and slackware, but around the time of Hans Reisers' (air quotes) "legal problems", distros started moving back to ext3, before moving to ext3. That's how I remember it.
It's probably a sane choice to move debian away from gnome and towards xfce, but I wonder if the reason is very sound. They should have switched to DVD as the default ISO media many years ago, becuase people who are on such an old computer that it lacks a DVD will surely want to use the less than 200 MB netinstall ISO instead.
I think that it's still important with an offline-installable system, but limiting yourself to CD when DVD has been the standard for ages is just weird and shows of stagnation and "get off my lawn".
Well, it's not a question of limiting yourself. Anything that will fit on a CD will also fit on a DVD. At least, that it's the way it's always worked for me with my old hardware. If I want to burn a bootable CD on a blank DVD, there's nothing to stop me.
But are they telling us the real reason? Seriously, if the Debian developers just hated Gnome 3, would they really say that in the announcement? What would be the point in that? Especially when they still intend to carry Gnome 3 as a choice, what is to be gained by offending anyone?
Does anybody remember the brief moment when reiserfs had become the default filesystem for nearly every distro? When Hans Reiser was being tried for murder, distros started switching back to ext3, but I don't remember anyone saying that they were doing it because Hans Reiser was being tried for murder. There was always some technical reason.
According to wikipedia, it was one mayor, Thomas Menino of Boston, who later admitted that there wasn't much that he could do, and one Chicago Alderman, Joe Moreneo. I don't know what a Chicago Alderman does, but there are 50 of them.
The FSF: we don't like how Ubuntu uses UEFI instead of Grub 2. We think this is bad for these reasons . . .
You: "Sure does like to dictate what people use, kinda funny that way"
I believe you did confuse "criticize" with "dictate" or accused the FSF of doing something it did not do. Unless "criticize" and "dictate" changed meaning in the English language recently.
Everybody wants to dictate, criticize is really all there is.
I'd say the ultimate solution is for every linux fan to stop recommending computers with locked BIOSs, push hardware with coreboot, and to ignore distros which aren't playing ball. Cracking it is the pragmatic solution.
I've been using Linux for ten years, since August of 2002, and I don't know what the FUCK any of this means.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. It's simple. Doesn't matter who you are, how evil or how good. You kill privacy, you get criticized for it, duh.
I don't use my real name on the internet. This is no small thing, because Facebook will throw you off their network for using a fake name, and while I find facebook to be ubelievably drab and awful, I suffer a penalty in relationships from not being on it, since nearly everybody I know has some kind of presense on Facebook, I'd rather not trust the NSA with my personal information, but since i am not a criminal, the potential negative consequences involved are finite. I could be harassed for my views, though they're not particularly extreme, or falsely accused of a crime, But there are a billion people on the internet, and they've got a billion agendas, and i know from experience that some of them can truly be evil motherfuckers. There's no sense in trying to measure or aniticipate what can happen, what they're going to individually decide or figure out. I'm probably safe. I'm a 55 year old male with not much money. Nobody's going to want to stalk me for anything, but I refuse to participate in this crazy experiment whereby we turn down the privacy settings for civilization, and see who thrives, and who gets hurt. Zuck you, Fuckerberg!
They didn't force us to use Google Plus before now, yet they made enough money to fill Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool. They're changing the terms of the arrangement in a way that will make users more vulnerable to everything from trolls to stalkers to idenity thieves, and have Google positioned to take our information in a more comprehensive and intrusive way. All the time they're telling us they're doing it to deal with trolls, but they could have easily allowed us to globally remove offending users from our youtube with a couple of clicks.
As a 55 year old male attic dweller, I'm not worth stalking, and my identity isn't worth stealing, but I feel bound by a sense of community not to bend over for the GOOGLE PhalLUS, Migrating is going to require archiving seven years of Gmail, and about 200 youtube uploads, finding a new blog host and possibly learning some blogging software. I am annoyed, especially when corporate fanboys tell me I have no right to complain because Google didn't charge me moiney for allowing them to put ads on the videos I uploaded that got a third of a million views.
It's important to understand that the Google user isn't the customer. We're the product, which Google sells to advertisers. The advertisers are the cusomer, and they want MOOOOORE INFORMATION. And the customer is always right.
"Control" here means that youtube comments don't wind up being posted anywhere but in youtube.
Well, until someone decides to copy them, anyway. Trying to control stuff you post on the public Internet is... optimistic.
If someone wants to copy something that I post, that's fine. I'm talking about my own actions.
In any case, I think you're under some misapprehension that Google+ is somehow distinct from YouTube. YouTube comments aren't "being posted" on Google+. It's the same system.
Whatever that means, YouTube and Google+ are two different websites in the most basic literal sense; they have different urls. By default, if I post a comment on YouTube once, it will now appear twice, at two different addresses, One address begins with www.youtube.com. The other begins with https://plus.google.com./ It's just a default, but it pissed me off.
It's impossible to anticipate every angle for how they're going to exploit your information when they've got a whole office building filled with smart motherfuckers whose full-time job is thinking up new angles.
They're using the nasty, loathsome, combatative aspect of YouTube comments to justify this requirement. Because, real names mean people have to stand behind their comments, yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah. They could have easily given us the means to globally delete objectionable posters from our youtube on an individual basis, but that would have been too simple, and wouldn't have led to very much exploitable personal information.
I had my first real experience with Google Plus this weekend, thanks to the new youtube comments policy. Basically, I did a lot of searches for "Fuck Google Plus", and gave a "+1" to everything that came up. I have to admit, it was fun for a couple of days, but then i couldn't think of anything else I wanted to use it for. I hear Google's going to force us to integrate google plus with their services a lot more in the future, so I'm thinking about alternatives to Gmail and Blogger, and youtube, at least as I've known it. Most are going to complain for a while, and then learn to live with live with it, but I'm just too much of a control freak, "Control" here means that youtube comments don't wind up being posted anywhere but in youtube. I don't like when shit happens between websites. I quit Facebook after I absently clicked on a video of "Miley Cyrus shows off new bikini body" in HULU, and Facebook informed everyone I went to high school with. Email, motherfuckers. It's brilliant. You send something, and it goes where you send it.
I used to use ELive. I had to pay 15 dollars to get a patch to install it to the hard drive, but it was worth it. It was beautifully organized, and highly functional. I don't use it now because it was based on debian stable and I wanted access to newer packages.
I don't really understand Enlightenment, but it's not just eye candy. In the past, it seems to have needed to be given some shape by the user to be truly functioning, and I wasn't able to figure out how to do that.
How it's going to be, maybe, but surely there are limits to what a govenrment can do to its people's rights and still have it be "the way it ought to be."
Here's the thing: if decisions are made ex parte and in secret, the odds that these decisions will be strictly limited to include only cases of "gambling, child pronography, and copyright infringement" are just about zero per cent.
>>Nope -- a "police source" tells the New York Daily News that it "appears that a campaign staffer wiped the hard drives accidentally after mistakenly inserting a Linux system disc into a Windows machine." And accidentally clicking the install button, and accidentally choosing a partition to format, and accidentally clicking the "format" button, and accidentally answering "yes" when asked "are you sure?"
You should have gotten FUNNY points for this.
Posers. REAL radical open source guerrillas would have used BSD.
Well, he's lucky he wasn't in the US. Even after he got out, we would have put his name and picture on a public registry, made him stay a hundred yards away from all schools and playgrounds, and monitored his movement with GPS... AFTER he got out of prison.
>>Yes, it does matter if they're exactly the same. If that student doesn't go on to college (at least right away), and wants to get a job in the community that requires computer literacy, they won't be able to say that they have multi-year experience working in a Windows environment.
And if he does, that means that he gets to compete with every other fucking kid in the world.
>Or, if they get sat in front of a computer as part of the interview, and the HR drone sees that they don't know where anything is, that is that.
Well, sure. No one should show up for a Windows-based job interview without familiarizing themselves with the interface. Are you suggesting that requires a computer lab? Couldn't someone who needed it get a look at a Windows-based computer somewhere? I hear they're actually pretty common.
So, unfortunately, as far as making someone viably employable is concerned, a lab running anything other than Windows (or, MAYBE, OS X) may as well not exist.
Facepalmed so hard, I may have to be treated for a concussion. Linux made Google possible. I mean that literally. No Linux, no Google. Can you imagine if all those thousands of networked PCs all required a separate license? Because of the free as in beer aspect (and the friendliness to old hardware) Knowledge of Linux is a valuable resource for entrepreneurs and start-ups.
A Public school education is only free if you don't value your time. To put it another way, the time spent is wasted if you don't value learning.
That's what we're talking about. Migrating to Linux was difficult, painful, and time consuming for me, because I had to learn some stuff. I learned the stuff, and now it's all awesome all the time. What is the point of a computer lab if it isn't for kids to learn stuff about computers?
You generally don't need to use the command line to use linux at the desktop, but let's talk about the command line for a minute. it's my favorite example of investing in learning. People tale about the command line being hard, but it's not harder to use than the GUI. Often, it's easier to use. LOTS easier! But it's hard to learn. The thing is, learning is a one time thing. You learn something, and if it's useful, you don't have to learn it agian. The time wasted clickclickclicking through menus is ongoing.
People need to understand that "hard to use" and "hard to learn" are two different things.
And to get back to the command line for just a second, I'm not saying that the command line is better than the GUI. That's a false choice. In linux the command line is part of the Desktop. I'm saying that two tools are better than one.
...annoying his gruff, long suffering boss, Inspector Todd, with his refusal to pursue criminals "by the book".
I think you are misremembering some things, but maybe I am, too. I started with Linux ten years ago (August 2002), and most distros were already defaulting on ext3, and according to wikipedia, ext3was introduced in 2001. What I seem to remember is a move from ext3 to reiserfs by debian (unstable, it never got to stable), opensuse, and slackware, but around the time of Hans Reisers' (air quotes) "legal problems", distros started moving back to ext3, before moving to ext3. That's how I remember it.
It's about time for XFCE to become the default of a major distro. Since 4.8, it's definitely been polished enough.
It's probably a sane choice to move debian away from gnome and towards xfce, but I wonder if the reason is very sound. They should have switched to DVD as the default ISO media many years ago, becuase people who are on such an old computer that it lacks a DVD will surely want to use the less than 200 MB netinstall ISO instead.
I think that it's still important with an offline-installable system, but limiting yourself to CD when DVD has been the standard for ages is just weird and shows of stagnation and "get off my lawn".
Well, it's not a question of limiting yourself. Anything that will fit on a CD will also fit on a DVD. At least, that it's the way it's always worked for me with my old hardware. If I want to burn a bootable CD on a blank DVD, there's nothing to stop me.
But are they telling us the real reason? Seriously, if the Debian developers just hated Gnome 3, would they really say that in the announcement? What would be the point in that? Especially when they still intend to carry Gnome 3 as a choice, what is to be gained by offending anyone? Does anybody remember the brief moment when reiserfs had become the default filesystem for nearly every distro? When Hans Reiser was being tried for murder, distros started switching back to ext3, but I don't remember anyone saying that they were doing it because Hans Reiser was being tried for murder. There was always some technical reason.
According to wikipedia, it was one mayor, Thomas Menino of Boston, who later admitted that there wasn't much that he could do, and one Chicago Alderman, Joe Moreneo. I don't know what a Chicago Alderman does, but there are 50 of them.
The FSF: we don't like how Ubuntu uses UEFI instead of Grub 2. We think this is bad for these reasons . . .
You: "Sure does like to dictate what people use, kinda funny that way"
I believe you did confuse "criticize" with "dictate" or accused the FSF of doing something it did not do. Unless "criticize" and "dictate" changed meaning in the English language recently.
Everybody wants to dictate, criticize is really all there is.
Not immediately. At first it was a bit of a challenge.
Good for you. At least you have one thing going for you, since you appear to be semi-literate.
Why yes. As a matter of fact, I AM semi-literate. Thank you for noticing.
I'd say the ultimate solution is for every linux fan to stop recommending computers with locked BIOSs, push hardware with coreboot, and to ignore distros which aren't playing ball. Cracking it is the pragmatic solution.
I've been using Linux for ten years, since August of 2002, and I don't know what the FUCK any of this means.