Someone who considers installing an antivirus "wasting time" (which is most windows users I know) is SERIOUSLY not going to install a new OS. Particulary not a text-based one like Linux.
So, the security industry makes reccomendations that are more realistic. and it's more realistic to ask someone to *not* do soemthing, than to it is to ask them to go far, far out of their way (which installing and running linux would be).
I know that the only attatchments I click on are ones I get at work. If I can't trust my admin to block this stuff off (and, obviously, I do) who can I trust?
I don't agree that the method of selecting what to read constitutes censorship, though. If the posts were unable to be read (say, by being deleted, or moderated to -2), then you would have a case; but since "most" readers can (and do!) browse at -1 (particularly while moderating), the posts are still being read.
I wish there was a way for you, as a 'bot, as a human being, to sit down with some of you and have a +1 informative, +1 insightful discussion without the -1 troll or -1 redundant. I don't force people to view tubgirls I link. I don't +1 funny others with SOVIET RUSSIA. I hope I can find the first post to explain myself, as my karma goes on. I hope I can help people to see natalie petrified grits
it's not "who am I to tell anyone what they should like", it is "who are they to tell me I should spend money on subscribing to substandard entertainment".
That's the real issue: the fact that I'm being asked to shell out $ for crap. I didn't pay for buffy, and I won't pay for whatever insane scheme they're pushing down the pipe either.
only the fools will pay the subscription fees for shitty television; the rest of us will continue reading online, listening to music online and in general living without television completely.
The day they come for the litrix reading room, then I'll worry. But utnil then, I'm good.
Slashdot Mirror
why he doesn't read his own site ;-)
-anonymous 56k user
he's GOTTA BE far, far better than GW "patriot acts I and II" Bush.
Has anyone tried it? any comments?
Someone who considers installing an antivirus "wasting time" (which is most windows users I know) is SERIOUSLY not going to install a new OS. Particulary not a text-based one like Linux.
So, the security industry makes reccomendations that are more realistic. and it's more realistic to ask someone to *not* do soemthing, than to it is to ask them to go far, far out of their way (which installing and running linux would be).
with the exec[1] flag set. That has nothing to do with the permissions of individual files.
[1]actually, you'd normally see that only in reverse: a drive mounted noexec, meaning nothing can execute from that drive.
they inherited the "executable" syntax from cpm and qdos.
I know that the only attatchments I click on are ones I get at work. If I can't trust my admin to block this stuff off (and, obviously, I do) who can I trust?
and Linux is teh answer!
"I am a signature virus. Put me in yours to help me spread!"
I didn't find the worm in my bagle until I was halfway through with it. If patronised a linux coffehouse, I'd have gotten a fresher one.
You're guilty until confirmed guilty in a court of law.
There are no innocents.
A)none
B)no.
C)yes
D)you can't.
E)You're still legally responsible for what your computer does.
Oh, you meant done for them, not done to them; my mistake!
that joke would be funnier if I didn't keep getting 'connection refused' whenever I tried connecting. :-/
the lesstif team, what open source project will be next? the guys at freeciv? mysql?
particularly once you consider that not only is slashdot privately owned, but it has paying customers to consider as well.
I don't agree that the method of selecting what to read constitutes censorship, though. If the posts were unable to be read (say, by being deleted, or moderated to -2), then you would have a case; but since "most" readers can (and do!) browse at -1 (particularly while moderating), the posts are still being read.
Seriously, man; that ufie shit is crap.
who live inside of your head?
I wish there was a way for you, as a 'bot, as a human being, to sit down with some of you and have a +1 informative, +1 insightful discussion without the -1 troll or -1 redundant. I don't force people to view tubgirls I link. I don't +1 funny others with SOVIET RUSSIA. I hope I can find the first post to explain myself, as my karma goes on. I hope I can help people to see natalie petrified grits
it's not "who am I to tell anyone what they should like", it is "who are they to tell me I should spend money on subscribing to substandard entertainment".
That's the real issue: the fact that I'm being asked to shell out $ for crap. I didn't pay for buffy, and I won't pay for whatever insane scheme they're pushing down the pipe either.
only the fools will pay the subscription fees for shitty television; the rest of us will continue reading online, listening to music online and in general living without television completely.
The day they come for the litrix reading room, then I'll worry. But utnil then, I'm good.
How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?
Not Soon Enough!
I consider a sewer of gnaa and linux slash fiction far more readable than a crowd of "me too"-style group think posts.
abolishing moderation will do nothing to increase the noise level (it's already deafening!), but it will eliminate the groupthink.