You are fucking retarded. I hate that argument, that Linux is more powerful, IF you know how to use it.
Earth to everybody -- not everyone wants to sit down for a week and learn complicated interfaces, when IIS makes it very, VERY easy to administer a server. Why do you think IIS is popular?! Because it's POWERFUL *and* it's EASY TO USE.
You should try driving a car without power steering and power brakes sometime. You get a better feel for what driving is REALLY like, and you can appreciate every nuance, contour, shock, and difficulty of controlling a vehicle on the road. But you won't -- why? Because power brakes and power steering make everything EASIER.
Why? It lets you download the songs to your hard disk, and it lets you play it in a CD player. What the hell else do you need?
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January.
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
Er, actually, I don't buy foreign cars cuz it doesn't help domestic workers. They actually aren't screwing us over, per se (Porsche doesn't have American engineers, for example.)
Should clarify... sorry bout the confusion. HP, though, doth screweth.
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January.
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
Well the trick there is, don't buy from those companies. If you know a company is outsourcing to foreign countries and screwing over domestic workers, you have to let them feel it where it counts -- in their wallets. I won't buy foreign cars for that reason.
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January.
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If you want to differentiate between "hacking" and "cracking" and whatever else your l337, 2600 stuck-in-the-mid-90's ass wants to do, be my guest, but mainstream media, the law, etc. all see hacking as BREAKING AND ENTERING. It's trespassing, ok? If you want to TINKER with your own computer, fine, but HACKING has entered the mainstream lexicon as an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, so don't nitpick.
It is that simple though -- the whole point is that some moron is upset that this guy is getting prosecuted, and he shouldn't be, because the guy shouldn't have been doing what he did, because it was wrong. It's cut and dried. No reason to be upset that some asshole is getting prosecuted.
Trespassing, breaking and entering, theft, etc. are all WRONG, regardless of legality, because they harm the person you're doing them to. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ILLEGAL, BECAUSE THEY'RE WRONG.
Seriously, I hate to ask, but WHERE are you getting the logic to put your argument together?!! You're an idiot!
If he found security holes and used them to gain access, he saw the no trespassing sign. I'm not moved by your argument, and neither should anyone else be.
So, how much are the sysadmins who left the original holes in the network being charged? One could easily make the case that it was their fault that Lamo could cause any "damage" at all.
WHAT?! The sysadmin's didn't put the holes there on purpose!! (We assume.)
If someone leaves the house and leaves the door unlocked, and someone goes in and steals everything, the criminal is the person that stole everything -- not the one that left the door unlocked! DUH!
NYT putting all the blame (and costs) on Lamo seems a little off base to me, especially considering that a lot of that "damage" was probably overtime payments to those same sysadmins.
If they can prove that the sysadmins were willfully negligent, then fine, otherwise your argument lacks any solid foundation.
Look at it this way, if the lock on my house is faulty did someone who demonstrates this fact to me "damage" my property by "causing" me to have to buy a new lock?
Now paying someone $25k to audit security is a perfectly legitimate business undertaking. So, how is providing that service for free necessarily "damage."
Unless someone gives you PERMISSION to break into something of theirs, IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO SO.
END OF STORY!
Hacking is illegal, everyone knows it, why are you getting pissed about it? Leave other people's shit alone unless they specifically ask you to fuck with it, or you will get in trouble! That is NOT a difficult concept to grasp!
Watch the behavior of all other species on this planet. Do these rules not apply to humans? Can we sever the origins of creation, the very thing within that makes us who we are, the substance that makes us act the way we do? Then I'll ask that you look at all the evidence that we have today, all that lies in the wake of humanity's past, the methods we have employed to get here.
Prejudice is no more good or evil than two birds competing for a mate. No more good or evil than a dog pissing on a tree. No more good or evil than a lion hunting a deer. Good and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You ask to have diversity, but not the prejudice. That's like asking for the beauty that comes from a collage, but without the discord. Like asking for beauty, in a world without ugliness.
Sorry, but that's like saying we eat meat because we have canine teeth. Which is just plain wrong.
We have canines, sure, but we also have brains, we understand that animals suffer when we kill them for meat, and we can feed ourselves without inflicting pain, so why do we do so?
Because the human race is arrogant, and doesn't care. That's something that perpetuates itself from generation to generation, it's not genetic. We have every capability to override the stupidity of humanity, we just choose to ignore it.
Are people with artificial limbs currently hated and shunned? No, of course not. If we make these limbs much, much better - are we to expect anything different?
Well, it's been hundreds of years, and plenty of white Americans still hate black people just because they're black... so why wouldn't people hate cyborgs just because they're... well... cyborgs?
Re:Dean for President
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
My playing that card was in response to your rather knee jerk obnoxious statement, assessing the intellectual abilities of someone you know nothing about.
I get obnoxious when people are spreading misinformation. It draws attention to the problem.
Why do you discount any ideological arguments for the creation of the internet? Why do we do what we do? Why try to find a cure for cancer? Why did we go to the moon? Why try to find a cure for blindness? These are are achievements that are highly technical in nature, but they have ideological foundations. Just.....like....the....Internet.
THE ARPANET/INTERNET WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT TO WITHSTAND PHYSICAL ATTACK. THAT WAS THE REASON. THAT IS WHY IT WAS BUILT.
If you want to argue what the ideology was, it was the ideology that "the military should be able to keep communications going, no matter what, even under a full scale nuclear assault."
So, if you, or others, want to inject some ideology into the Internet, be my guest, but don't say "the Internet was built for X" when it was built for Y.
Re:Not an ideological one?
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Styx rocks! Come on everyone, You know the words:
Too much time on my hands...
Too much time on my hands...
Why spend a week when you can spend a day? Why spend more time administering Apache when IIS will get the job done in less time?
Time is money. Obviously the words "Return On Investment" mean nothing to you, so I'm glad I don't work for you either.
Never popular?
...let's see...
IIS runs on 23.54% of the sites surveyed as of September 2003, which works out to about...
2,390,790 servers.
So there's almost 2.5 million servers out there indexed by Netcraft that are running IIS, and it's not popular?
You're fucking retarded!
You are fucking retarded. I hate that argument, that Linux is more powerful, IF you know how to use it.
Earth to everybody -- not everyone wants to sit down for a week and learn complicated interfaces, when IIS makes it very, VERY easy to administer a server. Why do you think IIS is popular?! Because it's POWERFUL *and* it's EASY TO USE.
You should try driving a car without power steering and power brakes sometime. You get a better feel for what driving is REALLY like, and you can appreciate every nuance, contour, shock, and difficulty of controlling a vehicle on the road. But you won't -- why? Because power brakes and power steering make everything EASIER.
Oh, no, there is more MS stuff on Netcraft, therefore they must be evil. Quit your bitching.
Why? It lets you download the songs to your hard disk, and it lets you play it in a CD player. What the hell else do you need?
Er, actually, I don't buy foreign cars cuz it doesn't help domestic workers. They actually aren't screwing us over, per se (Porsche doesn't have American engineers, for example.)
Should clarify... sorry bout the confusion. HP, though, doth screweth.
Well the trick there is, don't buy from those companies. If you know a company is outsourcing to foreign countries and screwing over domestic workers, you have to let them feel it where it counts -- in their wallets. I won't buy foreign cars for that reason.
Why didn't you take the job in Indiana?
Uh, YOU do some research -- show us some documentation.
Who started the war? Based on allegations of links to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction -- neither of which could be verified by anybody?
And how isn't this a "Bush" deficit?
Why wouldn't you leave a note on the outside of the house? What POSSIBLE excuse is there for you to invade property that doesn't belong to you?
There isn't any! Stay the fuck out of other people's property! It's not yours, you don't have a right to go in!
If you want to differentiate between "hacking" and "cracking" and whatever else your l337, 2600 stuck-in-the-mid-90's ass wants to do, be my guest, but mainstream media, the law, etc. all see hacking as BREAKING AND ENTERING. It's trespassing, ok? If you want to TINKER with your own computer, fine, but HACKING has entered the mainstream lexicon as an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, so don't nitpick.
If I leave the house without my wallet, you don't BREAK INTO MY HOUSE AND TAKE MY WALLET AND CATCH ME ON THE STREET TO GIVE IT TO ME.
There is a HUGE fucking difference, you imbecile.
It is that simple though -- the whole point is that some moron is upset that this guy is getting prosecuted, and he shouldn't be, because the guy shouldn't have been doing what he did, because it was wrong. It's cut and dried. No reason to be upset that some asshole is getting prosecuted.
Trespassing, breaking and entering, theft, etc. are all WRONG, regardless of legality, because they harm the person you're doing them to. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ILLEGAL, BECAUSE THEY'RE WRONG.
Seriously, I hate to ask, but WHERE are you getting the logic to put your argument together?!! You're an idiot!
If he found security holes and used them to gain access, he saw the no trespassing sign. I'm not moved by your argument, and neither should anyone else be.
If you are comparing blatant theft to the American Revolution, you have no idea how to draw parallels, or even how to reason logically.
So, how much are the sysadmins who left the original holes in the network being charged? One could easily make the case that it was their fault that Lamo could cause any "damage" at all.
WHAT?! The sysadmin's didn't put the holes there on purpose!! (We assume.)
If someone leaves the house and leaves the door unlocked, and someone goes in and steals everything, the criminal is the person that stole everything -- not the one that left the door unlocked! DUH!
NYT putting all the blame (and costs) on Lamo seems a little off base to me, especially considering that a lot of that "damage" was probably overtime payments to those same sysadmins.
If they can prove that the sysadmins were willfully negligent, then fine, otherwise your argument lacks any solid foundation.
Look at it this way, if the lock on my house is faulty did someone who demonstrates this fact to me "damage" my property by "causing" me to have to buy a new lock?
Now paying someone $25k to audit security is a perfectly legitimate business undertaking. So, how is providing that service for free necessarily "damage."
Unless someone gives you PERMISSION to break into something of theirs, IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO SO.
END OF STORY!
Hacking is illegal, everyone knows it, why are you getting pissed about it? Leave other people's shit alone unless they specifically ask you to fuck with it, or you will get in trouble! That is NOT a difficult concept to grasp!
"Now may be the time to update your illegal mp3 file MD5 hash sums."
Now may be the time for the government to subpoena Slashdot for "aSiTiC"'s user info and arrest him for piracy. Jerk-off.
Watch the behavior of all other species on this planet. Do these rules not apply to humans? Can we sever the origins of creation, the very thing within that makes us who we are, the substance that makes us act the way we do? Then I'll ask that you look at all the evidence that we have today, all that lies in the wake of humanity's past, the methods we have employed to get here.
Prejudice is no more good or evil than two birds competing for a mate. No more good or evil than a dog pissing on a tree. No more good or evil than a lion hunting a deer. Good and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You ask to have diversity, but not the prejudice. That's like asking for the beauty that comes from a collage, but without the discord. Like asking for beauty, in a world without ugliness.
Sorry, but that's like saying we eat meat because we have canine teeth. Which is just plain wrong.
We have canines, sure, but we also have brains, we understand that animals suffer when we kill them for meat, and we can feed ourselves without inflicting pain, so why do we do so?
Because the human race is arrogant, and doesn't care. That's something that perpetuates itself from generation to generation, it's not genetic. We have every capability to override the stupidity of humanity, we just choose to ignore it.
Are people with artificial limbs currently hated and shunned? No, of course not. If we make these limbs much, much better - are we to expect anything different?
Well, it's been hundreds of years, and plenty of white Americans still hate black people just because they're black... so why wouldn't people hate cyborgs just because they're... well... cyborgs?
My playing that card was in response to your rather knee jerk obnoxious statement, assessing the intellectual abilities of someone you know nothing about.
I get obnoxious when people are spreading misinformation. It draws attention to the problem.
Why do you discount any ideological arguments for the creation of the internet? Why do we do what we do? Why try to find a cure for cancer? Why did we go to the moon? Why try to find a cure for blindness? These are are achievements that are highly technical in nature, but they have ideological foundations. Just.....like....the....Internet.
THE ARPANET/INTERNET WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT TO WITHSTAND PHYSICAL ATTACK. THAT WAS THE REASON. THAT IS WHY IT WAS BUILT.
If you want to argue what the ideology was, it was the ideology that "the military should be able to keep communications going, no matter what, even under a full scale nuclear assault."
So, if you, or others, want to inject some ideology into the Internet, be my guest, but don't say "the Internet was built for X" when it was built for Y.
Read your history.
The point is, there is no real "ideology" per se regarding the Internet. It was a communications advancement, not a grand humanitarian vision.
My original post was attempting to combat the grandiose revisionist rhetoric that so many geeks are spewing forth about the Internet.
It's not a church. It's not the red cross.
It's a telecom network.