... is that this "exploit", if that's what you want to call it, has been known for a while. I recall some HTML tags being embedded in the feedback form on Microsoft's Win2K test site, that redirected surfers to RedHat's website. This was several months ago, and I'm sure people have been doing this kind of thing since time immemorial. And CERT is only posting an advisory now?
Makes you wonder...
- Adam Schumacher cybershoe@mindless.com ICQ UIN: 10222694
Imagine a rack made up of lots and lots of notebook docking bays... and set them up to try booting as diskless workstations before falling back on the HDD. You could have them working as a Beowulf cluster, or load-shared servers, or something like that. Then when you need to go on the road you just yank out a node, reboot it, and voila. When you're done, pop it back in, reboot it, and it re-integrates with the system...
Not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but still a cool idea. Just a concept.
My most recent place of employment made extensive use of NFS for file sharing, and security was never much of an issue. The ideal place for NFS is where you need to deliver public information without a lot of client crap. If security is an issue, either a) choose another protocol, or b) administer all the servers yourself (so you know you trust them).
Not all applications require security, and NFS has its place. Being implemented in the kernel is a nice touch.
Some good points, although I still stand by my statements, at least ideologically. In practice, I will concede that a person has the right to choose what/how to believe, and that a child will pick up on its parents' faith/mores/customs etc. with or without an overt action on the part of the parent. My only major qualm with your statements here lies with the following assertion:
However, to consider Sunday school and Sunday worship, by which I assume you mean attending a church service, indoctrination, I find rather amusing. The purpose of a parent doing that is to let a child experience the practice of its parent's faith, and the child is free to choose whether to accept or reject this...
I meant to address this in my original post, but it somehow slipped through the cracks. I see one problem with that logic: In the formative years, children haven't developed the requisite cynicism to effectively evaluate what they are seeing as their parents' faith. Children are inherently trusting; if a parent exposes his/her child to his/her religion without taking care to ensure that it is portrated in a neutral light, this child will blindly accept what he or she is being told, without making its own determinations about the validity of this information. This is why I find that parents must be so much more diligent to ensure that their children are able to make an informed and critical choice about faith. It would be a hard sell to convince me that the dogma presented in Sunday school is cast in a neutral light. The same can be said about required attendence to Sunday worship. (I can't quite envision little Johnny's parents reminding him to take the pastor's words as opinion rather than fact.) See also: required prayer before bedtime. Perhaps I'm getting a bit cynical in my later years here, but I don't see this as a fair and even-handed exposure to the parents' faith. This seems to fall into the category of indoctrination, as I originally asserted.
Again, this is my opinion here. Take it as you will.
There is no conflict, per se, between religious faith and freedom.
I'm going to disagree with you here on this one...
Of course, this depends on your definition of "religious faith" and "freedom". I define "religious faith" as adherence to a belief system where one follows a predetermined doctrine. I also define "freedom" as the ability to decide for oneself what to do and how to think.
By requiring adherence to a doctrine, especially one which impresses moral or ritualistic requirements (read: 10 commandments, Sunday worship), one's ability to make one's own decisions is hindered. This is especially true of religions which include:
Rewards for adherence to the doctrine, and penalties for disobeyance (read: Heaven vs. Hell)
Indoctrination of one's offspring (read: Baptism, Sunday school, Sunday worship)
Coincidentally, I personally find that last point of indoctrinating one's children to be particularly repugnant. This is an extreme deprivation of free will. Regardless of the intentions of the parents, this is equivalent to rape of the mind.
Faith, on the other hand, is just fine. If you come to your own conclusions about what is morally "right" or "wrong", and how to conduct yourselfs day to day, then that is a defninte exercise of freedom. Buying into a doctrine because that is what you have been told to do is a definite denial of your own freedom.
Standard disclaimer: this is all my opinion, which I am entitled to. Your opintions may differ. That is also your perogative. Deal with it.
Caldera does a very nice job of accomplishing this. Their licencing appendix in the user's guide is a bit bloated, but it does make the distinction between GPL software, Caldera Systems software, and third-party commercial software. It even goes so far as to outline in the EULA which software falls under which category, and attaches the full text of the GPL. Very nice.
You know, f I were a less ethical person, I'd recommend that we use the power of the/. effect to increase the number of banner impressions this site gets, and ergo the settlement that our poster would be entitled to...
Once again, there is some massive generalization going on here, but, as my views were outlined in my post to Mr. Nelson, I'll let it slide.
Re: This post, however, I have to disagree with your analysis of why Microsoft is hated by so many. I will concede that some people do hate them because they are successful. That is jealousy, and it is unfortunate. There is, however, and important distinction to be made between petty jealousy, and the reason I (and many others, I would assume) dislike Microsoft: they didn't play fair. True, they won, but they won by cheating, and no one likes a cheater. (By "cheating", I am of course referring to the predatory and anti-competitive buisness practices displayed by Microsoft in their climb to market dominance, i.e.: threatening to cut off supplies of MS-DOS or drastically increase the price thereof if retailers gave customers the option of using DR-DOS, per-processor licences, and financial incentives to retailers and manufacturers to lock competitors out of the market.)
To further illustrate my point, I look to RedHat. Although they are, admittedly, nowhere near the scale of Microsoft, they are still taking a dominant role in their market. Why aren't as many people up in arms about this? Simple. They played fair. Bob Young and his company achieved what they did because they provide a good product and market it ethically. That's the beauty of GPL'd software: it must succeed on its merits, or else it will not be used. Without the ability to leverage the market financially (licancing fees, etc.) corporations have less opportunity to resort to cheap tricks. RedHat came by their success honestly, and I applaud them for that.
Sorry if this was starting to become a bit of a rant.
BTW: Linux users don't hate Microsoft. They hate proprietary software.
I beg your pardon?
You are making some dangerous assumptions, grasshopper. It is not your place to dictate what others hate or do not hate. I am a Linux user, and and advocate of Open Source as a development model, yet I don't "hate" proprietary software. Just because I feel (and my experience supports) that Open Source generates better software, doesn't mean that all proprietary programs are worthless. The NetWare Client I am running is proprietary. So is Acrobat Reader. And StarOffice. (Note: yes, I know nkfs.o and SO are being opened up, but the versions I am running were developed under a proprietary model). He who writeth the code, chooseth the license. If a proprietary tool does the job better than an open one, then I will choose the proprietary one (unless the cost is prohibitive).
People use Linux for different reasons. Some do it because they hate proprietary software. Some indeed hate Microsoft*. Some want to be different. Me, well, I just use it because it works well.
- Adam Schumacher cybershoe@mindless.com
* NB: I do, in fact, hate Microsoft as well, but it is their marketing practices that I disapprove of. I choose not to run Windows not for political reasons, but rather because it simply doesn't work all that well.
...think back to your high-school days (or last spring if you're still there) and tell me that you were in a "popular" crowd, you were on the varsity football team, or were a cheerleader...
You say that as if being on the football team or a cheerleader is a good thing? You have to wonder at someone's priorities when their idea of success is nearly getting the carp beat out of them on the football field, drinking lots of beer, and getting laid. (Well, ok, I do kinda envy the getting laid part of it.) I mean, sure, these things are fun diversions, but they don't mean squat in the real world (TM). I'd be interested to see a study comparing overall income/quality of life versus attachment to the "jock" crowd. Also, I do realise that I am making some massive generalisations here, and there are a few jocks/cheerleaders that I respect.
Cheerleaders overall (in my experience) don't hover quite as far down the evolutionary ladder as jocks, but you still must recognize tht these girls aren't being recruited for their minds, as much as their bodies. To say that this doesn't affect where they take their lives is more than a little naive. On the positive side, even over the past four years I have been in high school, I have seen more cheerleaders excelling on their own, and shifting from the stereotypes placed on them. Perhaps this is a new awakening, or maybe just rebellion. Regardless of the cause, the effect is definitely a Good Thing TM.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, while the jock/cheerleader demographic seems to enjoy more superficial success at an early age, they are being channeled further away from developing their selves, and towards pursuing the "social ideals" imposed upon them by the media.
I don't feel any contempt for these people, although I do pity them. I won't lie, I do look down upon them. I believe that I am creating something greater out of myself, by expanding my mind and my identity. So what's so great about being a meathead?
Of course, this is very much my opinion. If this bothers you, drop on by here.
Not specifically, mind you. I'm sure that there are a lot of people living in Kansas that are bright, intelligent people, and I harbor no resentment towards those people. It just seems that they are not in the majority amongst the voting public.
I mean, seriously, what kind of electorate would elect Kansassholes like these to any kind of public office? I have no problem with faith. Blind faith is just stupid though. And to willfully impose your ignorance (yes, I stand by my statement that rejection of science is ignorance) upon your own children is morally revolting and inexcusable.
I certainly hope that someone has the cajones (I use the term figuratvely, with no prejudice intended against the female or neutral genders) to stand up to these people and get fact back into school where it belongs.
Keep in mind that these are my opinions. If this bothers you, look here.
True, and for those of you out there not familiar with Canadian Statutes:
S.1 Refers to Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Essentially, this means that the Crown (our version of a D.A.) would argue that the expression could be reasonably limited if it were justifiable to our society.
The following is my opinion, and is based on information no more scientific than my own meandering experiences. If you think, even for a second, that this information should be considered canonical, take a healthy dose of reality and call me in the morning. This is my opinion. Try it for yourself.
I have always preferred coding web pages using nothing more complicated than vi for Linux, or Notepad for Windows. Those who extoll WYSIWIG editors tend to emphasise all the "cool stuff" you can do with them. I remind you that those "cool things" are still implemented with plain old HTML code, which I can crank out just as well. As much as I would like to show you some examples of my work, they are all on my home box, connected via 33.6 modem. I predict that my machine would begin to blow up about 1/4 second after being linked to here. I have no desire to be slashdotted today, thank you very much:)
Oh, also, please don't take the page shown with my user info as any indication of my current design skills. Those pages were made several years ago, and were my first attempts at HTML. They suck large by today's standards
My main reason to go simple ASCII is this: I know exactly what is going on under the hood. If something isn't working cross-browser or cross-platform, I know exactly how the code is written, and how to re-write it to make it portable. With WYSISIG editors, you are often left wondering "How the fsck did it do this, and how can I fix it?" Or at least, that's what I've experienced.
Remember, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Throughout my years in the public school system, I have seen much of the spectrum of pressure and abuse which the individualists in the school culture are subjected to. Although I have no formal credentials, I feel that my 3 3/4 years in high school qualify me to at least dispense some advice to those who feel alientated by the system. I can summarize this adivce with two main points:
Learn how to work the system
Fuck the system
Wow, pretty contradictory, eh?
The system is all around us in our culture. It is all about rules, controls, checks and balances. This system is implemented by the powers that be to keep things running smoothly. Powers fear change, and therefore need the system to ensure that everything runs according to the plan.
As an individualist, you have probably already dismissed the plan. You have probably already recognized it's shortcomings and weaknesses, whis is why you have chosen to branch off from it, rather than try to conform to the expected norm. I feel that this is a good thing, but you must realize that, because the powers fear change, they will resist you. They will try to force you into the system. They will become frustrated, and you will become angry. You wmay be branded as an "outsider" or "troublemaker". This is not a good thing.
You cannot simply go against the system. The system is like a fast moving river, and you are stranded somewhere along it. The current tries to push you in a certain direction. If you try to fight the current, you will lose the battle, and be swept away nonetheless. What you must learn to do is work the system, the current. No one is asking you to go where the stream pushes you, but by watching how the water flows, and observing and learning it's patterns and behviours, you can use the current to take you where you want to go.
As it is in the system. If you fight the system head-on, you will fall. It's not fair, but that's the way it works. What you need to do is look at how the rules of the system work, and learn to use, manipulate, and bend these rules to get you where you want to go. Don't reject the system outright, but rather use it's power to your own advantage. Don't let it change who you are, but rather find a way to make the system work with you.
You will need patience. The system doesn't always let you move where you want to immediately. You must learn that, if you move in the right way, at the right time, you can go where you want to through the system. Attaining a harmony with the system, but not letting it control you, is the path to success. Ever see The Matrix? Kinda like that, only without having to jab a probe through your brain.
So how do you make it through the system without becoming a drone? That's where the other point comes in: fuck it. No, I don't mean literally. You must also see that, despite the power of the system within mainstream society, it is not omnipresent. You must be able to "escape" the system every now and then. By reaching out and finding a peer group of people who are "on your level" and have also learned to see the system, you let yourself exist on an intrapersonal basis in an environment free of the rules of the system. The Internet is a great forum for this, as the deliberate environment of agreed anarchy precludes the intervention of the system. A warning though, don't let it become all-consuming. Don't let the Internet take the place of real intra-personal relationship, or the real-world skills that help you navigate the system will soon begin to decay.
Once I made this realization, life suddenly became so much easier for me. I am still learning the rules, but the more I know about the system, the more I can manipulate it to my own ends as a non-conformist. You'd be suprised how often the powers can look past your individualism so long as they can't detect a threat to the system.
In summary: The system is there. You can't stop it by fighting it. Don't give up your individualism. Learn how to work and use the system, and you will rise above it. Keep a few good friends, with whom you can relax outside of the system. Be yourself.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I am extremely doubtful that the local DA's will have any case against Mr. Smith. The GUID tracking amounts to an illegal wiretap. Any high school law student could probably argue this case successully. Because of this, anything arising from the GUID tracking (i.e.: pretty much any evidence obtained against him) will be inadmissable, and suppressed at trial.
Great, so the dude gets off. it doesn't end there....
Because of this ruling, there will be binding legal precedent stating that Microsoft's GUID is an illegal invasion of privacy... this opens Microsoft up to about a gazillion and one (rough estimate) lawsuits. Not to mention that it won't look too good for the defence at the DOJ trial. I will be quite interested to see how this turns out.
Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert. My knowledge of the legal system comes from 2 high school law classes and wtaching Law and Order religiously.
Slashdot Mirror
... is that this "exploit", if that's what you want to call it, has been known for a while. I recall some HTML tags being embedded in the feedback form on Microsoft's Win2K test site, that redirected surfers to RedHat's website. This was several months ago, and I'm sure people have been doing this kind of thing since time immemorial. And CERT is only posting an advisory now?
Makes you wonder...
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
ICQ UIN: 10222694
This reminds me of a concept I had recently...
Imagine a rack made up of lots and lots of notebook docking bays... and set them up to try booting as diskless workstations before falling back on the HDD. You could have them working as a Beowulf cluster, or load-shared servers, or something like that. Then when you need to go on the road you just yank out a node, reboot it, and voila. When you're done, pop it back in, reboot it, and it re-integrates with the system...
Not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but still a cool idea. Just a concept.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Yah, but what if security isn't an issue?
My most recent place of employment made extensive use of NFS for file sharing, and security was never much of an issue. The ideal place for NFS is where you need to deliver public information without a lot of client crap. If security is an issue, either a) choose another protocol, or b) administer all the servers yourself (so you know you trust them).
Not all applications require security, and NFS has its place. Being implemented in the kernel is a nice touch.
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Perhaps you could clue us in on how to acquire these specifications?
Some good points, although I still stand by my statements, at least ideologically. In practice, I will concede that a person has the right to choose what/how to believe, and that a child will pick up on its parents' faith/mores/customs etc. with or without an overt action on the part of the parent. My only major qualm with your statements here lies with the following assertion:
However, to consider Sunday school and Sunday worship, by which I assume you mean attending a church service, indoctrination, I find rather amusing. The purpose of a parent doing that is to let a child experience the practice of its parent's faith, and the child is free to choose whether to accept or reject this...
I meant to address this in my original post, but it somehow slipped through the cracks. I see one problem with that logic: In the formative years, children haven't developed the requisite cynicism to effectively evaluate what they are seeing as their parents' faith. Children are inherently trusting; if a parent exposes his/her child to his/her religion without taking care to ensure that it is portrated in a neutral light, this child will blindly accept what he or she is being told, without making its own determinations about the validity of this information. This is why I find that parents must be so much more diligent to ensure that their children are able to make an informed and critical choice about faith. It would be a hard sell to convince me that the dogma presented in Sunday school is cast in a neutral light. The same can be said about required attendence to Sunday worship. (I can't quite envision little Johnny's parents reminding him to take the pastor's words as opinion rather than fact.) See also: required prayer before bedtime. Perhaps I'm getting a bit cynical in my later years here, but I don't see this as a fair and even-handed exposure to the parents' faith. This seems to fall into the category of indoctrination, as I originally asserted.
Again, this is my opinion here. Take it as you will.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
There is no conflict, per se, between religious faith and freedom.
I'm going to disagree with you here on this one...
Of course, this depends on your definition of "religious faith" and "freedom". I define "religious faith" as adherence to a belief system where one follows a predetermined doctrine. I also define "freedom" as the ability to decide for oneself what to do and how to think.
By requiring adherence to a doctrine, especially one which impresses moral or ritualistic requirements (read: 10 commandments, Sunday worship), one's ability to make one's own decisions is hindered. This is especially true of religions which include:
Coincidentally, I personally find that last point of indoctrinating one's children to be particularly repugnant. This is an extreme deprivation of free will. Regardless of the intentions of the parents, this is equivalent to rape of the mind.
Faith, on the other hand, is just fine. If you come to your own conclusions about what is morally "right" or "wrong", and how to conduct yourselfs day to day, then that is a defninte exercise of freedom. Buying into a doctrine because that is what you have been told to do is a definite denial of your own freedom.
Standard disclaimer: this is all my opinion, which I am entitled to. Your opintions may differ. That is also your perogative. Deal with it.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Caldera does a very nice job of accomplishing this. Their licencing appendix in the user's guide is a bit bloated, but it does make the distinction between GPL software, Caldera Systems software, and third-party commercial software. It even goes so far as to outline in the EULA which software falls under which category, and attaches the full text of the GPL. Very nice.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
You know, f I were a less ethical person, I'd recommend that we use the power of the /. effect to increase the number of banner impressions this site gets, and ergo the settlement that our poster would be entitled to...
If I were a less ethical person :)
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Once again, there is some massive generalization going on here, but, as my views were outlined in my post to Mr. Nelson, I'll let it slide.
Re: This post, however, I have to disagree with your analysis of why Microsoft is hated by so many. I will concede that some people do hate them because they are successful. That is jealousy, and it is unfortunate. There is, however, and important distinction to be made between petty jealousy, and the reason I (and many others, I would assume) dislike Microsoft: they didn't play fair. True, they won, but they won by cheating, and no one likes a cheater. (By "cheating", I am of course referring to the predatory and anti-competitive buisness practices displayed by Microsoft in their climb to market dominance, i.e.: threatening to cut off supplies of MS-DOS or drastically increase the price thereof if retailers gave customers the option of using DR-DOS, per-processor licences, and financial incentives to retailers and manufacturers to lock competitors out of the market.)
To further illustrate my point, I look to RedHat. Although they are, admittedly, nowhere near the scale of Microsoft, they are still taking a dominant role in their market. Why aren't as many people up in arms about this? Simple. They played fair. Bob Young and his company achieved what they did because they provide a good product and market it ethically. That's the beauty of GPL'd software: it must succeed on its merits, or else it will not be used. Without the ability to leverage the market financially (licancing fees, etc.) corporations have less opportunity to resort to cheap tricks. RedHat came by their success honestly, and I applaud them for that.
Sorry if this was starting to become a bit of a rant.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
BTW: Linux users don't hate Microsoft. They hate proprietary software.
I beg your pardon?
You are making some dangerous assumptions, grasshopper. It is not your place to dictate what others hate or do not hate. I am a Linux user, and and advocate of Open Source as a development model, yet I don't "hate" proprietary software. Just because I feel (and my experience supports) that Open Source generates better software, doesn't mean that all proprietary programs are worthless. The NetWare Client I am running is proprietary. So is Acrobat Reader. And StarOffice. (Note: yes, I know nkfs.o and SO are being opened up, but the versions I am running were developed under a proprietary model). He who writeth the code, chooseth the license. If a proprietary tool does the job better than an open one, then I will choose the proprietary one (unless the cost is prohibitive).
People use Linux for different reasons. Some do it because they hate proprietary software. Some indeed hate Microsoft*. Some want to be different. Me, well, I just use it because it works well.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
* NB: I do, in fact, hate Microsoft as well, but it is their marketing practices that I disapprove of. I choose not to run Windows not for political reasons, but rather because it simply doesn't work all that well.
Yeah, but your beer sucks. - Adam Schumacher cybershoe@mindless.com
Yeah, you're right. Ever notice how people start speaking more freely after a couple of free beers?
Adam Schumacher
I dunno, dude, perrsonally, I found it hilarious.
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
You say that as if being on the football team or a cheerleader is a good thing? You have to wonder at someone's priorities when their idea of success is nearly getting the carp beat out of them on the football field, drinking lots of beer, and getting laid. (Well, ok, I do kinda envy the getting laid part of it.) I mean, sure, these things are fun diversions, but they don't mean squat in the real world (TM). I'd be interested to see a study comparing overall income/quality of life versus attachment to the "jock" crowd. Also, I do realise that I am making some massive generalisations here, and there are a few jocks/cheerleaders that I respect.
Cheerleaders overall (in my experience) don't hover quite as far down the evolutionary ladder as jocks, but you still must recognize tht these girls aren't being recruited for their minds, as much as their bodies. To say that this doesn't affect where they take their lives is more than a little naive. On the positive side, even over the past four years I have been in high school, I have seen more cheerleaders excelling on their own, and shifting from the stereotypes placed on them. Perhaps this is a new awakening, or maybe just rebellion. Regardless of the cause, the effect is definitely a Good Thing TM.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, while the jock/cheerleader demographic seems to enjoy more superficial success at an early age, they are being channeled further away from developing their selves, and towards pursuing the "social ideals" imposed upon them by the media.
I don't feel any contempt for these people, although I do pity them. I won't lie, I do look down upon them. I believe that I am creating something greater out of myself, by expanding my mind and my identity. So what's so great about being a meathead?
Of course, this is very much my opinion. If this bothers you, drop on by here.
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Dude, did you set up your account just so you could make that post?
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Is that post sarcastic, or just horribly misguided? It's kinda hard to tell.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Well, I've got to say it.
The citizens of Kansas are idiots.
Not specifically, mind you. I'm sure that there are a lot of people living in Kansas that are bright, intelligent people, and I harbor no resentment towards those people. It just seems that they are not in the majority amongst the voting public.
I mean, seriously, what kind of electorate would elect Kansassholes like these to any kind of public office? I have no problem with faith. Blind faith is just stupid though. And to willfully impose your ignorance (yes, I stand by my statement that rejection of science is ignorance) upon your own children is morally revolting and inexcusable.
I certainly hope that someone has the cajones (I use the term figuratvely, with no prejudice intended against the female or neutral genders) to stand up to these people and get fact back into school where it belongs.
Keep in mind that these are my opinions. If this bothers you, look here.
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Taber, Alberta.
One kid dead, one wounded.
Several days after the Littleton shooting.
True, and for those of you out there not familiar with Canadian Statutes:
S.1 Refers to Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Essentially, this means that the Crown (our version of a D.A.) would argue that the expression could be reasonably limited if it were justifiable to our society.
Yeah, right.
- Adam Schumachercybershoe@mindless.com
N.A.R.T. #009 P.W.T.T.K.S.S.S.T.H.U. #001
The following is my opinion, and is based on information no more scientific than my own meandering experiences. If you think, even for a second, that this information should be considered canonical, take a healthy dose of reality and call me in the morning. This is my opinion. Try it for yourself.
I have always preferred coding web pages using nothing more complicated than vi for Linux, or Notepad for Windows. Those who extoll WYSIWIG editors tend to emphasise all the "cool stuff" you can do with them. I remind you that those "cool things" are still implemented with plain old HTML code, which I can crank out just as well. As much as I would like to show you some examples of my work, they are all on my home box, connected via 33.6 modem. I predict that my machine would begin to blow up about 1/4 second after being linked to here. I have no desire to be slashdotted today, thank you very much :)
Oh, also, please don't take the page shown with my user info as any indication of my current design skills. Those pages were made several years ago, and were my first attempts at HTML. They suck large by today's standards
My main reason to go simple ASCII is this: I know exactly what is going on under the hood. If something isn't working cross-browser or cross-platform, I know exactly how the code is written, and how to re-write it to make it portable. With WYSISIG editors, you are often left wondering "How the fsck did it do this, and how can I fix it?" Or at least, that's what I've experienced.
Remember, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
- Adam Schumachercybershoe@mindless.com
Wow, pretty contradictory, eh?
The system is all around us in our culture. It is all about rules, controls, checks and balances. This system is implemented by the powers that be to keep things running smoothly. Powers fear change, and therefore need the system to ensure that everything runs according to the plan.
As an individualist, you have probably already dismissed the plan. You have probably already recognized it's shortcomings and weaknesses, whis is why you have chosen to branch off from it, rather than try to conform to the expected norm. I feel that this is a good thing, but you must realize that, because the powers fear change, they will resist you. They will try to force you into the system. They will become frustrated, and you will become angry. You wmay be branded as an "outsider" or "troublemaker". This is not a good thing.
You cannot simply go against the system. The system is like a fast moving river, and you are stranded somewhere along it. The current tries to push you in a certain direction. If you try to fight the current, you will lose the battle, and be swept away nonetheless. What you must learn to do is work the system, the current. No one is asking you to go where the stream pushes you, but by watching how the water flows, and observing and learning it's patterns and behviours, you can use the current to take you where you want to go.
As it is in the system. If you fight the system head-on, you will fall. It's not fair, but that's the way it works. What you need to do is look at how the rules of the system work, and learn to use, manipulate, and bend these rules to get you where you want to go. Don't reject the system outright, but rather use it's power to your own advantage. Don't let it change who you are, but rather find a way to make the system work with you.
You will need patience. The system doesn't always let you move where you want to immediately. You must learn that, if you move in the right way, at the right time, you can go where you want to through the system. Attaining a harmony with the system, but not letting it control you, is the path to success. Ever see The Matrix? Kinda like that, only without having to jab a probe through your brain.
So how do you make it through the system without becoming a drone? That's where the other point comes in: fuck it. No, I don't mean literally. You must also see that, despite the power of the system within mainstream society, it is not omnipresent. You must be able to "escape" the system every now and then. By reaching out and finding a peer group of people who are "on your level" and have also learned to see the system, you let yourself exist on an intrapersonal basis in an environment free of the rules of the system. The Internet is a great forum for this, as the deliberate environment of agreed anarchy precludes the intervention of the system. A warning though, don't let it become all-consuming. Don't let the Internet take the place of real intra-personal relationship, or the real-world skills that help you navigate the system will soon begin to decay.
Once I made this realization, life suddenly became so much easier for me. I am still learning the rules, but the more I know about the system, the more I can manipulate it to my own ends as a non-conformist. You'd be suprised how often the powers can look past your individualism so long as they can't detect a threat to the system.
In summary: The system is there. You can't stop it by fighting it. Don't give up your individualism. Learn how to work and use the system, and you will rise above it. Keep a few good friends, with whom you can relax outside of the system. Be yourself.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Or is that only if I view them under Windows?
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
I made my post based on the information I had heard from other sources, and just skimmed this particular document.
Again, sorry.
Great, so the dude gets off. it doesn't end there....
Because of this ruling, there will be binding legal precedent stating that Microsoft's GUID is an illegal invasion of privacy... this opens Microsoft up to about a gazillion and one (rough estimate) lawsuits. Not to mention that it won't look too good for the defence at the DOJ trial. I will be quite interested to see how this turns out.
Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert. My knowledge of the legal system comes from 2 high school law classes and wtaching Law and Order religiously.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
N.A.R.T. #009
P.W.T.T.K.S.S.S.T.H.U. #001
I would like to clarify that I am a Canadian citizen, and was basing my original post on my understanding of Candian Laws.
- Adam Schumacher