Not wanting to slate you or anything but as a scientist you should know that generally it is better to test and then draw conlusions than to set out to prove something with a test. Alot of this "monday morning quarter-backing" would be avoided if that was the approach used when setting up and observing tests.
Point very well taken. What I mean to say is...I'm open to admitting that my original premise was flawed. I also would like to point out that my original post was very poorly written.
See the linux user in his native habitat, he's tensed, poised, awake, and banging at his keyboard in anger that someone may have cracked his sacred linux, even if it was a cheap shot. He's letting his real skin show, and it's as ugly as the linux command prompt or the blue screen of death. He wants to set up a test that proves that linux is better.
Like an NT user, of course I have my preference and biases. I also believe that Linux is not only a better security platform, but philisophically as well. I'd use it even if it was shown to be less secure. But it doesn't matter what I believe to be true, does it? It must be tested.
I think that the layout of the challenege was poorly stated, but this is merely Monday-morning quaterbacking at it's worst.
Again, if it was NT that was broght to it's knees, nobody would be uttering ANYTHING about "second chances", and that bugs me a bit. But do I have some sort of inbred, insatiable desire to make sure Linux wins at all costs? Hell no. I am a scientists to the core, and the truth can always be questioned. I hope Linux comes out on top...I sincerely believe that it will...but it's my responsibility to be open to an alternate outcome.
As a community, we need to ante up, acknowledge that this is something that needs to be worked on, and move on. Perhaps set up a challenge that requires a flaw in the OS to be exploited.
I just have to think that if the same thing happened to the NT box, there would be no grumbles. A victory would be declared and any talk otherwise would be met with much flameage.
Fact is, we all know that Linux can squish NT flat. Let's set up a test that proves that.
It looks like the surveyor has been lost. I don't know how to feel about this one. I'd like to see everything go private, but this still sucks. Those guys at NASA really work their asses off.
I've been beginning to lose hope...thinking that all the world was just willing to go along with the Locally Popular Diety (from this point on, LPD). The resultant chafing at the mention of doing something so pointless and self-gratifying to "help" these people...well, it's just made my entire week.
My heart is particularly warmed at the shock and dismay displayed by the theists. How can we be so callous, so cold?! How dare we suggest that religious wars are basically people killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend!
I'm not going to lay in to these people here at length - that's what my website is for. But to all of you who stood up to these subserviant twits and said "enough is enough", thanks.
I've never seen a Mormon undercurrent in any of the Ender's saga books, but there definitely is a faith-ish theme in some..
Just a clarification, because it wasn't expressly stated in your post but only referenced to - but Mr. Card is an active Mormon. I, being devoutly anti-theist, have not found Card's books to be overt with a theist bend yet.
And as a small plug for Card, pick up The Abyss if you get the chance. About twice as amazing as the movie. The first three chapters give in-depth information about Bud, Lindsey and Coffey.
Why would we have to go that far? IRC uses the internet - you don't see business there. ICQ uses a given port and businesses aren't allowed in there against Mirabillis' (AOL now, actually) will.
I'm suggesting that we create a new browser that operates on a different port number (arbitrary). The servers would be private (much like setting up an IRC server) but under a sort of GPL agreement. Bandwidth of the pages could be limited to maximize the signal/noise ratio.
I'm really beginning to think this is a viable idea. And I don't view it as running because I don't plan on giving up any fight. I think it's a great idea in it's own realm. Who wouldn't want an internet on the side that was free of any advertising?
A friend and I were talking this past week about a "parallel net" whereby all the same protocols would be used, but this net would be private - ie, not connected to the "World Wide Web" as such. They could not link to each other w/out...say, spawning another connection. Rather like different IRC servers.
What would stop someone from creating such a parallel,.COM-free internet? The suits are all sorts of nervous, they want something that's safe for Jr and gramps. fsck 'em. Why not create something that is not only beyond policing, but beyond their desire to do so? Give them their damned commercial space! How about a net that is without a single commercial site?
What would this require? Someone to set up a separate sort of DNS server for pointing to the correct hosts? Some participants? I mean, I hate to see fractioning but I pine for the days when most of my search results came up with.edu's...
This is an absurdity! No, we don't have to give creationism equal footing with evolution! I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't advocate giving equal merit to a flat-earth theory. Why? Because while it's possible that the earth is flat, so many things speak against it.
Creationism is saying "we know what the truth is, let's find facts that support it". Science doesn't work this way, in fact it's the other way around. If I may quote Sagan to the best of my memory, he said,
"Scientists will often discuss issues with other scientists and when presented with evidence to the contrary, scientists will say, 'you're right' and you'll never hear that theory from them again. It doesn't happen as much as it should because scientists are human and sometimes hard-pressed to change their minds, but if often occurs. This just simply doesn't occur in politics or religion."
Find me a single creationist who will vow to give up their faith if given overwhelming contradictory evidence. Won't happen. This isn't about teaching the children the truth - this is about breaching the line between church and state inch by inch.
[incidentally, some interesting quotes by the forefathers on religion can be found at http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/a_founders.shtml]
And as to the argument that we haven't seen it occur...! To the best of my knowledge, we've never seen a neutrino! But we sure as hell have seen the marks left by one! Has anyone observed an extinct mammal give birth? No, but we're pretty sure it occured...!
Crimmeny, I just don't get the moronic, backwards, hypocritical logic of these people.
my really irate.02 quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/ Jay's Agnostic, Atheist and Humanist Website
mvw wrote: "We are a part of nature too! So if we interfere, this interference is part of natural evolution. Many people seem to believe that man made stuff is unnatural, as if we were something special next to nature."
If a man hunts something to extinction, that's natural. If our farts cause a certain plant to wither and die, that's natural. If we kill a bird to extinction because a few million bead-swinging freaks think that the feathers are funky, that's not natural.
I don't have a problem with us going about our day-to-day business (building houses vs. owls) and animals becoming extinct for the precise reasons you cite, but there is a rather distinct line twixt the two.
Anonymous Coward wrote: "Species go extinct constantly. It's a natural part of evolution. By cloning an extinct species, we are just trying to interfere with evolution."
Evolution did not play any part in the bird becoming extinct. Back this one up.
I'll take George Carlin's view - we should stop ****ing with nature because that's what got us in this mess in the first place. We should be (and are) far more dilligent in making sure crap like this doesn't occur in the first place.
But to be honest, to bring back something that was in no way NATURALLY selected against...well, I don't have much problem with that.
leonbrooks wrote: I get called a guru all the time - I guess none of these people've ever met a real guru...
Except that guru to the general public usually contains a financial connotation. Such as "Michael Milken was a guru of the 80's". It's sorta already taken.
Jen_nifer wrote: I have always taken the term cracker to refer to a subset of hackers which the "good" hackers wanted to differentiate themselves from.
You're missing the point. YOU know that and I know that but the gripe is that THEY don't know that.
Slashdot Mirror
I also noticed that it didn't go very far in explaining precisely the destruction that such a device would convey, or even any casualty projections.
.02
My
Quux26
...but I'm thinking that maybe an atomic/thermo could so such a thing if shaped. Dunno. We have any physics majors in the house?
.02
My
Quux26
A thermonuclear explosion would just vaporize water. Make a big wave, sure. But not destructive in of itself.
.02
My
Quux26
Not wanting to slate you or anything but as a scientist you should know that generally it is better to test and then draw conlusions than to set out to prove something with a test. Alot of this "monday morning quarter-backing" would be avoided if that was the approach used when setting up and observing tests.
...I'm open to admitting that my original premise was flawed. I also would like to point out that my original post was very poorly written.
.02
.02
Point very well taken. What I mean to say is
My
Quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/
My
Quux26
See the linux user in his native habitat, he's tensed, poised, awake, and banging at his keyboard in anger that someone may have cracked his sacred linux, even if it was a cheap shot. He's letting his real skin show, and it's as ugly as the linux command prompt or the blue screen of death. He wants to set up a test that proves that linux is better.
...I sincerely believe that it will ...but it's my responsibility to be open to an alternate outcome.
.02
.02
Like an NT user, of course I have my preference and biases. I also believe that Linux is not only a better security platform, but philisophically as well. I'd use it even if it was shown to be less secure. But it doesn't matter what I believe to be true, does it? It must be tested.
I think that the layout of the challenege was poorly stated, but this is merely Monday-morning quaterbacking at it's worst.
Again, if it was NT that was broght to it's knees, nobody would be uttering ANYTHING about "second chances", and that bugs me a bit. But do I have some sort of inbred, insatiable desire to make sure Linux wins at all costs? Hell no. I am a scientists to the core, and the truth can always be questioned. I hope Linux comes out on top
My
Quux
http://www.intap.net/~j/
My
Quux26
As a community, we need to ante up, acknowledge that this is something that needs to be worked on, and move on. Perhaps set up a challenge that requires a flaw in the OS to be exploited.
.02
.02
I just have to think that if the same thing happened to the NT box, there would be no grumbles. A victory would be declared and any talk otherwise would be met with much flameage.
Fact is, we all know that Linux can squish NT flat. Let's set up a test that proves that.
My
Quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/
My
Quux26
It looks like the surveyor has been lost. I don't know how to feel about this one. I'd like to see everything go private, but this still sucks. Those guys at NASA really work their asses off.
.02
.02
My
Quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/
My
Quux26
This page looks like it will get updated within seconds of reestablishing communication.
.02
.02
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/orbiter/
My
Quux26
http://www.intap.net/
My
Quux26
I didn't see anything in there that refuted the idea that incessant bullying was the last straw.
.02
.02
It might not be the case, but it can't be inferred from the Salon article.
My
Quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/
My
Quux26
With 16,000 people dead from earthquakes you can't help but think there's a correlation with millenial doomsday prophecies.
.02
.02
Yes, I can.
My
Lazlo > Quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/
My
Quux26
I've been beginning to lose hope ...thinking that all the world was just willing to go along with the Locally Popular Diety (from this point on, LPD). The resultant chafing at the mention of doing something so pointless and self-gratifying to "help" these people ...well, it's just made my entire week.
.02
.02
My heart is particularly warmed at the shock and dismay displayed by the theists. How can we be so callous, so cold?! How dare we suggest that religious wars are basically people killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend!
I'm not going to lay in to these people here at length - that's what my website is for. But to all of you who stood up to these subserviant twits and said "enough is enough", thanks.
My
Lazlo > Quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/
My
Quux26
I can't think of too many things that'd make me stop reading slashdot, but that'd probably get damned close to the threshold.
.02
.02
My
Quux26 > Lazlo
ps - Big-ass hint to parent company...
My
Quux26
I checked that link. I don't think anyone here could say what needs to be said any better than that correspondant.
.02
.02
Well, plus suing his dumb *ss.
My
Quux26 > Lazlo
My
Quux26
I've never seen a Mormon undercurrent in any of the Ender's saga books, but there definitely is a faith-ish theme in some ..
.02
Just a clarification, because it wasn't expressly stated in your post but only referenced to - but Mr. Card is an active Mormon. I, being devoutly anti-theist, have not found Card's books to be overt with a theist bend yet.
And as a small plug for Card, pick up The Abyss if you get the chance. About twice as amazing as the movie. The first three chapters give in-depth information about Bud, Lindsey and Coffey.
Quux26 > Lazlo
http://www.intap.net/~j/
My
Quux26
Why would we have to go that far? IRC uses the internet - you don't see business there. ICQ uses a given port and businesses aren't allowed in there against Mirabillis' (AOL now, actually) will.
.02
I'm suggesting that we create a new browser that operates on a different port number (arbitrary). The servers would be private (much like setting up an IRC server) but under a sort of GPL agreement. Bandwidth of the pages could be limited to maximize the signal/noise ratio.
I'm really beginning to think this is a viable idea. And I don't view it as running because I don't plan on giving up any fight. I think it's a great idea in it's own realm. Who wouldn't want an internet on the side that was free of any advertising?
Quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/
My
Quux26
A friend and I were talking this past week about a "parallel net" whereby all the same protocols would be used, but this net would be private - ie, not connected to the "World Wide Web" as such. They could not link to each other w/out ...say, spawning another connection. Rather like different IRC servers.
.COM-free internet? The suits are all sorts of nervous, they want something that's safe for Jr and gramps. fsck 'em. Why not create something that is not only beyond policing, but beyond their desire to do so? Give them their damned commercial space! How about a net that is without a single commercial site?
.edu's...
.02
What would stop someone from creating such a parallel,
What would this require? Someone to set up a separate sort of DNS server for pointing to the correct hosts? Some participants? I mean, I hate to see fractioning but I pine for the days when most of my search results came up with
I want criticism, I'll take flames as well.
Quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/
My
Quux26
Geez.. I might get one of these things just to have it on the network. Wonder if you could burn something and use it as a server. Heh.
Anyone tought about bruting the telnet session? After all, no admins to monitor the attempts, right?
quux26 --> Lazlo
I would have expected acid, if anything. Maybe I'll take another look at marijuana - maybe work on some perl stuff and see how it looks.
.02
This article has made my #$&@ing day. Hehehe.
My
Quux26
This is an absurdity! No, we don't have to give creationism equal footing with evolution! I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't advocate giving equal merit to a flat-earth theory. Why? Because while it's possible that the earth is flat, so many things speak against it.
.02
Creationism is saying "we know what the truth is, let's find facts that support it". Science doesn't work this way, in fact it's the other way around. If I may quote Sagan to the best of my memory, he said,
"Scientists will often discuss issues with other scientists and when presented with evidence to the contrary, scientists will say, 'you're right' and you'll never hear that theory from them again. It doesn't happen as much as it should because scientists are human and sometimes hard-pressed to change their minds, but if often occurs. This just simply doesn't occur in politics or religion."
Find me a single creationist who will vow to give up their faith if given overwhelming contradictory evidence. Won't happen. This isn't about teaching the children the truth - this is about breaching the line between church and state inch by inch.
[incidentally, some interesting quotes by the forefathers on religion can be found at http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/a_founders.shtml]
And as to the argument that we haven't seen it occur...! To the best of my knowledge, we've never seen a neutrino! But we sure as hell have seen the marks left by one! Has anyone observed an extinct mammal give birth? No, but we're pretty sure it occured...!
Crimmeny, I just don't get the moronic, backwards, hypocritical logic of these people.
my really irate
quux26
http://www.intap.net/~j/aah/
Jay's Agnostic, Atheist and Humanist Website
Take a deep breath and take your lithium dad.
.02
my
quux26
"We are a part of nature too! So if we interfere, this interference is part of natural evolution. Many people seem to believe that man made stuff is unnatural, as if we were something special next to nature."
If a man hunts something to extinction, that's natural. If our farts cause a certain plant to wither and die, that's natural. If we kill a bird to extinction because a few million bead-swinging freaks think that the feathers are funky, that's not natural.
I don't have a problem with us going about our day-to-day business (building houses vs. owls) and animals becoming extinct for the precise reasons you cite, but there is a rather distinct line twixt the two.
my .02
quux26
Anonymous Coward wrote:
.02
"Species go extinct constantly. It's a natural part of evolution. By cloning an extinct species, we are just trying to interfere with evolution."
Evolution did not play any part in the bird becoming extinct. Back this one up.
My
quux26
But to be honest, to bring back something that was in no way NATURALLY selected against ...well, I don't have much problem with that.
my .02
quux26
leonbrooks wrote:
I get called a guru all the time - I guess none of these people've ever met a real guru...
Except that guru to the general public usually contains a financial connotation. Such as "Michael Milken was a guru of the 80's". It's sorta already taken.
Quux26
Jen_nifer wrote:
I have always taken the term cracker to refer to a subset of hackers which the "good" hackers wanted to differentiate themselves from.
You're missing the point. YOU know that and I know that but the gripe is that THEY don't know that.
Quux26