No, I'm sure there are other small minded people who care about irrelevant crap like that.
It's not small-minded to point out when somebody is lying to you to make money.
There is enough serious stuff going on, with human rights being trampled and people blowing each other up to worry about instead of junk like that.
Translation: "I can't dispute that Michael Moore is lying, so I'll just reference other more important stuff as I post on Slashdot."
You clearly forgot to take your pills today.
I acknowledge your lack of counterargument.
If someone lied about why he went to war I would be upset, but who cares where the hell he was born. Grow up.
Translation: "I am a Moore fanboy and can't accept that Michael Moore lies repeatedly. He lied about his middle-class upbringing to put forth an image and make money. So I'll just reference Bush-bashing and pretend that actually counters anything, because I can't accept it when it's pointed out that Michael Moore is lying to me. In fact--I'd much prefer to believe everything he says and dismiss any lies as 'junk like that' which only 'small-minded' people care about, because he props up my worldview, and I like that. From spliced-together Heston speeches to ridiculous portrayals of Iraq as a kite-flying paradise, I will take anything he gives me, even when the 9/11 commission disputes it. Feed me!"
Personally, I find your post disturbing. Reading it, it is clear your only conclusion is that anybody who is pro-Microsoft is merely doing it to appear as an independent thinker, which is absolute rubbish. Some of us have been visiting Slashdot for a long time, and there has always been somewhat of a balance of opinion.
What you're advocating is that everyone adopt your viewpoint because you just so happen not to consider it groupthink as you do for someone who might--gasp--not personally hate Microsoft, a computer software company. Such people should really get a life.
You and I both know he doesn't address anything. But it's good that you resort to the standard leftie talking points:
1.) If someone doesn't agree with some baseless claim you put forth, they're just "refusing to believe it" because the "truth is unpleasant."
2.) When in doubt, blame Fox News and accuse everyone of being ignorant, fully illustrating my past thesis that most liberals are just people who want to feel above everyone else to feel enlightened. Don't ever actually cite a single example of a "lie" told by Fox News. Just repeat it over and over like the mantra of an organized religion and never see outside your own perception. Then accuse everyone ELSE of being a sheep.
He does what most people do: State a reference so others can relate to it. Because mostly people don't really give a shit where you live.
Hi, I grew up in a place I didn't grow up in. It's just a "state of reference!"
Again, this is the "fake but accurate" bullshit currently taking over the left.
Besides he's never actually said he was born in Flint, just that is where he grew up, which may be very true if he went over there all the time.
He didn't go over there all the time, and he has said he was born and raised in Flint, Michigan.
But in the end nobody, but you, gives a damn where he was born. If you call that a "deception" you need your head examined.
Go ahead and tell yourself that I'm the only one who cares about it (snicker). Meanwhile, you're convincing yourself the man isn't a fraud because you're clearly a fan of his. Go ahead and believe whatever he tells you--it doesn't matter to him as long as it pays for the multi-million dollar apartment he rents in upstate New York.
Lying about where you grew up, in order to pose an image of "working class," is a deception. If some conservative had done the same thing, I have a feeling you'd be all over it.
Things like this are the last things that concern me about Google. I'm more interested in the fact they have an ex-NSA guy with security clearance working there, and freely state in all their privacy policies that they will happily give in to any governmental requests to turn over user data. This includes your Gmail (which they freely state might remain indefinitely on their systems, even after deletion, and get searched at any time), your search terms and habits (the infamous Google cookie that logs your IP and is set to expire in 2038), and so on.
I know it sounds paranoid, but considering Google's insane amount of traffic, and the fact the majority of their traffic comes from outside the US, coupled with their employee ties with the government and their past privacy issues, I've tended to stop using Google so much. Also, their search results have really begun to suck since 2003. Using Google to find anything is a frustrating experience.
Unfortunately I have no link, so I'm hoping someone will back me up with one, but there was once a front page dupe within three hours of the last post, posted by everyone's favorite editor, Michael. It was quickly deleted from the main page (and Michael is not an editor anymore).
Okay, after one bright flash, I could logically attribute it to random galactic physics. These things happen in our universe.
But ANOTHER flash? And this one is ALSO the brightest galactic flash ever detected to hit Earth? There is only one answer for such an incredible coincidence of two brightest galactic flashes ever--the apocalypse is coming.
I am barracading myself in a small underground shelter near a mountain in Nevada. I invite any and all Slashdotters to come join me (preferrably females) and await the end of the world. Thank God for Slashdot; without it, I would have never had this incredible cosmic warning. Amen.
This question always comes up in dupe articles, and after careful research and consideration among my colleagues, I think we have an answer that will satisfy you:
Being able to interpret input and make a logical and reasonable descision is all this article is about. All the scientists have done is find an area that specialises in determining what input indicates a potential hazard to our lives.
In other words...another sense? Which would be a sixth sense, seeing as we have five others?
Sixth sense doesn't automatically mean "psychic." If they find a part of the brain that senses danger which didn't previously know about, then that's another sense that we have; a sixth one.
I want to see more studies on this, of course. Just playing devil's advocate here.
It's because Flint is the working-class area of that town, while Davison is the rich, upper-management, white area of town. Moore wants to appear as the working man, so he says he's from Flint when he's really from a different area of town--the wealthier Davison area. It's misleading. It doesn't matter if more people have heard of Flint; that doesn't make it any less of a deception.
Yes, we've all seen that page. Moore doesn't address most of the major criticism of his films. See here and here.
I honestly don't care what someone's political beliefs are. If they believe a word of what Moore says, they're an idiot either way. Moore uses leftist politics for his own money-making agendas. I doubt he even believes everything he says--a lot of it is just too blatantly, verifiably false or exaggerated.
My biggest problem with Moore is that he doesn't really care about being accurate. He cares about getting attention in order to make money. Hell, he's not even from Flint--he's from Davison. Davison even plans to put up a "Home of Michael Moore" sign.
Unfortunately, some people are completely okay with "fake but accurate"--the CBSNews way of looking at the world.
Not sure why my submission was switched around to link to an IGN article that linked to the ThisIsLondon, which would have bypassed the big ad you're forced to click through. I also didn't say Cannes had "gone to the dark side"--the original article was cheesy enough.
Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.
More likely, their mission of letting people know they take product leaks seriously was accomplished. I always expected them to drop the suits--they were just saying, "Hey, we can't have our shit getting leaked, and we are not afraid to pursue it legally if we have to."
You would NOT factor in how many crashes they had both been in. One moron who keeps hitting telephone poles would alter the stats too much.
Poor analogy. There's a world of difference between a car crash, which could have any number of causes, and a security announcement, which is just that--an announcement of a security flaw in the operating system.
Incidentally, when car safety studies are done, the number of valid vehicle crashes are taken into account, often through in-house experiments. So again, the analogy doesn't prove your point.
In other discussions, the number of security announcements that Microsoft puts out has is brought up by posters as evidence of Windows' insecurity. Here, we have a study that decides to factor that in (what study on security wouldn't factor in security announcements?), but since it also takes into account Red Hat's announcements which outnumber Windows', now we're being told to dismiss it by some Slashdot posters.
I give up. There is little to no objectivity around here in discussions like these.
But heresay and anecdotes aren't supposed to matter in a study. It doesn't matter what the niche audience of Slashdot's experiences are (yes, compared to the rest of the industry, this is but one of many niches with skewed viewpoints).
I haven't read about Unix/Linux worms on CNN, but there are plenty of vulnerabilities just the same, and besides, a lot more people use Windows than Linux so of course CNN will report Windows holes and not Linux. If Firefox had the marketshare IE has, you'd see its holes being reported on CNN.
Visit LinuxSecurity some time. Linux distros are as full as holes as anything else. Gentoo in particular has almost weekly lists of security announcements for its packages. And let's not forget the recent Linux kernel and Firefox vulnerabilities that have been reported here on Slashdot.
All I'm saying is, I'm detecting some prejudgmental bias that stems from a hatred for Microsoft and a need to best them in all ways. That is not the sign of a mature technical community and will only serve to make things even more insecure.
The worst thing to do in a security situation is to ignore criticism. Let's have Linux stand up to all criticism, and any that arise can be addressed quickly. THAT should be the advantage of Linux, because perfect flawlnessness will never be it. It's impossible.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Office for Mac is designed for Macs. The system requirements on the box list what version of OS X it supports. No version of Office for any platform supports Linux or Wine. Office for Windows lists "Windows" on its box. Office for Mac is self-explanatory. You can't expect a vendor to support platforms the software is not designed to run on. If I somehow hack a way for an Office 2000 binary to run on Windows 3.1, I'm not going to cry when Microsoft's latest Office downloads aren't available to me or don't work.
Firestone has an obligation to replace defective tires for cars, because defective tires are life-threatening (I speak from personal experience).
But on the other hand, if Firestone tires went bad after you got them installed on a giant tank, Firestone wouldn't have to replace your tires. You're using the tires in a way they were not designed or intended.
It would be rather difficult for anyone to argue that their consumer rights are being violated if they're running a product in a context it was not designed for--even stated as such on the box, website, and so on--and the product doesn't work correctly in said context.
The reason for pointing out system requirements is just to state the obviousness that you shouldn't get upset if you're not given full access to something that requires the platform that the software was intended to run on. In other words, you've already stepped out of bounds, and you're expecting Microsoft to cater to that when they don't have to, and you should have known to begin with because the box said "Windows" when you bought it.
Would you expect Apple to provide updates for versions of OS X running under PearPC? Or a hacked iTunes running on Windows 3.1, or any other weird exotic situation you can think of that was never supported by the creators to begin with?
I guess I just don't understand the sense of entitlement going on here. You knew the system requirements when you bought the product.
When people so routinely dismiss studies that paint Linux in less than flawless light while praising studies that put it at the top, I can't help but shake my head.
Your post has to be the fourth one I've seen that has said the exact words "Move along. Nothing to see here."
Why so desperate for people to not see it? Linux is not flawless. In fact, it's not been the best of years for it (Firefox as well). I'm sorry, but as popularity grows, so will the security reports pointing out the inherent flaws in any complex system constructed by human beings.
The need to be better than Microsoft has to go. Just concentrate on fixing what is wrong with Linux when it's pointed out. This isn't a popularity contest, right?
No offense. But it sounds like people are searching for things to dismiss this study. Um, yes, a Linux guy changed his mind after seeing the conclusions of the study. That means it's not a valid study?
I'm getting a little disturbed at the way all pro-Linux studies are being accepted and all other studies are being dismissed here. Critical thinking should always be welcome. And, yes, Linux is NOT perfect, it is NOT flawless, and it IS full of security holes like anything else. Nobody should take their operating systems so personally that they feel attacked when Linux is criticized.
Note that this doesn't go for everybody. But there are a lot of zealots in the community who need to learn to see outside their own perspective.
Just as many as who run a Linux server at home? Why not?
From the article:
"I actually was wrong. The results are very surprising, and there are going to be some people who are skeptical," said Richard Ford, a computer-science professor at the Florida Institute of Technology who favors Linux.
Clearly, we're seeing that happen in this discussion!
It said the criteria "included" the number of vulnerabilities. It didn't say that was the whole basis of the study; it was just one factor. Hardly a reason to dismiss the study.
What operating system do the system requirements on the box of Office you purchased state? I doubt "Crossover Office" is listed as a supported platform.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm sure there are other small minded people who care about irrelevant crap like that.
It's not small-minded to point out when somebody is lying to you to make money.
There is enough serious stuff going on, with human rights being trampled and people blowing each other up to worry about instead of junk like that.
Translation: "I can't dispute that Michael Moore is lying, so I'll just reference other more important stuff as I post on Slashdot."
You clearly forgot to take your pills today.
I acknowledge your lack of counterargument.
If someone lied about why he went to war I would be upset, but who cares where the hell he was born. Grow up.
Translation: "I am a Moore fanboy and can't accept that Michael Moore lies repeatedly. He lied about his middle-class upbringing to put forth an image and make money. So I'll just reference Bush-bashing and pretend that actually counters anything, because I can't accept it when it's pointed out that Michael Moore is lying to me. In fact--I'd much prefer to believe everything he says and dismiss any lies as 'junk like that' which only 'small-minded' people care about, because he props up my worldview, and I like that. From spliced-together Heston speeches to ridiculous portrayals of Iraq as a kite-flying paradise, I will take anything he gives me, even when the 9/11 commission disputes it. Feed me!"
Personally, I find your post disturbing. Reading it, it is clear your only conclusion is that anybody who is pro-Microsoft is merely doing it to appear as an independent thinker, which is absolute rubbish. Some of us have been visiting Slashdot for a long time, and there has always been somewhat of a balance of opinion.
What you're advocating is that everyone adopt your viewpoint because you just so happen not to consider it groupthink as you do for someone who might--gasp--not personally hate Microsoft, a computer software company. Such people should really get a life.
You and I both know he doesn't address anything. But it's good that you resort to the standard leftie talking points:
1.) If someone doesn't agree with some baseless claim you put forth, they're just "refusing to believe it" because the "truth is unpleasant."
2.) When in doubt, blame Fox News and accuse everyone of being ignorant, fully illustrating my past thesis that most liberals are just people who want to feel above everyone else to feel enlightened. Don't ever actually cite a single example of a "lie" told by Fox News. Just repeat it over and over like the mantra of an organized religion and never see outside your own perception. Then accuse everyone ELSE of being a sheep.
He does what most people do: State a reference so others can relate to it. Because mostly people don't really give a shit where you live.
Hi, I grew up in a place I didn't grow up in. It's just a "state of reference!"
Again, this is the "fake but accurate" bullshit currently taking over the left.
Besides he's never actually said he was born in Flint, just that is where he grew up, which may be very true if he went over there all the time.
He didn't go over there all the time, and he has said he was born and raised in Flint, Michigan.
But in the end nobody, but you, gives a damn where he was born. If you call that a "deception" you need your head examined.
Go ahead and tell yourself that I'm the only one who cares about it (snicker). Meanwhile, you're convincing yourself the man isn't a fraud because you're clearly a fan of his. Go ahead and believe whatever he tells you--it doesn't matter to him as long as it pays for the multi-million dollar apartment he rents in upstate New York.
Lying about where you grew up, in order to pose an image of "working class," is a deception. If some conservative had done the same thing, I have a feeling you'd be all over it.
Things like this are the last things that concern me about Google. I'm more interested in the fact they have an ex-NSA guy with security clearance working there, and freely state in all their privacy policies that they will happily give in to any governmental requests to turn over user data. This includes your Gmail (which they freely state might remain indefinitely on their systems, even after deletion, and get searched at any time), your search terms and habits (the infamous Google cookie that logs your IP and is set to expire in 2038), and so on.
I know it sounds paranoid, but considering Google's insane amount of traffic, and the fact the majority of their traffic comes from outside the US, coupled with their employee ties with the government and their past privacy issues, I've tended to stop using Google so much. Also, their search results have really begun to suck since 2003. Using Google to find anything is a frustrating experience.
Unfortunately I have no link, so I'm hoping someone will back me up with one, but there was once a front page dupe within three hours of the last post, posted by everyone's favorite editor, Michael. It was quickly deleted from the main page (and Michael is not an editor anymore).
Okay, after one bright flash, I could logically attribute it to random galactic physics. These things happen in our universe.
But ANOTHER flash? And this one is ALSO the brightest galactic flash ever detected to hit Earth? There is only one answer for such an incredible coincidence of two brightest galactic flashes ever--the apocalypse is coming.
I am barracading myself in a small underground shelter near a mountain in Nevada. I invite any and all Slashdotters to come join me (preferrably females) and await the end of the world. Thank God for Slashdot; without it, I would have never had this incredible cosmic warning. Amen.
This question always comes up in dupe articles, and after careful research and consideration among my colleagues, I think we have an answer that will satisfy you:
No.
Being able to interpret input and make a logical and reasonable descision is all this article is about. All the scientists have done is find an area that specialises in determining what input indicates a potential hazard to our lives.
In other words...another sense? Which would be a sixth sense, seeing as we have five others?
Sixth sense doesn't automatically mean "psychic." If they find a part of the brain that senses danger which didn't previously know about, then that's another sense that we have; a sixth one.
I want to see more studies on this, of course. Just playing devil's advocate here.
It's because Flint is the working-class area of that town, while Davison is the rich, upper-management, white area of town. Moore wants to appear as the working man, so he says he's from Flint when he's really from a different area of town--the wealthier Davison area. It's misleading. It doesn't matter if more people have heard of Flint; that doesn't make it any less of a deception.
Yes, we've all seen that page. Moore doesn't address most of the major criticism of his films. See here and here.
I honestly don't care what someone's political beliefs are. If they believe a word of what Moore says, they're an idiot either way. Moore uses leftist politics for his own money-making agendas. I doubt he even believes everything he says--a lot of it is just too blatantly, verifiably false or exaggerated.
My biggest problem with Moore is that he doesn't really care about being accurate. He cares about getting attention in order to make money. Hell, he's not even from Flint--he's from Davison. Davison even plans to put up a "Home of Michael Moore" sign.
Unfortunately, some people are completely okay with "fake but accurate"--the CBSNews way of looking at the world.
Not sure why my submission was switched around to link to an IGN article that linked to the ThisIsLondon, which would have bypassed the big ad you're forced to click through. I also didn't say Cannes had "gone to the dark side"--the original article was cheesy enough.
Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.
More likely, their mission of letting people know they take product leaks seriously was accomplished. I always expected them to drop the suits--they were just saying, "Hey, we can't have our shit getting leaked, and we are not afraid to pursue it legally if we have to."
You would NOT factor in how many crashes they had both been in. One moron who keeps hitting telephone poles would alter the stats too much.
Poor analogy. There's a world of difference between a car crash, which could have any number of causes, and a security announcement, which is just that--an announcement of a security flaw in the operating system.
Incidentally, when car safety studies are done, the number of valid vehicle crashes are taken into account, often through in-house experiments. So again, the analogy doesn't prove your point.
In other discussions, the number of security announcements that Microsoft puts out has is brought up by posters as evidence of Windows' insecurity. Here, we have a study that decides to factor that in (what study on security wouldn't factor in security announcements?), but since it also takes into account Red Hat's announcements which outnumber Windows', now we're being told to dismiss it by some Slashdot posters.
I give up. There is little to no objectivity around here in discussions like these.
But heresay and anecdotes aren't supposed to matter in a study. It doesn't matter what the niche audience of Slashdot's experiences are (yes, compared to the rest of the industry, this is but one of many niches with skewed viewpoints).
I haven't read about Unix/Linux worms on CNN, but there are plenty of vulnerabilities just the same, and besides, a lot more people use Windows than Linux so of course CNN will report Windows holes and not Linux. If Firefox had the marketshare IE has, you'd see its holes being reported on CNN.
Visit LinuxSecurity some time. Linux distros are as full as holes as anything else. Gentoo in particular has almost weekly lists of security announcements for its packages. And let's not forget the recent Linux kernel and Firefox vulnerabilities that have been reported here on Slashdot.
All I'm saying is, I'm detecting some prejudgmental bias that stems from a hatred for Microsoft and a need to best them in all ways. That is not the sign of a mature technical community and will only serve to make things even more insecure.
The worst thing to do in a security situation is to ignore criticism. Let's have Linux stand up to all criticism, and any that arise can be addressed quickly. THAT should be the advantage of Linux, because perfect flawlnessness will never be it. It's impossible.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Office for Mac is designed for Macs. The system requirements on the box list what version of OS X it supports. No version of Office for any platform supports Linux or Wine. Office for Windows lists "Windows" on its box. Office for Mac is self-explanatory. You can't expect a vendor to support platforms the software is not designed to run on. If I somehow hack a way for an Office 2000 binary to run on Windows 3.1, I'm not going to cry when Microsoft's latest Office downloads aren't available to me or don't work.
Firestone has an obligation to replace defective tires for cars, because defective tires are life-threatening (I speak from personal experience).
But on the other hand, if Firestone tires went bad after you got them installed on a giant tank, Firestone wouldn't have to replace your tires. You're using the tires in a way they were not designed or intended.
It would be rather difficult for anyone to argue that their consumer rights are being violated if they're running a product in a context it was not designed for--even stated as such on the box, website, and so on--and the product doesn't work correctly in said context.
The reason for pointing out system requirements is just to state the obviousness that you shouldn't get upset if you're not given full access to something that requires the platform that the software was intended to run on. In other words, you've already stepped out of bounds, and you're expecting Microsoft to cater to that when they don't have to, and you should have known to begin with because the box said "Windows" when you bought it.
Would you expect Apple to provide updates for versions of OS X running under PearPC? Or a hacked iTunes running on Windows 3.1, or any other weird exotic situation you can think of that was never supported by the creators to begin with?
I guess I just don't understand the sense of entitlement going on here. You knew the system requirements when you bought the product.
When something comes out that you disagree with, that doesn't automatically make it "FUD." That term is far too overused.
When people so routinely dismiss studies that paint Linux in less than flawless light while praising studies that put it at the top, I can't help but shake my head.
Your post has to be the fourth one I've seen that has said the exact words "Move along. Nothing to see here."
Why so desperate for people to not see it? Linux is not flawless. In fact, it's not been the best of years for it (Firefox as well). I'm sorry, but as popularity grows, so will the security reports pointing out the inherent flaws in any complex system constructed by human beings.
The need to be better than Microsoft has to go. Just concentrate on fixing what is wrong with Linux when it's pointed out. This isn't a popularity contest, right?
No offense. But it sounds like people are searching for things to dismiss this study. Um, yes, a Linux guy changed his mind after seeing the conclusions of the study. That means it's not a valid study?
I'm getting a little disturbed at the way all pro-Linux studies are being accepted and all other studies are being dismissed here. Critical thinking should always be welcome. And, yes, Linux is NOT perfect, it is NOT flawless, and it IS full of security holes like anything else. Nobody should take their operating systems so personally that they feel attacked when Linux is criticized.
Note that this doesn't go for everybody. But there are a lot of zealots in the community who need to learn to see outside their own perspective.
Just as many as who run a Linux server at home? Why not?
From the article:
"I actually was wrong. The results are very surprising, and there are going to be some people who are skeptical," said Richard Ford, a computer-science professor at the Florida Institute of Technology who favors Linux.
Clearly, we're seeing that happen in this discussion!
It said the criteria "included" the number of vulnerabilities. It didn't say that was the whole basis of the study; it was just one factor. Hardly a reason to dismiss the study.
What operating system do the system requirements on the box of Office you purchased state? I doubt "Crossover Office" is listed as a supported platform.