The top court in BC decided that under current law, the possession of child pornography was not illegal. They recommended changing the law so that it would be, but until that happens, the courts consider possession legal. Production remains quite illegal.
Have you ever actually been to Ontario? From what you are saying, it doesn't sound like it.
I certainly have. Toronto could just as well be Detroit. It's the easterners who have no idea just how different the west is from what they're used to. Reform wasn't elected the Official Opposisition because they adequately represent the views of a majority of Ontarians. (While the Liberals have next to no support outside the province.)
I have a rather simple view on it - How many of these companies have actually filed lawsuits against the authors of emulation software? Not threatened, but filed. Sony attempted it against Bleem but failed. Nobody else has even tried. Distributing roms is a different matter - quite illegal as it is piracy, but no companies really enforce it.
I look at slander/libel in a similar vein. If you say something outrageous about someone/something on a strong enough platform and they don't file suit, it is quite likely to be true. Re: A researcher who says low-sugar alternatives (inc. specific products) are worse for diabetics than sugar itself thanks to some substance that is in them.
Uhh... Innovating means no such thing. Innovation refers to building on top of foundations, and refining methods/techniques.
Invention is advancement by giant leaps, the favoured method in the US. Innovation is advancement via baby steps. Japan has been doing this since the Second World War.
What kind of car do you drive? What brand is your tv? Your VCR? Your stereo?
I'd be shocked if more than two of the above were made by an American company. Most people would have zero. I know that this wasn't your point, but you needed correcting.
Microsoft does make billions by innovating. Is Office 2000 really so much better than Office 97 (7, 6, etc) to be worth $US 800 for the upgrade, $1400 for the full version? But if people will pay for it...
I absolutely hate web-based discussion forums. I deal with it here on Slashdot, but there is no way that anyone is going to convince me that it is easier to communicate on one of these than in a newsgroup.
No one-keypress shortcuts for next message, next unread message, kill thread, etc... Keyword filters are non-existent, the ability to killfile a user is VERY rare.
On a private, passworded (or not) newsserver that doesn't propagate, the email addresses are not harvested, you can keep as long an archive as you like, and you can use whichever newsreader that you like. There isn't anywhere near such diversity and customisability in web browsers.
I don't believe that newsgroups are the climax of communication, but they're just as good as mailing lists, and a far sight better than web-based forums. It's similar to IRC versus the java-based chat that you can find on many websites.
The universe being as large as it is, if life exists on Mars, our closest neighbour, life almost certainly exists on billions of planets. (This is of course accepting the fact that recent astronomical discoveries tell us planets are by no means rare. That gas giants are common suggests rocky worlds/moons are common as well. The reason I qualify certainly with almost is because within one solar system, the planets may be able to contaminate each other - remember that Mars meteorite found in Antarctica with bacteria inside.)
I personally believe life is ubiquitous. Intelligent life is another question. It I believe to be common, but nowhere near as much so as life itself. Regardless of the frequency of intelligent life, if life in any form exists on Mars, that life isn't important as it is not the least bit unique. We see nothing on Mars but the possibility for single and possibly multicellular microscopic life. This viewpoint seems to be where we disagree. If there were complex life forms on the planet, I would agree with you in that we should leave it alone. However, there are not.
If extraterrestrial life is everywhere, it doesn't strike me as that great of a loss to perhaps exterminate or at the very least dramatically change the habitat of one planet's native bacteria. Is it that great a price to pay in order to forever alter the current situation of the human species? Right now, we have all our eggs in one basket. One catastrophe of great enough proportions, whether it be accidental or deliberate, could wipe out our entire species. I would like to alleviate that risk in as short a time as possible, whatever the cost.
Once that is done, we can pick and choose as much as the more cautious people desire. Until then though, all it takes is one mistake, one fluke chance, one random event, and we're no longer a living species. We didn't survive this long as a species by taking chances that great.
(To argue that humanity's extinction would be good is just plain silly. We're just as natural and only a couple steps up from monkeys and gorillas. If you believe that human beings are a plague on the universe, help fix the problem and kill yourself. After all... the people with the time and money to spend considering such a thing are almost always among the world's biggest consumers/polluters. When you're starving to death, you have a few more pressing concerns. Note that I don't claim to have ever been in that situation, since some like to jump on things like that.)
Give me a source or two in the very least. Ever heard of a hyperbaric chamber? Breathing pure oxygen is great for you if respiratory problems, and certainly won't harm you if you don't. Although the room may be just a little flammable at concentrations above ~30%. Oxygen only is harmful at extremely high pressures (ie, while scuba diving). Everything is dangerous at high pressure, though.
It's simply called "freedom of expression". Look up Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is in fact more comprehensive than the American "freedom of speech".
Subject to reasonable limitations, as are all sections of the Charter, but our court system is pretty good about that stuff.
I don't know that I would consider you part of the group I was referring to. Everyone is fully entitled to make their own decisions. More power to you for boycotting non-free software. The people I'm talking about are those of the opinion that anyone who dares to pay money for some piece of software is a heretical fool. Don't even get them started about those who dare try to make money off of closed source software.
By virtue of the fact that you are not imposing your beliefs upon others, you are not a foaming at the mouth zealot.
(literal meaning, of course, people who don't like hearing the word zealot used on this site)
------
Re:Copyrights, protesters, and those in their 20s.
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 2
In Vancouver, most drug dealers are non-white. This doesn't mean that most non-whites are drug dealers. Likewise with my remark about the folks in their early twenties.
When you go to a publisher, part of the contract you sign grants the copyright to the publisher. The fact that you agreed to this in the contract is why they get the rights. That it is difficult to publish something without signing such a thing is a differeny, somewhat troubling matter. Indeed, the internet is very helpful for direct distribution though it's a little more difficult to get any sort of compensation through it.
I didn't follow the news coverage of the protests in Washington because I expected something similar to Seattle. I was wrong and therefore don't know much about what went on there. I talked to a number of people who went to Seattle, though. Most of them were very uninformed, and were going simply to show off their "solidarity". What does the WTO do? Take jobs away from Americans. That was the full extent of the answers I got from a few of them. The viewpoint of the majority of these people was frighteningly isolationistic. While it is true that my disagreement with that viewpoint colours my opinion of the protesters, it was their refusal to even consider the other side that really turned me off.
However, I wasn't referring specifically to the WTO protesters. Many in the environmentalist movement are much worse. "You can't cut down these trees! They're... old! We'll lie down in front of your logging trucks to stop you." "This is the habitat of the endangered (cute, cuddly animal)!" And let us not forget the SUV-driving, jetski riding Greenpeace folks who were interfering with the Makah whale hunts.
The fringes take away from the arguments of the whole, thanks to our sensationalistic media in North America. That should really sadden us all. However, the fringes do occasionally cover for the fact that the arguments behind them aren't strong enough to stand on their merit. The WTO protesters had a point, and it was valid enough. However, the benefits of a global economy in which no country can wage war on another because they are too interdependent far outweighs the minor, temporary damage done to the economy of one's own home.
Since nobody else has said so outright, I'll remind you all the actual milestone build of m16 is not yet out. These (as others *have* said) are the nightly builds along the path to m16. These have been available since before m15 was released.
The only mistake that Stewert made was going public with it. She got massacred by the media. Just like the Liberals intended.
Why would she have known what was going on? She had nothing to do with the Ministry until she was appointed as Minister. She did not participate in the cover-up. Else we'd have never heard of the billion dollar boondoggle.
Do me one favour...don't turn a blind eye to the seedier, unpleasant, extremist side of Alliance just becasue you want better representation from the west. You just might get what you vote for.
The problem is that out in the west (I've lived in Ontario, and noticed that BC isn't considered part of the west. Go figure) we really ARE getting riled up about the absolute lack of representation. Ontario alone has a third of the ridings in the country. BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan only had about 4 ridings that weren't Reform in the last election, and the Liberals still formed a majority government without the help of Quebec.
The Quebecois vote in the Bloc because most of the people want representation, not because they want to leave the country. Their extremist fringe is a whole lot worse than the Reform Party/CA's.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Reformers/CA, but who else do I vote for? The Tories are no longer a party worth considering, the federal NDP wouldn't get votes in BC because of the provincial NDP (and I don't like their policies, anyway). The Liberals are the "hated enemy" and that leaves us with what? The Canadian Alliance. Of course, if Day wins their leadership race, I will have to vote Liberal.
Another note... Tom Long is very unlikely to win. He's just there to drum up support for the party in Ontario. He's not well-liked in this half of the country if we go by the people I've spoken with.
Have you,the reader, ever noticed that the people who support copyright infringement the most strongly are nearly always those who have nothing to their name which they can lose via same? It's no coincidence that the vast majority of the rabid "open source or bust" crowd is no older than their early twenties. Of course, one could argue that this is the case for entirely different reasons, such as the fact that many have yet to mature and look at matters rationally. See: early army enlistment ages, college-aged protesters whose arguments just don't make sense.
Propaganda affects the young much more easily than those who are older. On a similar tangent, I've noticed that the Catholic Church now performs its confirmation ceremonies several years earlier. Presumably this is because me and a good many friends who were from Roman Catholic families opted out. Very unlikely that this was an isolated incident.
Personally, I'm all in favor of open source, though I disagree with one of the two major licenses. I just don't demand that everything I use be such. I know that it's just a vocal minority of the Linux and Slashdot communities that feel otherwise, but they certainly are vocal.
I had several paragraphs more but as they are local issues, they would be meaningless to nearly all of you. Insert some bitching here about a vocal minority of your choice.
For what it's worth, people inclined to mod me down should use overrated. I get a kick out of it. Especially when the moderator is just disagreeing with me.
I'll chime in for fun, saying that I'm an apathetic atheist. I believe that no gods exist now nor have they ever existed. However, I don't really care enough to argue with people about it.
I feel that most people who claim to be agnostic are in my position, not caring enough to defend themselves from (joke)raving lunatics(/joke). Other people, both atheists and those who are religious, are much more vicious in their descriptions of agnostics.
I got an error the first time I tried to post this, so...
When, oh when, will people stop asking for legal advice on Slashdot?
Not only are the odds in favor of getting dozens of not-necessarily-correct opinions from non-lawyers very high, but I consider it extremely unlikely that any lawyer who does read this is going to give out free advice.
Spend a couple hundred bucks, and talk to someone in your hometown who is well versed in copyright law. Don't ask the folks who (in general) come off as supporting the copyright violations facilitated by Napster and Gnutella.
Just because Slashdot screwed up by posting an incorrect story about the "Hated Enemy" doesn't mean that they need to redeem themselves by posting something bad about the home team. They did though, even if it is hiding in the Apache section.
Referees in sports are instructed to not feel they need to make up for what may have been a bad call against one team/player. Sometimes the bad calls all go against one side, sometimes the other. That's just the way luck runs. You can't do anything about it.
I believe the reader is familiar with the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?
Well, your posting history and the site you link to in your profile certainly fit your alias.
No, I didn't read the article because, as I stated in my first post, I really don't give a fuck. I saw in one of the replies to your post that the Apache folks use their one of their development machines as a webserver. *That* is notable, when the machine is broken into. That the machine is broken into alone matters not one iota to me.
I don't care how the people who broke in did so and I certainly didn't say anything about their procedure. What difference does it make whether they use a buffer overflow or something a little trickier? It's still just another machine that was broken into. I'm quite sure they have backups. It's as simple as restoring them, fixing the vulnerability, and reconnecting the machine. The only thing left to them is determining just how long ago the vulnerability was first taken advantage of.
High profile aside, in what relevent way is it any different than someone who runs one of the myriad Win '9x trojans? Regardless of the Libertarian slant (why argue with what should be common sense?) to everything she writes, this covers a similar situation. Why is one case more special than another? No hypocrite, I.
Another web site was hacked. Next item in the news: Life goes on.
The people who care about what was hacked and what wasn't can get their news from other sites. I gather (since dozens of comments over the past years have said as much) that attrition.org likes to mirror defaced websites. If that's their niche, they'll probably do a better job covering it than Slashdot does, anyway.
Do you really need to see dozens of misinformed "Ha! Open source is insecure by nature." comments, followed by dozens of karma-whoring followups that say "No, actually, it was hacked through some odd insecurity in Bugzilla. Security through obscurity never works. With open source, we can fix it ourselves, rather than wait for Microsoft to release a patch two months later." (Score: 4, Insightful)
Please... (Why do I know anything about it in the first place? Other "news" sites covering it, to my annoyance.)
We as a free people should have the right to view pipctures of young girls in the nude, if this makes me horny then why should you care? What you do in the bedroom is nobody elses busiess right? And if my computer is in my bedroom and I don't have any little girls in there either am I doing anything wrong? If what I like is illegal to do, should I be prevented from thinking about it too?
Troll? He's obviously taken the unpopular side of the debate. I'm not a fan of child porn, but I agree with the AC. Don't forget that American laws don't apply to the rest of the world, either. Is the FBI going to go after the people with European IP addresses? If so, I don't imagine they'll be too successful.
For kicks, I'll mention that under Canadian law, possession of child porn is legal. There was a big uproar when the courts decided this, but the law hasn't been changed. (For reference, both distributing and producing it is still considered illegal here. Downloading it would be legal... The person hosting it for download is liable.)
I'm exhausted, (funny, considering the current Slashdot poll) so I'll simply say that yes, the media has a lot to do with it, and that yes, you can't paint everyone with one brush.
Slashdot Mirror
Very consistent, since they didn't. (Which doesn't change the fact that the BC government's approval rating is currently 16%.)
------
You're more than a little uninformed as well.
The top court in BC decided that under current law, the possession of child pornography was not illegal. They recommended changing the law so that it would be, but until that happens, the courts consider possession legal. Production remains quite illegal.
------
Have you ever actually been to Ontario? From what you are saying, it doesn't sound like it.
I certainly have. Toronto could just as well be Detroit. It's the easterners who have no idea just how different the west is from what they're used to. Reform wasn't elected the Official Opposisition because they adequately represent the views of a majority of Ontarians. (While the Liberals have next to no support outside the province.)
------
I have a rather simple view on it - How many of these companies have actually filed lawsuits against the authors of emulation software? Not threatened, but filed. Sony attempted it against Bleem but failed. Nobody else has even tried. Distributing roms is a different matter - quite illegal as it is piracy, but no companies really enforce it.
I look at slander/libel in a similar vein. If you say something outrageous about someone/something on a strong enough platform and they don't file suit, it is quite likely to be true.
Re: A researcher who says low-sugar alternatives (inc. specific products) are worse for diabetics than sugar itself thanks to some substance that is in them.
------
Signs that have bigger writing in English than French (in Quebec). Though as someone who is fully bilingual, it doesn't bother me any.
Conversely, America censors nudity like there's no tomorrow. We have a somewhat more European attitude towards it.
------
Uhh... Innovating means no such thing. Innovation refers to building on top of foundations, and refining methods/techniques.
Invention is advancement by giant leaps, the favoured method in the US. Innovation is advancement via baby steps. Japan has been doing this since the Second World War.
What kind of car do you drive?
What brand is your tv?
Your VCR?
Your stereo?
I'd be shocked if more than two of the above were made by an American company. Most people would have zero. I know that this wasn't your point, but you needed correcting.
Microsoft does make billions by innovating. Is Office 2000 really so much better than Office 97 (7, 6, etc) to be worth $US 800 for the upgrade, $1400 for the full version? But if people will pay for it...
------
I absolutely hate web-based discussion forums. I deal with it here on Slashdot, but there is no way that anyone is going to convince me that it is easier to communicate on one of these than in a newsgroup.
No one-keypress shortcuts for next message, next unread message, kill thread, etc... Keyword filters are non-existent, the ability to killfile a user is VERY rare.
On a private, passworded (or not) newsserver that doesn't propagate, the email addresses are not harvested, you can keep as long an archive as you like, and you can use whichever newsreader that you like. There isn't anywhere near such diversity and customisability in web browsers.
I don't believe that newsgroups are the climax of communication, but they're just as good as mailing lists, and a far sight better than web-based forums. It's similar to IRC versus the java-based chat that you can find on many websites.
Why reinvent the square wheel?
------
The universe being as large as it is, if life exists on Mars, our closest neighbour, life almost certainly exists on billions of planets. (This is of course accepting the fact that recent astronomical discoveries tell us planets are by no means rare. That gas giants are common suggests rocky worlds/moons are common as well. The reason I qualify certainly with almost is because within one solar system, the planets may be able to contaminate each other - remember that Mars meteorite found in Antarctica with bacteria inside.)
I personally believe life is ubiquitous. Intelligent life is another question. It I believe to be common, but nowhere near as much so as life itself. Regardless of the frequency of intelligent life, if life in any form exists on Mars, that life isn't important as it is not the least bit unique. We see nothing on Mars but the possibility for single and possibly multicellular microscopic life. This viewpoint seems to be where we disagree. If there were complex life forms on the planet, I would agree with you in that we should leave it alone. However, there are not.
If extraterrestrial life is everywhere, it doesn't strike me as that great of a loss to perhaps exterminate or at the very least dramatically change the habitat of one planet's native bacteria. Is it that great a price to pay in order to forever alter the current situation of the human species? Right now, we have all our eggs in one basket. One catastrophe of great enough proportions, whether it be accidental or deliberate, could wipe out our entire species. I would like to alleviate that risk in as short a time as possible, whatever the cost.
Once that is done, we can pick and choose as much as the more cautious people desire. Until then though, all it takes is one mistake, one fluke chance, one random event, and we're no longer a living species. We didn't survive this long as a species by taking chances that great.
(To argue that humanity's extinction would be good is just plain silly. We're just as natural and only a couple steps up from monkeys and gorillas. If you believe that human beings are a plague on the universe, help fix the problem and kill yourself. After all... the people with the time and money to spend considering such a thing are almost always among the world's biggest consumers/polluters. When you're starving to death, you have a few more pressing concerns. Note that I don't claim to have ever been in that situation, since some like to jump on things like that.)
------
What the fuck are you talking about?
Give me a source or two in the very least. Ever heard of a hyperbaric chamber? Breathing pure oxygen is great for you if respiratory problems, and certainly won't harm you if you don't. Although the room may be just a little flammable at concentrations above ~30%. Oxygen only is harmful at extremely high pressures (ie, while scuba diving). Everything is dangerous at high pressure, though.------
Hi, you're wrong.
It's simply called "freedom of expression". Look up Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is in fact more comprehensive than the American "freedom of speech".
Subject to reasonable limitations, as are all sections of the Charter, but our court system is pretty good about that stuff.
------
No soy un combarde anonimo.
I don't know that I would consider you part of the group I was referring to. Everyone is fully entitled to make their own decisions. More power to you for boycotting non-free software. The people I'm talking about are those of the opinion that anyone who dares to pay money for some piece of software is a heretical fool. Don't even get them started about those who dare try to make money off of closed source software.
By virtue of the fact that you are not imposing your beliefs upon others, you are not a foaming at the mouth zealot.
(literal meaning, of course, people who don't like hearing the word zealot used on this site)
------
In Vancouver, most drug dealers are non-white. This doesn't mean that most non-whites are drug dealers. Likewise with my remark about the folks in their early twenties.
When you go to a publisher, part of the contract you sign grants the copyright to the publisher. The fact that you agreed to this in the contract is why they get the rights. That it is difficult to publish something without signing such a thing is a differeny, somewhat troubling matter. Indeed, the internet is very helpful for direct distribution though it's a little more difficult to get any sort of compensation through it.
I didn't follow the news coverage of the protests in Washington because I expected something similar to Seattle. I was wrong and therefore don't know much about what went on there. I talked to a number of people who went to Seattle, though. Most of them were very uninformed, and were going simply to show off their "solidarity". What does the WTO do? Take jobs away from Americans. That was the full extent of the answers I got from a few of them. The viewpoint of the majority of these people was frighteningly isolationistic. While it is true that my disagreement with that viewpoint colours my opinion of the protesters, it was their refusal to even consider the other side that really turned me off.
However, I wasn't referring specifically to the WTO protesters. Many in the environmentalist movement are much worse. "You can't cut down these trees! They're... old! We'll lie down in front of your logging trucks to stop you." "This is the habitat of the endangered (cute, cuddly animal)!" And let us not forget the SUV-driving, jetski riding Greenpeace folks who were interfering with the Makah whale hunts.
The fringes take away from the arguments of the whole, thanks to our sensationalistic media in North America. That should really sadden us all. However, the fringes do occasionally cover for the fact that the arguments behind them aren't strong enough to stand on their merit. The WTO protesters had a point, and it was valid enough. However, the benefits of a global economy in which no country can wage war on another because they are too interdependent far outweighs the minor, temporary damage done to the economy of one's own home.
------
Since nobody else has said so outright, I'll remind you all the actual milestone build of m16 is not yet out. These (as others *have* said) are the nightly builds along the path to m16. These have been available since before m15 was released.
When M16 actually does come out (and it should be within a few days), it'll be available at ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/m16/.
------
The only mistake that Stewert made was going public with it. She got massacred by the media. Just like the Liberals intended.
Why would she have known what was going on? She had nothing to do with the Ministry until she was appointed as Minister. She did not participate in the cover-up. Else we'd have never heard of the billion dollar boondoggle.
------
Do me one favour...don't turn a blind eye to the seedier, unpleasant, extremist side of Alliance just becasue you want better representation from the west. You just might get what you vote for.
The problem is that out in the west (I've lived in Ontario, and noticed that BC isn't considered part of the west. Go figure) we really ARE getting riled up about the absolute lack of representation. Ontario alone has a third of the ridings in the country. BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan only had about 4 ridings that weren't Reform in the last election, and the Liberals still formed a majority government without the help of Quebec.
The Quebecois vote in the Bloc because most of the people want representation, not because they want to leave the country. Their extremist fringe is a whole lot worse than the Reform Party/CA's.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Reformers/CA, but who else do I vote for? The Tories are no longer a party worth considering, the federal NDP wouldn't get votes in BC because of the provincial NDP (and I don't like their policies, anyway). The Liberals are the "hated enemy" and that leaves us with what? The Canadian Alliance. Of course, if Day wins their leadership race, I will have to vote Liberal.
Another note... Tom Long is very unlikely to win. He's just there to drum up support for the party in Ontario. He's not well-liked in this half of the country if we go by the people I've spoken with.
------
See subject... And it's by Katz, too. Not bad.
Have you,the reader, ever noticed that the people who support copyright infringement the most strongly are nearly always those who have nothing to their name which they can lose via same? It's no coincidence that the vast majority of the rabid "open source or bust" crowd is no older than their early twenties. Of course, one could argue that this is the case for entirely different reasons, such as the fact that many have yet to mature and look at matters rationally. See: early army enlistment ages, college-aged protesters whose arguments just don't make sense.
Propaganda affects the young much more easily than those who are older. On a similar tangent, I've noticed that the Catholic Church now performs its confirmation ceremonies several years earlier. Presumably this is because me and a good many friends who were from Roman Catholic families opted out. Very unlikely that this was an isolated incident.
Personally, I'm all in favor of open source, though I disagree with one of the two major licenses. I just don't demand that everything I use be such. I know that it's just a vocal minority of the Linux and Slashdot communities that feel otherwise, but they certainly are vocal.
I had several paragraphs more but as they are local issues, they would be meaningless to nearly all of you. Insert some bitching here about a vocal minority of your choice.
For what it's worth, people inclined to mod me down should use overrated. I get a kick out of it. Especially when the moderator is just disagreeing with me.
------
I'll chime in for fun, saying that I'm an apathetic atheist. I believe that no gods exist now nor have they ever existed. However, I don't really care enough to argue with people about it.
I feel that most people who claim to be agnostic are in my position, not caring enough to defend themselves from (joke)raving lunatics(/joke). Other people, both atheists and those who are religious, are much more vicious in their descriptions of agnostics.
------
I got an error the first time I tried to post this, so...
When, oh when, will people stop asking for legal advice on Slashdot?
Not only are the odds in favor of getting dozens of not-necessarily-correct opinions from non-lawyers very high, but I consider it extremely unlikely that any lawyer who does read this is going to give out free advice.
Spend a couple hundred bucks, and talk to someone in your hometown who is well versed in copyright law. Don't ask the folks who (in general) come off as supporting the copyright violations facilitated by Napster and Gnutella.
------
Okay, gotcha. And that's a little bit too much faith in this site's moderation system.
------
Anyone running an apache webserver with an improperly configured Bugzilla setup, you mean.
Would the seven of you nearly two hundred thousand users with accounts who do so please stand up?
------
Just because Slashdot screwed up by posting an incorrect story about the "Hated Enemy" doesn't mean that they need to redeem themselves by posting something bad about the home team. They did though, even if it is hiding in the Apache section.
Referees in sports are instructed to not feel they need to make up for what may have been a bad call against one team/player. Sometimes the bad calls all go against one side, sometimes the other. That's just the way luck runs. You can't do anything about it.
I believe the reader is familiar with the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?
------
Well, your posting history and the site you link to in your profile certainly fit your alias.
No, I didn't read the article because, as I stated in my first post, I really don't give a fuck. I saw in one of the replies to your post that the Apache folks use their one of their development machines as a webserver. *That* is notable, when the machine is broken into. That the machine is broken into alone matters not one iota to me.
I don't care how the people who broke in did so and I certainly didn't say anything about their procedure. What difference does it make whether they use a buffer overflow or something a little trickier? It's still just another machine that was broken into. I'm quite sure they have backups. It's as simple as restoring them, fixing the vulnerability, and reconnecting the machine. The only thing left to them is determining just how long ago the vulnerability was first taken advantage of.
High profile aside, in what relevent way is it any different than someone who runs one of the myriad Win '9x trojans? Regardless of the Libertarian slant (why argue with what should be common sense?) to everything she writes, this covers a similar situation. Why is one case more special than another? No hypocrite, I.
------
Excuse me, but who gives a fuck?
Another web site was hacked. Next item in the news: Life goes on.
The people who care about what was hacked and what wasn't can get their news from other sites. I gather (since dozens of comments over the past years have said as much) that attrition.org likes to mirror defaced websites. If that's their niche, they'll probably do a better job covering it than Slashdot does, anyway.
Do you really need to see dozens of misinformed "Ha! Open source is insecure by nature." comments, followed by dozens of karma-whoring followups that say "No, actually, it was hacked through some odd insecurity in Bugzilla. Security through obscurity never works. With open source, we can fix it ourselves, rather than wait for Microsoft to release a patch two months later." (Score: 4, Insightful)
Please... (Why do I know anything about it in the first place? Other "news" sites covering it, to my annoyance.)
------
We as a free people should have the right to view pipctures of young girls in the nude, if this makes me horny then why should you care? What you do in the bedroom is nobody elses busiess right? And if my computer is in my bedroom and I don't have any little girls in there either am I doing anything wrong? If what I like is illegal to do, should I be prevented from thinking about it too?
Troll? He's obviously taken the unpopular side of the debate. I'm not a fan of child porn, but I agree with the AC. Don't forget that American laws don't apply to the rest of the world, either. Is the FBI going to go after the people with European IP addresses? If so, I don't imagine they'll be too successful.
For kicks, I'll mention that under Canadian law, possession of child porn is legal. There was a big uproar when the courts decided this, but the law hasn't been changed. (For reference, both distributing and producing it is still considered illegal here. Downloading it would be legal... The person hosting it for download is liable.)
------
I'm exhausted, (funny, considering the current Slashdot poll) so I'll simply say that yes, the media has a lot to do with it, and that yes, you can't paint everyone with one brush.
Hockey over... Must sleep.
------