I think perhaps your definition of "just another OLD guy" might not match that of people who are, in fact, old guys. I really can't imagine someone with a 7 digit Slashdot number thinking they are "old".
How old do I have to be to fit your arbitrary and meaningless criteria? News Flash: my slashdot ID doesn't mean jack shit to me or anyone else, nor is "Old Guy" a reference to anything other than my age.
True, it wouldn't have cost the editors anything to include a simple parenthetical mention - something like "Kali Linux (the security and penetration testing distro)".
Exactly, but don't let that stop you from spinning more nonsense about how I "should" know this or that or some craptastic little pocket distro that practically no one has ever heard of. Take your elitist geek chest-thumping bullshit and go bother someone who cares.
What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?
Pretty much nothing.
Some outrage, some threats of this and that, some media coverage...and then nothing, because Kim Kardashian's ass will make another appearance and everyone will forget all about some plane that went down somewhere in some country that none of us has ever been to.
Why couldn't they contribute to Theora since that was the entire point of it was to be a royalty free video codec.
Because then they wouldn't have had a good reason to pick their own cool name and fuck up the field with yet another fucking "standard".
And yes, I agree- they should have thrown their weight behind Theora or something like it. But noooooooo, instead let's roll our own and muddy the waters even more...
But how useful would it have been to have those three words in the/. summary?
They would have been very useful, because I would have instantly known that this distro wasn't meant for regular desktop users and I would have moved on. But the editorial standards at/. have dropped in the last ten years to the point where I'm losing interest in the site altogether.
...whatever you do, don't give us any fucking clues as to what the features of interest might be or why we might be interested in this particular distro.
The Left loves Islam (atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians) and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Bullshit. Stop spreading your FUD and lumping "left" together as if they all thought alike. They no more think alike than those on the right do.
If they're retweeting stuff, then obviously they're a terrorist. I recommend a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence for anyone retweeting anything, ever.
We're long overdue for utilizing the power of computers to make educated diagnosis of medical ailments.
In 10 or 20 years no respectable doctor will make a diagnosis in any non-trivial medical scenario without using an expert medical-AI system to help sift through all the possibilities. Computers could be so much better at weighing all the factors in a complex diagnosis that it's kind of appalling that it's taken this long to get systems like this going.
The need for the human element will always be there (IMHO) but medicine has become too complex for a single, trained human to manage all the possible factors efficiently or capably. We're not there yet, but we will be soon.
Combine the advanced medical sensing capabilities we have with the power of an expert medical system, and the art of medicine will take a HUGE leap forward.
But seriously, I'm the same way. I doubt you'll find my picture anywhere on the internet, and if you do, it almost certainly won't have my name attached. Not my real name, and probably not even a fake name.
20+ years ago I started using a false name for everything internet-related, a nom de plume for the internet, if you will. Behind that was another fake name used for run-of-the-mill stuff. People would dig down through the first fake name, keep digging until they "uncovered" the second fake name, and then crow about how they "found out" who I was.:) lol
The multiple layers of names also serve another purpose, and that is whenever I'm contacted under one of those names I know right away that 99.9999% of the time the person contacting me is a spammer or scammer.
And who knows, maybe there's a 3rd layer of name-obfuscation in there too.:)
Free Software does tend to be based on more secure designs.
Yes, I'd say that's generally the case. I was responding more to his flat, blanket claim that "open source software was secure", which implies that open source software has no vulnerabilities, period. His comment was just a bit too trollish in my opinion.
On the other hand, pretty much everything is better than the market leader monopoly-ware product. This pretty much the way it's always been.
Some is, some isn't. Some OS applications are so much better than the commercial offerings that I often wonder how the commercial companies manage to stay in business. At the same time, there are a fair number of large OS projects that can only be described as blobs of poorly-written crap that simply don't work.
I thought the consensus here was that open source software was secure? Why do the events of the past year make it appear as if they're as bad or worse?
Bullshit, that's not what the consensus is. The consensus is that because open source software's code is viewable by anyone, it's more likely that flaws/bugs will be found.
Only an imbecile (like you) would make the false claim that open source software is inherently "secure". Stop spreading your FUD, you buttwipe.
100% unhackable? That's a pretty bold claim to say the least. I'm sure it's probably a hell of a lot harder than a stock version of Windows (duh) but making the claim that it's "100% unhackable" seems a wee bit ambitious.
And yet there's Node.js, which is JavaScript on the server side.
Yep, I've played with it, and if there's something it can't do I don't know what it is. It's powerful. There's also webkit core which can do some great stuff, but still...I wouldn't want to write anything seriously complex in it. That's probably just my preference. I suppose there really isn't any reason why you couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't.
But for client-side stuff javascript seems to be about the only commonly-supported means of getting stuff done. (Yes, there's Flash, but that has its own baggage as well, to say the least.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think perhaps your definition of "just another OLD guy" might not match that of people who are, in fact, old guys. I really can't imagine someone with a 7 digit Slashdot number thinking they are "old".
How old do I have to be to fit your arbitrary and meaningless criteria? News Flash: my slashdot ID doesn't mean jack shit to me or anyone else, nor is "Old Guy" a reference to anything other than my age.
True, it wouldn't have cost the editors anything to include a simple parenthetical mention - something like "Kali Linux (the security and penetration testing distro)".
Exactly, but don't let that stop you from spinning more nonsense about how I "should" know this or that or some craptastic little pocket distro that practically no one has ever heard of. Take your elitist geek chest-thumping bullshit and go bother someone who cares.
What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?
Pretty much nothing.
Some outrage, some threats of this and that, some media coverage...and then nothing, because Kim Kardashian's ass will make another appearance and everyone will forget all about some plane that went down somewhere in some country that none of us has ever been to.
Why couldn't they contribute to Theora since that was the entire point of it was to be a royalty free video codec.
Because then they wouldn't have had a good reason to pick their own cool name and fuck up the field with yet another fucking "standard".
And yes, I agree- they should have thrown their weight behind Theora or something like it. But noooooooo, instead let's roll our own and muddy the waters even more...
But how useful would it have been to have those three words in the /. summary?
They would have been very useful, because I would have instantly known that this distro wasn't meant for regular desktop users and I would have moved on. But the editorial standards at /. have dropped in the last ten years to the point where I'm losing interest in the site altogether.
...whatever you do, don't give us any fucking clues as to what the features of interest might be or why we might be interested in this particular distro.
someone could write an exploit and actually get it to run on a Blackberry OS.
As a fellow ex-Blackberry owner, I agree- that was where the story became difficult to believe.
Circumnavigate?
Umm, no. That is not how that word is used. I think they meant "circumvent".
I wish someone would hunt the "Moo" guy down and put a bullet in his stupid ass.
Why don't they just use the RNG built into systemd??
Pixels pixels PIXELS Pixels pixels PIXELS Pixels pixels PIXELS Pixels pixels PIXELS
Now sue me. I'll wait.
But I think internally companies can demand their employees to not click on links from email.
They can demand anything they want, but will the employees listen? Noooooooooooooo.
I wish I was wealthy enough to be defrauded of 46 million dollars...
I think I speak for all of us when I say, "Fuck this shit".
I'll stick with WIn 7 until my PC dies, and then I'll probably move to some popular Linux distro.
The Left loves Islam (atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians) and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Bullshit. Stop spreading your FUD and lumping "left" together as if they all thought alike. They no more think alike than those on the right do.
If everybody nukes everyone else from orbit, there soon won't be any problems.
I like the way you think.
If they're retweeting stuff, then obviously they're a terrorist. I recommend a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence for anyone retweeting anything, ever.
We're long overdue for utilizing the power of computers to make educated diagnosis of medical ailments.
In 10 or 20 years no respectable doctor will make a diagnosis in any non-trivial medical scenario without using an expert medical-AI system to help sift through all the possibilities. Computers could be so much better at weighing all the factors in a complex diagnosis that it's kind of appalling that it's taken this long to get systems like this going.
The need for the human element will always be there (IMHO) but medicine has become too complex for a single, trained human to manage all the possible factors efficiently or capably. We're not there yet, but we will be soon.
Combine the advanced medical sensing capabilities we have with the power of an expert medical system, and the art of medicine will take a HUGE leap forward.
Lol, for once my user name is relevant. :)
:) lol
:)
But seriously, I'm the same way. I doubt you'll find my picture anywhere on the internet, and if you do, it almost certainly won't have my name attached. Not my real name, and probably not even a fake name.
20+ years ago I started using a false name for everything internet-related, a nom de plume for the internet, if you will. Behind that was another fake name used for run-of-the-mill stuff. People would dig down through the first fake name, keep digging until they "uncovered" the second fake name, and then crow about how they "found out" who I was.
The multiple layers of names also serve another purpose, and that is whenever I'm contacted under one of those names I know right away that 99.9999% of the time the person contacting me is a spammer or scammer.
And who knows, maybe there's a 3rd layer of name-obfuscation in there too.
....now that's funny.
Free Software does tend to be based on more secure designs.
Yes, I'd say that's generally the case. I was responding more to his flat, blanket claim that "open source software was secure", which implies that open source software has no vulnerabilities, period. His comment was just a bit too trollish in my opinion.
On the other hand, pretty much everything is better than the market leader monopoly-ware product. This pretty much the way it's always been.
Some is, some isn't. Some OS applications are so much better than the commercial offerings that I often wonder how the commercial companies manage to stay in business. At the same time, there are a fair number of large OS projects that can only be described as blobs of poorly-written crap that simply don't work.
Agreed...just let me scan the text, I don't need a puppet show for this kind of stuff.
I thought the consensus here was that open source software was secure? Why do the events of the past year make it appear as if they're as bad or worse?
Bullshit, that's not what the consensus is. The consensus is that because open source software's code is viewable by anyone, it's more likely that flaws/bugs will be found.
Only an imbecile (like you) would make the false claim that open source software is inherently "secure". Stop spreading your FUD, you buttwipe.
You mean like when they released windows 10 and the start menu lagged froze and crashed?
But you you have to admit it lagged and crashed really really fast due to all the Windows 10 improvements.
Gentlemen, start your keyboards.....
100% unhackable? That's a pretty bold claim to say the least. I'm sure it's probably a hell of a lot harder than a stock version of Windows (duh) but making the claim that it's "100% unhackable" seems a wee bit ambitious.
And yet there's Node.js, which is JavaScript on the server side.
Yep, I've played with it, and if there's something it can't do I don't know what it is. It's powerful. There's also webkit core which can do some great stuff, but still...I wouldn't want to write anything seriously complex in it. That's probably just my preference. I suppose there really isn't any reason why you couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't.
But for client-side stuff javascript seems to be about the only commonly-supported means of getting stuff done. (Yes, there's Flash, but that has its own baggage as well, to say the least.)