The thing is, I don't see the US as being any kind of master. It is a powerful nation with far-reaching military, political, economic, and cultural influence. But as pervasive as that influence is, it remains simply influence. It is not a given that the US gets anything it wants. If you look at history and current events, you see other entities with different goals opposing or subverting US influence.
The current state of the world is definitely affected by US actions. But it is very limiting to only view events based on US activity. I see that a lot in US criticism - events presented as if the US acted within a vacuum. That presents a very distorted view of the world (one ripe for manipulation by propagandists).
Whether the US has done "good" with it's power or not is up to debate. But good debate will include a wide view of events.
It doesn't matter who's hand is on the whip. Everyone's hand gets smacked at some point in history. Some get anhilated before even having a hand on a whip. The world is a violent, rough place.
To be sure - the US has screwed up any number of times throughout history. It doesn't take a lot to come up with examples of these mistakes (and outright blunders). But at the same time, when delving in to these embarassments, let's not pretend like the field was layed out by the US. There were and continue to be plenty of other entities operating in the world. And for every under-the-table attempt made by the US to make the world what it wants, there's several examples of someone else doing the exact same thing. When one looks at the laundry list of US bad actions, one should also be very conscious of who else has a list that coincides. That doesn't negate the misdeeds of the US. But it does demonstrate that, despite what some seem to believe, the US isn't the sole reason for the world's woes.
"Animals?" Come on now, if Taliban agents were caught handing out darknet cellphones and laptops through a mosque in NYC, you just know the same thing would happen. Heck, we recently arrested some midde-east looking people just for taking home videos at Disneyland.
I love how things are distorted to serve an agenda. People are dehumanized by referring to them as "animals". And situations are distorted by describing them in the most innocent terms ("taking home videos at Disneyland" - the defendants were being prosecuted for a collection of material to include the aforementioned video of Disneyland) and presented as "recent" when they actually occurred over 8 years ago.
My really low account number was one lower than your really low account number, but I lost it. I think it's somewhere in a dresser drawer, next to the keys to my other car, which is a Porsche 911 GT3 RS and has a kicking sound system.
My lower account number was from Canada; you wouldn't know it.
Perhaps the change in stories has been related; it's gotten a lot more general (it probably started before but I remember noticing the change as and after the politics section was added).
So yeah, the site's still around and there are still people posting and it's still relevant (more than I can say for digg), but the focus and community have changed a lot and for better or worse, as far as "net culture" is concerned, it seems like 4chan and the sites that interact with it's culture (reddit, unyclopedia) have more influence.
It seems to me that Slashdot has always been a relatively niche audience. If Slashdot ever influenced 'net culture, it was because 'net culture itself was once very much a subculture. But that has changed. The user base of the Internet in general has grown, become more diverse, and become more main-stream. Sites like 4chan are a part of this broader audience. And while Slashdot has also felt some of this broader influence, it still remains pretty firmly removed from the mainstream.
Wow - so you think privacy only applies to people you like? Or people not being accused of crimes you detest?
I agree that child pornographers are scum. I certainly approve of legal action against such despicable low-lifes. But privacy applies to everyone under the law otherwise child pornography becomes a convenient weapon to level against your enemy without any care for justice.
Yeah, but now that the malware was created, it shouldn't be long before for someone prevents another screensaver from doing this again... that's what I was getting at.
Even if it isn't patched immediately, a Linux screensaver has lower potential of screwing up the entire system folder with it's payload.
It wasn't an issue with screensavers. It was part of the install scripts that are executed as root as part of the installation procedure for a Debian package - pretty common.
But how much Windows malware just hangs out in the confines of the user? There certainly seems to be a lot of value in elevated privilege otherwise successful malware examples wouldn't bother with it.
This just shows that if Linux had 95% marketshare on desktop, and Windows 0.5%, it would be the same thing but just turned around.
You've managed to extrapolate all that from once single incident? You should get your resume in to Gartner fast. Although you might want to keep in mind that this isn't the first malware to target Linux. And we've already seen about a decade of doom-and-gloom analysis predicting a malware apocalypse for alternative platforms.
Sure - this should be (yet another - albiet likely the first for many who missed the earlier ones) wakeup call for those who fool themselves in to thinking that said alternative platforms are proof against malware. But let's not swing the other direction by waving off the issues as merely numbers. Market share certainly plays a roll but it is hardly the only factor that makes a target attractive.
Conversely, if it were always up to companies like AT&T and Verizon, we would see little progress. But when networks, such as the phone network and the Internet, are opened up we start to see much more innovation. We couldn't have this conversation if it weren't for the innovations that occurred from open networks being used in ways that weren't part of some centrally planned business model.
I should also stress that the Droid in our hands represents the exact behavior you're critical of. Verizon has very little control over what goes on with that platform; certainly less than AT&T has with the iPhone. T-Mobile has been doing this for years now. Yet those networks have yet to come crashing down.
The last time they got themselves a real progressive force (Mr Mohammed Mossadeq), the CIA killed him and installed their guy, the Shah.
So what you're saying is that the CIA used cancer to kill him 14 years after the CIA induced a coup to remove him from power. I see. How very subtle of them.
One has to be very careful of how facts are presented. There are times when there are mistakes. And there are times when there are honest differences in interpretation. And there are times when there are intentional tweaks to create propaganda. As much as folks like to think they're above such influence, they often demonstrate rather handily that they are very much susceptible to it.
That's a network that wasn't planned properly. We can see that in other public networks as well.
We'll see how it turns out for Verizon. Don't look now, but there's two Android phones that they just rolled out - I have one of them (I'm probably the very menace you're so concerned about).
A few decades ago the phone network could handle modems and 3rd party phones; the network wasn't as susceptible to abuse as wireless networks of today.
And yet Ma Bell representatives claimed that 3rd party devices, to include MODEMs and phones, had to be tightly controlled to avoid damage to that very same network. None the less, those 3rd party devices were reluctantly allowed after successful lawsuits. And remarkably, the phone network did not come to a screeching halt at the hands of misbehaving devices.
AT&T wasn't entirely incorrect though. The phone network had weaknesses and the phreaks found them and exploited them with blue boxes and toy whistles. But those holes were eventually eliminated (although it took decades).
I have a hard time believing that any modern public network is so susceptible to tampering that 3rd party devices would be that great of a danger. Today, we have examples of working public networks with little to no regulation of end user devices interacting with them.
If, for example, Verizon's CDMA network is that fragile then I would be much more concerned with the current situation. It's not going to be a legitimate 3rd party device that's going to take that network down and the individual building that malicious device won't have to worry about the legality of what they're building.
NOBODY expects a repetitious meme! It's chief weapon is repetition and simplistic humor. It's two two weapons is repetition and and simplistic humor.... and pop culture references. It's three weapons are...
It might suprise you, but everyone has a contract with their ISP yet there are ISPs that act against their customer's best interest. That "comeback" didn't do squat. So much for accountability.
The point here is history. Show that Google is doing something wrong, and people WILL raise a stink about it. Google gets a lot of milage out of good will and that won't last long if they misstep.
With Ubuntu, it almost feels like your essentially running another OS with the underpinnings of Linux.
Pray tell, what is "Linux" then? If you want to get that pedantic, then everything beyond the Linux kernel is bolted on and a step removed from purity. And in the desire to be pure, you're bypassing a lot of functionality.
I understand the basic idea. I dislike SUSE and RedHat because of the way they do things (I much prefer Ubuntu and Debian after having cut my teeth on Slackware). But I would never claim that any of those was any less "Linux" than any other given option with any sense of seriousness.
Not everyone who wishes to run Linux wants to engage geeks on IRC. There is a mismatch there. But I don't see that changing.
In my experience, IRC has tended to be a rather poor source for help. Even when there are helpful people online, they often haven't had anything to contribute to my particular problem. I've had much more luck with forums and blog posts.
You might want to re-calibrate your timeline. Six or seven years ago, there were still dialogs on par with Windows. And there were already software packages on par with standards used on Windows (which is why when Nero for Linux was announced, there wasn't much thrill felt in the Linux camp).
What is the benefit of open source if the openness doesn't actually pragmatically exist? Openness implies access, understanding, knowledge, transparency. Without documentation, none of these exist. Yes, you can get ahold of the source package shipped by your distro, extract it into files, and study the source code as documentation.
If your value of a piece of software is based on the documentation, I suspect your choices are even more limited. Sure - good documentation is great. It's something everything should have and that applies equally to Open Source stuff as well as proprietary. But it is not the end-all and be-all of software. And it certainly isn't the defining aspect of concepts of access, understanding, knowledge, or transparency. I can get access to and understand software despite the state of it's documentation. Likewise, I can participate in the knowledge and transparency of a piece of software no matter what is documented (which may or may not have anything to do with what a piece of code actually does).
The problem with that definition is that people use the word more often to describe technologies that haven't yet proven themselves than they do for technologies that have stood the test of time.
What you're describing is marketing. Everything is the next big thing if you believe the glossy brochure / ad. History shows that most aren't.
And that's the key. You can call something disruptive all you want. You can smirk and sneer at all these past claims that didn't pan out. But that doesn't mean something is, in fact, disruptive nor that there are technologies that really did have such an effect on the status quo.
Microsoft Bob had no value as a disruptive technology because it, simply, disrupted nothing.
Along with this is the idea that people oppose those technologies purely for hidebound reasons.
The OP of this thread sounds like a prime example.
Anyone who thinks that "disruptive" is a positive attribute is someone who is divorced from real-world concerns.
A lot of people fear change - you're not alone. But don't worry. Others can embrace progress and drag you along in to the future, albeit grudgingly, so that you too may enjoy the benefits of advancing technology.
This question is posed as if this is new ground. As if this hasn't been done before - without questions of morality and with distinctly less noble intent. All this worry about inserting a malicious payload is wasted. The script kiddies already have better options at their disposal.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, I don't see the US as being any kind of master. It is a powerful nation with far-reaching military, political, economic, and cultural influence. But as pervasive as that influence is, it remains simply influence. It is not a given that the US gets anything it wants. If you look at history and current events, you see other entities with different goals opposing or subverting US influence.
The current state of the world is definitely affected by US actions. But it is very limiting to only view events based on US activity. I see that a lot in US criticism - events presented as if the US acted within a vacuum. That presents a very distorted view of the world (one ripe for manipulation by propagandists).
Whether the US has done "good" with it's power or not is up to debate. But good debate will include a wide view of events.
It doesn't matter who's hand is on the whip. Everyone's hand gets smacked at some point in history. Some get anhilated before even having a hand on a whip. The world is a violent, rough place.
To be sure - the US has screwed up any number of times throughout history. It doesn't take a lot to come up with examples of these mistakes (and outright blunders). But at the same time, when delving in to these embarassments, let's not pretend like the field was layed out by the US. There were and continue to be plenty of other entities operating in the world. And for every under-the-table attempt made by the US to make the world what it wants, there's several examples of someone else doing the exact same thing. When one looks at the laundry list of US bad actions, one should also be very conscious of who else has a list that coincides. That doesn't negate the misdeeds of the US. But it does demonstrate that, despite what some seem to believe, the US isn't the sole reason for the world's woes.
"Animals?" Come on now, if Taliban agents were caught handing out darknet cellphones and laptops through a mosque in NYC, you just know the same thing would happen. Heck, we recently arrested some midde-east looking people just for taking home videos at Disneyland.
I love how things are distorted to serve an agenda. People are dehumanized by referring to them as "animals". And situations are distorted by describing them in the most innocent terms ("taking home videos at Disneyland" - the defendants were being prosecuted for a collection of material to include the aforementioned video of Disneyland) and presented as "recent" when they actually occurred over 8 years ago.
My really low account number was one lower than your really low account number, but I lost it. I think it's somewhere in a dresser drawer, next to the keys to my other car, which is a Porsche 911 GT3 RS and has a kicking sound system.
My lower account number was from Canada; you wouldn't know it.
Perhaps the change in stories has been related; it's gotten a lot more general (it probably started before but I remember noticing the change as and after the politics section was added).
So yeah, the site's still around and there are still people posting and it's still relevant (more than I can say for digg), but the focus and community have changed a lot and for better or worse, as far as "net culture" is concerned, it seems like 4chan and the sites that interact with it's culture (reddit, unyclopedia) have more influence.
It seems to me that Slashdot has always been a relatively niche audience. If Slashdot ever influenced 'net culture, it was because 'net culture itself was once very much a subculture. But that has changed. The user base of the Internet in general has grown, become more diverse, and become more main-stream. Sites like 4chan are a part of this broader audience. And while Slashdot has also felt some of this broader influence, it still remains pretty firmly removed from the mainstream.
I remember reading posts like yours in the days of old, decrying the decline of /.
Back in those days, people really knew how to decry the decline of /.
Wow - so you think privacy only applies to people you like? Or people not being accused of crimes you detest?
I agree that child pornographers are scum. I certainly approve of legal action against such despicable low-lifes. But privacy applies to everyone under the law otherwise child pornography becomes a convenient weapon to level against your enemy without any care for justice.
Yeah, but now that the malware was created, it shouldn't be long before for someone prevents another screensaver from doing this again... that's what I was getting at.
Even if it isn't patched immediately, a Linux screensaver has lower potential of screwing up the entire system folder with it's payload.
It wasn't an issue with screensavers. It was part of the install scripts that are executed as root as part of the installation procedure for a Debian package - pretty common.
But how much Windows malware just hangs out in the confines of the user? There certainly seems to be a lot of value in elevated privilege otherwise successful malware examples wouldn't bother with it.
This just shows that if Linux had 95% marketshare on desktop, and Windows 0.5%, it would be the same thing but just turned around.
You've managed to extrapolate all that from once single incident? You should get your resume in to Gartner fast. Although you might want to keep in mind that this isn't the first malware to target Linux. And we've already seen about a decade of doom-and-gloom analysis predicting a malware apocalypse for alternative platforms.
Sure - this should be (yet another - albiet likely the first for many who missed the earlier ones) wakeup call for those who fool themselves in to thinking that said alternative platforms are proof against malware. But let's not swing the other direction by waving off the issues as merely numbers. Market share certainly plays a roll but it is hardly the only factor that makes a target attractive.
Conversely, if it were always up to companies like AT&T and Verizon, we would see little progress. But when networks, such as the phone network and the Internet, are opened up we start to see much more innovation. We couldn't have this conversation if it weren't for the innovations that occurred from open networks being used in ways that weren't part of some centrally planned business model.
I should also stress that the Droid in our hands represents the exact behavior you're critical of. Verizon has very little control over what goes on with that platform; certainly less than AT&T has with the iPhone. T-Mobile has been doing this for years now. Yet those networks have yet to come crashing down.
The last time they got themselves a real progressive force (Mr Mohammed Mossadeq), the CIA killed him and installed their guy, the Shah.
So what you're saying is that the CIA used cancer to kill him 14 years after the CIA induced a coup to remove him from power. I see. How very subtle of them.
One has to be very careful of how facts are presented. There are times when there are mistakes. And there are times when there are honest differences in interpretation. And there are times when there are intentional tweaks to create propaganda. As much as folks like to think they're above such influence, they often demonstrate rather handily that they are very much susceptible to it.
That's a network that wasn't planned properly. We can see that in other public networks as well.
We'll see how it turns out for Verizon. Don't look now, but there's two Android phones that they just rolled out - I have one of them (I'm probably the very menace you're so concerned about).
A few decades ago the phone network could handle modems and 3rd party phones; the network wasn't as susceptible to abuse as wireless networks of today.
And yet Ma Bell representatives claimed that 3rd party devices, to include MODEMs and phones, had to be tightly controlled to avoid damage to that very same network. None the less, those 3rd party devices were reluctantly allowed after successful lawsuits. And remarkably, the phone network did not come to a screeching halt at the hands of misbehaving devices.
AT&T wasn't entirely incorrect though. The phone network had weaknesses and the phreaks found them and exploited them with blue boxes and toy whistles. But those holes were eventually eliminated (although it took decades).
I have a hard time believing that any modern public network is so susceptible to tampering that 3rd party devices would be that great of a danger. Today, we have examples of working public networks with little to no regulation of end user devices interacting with them.
If, for example, Verizon's CDMA network is that fragile then I would be much more concerned with the current situation. It's not going to be a legitimate 3rd party device that's going to take that network down and the individual building that malicious device won't have to worry about the legality of what they're building.
A few decades ago, you would have been one of the folks cheering AT&T's attempts to keep MODEMs and 3rd party phones off the telephone network.
NOBODY expects a repetitious meme! It's chief weapon is repetition and simplistic humor. It's two two weapons is repetition and and simplistic humor.... and pop culture references. It's three weapons are...
It might suprise you, but everyone has a contract with their ISP yet there are ISPs that act against their customer's best interest. That "comeback" didn't do squat. So much for accountability.
The point here is history. Show that Google is doing something wrong, and people WILL raise a stink about it. Google gets a lot of milage out of good will and that won't last long if they misstep.
With Ubuntu, it almost feels like your essentially running another OS with the underpinnings of Linux.
Pray tell, what is "Linux" then? If you want to get that pedantic, then everything beyond the Linux kernel is bolted on and a step removed from purity. And in the desire to be pure, you're bypassing a lot of functionality.
I understand the basic idea. I dislike SUSE and RedHat because of the way they do things (I much prefer Ubuntu and Debian after having cut my teeth on Slackware). But I would never claim that any of those was any less "Linux" than any other given option with any sense of seriousness.
Not everyone who wishes to run Linux wants to engage geeks on IRC. There is a mismatch there. But I don't see that changing.
In my experience, IRC has tended to be a rather poor source for help. Even when there are helpful people online, they often haven't had anything to contribute to my particular problem. I've had much more luck with forums and blog posts.
You might want to re-calibrate your timeline. Six or seven years ago, there were still dialogs on par with Windows. And there were already software packages on par with standards used on Windows (which is why when Nero for Linux was announced, there wasn't much thrill felt in the Linux camp).
What is the benefit of open source if the openness doesn't actually pragmatically exist? Openness implies access, understanding, knowledge, transparency. Without documentation, none of these exist. Yes, you can get ahold of the source package shipped by your distro, extract it into files, and study the source code as documentation.
If your value of a piece of software is based on the documentation, I suspect your choices are even more limited. Sure - good documentation is great. It's something everything should have and that applies equally to Open Source stuff as well as proprietary. But it is not the end-all and be-all of software. And it certainly isn't the defining aspect of concepts of access, understanding, knowledge, or transparency. I can get access to and understand software despite the state of it's documentation. Likewise, I can participate in the knowledge and transparency of a piece of software no matter what is documented (which may or may not have anything to do with what a piece of code actually does).
Do you have a pop psychology book and a secret black box with some electrodes I could tape to my skin?
The problem with that definition is that people use the word more often to describe technologies that haven't yet proven themselves than they do for technologies that have stood the test of time.
What you're describing is marketing. Everything is the next big thing if you believe the glossy brochure / ad. History shows that most aren't.
And that's the key. You can call something disruptive all you want. You can smirk and sneer at all these past claims that didn't pan out. But that doesn't mean something is, in fact, disruptive nor that there are technologies that really did have such an effect on the status quo.
Microsoft Bob had no value as a disruptive technology because it, simply, disrupted nothing.
Along with this is the idea that people oppose those technologies purely for hidebound reasons.
The OP of this thread sounds like a prime example.
Anyone who thinks that "disruptive" is a positive attribute is someone who is divorced from real-world concerns.
A lot of people fear change - you're not alone. But don't worry. Others can embrace progress and drag you along in to the future, albeit grudgingly, so that you too may enjoy the benefits of advancing technology.
This question is posed as if this is new ground. As if this hasn't been done before - without questions of morality and with distinctly less noble intent. All this worry about inserting a malicious payload is wasted. The script kiddies already have better options at their disposal.