So we should wait for someone else to do something about all this necessity?
I mean, we are talking about necessary changes that have dire consequences if left alone...
Hack away. Hobbiests, amateur scientists, hackers, and tinkerers are often the unseen drivers of technology. Early adopters show what's possible.
But there's a big leap from early adopter to mainstream. And if you want to "do something" on that large of a scale, you've got to some up with a way to make the tech viable. That means going beyond looking at the project as something to make happen using anything you can to get there (i.e. junked car frames) to looking at how to produce a successful product that gets adopted by the mainstream.
I'm not advocating waiting around for it. If you have the means, go out there and do it. Heck - make your own car company if you have to. Like Tesla Motors did.
Your argument that you *can* deploy a secure Linux/Mac box or Apache server relies on "choosing secure settings and not doing dumb shit." Windows will work just fine for you if you do the same.
Sorry - you misunderstood what I was saying. The parent poster was talking about a specific bug / exploit against Apache that was recently announced. Turns out, the issue doesn't have much bearing on the conversation at hand.
Your anecdotal story about deploying WinXP systems has more to do with the thread than the parent's posting about the Apache bug. But the point isn't about intelligent deployment of systems. It is about whether marketshare dictates a fertile environment for malware.
Wow. Struck a nerve, did I?
I'm a hobbiest at heart. I've put together plenty of projects. Nothing that involves auto mechanics (I lent a hand building an aircraft though - I used to service avionics systems professionally). But I can understand the general enthusiasm for something like that. That doesn't mean I'm going to assume any of these projects are a marketing campaign away from being a product. There's a world of difference between something hacked together by an enthusiast and a product ready for retail.
You can keep going on about cheap electric kit cars, doing things for yourself, the Internet, and your bodily functions. But don't fool yourself in to thinking you've got insight on an industry because of it.
Did you not read about the Apache security flaw that was posted on Slashdot just this week?
Did you read about it? It was a potential DOS. The issue is well known and generally mitigated either through various common deployment strategies or a module that comes with Apache. So while you can certainly deploy an Apache server that's susceptible to this - you don't have to. And even if you do, it's not going to be an avenue of attack for malware.
Excellent. So the introductory advertising campaign for these theoretical cars of yours will include the slogan "some assembly required"? Or are we springing that on the public after the demo drive with Car and Driver?
We helped Afghanistan against the Soviets, and they won. It didn't turn out so well when Osama Bin Laden then used a lot of the weapons and bunkers we gave them in his campaign against us.
Moral of the story: those we help will not always repay us with kindness.
I agree with your general sentiment. But like a lot of history, the lessons of Afghanistan are a lot more complex than you're making it. The idea that the U.S. had any involvement with Osama Bin Laden is questionable (denied by the man himself even). And the outcome of that region was as much about the turmoil of the area as any direct involvement of the US. Although Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban do demonstrate how many foreign "meddlers" operate within the Middle East.
True, but at the time, 2D hardware features were as much a bullet-point as 3D acceleration today, and the C64 had some quite impressive 2D tricks up its sleeve.
Indeed - the C64 had some impressive graphics and truly amazing sound capabilities for it's time. One has to keep in mind that the C=64 appears just a little after dinosaurs first roamed the earth.
I wasn't taking up the "moral/immoral" argument here - I was simply arguing that it's a recruiting tool. Either it is ineffective, as you claim, or it is effective, which I infer from the fact that it continues to be funded.
I don't think I ever challenged the idea that it's a recruiting tool. And I'm not entirely sure I argued that it was ineffective - at least, that wasn't my intended point. What I am saying is that it's no more or less a moral issue as any other recruiting tool - be it direct or indirect. And I am challenging the idea that this is a recruitment tool aimed towards children.
Of course, it didn't work that way. The Iranian public has been getting progressively angrier. These stalling tactics only made them madder. The Ayatollah's proclamation of "divine insight" into the election made them angrier still. Even the blood shed on the street has not discouraged them, but thrown them into a shear rage.
Now Iran is staring down a full-blown revolution. The police have been told they can use firearms (as if they haven't been using them) and the protesters have been denounced as terrorists.
My guess is that the regime understands what fueled the revolution that they, themselves, were a part of 30 years ago. Bloodshed only served to strengthen the revolution (that and disinformation - which we're seeing plenty of already). However, at what point does one decide that there is nothing left to lose and that blood is a gamble that must be made to preserve the current regime?
For a GUI way of doing this, check out Network Manager. I've got a little icon in my Notification Area (Windows users would call it a System Tray) that gives me a drop-down of several configs I've set up for different locations (work, home, co-lo facility, etc.).
There are, of course, multiple other ways of doing this. In the past, I configured multiple configs in/etc/network/interfaces and used ifconfig to bring them up / down as needed. No little GUI. I'm sure you could find other folks who would point out other variations.
I've found a lot of child porn at www.disney.com. Tons of it. Don't bother going to look. You don't have to see it to know what's wrong with it. We know all about victimization of children. That should be enough. That, and the fact that I've told you that it's child porn. That should be enough for anyone. Or, at least, you.
The rest of us would be less inclined to take random stranger's opinions at face value, thank you.
That may well be the limiting factor for open source community development. When developers develop for themselves, the result is a product that is only really usable by someone with the technical ability to code it (ie a very small minority). I certainly hope that's not true, but except for certain cases, such as Firefox, it certainly seems to be the case.
Interesting. Here I am, 10+ years of using Linux on a daily basis, and yet I'm incapable of even starting to code the vast majority of what I use. I wonder how I managed that.
Do you seriously believe that if ASUS, Dell, whoever could get an equal or better OS for free to put on their computers they'd be the slightest bit worried about whether MS was going to raise the price for Windows?
Yes. Do you think these guys are going to just stop making laptops, desktops, etc. in favor of netbooks? Of course not. There's a large market elsewhere that they want to continue being a part of. Likewise, Microsoft Windows represents an exceptionally large market they would like to continue being part of. A "small raise in price" would certainly be felt - especially in a market that's been characterized by it's razor thin margins.
One unique aspect of America's Army is that it's funded by the real Army, which is entirely funded by the public. Movies aren't funded like this.
But movies often get support from the US Military who will put forward resources to assist in making the film. Granted - it's not outright funding. But there is support. Where's the moral outrage?
So, we can argue about what kind of person gets recruited by a game like this... but what I think is beyond arguing is why the game exists, and the reason the game exists is because someone thought it would have an impact on recruiting.
Yes. And your point is? Are you trying to say that recruiting for the military is immoral?
It is also different from a brochure, in the same way that cigarettes can no longer be sold by Joe Camel. The difference between a picture of cigarettes and a picture of a cool smoking camel (it has been argued) is that Joe Camel appeals to kids, and a picture of cigarettes doesn't.
Maybe cigarettes weren't marketed to kids, and maybe they were, but Joe Camel was outlawed. America's Army 3 has more in common with Joe Camel than with the brochure.
And now you're saying video games are for kids? You are aware that the demographics tend to be at 30 on average - which is almost too old to enlist.
Of course, video games tend to deal with the same cultural misunderstanding as cartoons in the USA - both being "for kids" even when they aren't. The Joe Camel controversy is interesting because of this. I would agree that there was a good question whether the marketing was to kids or not. But I couldn't help to wonder if part of that controversy is due to our cultural view of cartoons.
But still, this is a red herring. There are plenty of adult oriented video games being played by the exact demographic the military wants to recruit from. That doesn't make America's Army any more immoral than Grand Theft Auto. I don't buy that Grand Theft Auto turns kids into carjacking cop-killers or mass murderers. And I don't buy that America's Army is ushering kids in to military uniforms.
What I do see is a lot of use of the term "immoral" when the real issue is that people don't like the military recruiting (or even the military in general).
What makes you think this is a zero sum game? Is it really impossible to be aware of the back-room shenanigans of Microsoft and also look at where Linux needs to improve?
Elsewhere you note you've been watching Linux improve over the years. Yet now you're claiming that nobody is looking at how to improve Linux? I suppose elves were involved.
Don't get me wrong. I roll my eyes whenever I find those who want to pretend Linux is beyond criticism. But as someone who's used Linux as a primary desktop for the last 10 years (as well as dealt with Windows and various Unixes), I also see where some of those criticisms are misplaced.
Yeah, I know, I'm not arguing whether video games are bad for children. In my opinion they aren't. I also realize that every child with access to a computer has that access via the consent of an adult, direct or otherwise.
What I'm arguing is that a recruitment tool in the guise of a game is immoral.
I don't see why. How is it any more or less immoral than the glossy brochure that promises a life of adventure? Or the one that plays up the GI Bill? Or the Navy's involvement in the filming of the movie Top Gun?
I used to joke that the recruiting tool that worked for me was Top Gun - the joke being that the movie was about the wrong branch of military service. The reality is that I joined because of the financial boost. I had Army recruiters hounding me and a Navy recruiter that played bait-and-switch. No recruiters talked about war.
I was taking a taxi during my time at tech school. The taxi driver was an older guy with long hair and a beard. He noted that he was retired and started to talk about how my "real job" was to destroy things and kill people. He seemed to be thinking he was revealing some hidden truth to me. I suppose I was supposed to be shocked.
Later the Gulf War kicked off. Suddenly we had "conscientious objectors" in our all-volunteer military forces. And I had to wonder maybe the old retired guy might be right. Maybe there are recruits who really don't have any idea what they're getting in to. But I have a hard time buying it.
I grew up doing things that were supposed to eliminate my ability to deal with reality. I read novels. I watched TV / movies. I played D&D. I played video games. I ran real-life assassination games. And yet I emerged from childhood with a reasonable expectation that none of these really reflected the reality of war were I unfortunate enough to find myself in one.
I have a hard time believing that any video game, sponsored by the US Army or not, will be any different with kids today. At worse, I don't find them being any more misleading as movies. I don't find them as being any more deceptive than TV ads showing happy soldiers living adventurous lives and glossy brochures that push the GI Bill.
I should probably note that I've never been tested. I've never witnessed war first hand. The job I signed up for involved handing me a rifle and ammo as a last ditch effort when all hell was breaking loose - and it never came close to that. I've been in danger; I was in the Khobar Towers before they were bombed. But my understanding of war is still very much theoretical. But I know now what I knew before I signed up for military service; nothing I've experienced now or in the past is war.
I spent four years in the Army myself. I was a "Network Swtiching System Operator/Maintainer." Sounds a lot cooler than it is, trust me. I've got two deployments to Iraq under my belt....
So, I'm kind of glad this game ate shit. The only "realistic" part of it was how outrageously boring training in the Army can be. Other than that, the only purpose it served was to give children a false impression of war, and how god-forsaken horrible it is. Usually that wouldn't matter in a video game, but it certainly does matter when that video game is really a recruitment tool for the US Army.
So I'm curious - what recruitment tool worked with you? Was your recruiter entirely truthful? And did they spend a lot of time drilling the horror of war while recruiting you? When did you realize the reality of what war was and why do you think you didn't know this before hand (with the assumption that your recruiter didn't manage to get this through to you)?
Yeah, so much of a lack of a blessing that it's provided the Mono developers with specifications for.NET/C#/Silverlight and its engineers have directly collaborated with the Mono developers. I'm pretty sure if you weren't giving your blessing that you wouldn't allow your engineers to collaborate with the project.
Awesome... now all we need to do is clear up the little niggling license / patent thing.
So you claim, but we've been hearing that for 5 years now and the sky hasn't fallen yet Chicken Little.
I've never been mugged. That doesn't make me immune to mugging nor does it mean I shouldn't be wary of my environment.
Slashdot Mirror
So we should wait for someone else to do something about all this necessity?
I mean, we are talking about necessary changes that have dire consequences if left alone...
Hack away. Hobbiests, amateur scientists, hackers, and tinkerers are often the unseen drivers of technology. Early adopters show what's possible.
But there's a big leap from early adopter to mainstream. And if you want to "do something" on that large of a scale, you've got to some up with a way to make the tech viable. That means going beyond looking at the project as something to make happen using anything you can to get there (i.e. junked car frames) to looking at how to produce a successful product that gets adopted by the mainstream.
I'm not advocating waiting around for it. If you have the means, go out there and do it. Heck - make your own car company if you have to. Like Tesla Motors did.
If you buy a new computer, it'll come with Windows 7. You'll wind up paying for it whether you want it or not.
According to that pricelist, you're buying Windows 7 and getting a free computer that comes with it.
Your argument that you *can* deploy a secure Linux/Mac box or Apache server relies on "choosing secure settings and not doing dumb shit." Windows will work just fine for you if you do the same.
Sorry - you misunderstood what I was saying. The parent poster was talking about a specific bug / exploit against Apache that was recently announced. Turns out, the issue doesn't have much bearing on the conversation at hand. Your anecdotal story about deploying WinXP systems has more to do with the thread than the parent's posting about the Apache bug. But the point isn't about intelligent deployment of systems. It is about whether marketshare dictates a fertile environment for malware.
Wow. Struck a nerve, did I? I'm a hobbiest at heart. I've put together plenty of projects. Nothing that involves auto mechanics (I lent a hand building an aircraft though - I used to service avionics systems professionally). But I can understand the general enthusiasm for something like that. That doesn't mean I'm going to assume any of these projects are a marketing campaign away from being a product. There's a world of difference between something hacked together by an enthusiast and a product ready for retail. You can keep going on about cheap electric kit cars, doing things for yourself, the Internet, and your bodily functions. But don't fool yourself in to thinking you've got insight on an industry because of it.
If you do it right, there is nothing wrong with "some assembly required", even in current times .... Ikea made/makes a fortune out of it.
There's considerable difference between piecing together a table and building a car.
Did you not read about the Apache security flaw that was posted on Slashdot just this week?
Did you read about it? It was a potential DOS. The issue is well known and generally mitigated either through various common deployment strategies or a module that comes with Apache. So while you can certainly deploy an Apache server that's susceptible to this - you don't have to. And even if you do, it's not going to be an avenue of attack for malware.
Excellent. So the introductory advertising campaign for these theoretical cars of yours will include the slogan "some assembly required"? Or are we springing that on the public after the demo drive with Car and Driver?
Ask Apple — that is, once they recover from the devastating choices of entering the saturated mp3 player and smartphone markets.
And now you see (part of) what Tesla is doing.
I know that. But I had this subconscious desire to troll English majors / grammar nazis.
We helped Afghanistan against the Soviets, and they won. It didn't turn out so well when Osama Bin Laden then used a lot of the weapons and bunkers we gave them in his campaign against us.
Moral of the story: those we help will not always repay us with kindness.
I agree with your general sentiment. But like a lot of history, the lessons of Afghanistan are a lot more complex than you're making it. The idea that the U.S. had any involvement with Osama Bin Laden is questionable (denied by the man himself even). And the outcome of that region was as much about the turmoil of the area as any direct involvement of the US. Although Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban do demonstrate how many foreign "meddlers" operate within the Middle East.
True, but at the time, 2D hardware features were as much a bullet-point as 3D acceleration today, and the C64 had some quite impressive 2D tricks up its sleeve.
Indeed - the C64 had some impressive graphics and truly amazing sound capabilities for it's time. One has to keep in mind that the C=64 appears just a little after dinosaurs first roamed the earth.
THAT's what will save print journalism! Page 3 girls in print editions only!
Fine, you pricks. We'll stop providing you with free exposure for your shitty music. Happy now?
ASCAP is preparing a report that shows public performances of ring-tones has affected ring-tone sales causing a recent, drastic drop in units sold.
I wasn't taking up the "moral/immoral" argument here - I was simply arguing that it's a recruiting tool. Either it is ineffective, as you claim, or it is effective, which I infer from the fact that it continues to be funded.
I don't think I ever challenged the idea that it's a recruiting tool. And I'm not entirely sure I argued that it was ineffective - at least, that wasn't my intended point. What I am saying is that it's no more or less a moral issue as any other recruiting tool - be it direct or indirect. And I am challenging the idea that this is a recruitment tool aimed towards children.
Of course, it didn't work that way. The Iranian public has been getting progressively angrier. These stalling tactics only made them madder. The Ayatollah's proclamation of "divine insight" into the election made them angrier still. Even the blood shed on the street has not discouraged them, but thrown them into a shear rage.
Now Iran is staring down a full-blown revolution. The police have been told they can use firearms (as if they haven't been using them) and the protesters have been denounced as terrorists.
My guess is that the regime understands what fueled the revolution that they, themselves, were a part of 30 years ago. Bloodshed only served to strengthen the revolution (that and disinformation - which we're seeing plenty of already). However, at what point does one decide that there is nothing left to lose and that blood is a gamble that must be made to preserve the current regime?
There are, of course, multiple other ways of doing this. In the past, I configured multiple configs in /etc/network/interfaces and used ifconfig to bring them up / down as needed. No little GUI. I'm sure you could find other folks who would point out other variations.
The rest of us would be less inclined to take random stranger's opinions at face value, thank you.
That may well be the limiting factor for open source community development. When developers develop for themselves, the result is a product that is only really usable by someone with the technical ability to code it (ie a very small minority). I certainly hope that's not true, but except for certain cases, such as Firefox, it certainly seems to be the case.
Interesting. Here I am, 10+ years of using Linux on a daily basis, and yet I'm incapable of even starting to code the vast majority of what I use. I wonder how I managed that.
Yes. Do you think these guys are going to just stop making laptops, desktops, etc. in favor of netbooks? Of course not. There's a large market elsewhere that they want to continue being a part of. Likewise, Microsoft Windows represents an exceptionally large market they would like to continue being part of. A "small raise in price" would certainly be felt - especially in a market that's been characterized by it's razor thin margins.
One unique aspect of America's Army is that it's funded by the real Army, which is entirely funded by the public. Movies aren't funded like this.
But movies often get support from the US Military who will put forward resources to assist in making the film. Granted - it's not outright funding. But there is support. Where's the moral outrage?
So, we can argue about what kind of person gets recruited by a game like this... but what I think is beyond arguing is why the game exists, and the reason the game exists is because someone thought it would have an impact on recruiting.
Yes. And your point is? Are you trying to say that recruiting for the military is immoral?
It is also different from a brochure, in the same way that cigarettes can no longer be sold by Joe Camel. The difference between a picture of cigarettes and a picture of a cool smoking camel (it has been argued) is that Joe Camel appeals to kids, and a picture of cigarettes doesn't.
Maybe cigarettes weren't marketed to kids, and maybe they were, but Joe Camel was outlawed. America's Army 3 has more in common with Joe Camel than with the brochure.
And now you're saying video games are for kids? You are aware that the demographics tend to be at 30 on average - which is almost too old to enlist.
Of course, video games tend to deal with the same cultural misunderstanding as cartoons in the USA - both being "for kids" even when they aren't. The Joe Camel controversy is interesting because of this. I would agree that there was a good question whether the marketing was to kids or not. But I couldn't help to wonder if part of that controversy is due to our cultural view of cartoons.
But still, this is a red herring. There are plenty of adult oriented video games being played by the exact demographic the military wants to recruit from. That doesn't make America's Army any more immoral than Grand Theft Auto. I don't buy that Grand Theft Auto turns kids into carjacking cop-killers or mass murderers. And I don't buy that America's Army is ushering kids in to military uniforms.
What I do see is a lot of use of the term "immoral" when the real issue is that people don't like the military recruiting (or even the military in general).
Elsewhere you note you've been watching Linux improve over the years. Yet now you're claiming that nobody is looking at how to improve Linux? I suppose elves were involved.
Don't get me wrong. I roll my eyes whenever I find those who want to pretend Linux is beyond criticism. But as someone who's used Linux as a primary desktop for the last 10 years (as well as dealt with Windows and various Unixes), I also see where some of those criticisms are misplaced.
Yeah, I know, I'm not arguing whether video games are bad for children. In my opinion they aren't. I also realize that every child with access to a computer has that access via the consent of an adult, direct or otherwise. What I'm arguing is that a recruitment tool in the guise of a game is immoral.
I don't see why. How is it any more or less immoral than the glossy brochure that promises a life of adventure? Or the one that plays up the GI Bill? Or the Navy's involvement in the filming of the movie Top Gun?
I was taking a taxi during my time at tech school. The taxi driver was an older guy with long hair and a beard. He noted that he was retired and started to talk about how my "real job" was to destroy things and kill people. He seemed to be thinking he was revealing some hidden truth to me. I suppose I was supposed to be shocked.
Later the Gulf War kicked off. Suddenly we had "conscientious objectors" in our all-volunteer military forces. And I had to wonder maybe the old retired guy might be right. Maybe there are recruits who really don't have any idea what they're getting in to. But I have a hard time buying it.
I grew up doing things that were supposed to eliminate my ability to deal with reality. I read novels. I watched TV / movies. I played D&D. I played video games. I ran real-life assassination games. And yet I emerged from childhood with a reasonable expectation that none of these really reflected the reality of war were I unfortunate enough to find myself in one.
I have a hard time believing that any video game, sponsored by the US Army or not, will be any different with kids today. At worse, I don't find them being any more misleading as movies. I don't find them as being any more deceptive than TV ads showing happy soldiers living adventurous lives and glossy brochures that push the GI Bill.
I should probably note that I've never been tested. I've never witnessed war first hand. The job I signed up for involved handing me a rifle and ammo as a last ditch effort when all hell was breaking loose - and it never came close to that. I've been in danger; I was in the Khobar Towers before they were bombed. But my understanding of war is still very much theoretical. But I know now what I knew before I signed up for military service; nothing I've experienced now or in the past is war.
I spent four years in the Army myself. I was a "Network Swtiching System Operator/Maintainer." Sounds a lot cooler than it is, trust me. I've got two deployments to Iraq under my belt. ...
So, I'm kind of glad this game ate shit. The only "realistic" part of it was how outrageously boring training in the Army can be. Other than that, the only purpose it served was to give children a false impression of war, and how god-forsaken horrible it is. Usually that wouldn't matter in a video game, but it certainly does matter when that video game is really a recruitment tool for the US Army.
So I'm curious - what recruitment tool worked with you? Was your recruiter entirely truthful? And did they spend a lot of time drilling the horror of war while recruiting you? When did you realize the reality of what war was and why do you think you didn't know this before hand (with the assumption that your recruiter didn't manage to get this through to you)?
Yeah, so much of a lack of a blessing that it's provided the Mono developers with specifications for .NET/C#/Silverlight and its engineers have directly collaborated with the Mono developers. I'm pretty sure if you weren't giving your blessing that you wouldn't allow your engineers to collaborate with the project.
Awesome... now all we need to do is clear up the little niggling license / patent thing.
So you claim, but we've been hearing that for 5 years now and the sky hasn't fallen yet Chicken Little.
I've never been mugged. That doesn't make me immune to mugging nor does it mean I shouldn't be wary of my environment.
When Microsoft offer an unlimited patent covenant for all distributors of Linux software, people will stop complaining about it overnight.
Then maybe those other distros need to go talk to Microsoft and secure themselves a covenant like Novell did.
And then Microsoft becomes the gatekeeper the critics are afraid they'll be.