Wow, as if it wasn't bad enough that you paint all republicans (and all conservatives, I suppose)as Nazis, you went on to suppose what another (presumably better) man would have done?
How does shit like this get moderated up when all it is is a rant based on raw, emotional partisan hatred.
I don't know who it speaks more poorly of, the author or the people who moderated it up.
OK I'm going to try to get my point across without sounding like a troll, but I'm not promising anything...
I'm not familiar with what Interz0ne II is, but I'd be willing to bet they are in no way affiliated with any of the companies whose products are affected.
That stated, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think such a forum is an appropriate forum for such a discussion, if the idea behind the presentation is to make the devices/systems more secure.
Now I'm not going to assume, either, what the discussion was supposed to be about, but if the idea really is to make the system more secure, wouldn't the appropriate audience of such a discussion be the people who own and/or run the system?
Bringing this kind of information to a party that doesn't have anything to do with the development/maintenance of these systems doesn't do anything to make the system more secure.
If these people wanted to make the systems more secure, they should bring their findings to the people who made it.
It's pretty easy to separate the geeks from the 'normal players'.
The normal players have 1 account with maybe 3 or 4 characters.
The geeks have multiple accounts with multiple characters, which they use to help each other out. This requires the use of multiple computers, but hey, what geek doesn't have that?
Re:And it seems like everyone has pet software..
on
Too Much Free Software
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't necessarily think that integrated packages are the answer, because they inevitably lead to bloat (MS Office anyone?).
What would really be of interest to me would be more modular software packages. Start out with some core functionality, but instead of integrating other features by adding to that core, just make add-ons that are easy to add to and remove from that core.
That way people (and businesses too!) can use as much or as little as they want, with the flexibility to adapt to their needs.
Every time ANYTHING having to do with patents is mentioned on Slashdot, the post by the parent inevitably shows up in one form or another.
It neither says anything new, or useful, for that matter, so why does it keep getting modded up? Where's my mod points when I need them? -1: Redundant!
I hope the guy who modded the parent down isn't in a management position, because anyone who is opposed to using the right tool for the job is doomed to lead his/her company into bankruptcy.
"this idea that a government can and should punish the bad guys, for 'Justice' and replace it with the idea that we should apprehend bad guys to keep them from doing harm to society"
Aren't these two the same thing? Elaborate please.
"Justice is institutional revenge. Our government should not be making such judgments about right and wrong, they should be making judgments on how to protect and serve the populace."
For the record, that sounds a bit trollish. How would a Justice system with no established punishments for criminals "protect" people?
"but as a tool to protect those who would be victims of the evildoers"
And exactly how would a database "protect" me or keep me from becoming a victim?
Personally, I think the best form of protection would be to give everyone a firearm, and ensure they would use it only in self-defense, but like you said, this isn't an ideal world.
And for the record, I also believe there should be no such thing as a "victimless crime". All they are are revenue sources for the state.
"Tell ya what, friends... if nobody comes down here and buys a car in the next 30 minutes, I'M GONNA CLUB THIS BABY SEAL!! That's right, I'd club a seal to make a better deal! You know I'll do it too, cuz I'm CRAZY!"
"If you can be bothered to read the constitution then you would realize that America was never designed to have a standing military.
What does "provide for the common defense" mean to you?
"I'm not talking small incidents (like 9/11), I'm talking threats to the nation's existence; the last time I can think of is WWII."
I don't think the people whose lives were disrupted/ended when those terrorists killed 3000+ people would consider 9/11 a "small incident". But moving beyond that, is it your belief then, that such acts shouldn't be prevented because they are so minor?
"Also, the federal government's role is not limited to the defense of the nation. If you read the preamble, it's purpose might be more clear."
Yeah, it says "promote the general welfare", not provide. Sorry, socialists...
All great ideals, but allow me to respond to a few of your suggestions.
We don't need to just be protected from invading armies.
Correct! Our enemies are no longer rifle-wielding uniformed soldiers marching in columns towards our borders. Today they are ordinary-looking people getting into the country the easiest way they can. So instead of stationing our National Guardsmen in Germany, perhaps we should be deploying them where we are vulnerable: our borders.
Our people need to be educated in order to remain competitive in this global economy, therefore the government's job is also to provide basic education to its citizens.
So far, our taxpayer-funded schools have failed miserably, and throwing more money at them has done absolutely nothing to fix them. Time to let (regulated) private schools create a competetive environment in our education system.
Treasury and mint - definately needed
Transportation, telecommunications - should be left to private sector, with gov't regulation.
Welfare - Unemployment is OK, long term Welfare is bad, as is anything that encourages people to depend on the government to provide for their long-term sustainence. Social Security is one such money pit that should be done away with.
because providing all of these services costs money - the government isn't a service industry, and shouldn't be funded like one.
I know anything defending the military is modded down by default, but I feel I need to get this off my chest. And way to find such an objective source...
Explain to me how spending money on the military is bad? What else is the federal government supposed to spend our taxes on??
As far as I'm concerned, the government's 1 and only job is to protect us so that we can live our lives however we choose. It is not the federal government's job to compensate for poor financial planning. It's not the federal government's job to provide to take care of me when I won't take care of my self. It's not the federal government's job to take my hard-earned paycheck and give it to someone who probably hasn't earned it.
So let me ask you again; what SHOULD our federal taxes fund? If it's anything more than protecting our freedom, it's none of the federal government's business.
Neither Germany nor Italy ever attacked us; our beef was with Japan.
But there's a little something called an alliance that obligated us to be involved in the European theatre, which, might I remind you, included freeing France from German occupation. Please feel free to explain the direct benefit we accomplished there.
But today we have France thumbing its nose at its obligation to NATO, choosing instead a road defined by opposition to the U.S. at every turn, rather than its duty to protect its allies (Turkey).
"He tells me that an alumnus has agreed to donate $2.4 million initially... to the school for computer equipment and staff if the school agrees not to renew any contract and to buy no products or services... from Microsoft."
What advantage would this be to the students? What's wrong with using/teaching both Linux AND Microsoft platforms?
This sounds like the same 'bullying' tactics Slashdot readers bemoan every time Micorsoft offers discouted software to schools, but I guess because it's Linux, it's now a Good Thing (tm).
I know this isn't going to be a popular sentiment here, but I am suspicious of ANYONE who tries to limit students' educational opportunities.
The French never did anything that didn't directly benefit them. They didn't help us in the Revolutionary War because they felt it would be a nice thing to do. The French and English were colonial rivals, and either side would jump at the chance to damage the other's imperial aspirations.
And don't think for a minute that France had forgiven England for the Frenceh & Indian War (after which the French were forced to cede Canada to the British). Much to their surprise, I would imagine, they didn't get any of their territory back after the Revolutionary War.
Perhaps THAT'S why they are so bitter towards us Americans?
But the difference between Socialism and Free Market is that in the free market, you have the option NOT to buy what they're selling. Under socialism, you HAVE to pay for it whether you want it or not.
"I'd rather have socialism than the current corpocracy that's getting worse and worse."
So the government knows better about how our money best serves us than we do?
Like it or not, it's that pretentious belief of our elected officials that has allowed government to get as large as it has. People get too lazy to run their own lives, and so the government is more than happy to step in and assume (control) that responsibility.
Somehow I don't see Sony halting development of Everquest 2. They seem to have overcome all, if not most of those barriers and have created a pretty flexible, dynamic, enjoyable game.
I've been arguing with myself back and forth, and finally have settled on the more libertarian side of my internal dispute.
Parents, if you don't want your kids to be exposed to materials on the internet you find objectionable, don't let them use the internet. Up until middle school, at the earliest, I don't see any reason why a child would NEED to use the internet. And by then they've probably seen/heard everything at their local public school.
And of course, parents who don't care what their children see are free to let them run wild.
Rather than suggesting that parents be parents and set rules and limitations for their child, lets step aside and allow the child to run the show.
I've seen what that leads to. Some friends of the family had a daughter who was given EVERYTHING she wanted. Today, at 24, she refuses to hold down a job, is heavy into drug and alcohol abuse, and expects her father to provide for her and her 2 illegimate children. And heaven help him if she doesn't get it NOW!
Let children be children, yes, but let parents be parents! Parents are supposed to set limits on children. Bad shit happens when children are allowed to set the rules.
Slashdot Mirror
...it's good because it bashes Microsoft.
Just checking to make sure I'm properly in tune with the hive mind.
How does shit like this get moderated up when all it is is a rant based on raw, emotional partisan hatred.
I don't know who it speaks more poorly of, the author or the people who moderated it up.
I'm not familiar with what Interz0ne II is, but I'd be willing to bet they are in no way affiliated with any of the companies whose products are affected.
That stated, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think such a forum is an appropriate forum for such a discussion, if the idea behind the presentation is to make the devices/systems more secure.
Now I'm not going to assume, either, what the discussion was supposed to be about, but if the idea really is to make the system more secure, wouldn't the appropriate audience of such a discussion be the people who own and/or run the system?
Bringing this kind of information to a party that doesn't have anything to do with the development/maintenance of these systems doesn't do anything to make the system more secure.
If these people wanted to make the systems more secure, they should bring their findings to the people who made it.
The normal players have 1 account with maybe 3 or 4 characters.
The geeks have multiple accounts with multiple characters, which they use to help each other out. This requires the use of multiple computers, but hey, what geek doesn't have that?
What would really be of interest to me would be more modular software packages. Start out with some core functionality, but instead of integrating other features by adding to that core, just make add-ons that are easy to add to and remove from that core.
That way people (and businesses too!) can use as much or as little as they want, with the flexibility to adapt to their needs.
It neither says anything new, or useful, for that matter, so why does it keep getting modded up? Where's my mod points when I need them? -1: Redundant!
Just you wait... the CLIT founder is coming back for one more miracle troll...
I'd think it would take a little more than a video game to bring the uppity ones out of their holes.
I hope the guy who modded the parent down isn't in a management position, because anyone who is opposed to using the right tool for the job is doomed to lead his/her company into bankruptcy.
"this idea that a government can and should punish the bad guys, for 'Justice' and replace it with the idea that we should apprehend bad guys to keep them from doing harm to society"
Aren't these two the same thing? Elaborate please.
"Justice is institutional revenge. Our government should not be making such judgments about right and wrong, they should be making judgments on how to protect and serve the populace."
For the record, that sounds a bit trollish. How would a Justice system with no established punishments for criminals "protect" people?
"but as a tool to protect those who would be victims of the evildoers"
And exactly how would a database "protect" me or keep me from becoming a victim?
Personally, I think the best form of protection would be to give everyone a firearm, and ensure they would use it only in self-defense, but like you said, this isn't an ideal world.
And for the record, I also believe there should be no such thing as a "victimless crime". All they are are revenue sources for the state.
-Crazy Earnie, the Used Car King
It's so good to see that Slashdot isn't selling out article space to advertisers.
What does "provide for the common defense" mean to you?
"I'm not talking small incidents (like 9/11), I'm talking threats to the nation's existence; the last time I can think of is WWII."
I don't think the people whose lives were disrupted/ended when those terrorists killed 3000+ people would consider 9/11 a "small incident". But moving beyond that, is it your belief then, that such acts shouldn't be prevented because they are so minor?
"Also, the federal government's role is not limited to the defense of the nation. If you read the preamble, it's purpose might be more clear."
Yeah, it says "promote the general welfare", not provide. Sorry, socialists...
We don't need to just be protected from invading armies.
Correct! Our enemies are no longer rifle-wielding uniformed soldiers marching in columns towards our borders. Today they are ordinary-looking people getting into the country the easiest way they can. So instead of stationing our National Guardsmen in Germany, perhaps we should be deploying them where we are vulnerable: our borders.
Our people need to be educated in order to remain competitive in this global economy, therefore the government's job is also to provide basic education to its citizens.
So far, our taxpayer-funded schools have failed miserably, and throwing more money at them has done absolutely nothing to fix them. Time to let (regulated) private schools create a competetive environment in our education system.
Treasury and mint - definately needed
Transportation, telecommunications - should be left to private sector, with gov't regulation.
Welfare - Unemployment is OK, long term Welfare is bad, as is anything that encourages people to depend on the government to provide for their long-term sustainence. Social Security is one such money pit that should be done away with.
because providing all of these services costs money - the government isn't a service industry, and shouldn't be funded like one.
Explain to me how spending money on the military is bad? What else is the federal government supposed to spend our taxes on??
As far as I'm concerned, the government's 1 and only job is to protect us so that we can live our lives however we choose. It is not the federal government's job to compensate for poor financial planning. It's not the federal government's job to provide to take care of me when I won't take care of my self. It's not the federal government's job to take my hard-earned paycheck and give it to someone who probably hasn't earned it.
So let me ask you again; what SHOULD our federal taxes fund? If it's anything more than protecting our freedom, it's none of the federal government's business.
Neither Germany nor Italy ever attacked us; our beef was with Japan.
But there's a little something called an alliance that obligated us to be involved in the European theatre, which, might I remind you, included freeing France from German occupation. Please feel free to explain the direct benefit we accomplished there.
But today we have France thumbing its nose at its obligation to NATO, choosing instead a road defined by opposition to the U.S. at every turn, rather than its duty to protect its allies (Turkey).
What advantage would this be to the students? What's wrong with using/teaching both Linux AND Microsoft platforms?
This sounds like the same 'bullying' tactics Slashdot readers bemoan every time Micorsoft offers discouted software to schools, but I guess because it's Linux, it's now a Good Thing (tm).
I know this isn't going to be a popular sentiment here, but I am suspicious of ANYONE who tries to limit students' educational opportunities.
And don't think for a minute that France had forgiven England for the Frenceh & Indian War (after which the French were forced to cede Canada to the British). Much to their surprise, I would imagine, they didn't get any of their territory back after the Revolutionary War.
Perhaps THAT'S why they are so bitter towards us Americans?
But the difference between Socialism and Free Market is that in the free market, you have the option NOT to buy what they're selling. Under socialism, you HAVE to pay for it whether you want it or not.
So the government knows better about how our money best serves us than we do?
Like it or not, it's that pretentious belief of our elected officials that has allowed government to get as large as it has. People get too lazy to run their own lives, and so the government is more than happy to step in and assume (control) that responsibility.
Somehow I don't see Sony halting development of Everquest 2. They seem to have overcome all, if not most of those barriers and have created a pretty flexible, dynamic, enjoyable game.
Parents, if you don't want your kids to be exposed to materials on the internet you find objectionable, don't let them use the internet. Up until middle school, at the earliest, I don't see any reason why a child would NEED to use the internet. And by then they've probably seen/heard everything at their local public school.
And of course, parents who don't care what their children see are free to let them run wild.
Rather than suggesting that parents be parents and set rules and limitations for their child, lets step aside and allow the child to run the show.
I've seen what that leads to. Some friends of the family had a daughter who was given EVERYTHING she wanted. Today, at 24, she refuses to hold down a job, is heavy into drug and alcohol abuse, and expects her father to provide for her and her 2 illegimate children. And heaven help him if she doesn't get it NOW!
Let children be children, yes, but let parents be parents! Parents are supposed to set limits on children. Bad shit happens when children are allowed to set the rules.
That information wasn't leaked, it was FREED!
Pre-emptive dupe detection and elimination!