Actually, the context was correct, if you follow the thread and the general air about the article and discussion. And no, my post was hardly a slam on OSS. I'm an avid supporter of OSS, if you must know. If I "slammed" anything, it was that guy's separatist attitude towards the average user and his elite *we*. Nonetheless, thanks for the presumption!
While I can understand you might get defensive by what I said, I hardly see where your original point was anything more than to elevate yourself, and whomever else you consider part of *we*, above those average consumers.
...then they will believe this is the only option. That is just human behavior.
If that statement were even close to accurate, the human race would have died out ages ago or been relegated to somewhere deeper in the food chain. I would argue that the exact opposite is true. In my opinion, human behavior is extremely inquisitive and inventive, hence the great many scientific and social endeavors, just to name a couple, that we can trace throughout history. I don't know of many inventions that were born of complacency, do you? I'll grant you lounge chairs. Okay, maybe those hats with the holsters for beer, too.
...doesn't get exposure except via the mass media, which 'teach your friend' doesn't qualify.
How then do you suppose people became educated prior to mass communication? I know you aren't implying that more rudimentary forms of education are inferior, as how would you explain Plato? How would you explain the endless works of those throughout history, whose publications were produced even before books had bindings? One might argue that "teaching your friend" was precisely how education worked at one point. Certainly there haven't always been search engines or global media! Are you perhaps implying that those are the only outlets for information in present times? I'll agree that they are by far and away the most convenient, but they are a far cry from the only means to inform others. The rest are up to folks like you and me. And when it comes to education, all the efforts put in will still not be enough, regardless of medium. That's the beauty of it - it never ends.
How do you propose to solve that, since you seem to think you know so much?
I'm just some guy out in the world hanging out with all the other average folk, feeding some trolls. I wouldn't presume that I know enough to solve all the problems of the world. However, I'm fairly certain that elitism and alientation are not going to solve much. That's been tried a few times over the past handful of centuries. Care for some examples?
...all they care about is what they are spoon fed.
That simple statement speaks more for your perception of those around you more than any criticism I or anyone else might think up ever could. That statement is also complete and utter bullshit.
Sure *we* can see past this and get facts, but *we* dont line their pockets either...
Did you ever stop to think that one of the reasons people don't support or take the time to learn about the various OSS movements is because of high-brow, elitist comments such as yours?
Instead of alienating the "average consumer", perhaps we should be working as hard as possible to present a viable alternative without all the attitude. If we perpetuate an image that Linux users are different from the "average consumer", then guess what, we will be the only ones using it.
Linux, as many OSS projects, is not too dissimilar from a business in many ways, except that instead of a highly trained marketing department, it has us. That is a greatly simplified statement, but I think it stands to reason.
I don't know what that guy was freaking out about. By the onslaught of spelling errors in both of your posts, I could tell you were a coder all the way. Power, brother!:)
Eventually, the sun gets really, really hotter and starts to expand. It gets bigger and bigger until it eats up all the other planets. Then, in a fit of bulimic rage, it collapses on itself and turns into a big black hole! And then we all get sucked into it until Robert Forster saves us.
Right on, thanks for the reply. I appreciate that you further clarified what you were saying. If I misinterpreted your point, I apologize. From the initial statement, it sounded like you were inferring wisdom from intelligence. My point really only was to cover that presumption, so if I was mistaken, I retract it.
I think I just broke a major/. tradition by this post, but what the hell, rules are made to be broken, right?;)
Designing and building a computer...certainly implies that you have enough knowledge to make intelligent decisions on how to go about protecting the computer.
Not to flame you, but that is an arrogant and inherently dangerous presumption to make. Take for example Ted Kaczynski. Incredibly intelligent, incredibly crafty, incredibly deadly. And he's just one example. Sure, you could argue that he is insane. So take the invention of the atomic bomb as another example. Following your logic, the Unabomber would have seen the devastation of his ways and been deterred, and Einstein would have kept his findings closely guarded from government exploitation. No one needs to be reminded of the outcome of either scenario.
Intelligence does not imply wisdom, and quite often you'll find one without the other, especially in the race for discovery and/or acheivement.
If you're so paranoid that you don't like the idea of other people knowing about you, fair enough.
It's not paranoia, it's privacy. To consider someone paranoid who prefers to keep their information to themselves is rather ignorant. Is that what you intended to convey? I do not infer anything by that, nor do I seek to disrespect. However, I do believe that an off-the-cuff equation of privacy to paranoia to be a little ridiculous.
Besides, in the context of the discussion, it's simply that most folks would rather not have a company, especially one they may not yet work for, nosing around their personal life. You are paid for your work, not for who you are or what you do outside of work. Their interest in you should go no further. I would hope that as an employer, if you had any employees working for you, you would respect their privacy - even if you are not so concerned with your own.
If what I think or write shocks or offends you, that's your problem.
Don't be so presumptious. The simple fact that you are boastful about your information being freely available does not make you any more bold or brave than anyone else. I assume that's what lies beyond the links you posted. Forgive me for not following them.
My apologies if this sounds harsh. It's early and I just got out of the sack. I do not mean to offend.
If any random person (and your interviewer would count, unless they are Magnum PI) can locate you over the web, using nothing more than Google (or any other search engine), you have a lot more to worry about than whether or not your prospective employer knows too much about you. I'd be worrying about identity theft, for one, and just how much sensitive information about you, such as anything that would enable someone to single you out in a web search, is leaking from your hosting company. That is, of course, unless you provide that data yourself on your site. If that's the case, well, the future looks blight.
Result: Interviewer knows more about the interviewee than the interviewee knows about the company.
How is that not the case already? For starters, by giving a company your resume, you effectively are giving them your entire background, on paper. Not to mention that resume confirmation, background checks, security clearances, all equate to greater amounts of information for the company than is provided for the prospect by those little company brochures and interview jam sessions. Nothing new here.
Not to troll, but to be quite honest, it seems like movies have been sub-par for so long now (LOTR and a few others notwithstanding), I can't imagine folks rushing to pirate them. I'm sorry, but Hollywood has taken such a turn for the worse, I doubt I'd have much interest in watching the crap they churn out, free or otherwise. I can't recall the last time I went to the theater for anything (apart from Two Towers last December and probably Amelie the year before that).
On the other hand, this could be a great thing for authors. Hopefully this will remind people to check out a good book rather in lieu of a mediocre movie. The experience is orders of magnitude better and much longer lasting. Kinda like Doublemint. Without the hot twins though, which is a drawback.
Hehe, my/. username is the same nick I've used for ages, even before my time at GSI. If you don't know me from it, chances are you won't know me at all.:)
Sorry to reply to myself, but a thought just occured to me. It's a rare thing, so I had to act on it. Okay, bear with me, this is liable to get a little bumpy.
If GSI doesn't actually own the code to Gamespy3D, merely owning the brand, and it is, in fact, the product in question, do they actually have the right to cite the DMCA in this case? I'm probably nuts for this, but hear me out...
If I have a brand and you have the technology, and I pay you a fee to sell your product under my branding without purchasing the technology itself, I still only own the brand, right? In other words, I'd only effectively be licensing the usage of your technology, but the ownership, and all rights thereof, remain in your hands? Presuming that's correct, if something or someone comes along and "threatens" that technology, but not the brand itself, as in this case, how can I assert the right to take any legal action in regards to said technology? I don't think the DMCA covers branding, so I would imagine this case has to be in explicit regards to the technology. Unless I was acting on official behalf of the owners of that technology, would I even have a leg to stand on? Isn't that like taking some guy to Judge Judy to sue him for kicking your vacationing neighbor's dog while you were babysitting it? The mind boggles.
Are there any lawyers that care to comment? It would be very interesting to see if the DMCA would still apply.
If I'm not making any sense (which, undoubtedly, I am not), please reply and let me know. I'll try to make some kind of sense out of it.
There's one problem with your logic. To my knowledge, Gamespy still doesn't actually own the source to Gamespy3D, to which I believe these security holes refer. That codebase is owned by the original coders of Quakespy, the program that got the company started. The deal was: Surfas owned the brand, the coders owned the code. Never at any time could he talk them into selling it. That is the primary reason for the original development of Arcade - to bring ownership of some form of Gamespy software in- house.
How do I know? I was one of the original coders at the company back when Arcade was just an idea tossed around the Tuesday morning staff meetings. And no, I didn't have much of a hand in Arcade, thankfully, so please don't put a pox on me.
Of course, if this guy was pointing out holes in Arcade (to be honest, I couldn't tell from his website, it didn't seem 100% clear which product he was testing) - well, it's going to take *alot* more than a single day to fix.
Not that you really want to know this, but Arcade was very tightly coupled to a stock MFC, App-Wizard generated Doc/View project, and didn't stray too far throughout its lifetime. In fact, by the time I left, most of the code was essentially layered on top of rather poorly implemented MFC classes. (Props, Walla!) It gets even uglier (like data and UI being completely interleaved), but I'll save you the anguish.
Suffice it to say, you would be ill-advised to hold your breath while waiting for these issues to be fixed. Better to use the All Seeing Eye instead. That's what I do. And this coming from a Gamespy stock holder! hehe.
Before I make this comment, know ahead of time that I was once employed by Gamespy... long, long ago... in another life... one I'm glad is over. So I actually can speak based upon facts, not hearsay.:)
--
A C&D, citing the DMCA, from a company who, for quite some time, hosted a file server called RipNBurn, is just wonderfully humorous. I'll give you 3 guesses as to the contents of that server. Okay, one. Yup, it was a rather impressive collection of primarily illegal mp3s, movies, etc. I only regret I didn't take the time to copy the archive before I left, hehe.
The icing to the cake: Mark Surfas had, at one point, hired an entire group of people whose sole duty to the company was to keep that server filled with new material. By the time I left that thing had around 300 gigs of music alone. Sadly, when he grew tired of the fad, he fired them all. They were the coolest folks in the company at the time, too. (By coolest, I mean they were somewhat sociable, heh.)
Go Gamespy!
Well, I for one hope this helps their business. Some of us ex-employees are still sitting on fat stock certificates that are currently worth, well, not a goddamn thing. And god knows their software isn't going to up the value, ahem. You people need to buy more FilePlanet subscriptions! Yeah.. I can't keep a straight face saying it either.
Uh oh. I hope this doesn't mean I'm gonna get a C&D notice, too! *shiver*
Slashdot Mirror
...my grades...the semi-unique sequence of D's and F's
:)
I have a job programming computers and I don't make enough money to feed myself; but hey, that's free market economy.
Are you so sure the economy is to blame on that one?
Are you saying Plato was typical of the average person?
Nope.
Actually, the context was correct, if you follow the thread and the general air about the article and discussion. And no, my post was hardly a slam on OSS. I'm an avid supporter of OSS, if you must know. If I "slammed" anything, it was that guy's separatist attitude towards the average user and his elite *we*. Nonetheless, thanks for the presumption!
While I can understand you might get defensive by what I said, I hardly see where your original point was anything more than to elevate yourself, and whomever else you consider part of *we*, above those average consumers.
...then they will believe this is the only option. That is just human behavior.
...doesn't get exposure except via the mass media, which 'teach your friend' doesn't qualify.
...all they care about is what they are spoon fed.
If that statement were even close to accurate, the human race would have died out ages ago or been relegated to somewhere deeper in the food chain. I would argue that the exact opposite is true. In my opinion, human behavior is extremely inquisitive and inventive, hence the great many scientific and social endeavors, just to name a couple, that we can trace throughout history. I don't know of many inventions that were born of complacency, do you? I'll grant you lounge chairs. Okay, maybe those hats with the holsters for beer, too.
How then do you suppose people became educated prior to mass communication? I know you aren't implying that more rudimentary forms of education are inferior, as how would you explain Plato? How would you explain the endless works of those throughout history, whose publications were produced even before books had bindings? One might argue that "teaching your friend" was precisely how education worked at one point. Certainly there haven't always been search engines or global media! Are you perhaps implying that those are the only outlets for information in present times? I'll agree that they are by far and away the most convenient, but they are a far cry from the only means to inform others. The rest are up to folks like you and me. And when it comes to education, all the efforts put in will still not be enough, regardless of medium. That's the beauty of it - it never ends.
How do you propose to solve that, since you seem to think you know so much?
I'm just some guy out in the world hanging out with all the other average folk, feeding some trolls. I wouldn't presume that I know enough to solve all the problems of the world. However, I'm fairly certain that elitism and alientation are not going to solve much. That's been tried a few times over the past handful of centuries. Care for some examples?
That simple statement speaks more for your perception of those around you more than any criticism I or anyone else might think up ever could. That statement is also complete and utter bullshit.
With all these new wireless products for the home, I'm going to have to start wearing my tin foil hat indoors, too!
They wont understand either...
Sure *we* can see past this and get facts, but *we* dont line their pockets either...
Did you ever stop to think that one of the reasons people don't support or take the time to learn about the various OSS movements is because of high-brow, elitist comments such as yours?
Instead of alienating the "average consumer", perhaps we should be working as hard as possible to present a viable alternative without all the attitude. If we perpetuate an image that Linux users are different from the "average consumer", then guess what, we will be the only ones using it.
Linux, as many OSS projects, is not too dissimilar from a business in many ways, except that instead of a highly trained marketing department, it has us. That is a greatly simplified statement, but I think it stands to reason.
$9.99 for a three-year subscription
Isn't that a little pessimistic?
Anyone else see this coming?
From: MyLastEmail.com, on behalf of the late Uncle Kevin
To: My Loving Nephew
Subject: I'll miss you
Attachment: Road Rules for Drunks.ppt (7MB)
You're probably right. It'll probably just end up some black portion.
I don't know what that guy was freaking out about. By the onslaught of spelling errors in both of your posts, I could tell you were a coder all the way. Power, brother! :)
In that case, let me tell you how it ends...
******* SPOILER WARNING *******
Eventually, the sun gets really, really hotter and starts to expand. It gets bigger and bigger until it eats up all the other planets. Then, in a fit of bulimic rage, it collapses on itself and turns into a big black hole! And then we all get sucked into it until Robert Forster saves us.
...(as in the program not stuff it created)...
Visual Studio had enough troubles just compiling that "stuff", let alone worrying about whether or not the IDE itself could be compiled.
#include <any stl header>
F7...
Output: 6,893 warnings, 0 errors
Right on, thanks for the reply. I appreciate that you further clarified what you were saying. If I misinterpreted your point, I apologize. From the initial statement, it sounded like you were inferring wisdom from intelligence. My point really only was to cover that presumption, so if I was mistaken, I retract it.
/. tradition by this post, but what the hell, rules are made to be broken, right? ;)
I think I just broke a major
Cheers.
Designing and building a computer...certainly implies that you have enough knowledge to make intelligent decisions on how to go about protecting the computer.
Not to flame you, but that is an arrogant and inherently dangerous presumption to make. Take for example Ted Kaczynski. Incredibly intelligent, incredibly crafty, incredibly deadly. And he's just one example. Sure, you could argue that he is insane. So take the invention of the atomic bomb as another example. Following your logic, the Unabomber would have seen the devastation of his ways and been deterred, and Einstein would have kept his findings closely guarded from government exploitation. No one needs to be reminded of the outcome of either scenario.
Intelligence does not imply wisdom, and quite often you'll find one without the other, especially in the race for discovery and/or acheivement.
If you're so paranoid that you don't like the idea of other people knowing about you, fair enough.
It's not paranoia, it's privacy. To consider someone paranoid who prefers to keep their information to themselves is rather ignorant. Is that what you intended to convey? I do not infer anything by that, nor do I seek to disrespect. However, I do believe that an off-the-cuff equation of privacy to paranoia to be a little ridiculous.
Besides, in the context of the discussion, it's simply that most folks would rather not have a company, especially one they may not yet work for, nosing around their personal life. You are paid for your work, not for who you are or what you do outside of work. Their interest in you should go no further. I would hope that as an employer, if you had any employees working for you, you would respect their privacy - even if you are not so concerned with your own.
If what I think or write shocks or offends you, that's your problem.
Don't be so presumptious. The simple fact that you are boastful about your information being freely available does not make you any more bold or brave than anyone else. I assume that's what lies beyond the links you posted. Forgive me for not following them.
My apologies if this sounds harsh. It's early and I just got out of the sack. I do not mean to offend.
They should try using collars - or maybe even those little chip implants you can get for them at the vet.
Oh no! They know my name! That means they... er... know my name.
Don't you tend to put your name on your resume?
And you posted this AC because...
If any random person (and your interviewer would count, unless they are Magnum PI) can locate you over the web, using nothing more than Google (or any other search engine), you have a lot more to worry about than whether or not your prospective employer knows too much about you. I'd be worrying about identity theft, for one, and just how much sensitive information about you, such as anything that would enable someone to single you out in a web search, is leaking from your hosting company. That is, of course, unless you provide that data yourself on your site. If that's the case, well, the future looks blight.
Result: Interviewer knows more about the interviewee than the interviewee knows about the company.
How is that not the case already? For starters, by giving a company your resume, you effectively are giving them your entire background, on paper. Not to mention that resume confirmation, background checks, security clearances, all equate to greater amounts of information for the company than is provided for the prospect by those little company brochures and interview jam sessions. Nothing new here.
Not to troll, but to be quite honest, it seems like movies have been sub-par for so long now (LOTR and a few others notwithstanding), I can't imagine folks rushing to pirate them. I'm sorry, but Hollywood has taken such a turn for the worse, I doubt I'd have much interest in watching the crap they churn out, free or otherwise. I can't recall the last time I went to the theater for anything (apart from Two Towers last December and probably Amelie the year before that).
On the other hand, this could be a great thing for authors. Hopefully this will remind people to check out a good book rather in lieu of a mediocre movie. The experience is orders of magnitude better and much longer lasting. Kinda like Doublemint. Without the hot twins though, which is a drawback.
Who knows. If you attended any beatdowns, we probably met at least briefly. :)
Hehe, my /. username is the same nick I've used for ages, even before my time at GSI. If you don't know me from it, chances are you won't know me at all. :)
Sorry to reply to myself, but a thought just occured to me. It's a rare thing, so I had to act on it. Okay, bear with me, this is liable to get a little bumpy.
If GSI doesn't actually own the code to Gamespy3D, merely owning the brand, and it is, in fact, the product in question, do they actually have the right to cite the DMCA in this case? I'm probably nuts for this, but hear me out...
If I have a brand and you have the technology, and I pay you a fee to sell your product under my branding without purchasing the technology itself, I still only own the brand, right? In other words, I'd only effectively be licensing the usage of your technology, but the ownership, and all rights thereof, remain in your hands? Presuming that's correct, if something or someone comes along and "threatens" that technology, but not the brand itself, as in this case, how can I assert the right to take any legal action in regards to said technology? I don't think the DMCA covers branding, so I would imagine this case has to be in explicit regards to the technology. Unless I was acting on official behalf of the owners of that technology, would I even have a leg to stand on? Isn't that like taking some guy to Judge Judy to sue him for kicking your vacationing neighbor's dog while you were babysitting it? The mind boggles.
Are there any lawyers that care to comment? It would be very interesting to see if the DMCA would still apply.
If I'm not making any sense (which, undoubtedly, I am not), please reply and let me know. I'll try to make some kind of sense out of it.
Wait a tic...
The extortionists want around $40-50K per year, and you think it'd be cheaper to hire consultant(s) or more/better sysadmins instead?
Who do you work for, again? I'd like to know where not to ever send my resume.
There's one problem with your logic. To my knowledge, Gamespy still doesn't actually own the source to Gamespy3D, to which I believe these security holes refer. That codebase is owned by the original coders of Quakespy, the program that got the company started. The deal was: Surfas owned the brand, the coders owned the code. Never at any time could he talk them into selling it. That is the primary reason for the original development of Arcade - to bring ownership of some form of Gamespy software in- house.
How do I know? I was one of the original coders at the company back when Arcade was just an idea tossed around the Tuesday morning staff meetings. And no, I didn't have much of a hand in Arcade, thankfully, so please don't put a pox on me.
Of course, if this guy was pointing out holes in Arcade (to be honest, I couldn't tell from his website, it didn't seem 100% clear which product he was testing) - well, it's going to take *alot* more than a single day to fix.
Not that you really want to know this, but Arcade was very tightly coupled to a stock MFC, App-Wizard generated Doc/View project, and didn't stray too far throughout its lifetime. In fact, by the time I left, most of the code was essentially layered on top of rather poorly implemented MFC classes. (Props, Walla!) It gets even uglier (like data and UI being completely interleaved), but I'll save you the anguish.
Suffice it to say, you would be ill-advised to hold your breath while waiting for these issues to be fixed. Better to use the All Seeing Eye instead. That's what I do. And this coming from a Gamespy stock holder! hehe.
Before I make this comment, know ahead of time that I was once employed by Gamespy... long, long ago... in another life... one I'm glad is over. So I actually can speak based upon facts, not hearsay. :)
--
A C&D, citing the DMCA, from a company who, for quite some time, hosted a file server called RipNBurn, is just wonderfully humorous. I'll give you 3 guesses as to the contents of that server. Okay, one. Yup, it was a rather impressive collection of primarily illegal mp3s, movies, etc. I only regret I didn't take the time to copy the archive before I left, hehe.
The icing to the cake: Mark Surfas had, at one point, hired an entire group of people whose sole duty to the company was to keep that server filled with new material. By the time I left that thing had around 300 gigs of music alone. Sadly, when he grew tired of the fad, he fired them all. They were the coolest folks in the company at the time, too. (By coolest, I mean they were somewhat sociable, heh.)
Go Gamespy!
Well, I for one hope this helps their business. Some of us ex-employees are still sitting on fat stock certificates that are currently worth, well, not a goddamn thing. And god knows their software isn't going to up the value, ahem. You people need to buy more FilePlanet subscriptions! Yeah.. I can't keep a straight face saying it either.
Uh oh. I hope this doesn't mean I'm gonna get a C&D notice, too! *shiver*