Hmm...counter to the article's statement, I think computer or "cyber" warfare, is a type of warfare that makes most sense NOT being practiced by purely military organizations. In the case of the United States, it would appear to me that such warfare would be the realm of agencies like the CIA, NSA, not a military division like the Army, Navy or Air Force. Cyber warfare is more insidious, requires more care, precision and stealth, is more controversial and prone to scandal, and I think probably would be the realm of spooks, and/intelligence/ organizations, not GIs. Computer warfare in general is a very touchy subject...consider the day when everybody is connected through a pervasive global network (well, that's almost the picture today). Cannot an act against a piece of the global network be considered an attack on all parties? How can it be localised? This is probably something that needs to be discussed and written down in one of those rules of war agreements.
Remember the folks who replaced Barbie's chirp with GI Joe's macho grunt? If you don't, It's because no one ever learned their true identity. Now ®(TM)ark's back with a new strike against the corporate empire.
To me, and for people unfamiliar with Linux, I don't think Linux's strengths is adquately described by a penguin or any other anecdotal picture. What I would like to show people about linux is that it is amazingly sound, and stable, but at the same time has a humongous bevy of fervent supporters, programmers/coders, contributers, debuggers...a rich community. I think the community needs to be stressed. People don't USE Linux, the community GAINS people.
I don't know maybe a slide-procession showing a sheet of paper with some diagrams, code, cookie crumbles and coffee. The next slide is a PC with a console prompt. The next slide is a depiction of a vast global network superimposed with Q3 screenshots, productivity apps, web browser, etc. Sort of cartoon like, showing the community culture and how it made Linux come to fruition.
I think 3D can be usefull for some things. Lot's of research goes into human interfaces and factors. One thing 3D could do, for instance, is to "push back" or "fold away", applications which were being used less. Say you have 5 windows open, but only are using 2 of time most of the time...the other 3 slowly move backwards on the z-axis so they cause less clutter. Instead of having "desktops" you could simply have "areas", regions of 3D space housing applications.
I thought I saw this ages (perhaps years) ago on TV. The guy lives in some rural area right? And he was pulling a plane through town. Funny. Actually, I'd love to have a house decorated as an airport. That would be cool. Then again I'm a military brat and spent half my life in airports.
"According to the article, it's one license per authenticated user accessing your site simulatenously - and not one license per user who has ether bothered to authenticate themselves on your site."
Ok, this works for commercial businesses who have ONE services and unknown and faceless/stateless clients/customers. Now what about the academic environment for instance? We have literally thousands upon thousands (30000+) _dedicated_ users, using myriad services. What do WE do? Do we just buy a license for everybody because theoretically everybody could potentially but using a service at the same time (or multiple services at the same time, there is just no way to measure this and return an "average load"). We have people that access services from the intranet and internet. Our users are dedicated, so we can't just come up with some guess as to how many will be using it at the same time.
How about just keep the old MS OSs on the client/workstation end, and just buy a linux server? Nobody's forcing you to upgrade right? Let the people use their same old Windows apps, but your backend will all be Linux.
First of all, even IF they were correct in charging people for using built in services over the net, e.g. authentication, how would this work? Would one just guess the maximum load and buy that many licenses? How could you buy/back/ licenses when your load is lower (for whatever reason...maybe you have streamlined your site or something)? Or can't you?
As somebody else mentioned, this is really insidious because it cuts off all open-source/free/non-MS integration products. I want to say that again - This move cuts off third-party integration. That is very dangerous. MS has both the client AND server...once they cut out third party integration, they have an entire monopoly.
Also, why wouldn't one just choose NOT to use the built-in services. For instance, here at Cornell U., we use Kerberos pervasively. W2K, I believe, supports PAM (Pluggable Authentication (Module?)). Now, we COULD use the build in PAM functionality, but if we have to buy 30000 extra licenses for it why should we? That's just a feature we'll have to disregard and throw away, and come up with our own kludge or keep using our infrastructure as it is (which is pretty good anyway). This is so dumb. Everything is authenticated in our environment, so there isn't a distinction between "intranet" services and "internet" services. The services are services, and inside and outside use go through pretty much the same authentication and authorization process. I'm not sure how many of the other "features" we'd be using.
Isn't a jury supposed to be made up of "peers". But WHOSE peers? The plaintiff's or the defendent's? In most cases the peers of these two groups are identical. But in a case like this, clearly at least 50% of the jury should be people with technical expertise, computer engineers, etc.
Yes. Right now, extremists and special interests rule the vote. Politicians have to court them to get votes. There are not enough "average" voters to even them out. If we can get more "average joes" voting, I think we would see a lot better politics, and a higher awareness. In fact, the internet itself might theoretically be the instrument for direct democracy. Republics were created because it was simply logistically impossible to have a direct democracy past a certain population...with the internet everybody from anywhere can vote/directly/. Perhaps when voters sign up they should be issued a key (public + private), so they can be verified when they go to vote. It would then be their responsibility to hold on to this key and reuse it as it identifies them to the voting mechanism.
To just clarify, if every screwdriver you buy breaks after the first use, the "solution" is not to throw it away (which would, admittibly be a quick and correct action) and just keep buying more, but to go back to the store or company and tell them that all their screwdrivers are pieces of crap and are breaking on you and that they should do something (i.e., getting to the root of the problem).
This line of thinking doesn't solve the problem. Saying that we should simply throw away defective people (a la the screwdriver analogy), DOESN'T SOLVE the problem that people become defective. Sure, we can and DO throw away, shun, alienate, etc., people we consider defective, weak, whatever, but that doesn't/solve/ the problem. I think a human being will grow up to be "normal" if there are no negative influences on them during their growth. When somebody is not "normal", the easy solution is to discard them...the correct solution is to try to find/why/ they are that way, instead of blaming and discarding them...it makes no sense.
"I think the ensemble approach is a bad thing for Star Trek"
On the contrary, I think the very essence of Star Trek was about the group. The original Star Trek was not about people flying around in a space ship. It was about a black woman communications officer, a Russian pilot (or whatever), a Japanese officer, etc. The whole idea was that they could illustrate, using the idea of a bunch of people forced to work together against a common enemy out in space, that we are all in the same boat, that we're all together and that we're all "special". They were all different reflections of humanity.
Likewise TNG followed in those footsteps. We have a Klingon officer who represents the aggressiveness in us. We have Troy and Guinen, who represents the mystical in us. We have the analytical-yet-more-human-than-the-humans-themselv es Data. We have Giordi LaForge, an African American character who despite his blindness is the main engineer. We have Q, the omnipotent being who all the while is plagued by human foibles himself. Throw in an Earl Grey drinking Englishman, and a few other characters, and couple this all with very well written, intriguing, suspenseful, interesting plots and you have a great success. I don't think I ever got sick of TNG while it was on. I don't think I ever thought to myself "this is so contrived" like I do about the newer stupid "love-boat"/"soap-opera" Star Trek series out today (DS9, Voyager).
BTW, I am not a trekkie...I just happen to appreciate good sci fi, and really hate when it goes to crap...
I don't know, although people sling a lot of mud at RH, RH and it's devel lab were the one's employing rasterman (iirc), and other cool people to do work on Linux stuff. You can't knock em for that. Look at it this way: if they are really developing free open-source materials, the only thing they can do is raise awareness...I mean, if the community doesn't like their stuff they'll disregard it.
It doesn't look like their trying to/set/ standards (which would be sort of underhanded), and compete with LSB.
Ok, here is an example of an article mysteriously appearing down in the listing. 10 minutes ago immediately after the article "Interview: Query Queen Elizabeth II's Webmaster" was "One Chip For All Your Wireless Needs". CmdrTaco posted this article at 11:39 AM, which made it show up between the other two. Now I know I'm not losing it...some delay occured between when this article was actually posted, and when it showed up on Slashdot, in which meantime another article appeared before it. My only questions are why/how the 11:39 article got postponed until after 12:20, and if we expect such delays, should we be sorting by "posted-by" time or actual appearance time? It's just confusing to me to see articles "magically" appearing further down the listing.
Yeah, after Wolf3D had been out a while and there were some TCs for it, I went back and played it a bick and got utterly sick to my stomach from all the weird dimensions. Duke3D did this to me too. Quake et al. didn't, but they're the modern polygon-based environments and don't have as bad perspective problems.
Arent' ABMs, AGAINST ballistic missiles. They're purely defensive right? Why would we ever want to stop/anybody/ from protecting themselves/against/ nukes and ballistic missiles. With Russia's crumbling, the risk of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons getting into the "wrong" hands, what I would assume is that we should all have more/defenses/ against them. It's not like we're going to incite a war by attacking somebody with ANTI-ballistic missile weapons right?
I loved Wolfenstein. I disagree with the poster who said that Wolfenstein was thin on plot. On the contrary, in contrast with Doom, Quake, etc., Wolfenstein was plot rich. There was a believable background, and a historical atmosphere MUCH scarier and creepier than all the demons in hell rushing out of it's gaping hole at you. Wolfenstein was rich with atmosphere (despite it's by-modern-standards crude graphics). It was so damn creepy exploring the halls, the deepest corridors of the nightmare that was the Nazi psyche. It totally freaked me out. It was very well done. I'm glad they're making a new one. Throughout the years of "kill the demons"/"kill the enemies", I have been waiting for something like this.
Now, on to a quote from the article, on another topic:
"What happens is that some of these kids who aren't succeeding socially turn to video games," she reported. "And they don't learn social skills. They aren't learning how to solve problems. Instead, there they are in front of a screen."
And of course this is the KID'S fault and the VIDEO GAME'S fault, NOT the fault of those who alienate and shun them. So blame the victim. It's not societies responsibility to REACH OUT and HELP kids. Instead let's just let them rot, and then blame them and the video game industries, when, after being alienated and shunned for years they do something wacky, instead of taking a look at ourselves, and wondering what WE did wrong to allow such a thing to happen before our eyes. Kick em when their down.
You know, it's almost as if some people just have willingful mental blocks just so that they can stay safe in the homogenous nondescript majority thinking.
I think karma should be universal. I proposed an "auto-moderation" system, in which each person was always a moderator. The first thing this cures, is the need for moderators, and meta-moderators and meta-meta-moderators, and... etc. You would gain karma by "doing good stuff". If/posts/ you made were voted a/net/ positive amount, your karma goes up. If/moderations/ you made were in line with moderations of others (you are on the largest side), then your karma goes up (presumably, because most other people/agree/ with you).
I think this would simplify and automate things. There wouldn't need to be special rules and special cases. Slashdot would just moderate itself. Some care would have to be taken to see that all the constants are tweaked right so things to go awry, but once it's set, we're good. You'd get better karma by "doing good stuff".
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm...counter to the article's statement, I think computer or "cyber" warfare, is a type of warfare that makes most sense NOT being practiced by purely military organizations. In the case of the United States, it would appear to me that such warfare would be the realm of agencies like the CIA, NSA, not a military division like the Army, Navy or Air Force. Cyber warfare is more insidious, requires more care, precision and stealth, is more controversial and prone to scandal, and I think probably would be the realm of spooks, and /intelligence/ organizations, not GIs. Computer warfare in general is a very touchy subject...consider the day when everybody is connected through a pervasive global network (well, that's almost the picture today). Cannot an act against a piece of the global network be considered an attack on all parties? How can it be localised? This is probably something that needs to be discussed and written down in one of those rules of war agreements.
There are two other cool stories on Shift:
g 7.1.asp?searchfor=7.1hannah
a tures.asp?searchfor=artmark
Fourteen-year-old Makonnen Hannah is wiring his nation and leading it into the twenty-first century.
http://www.shift.com/shiftstd/SiteMap/frames/ma
Remember the folks who replaced Barbie's chirp with GI Joe's macho grunt? If you don't, It's because no one ever learned their true identity.
Now ®(TM)ark's back with a new strike against the corporate empire.
http://www.shift.com/shiftstd/SiteMap/frames/fe
To me, and for people unfamiliar with Linux, I don't think Linux's strengths is adquately described by a penguin or any other anecdotal picture. What I would like to show people about linux is that it is amazingly sound, and stable, but at the same time has a humongous bevy of fervent supporters, programmers/coders, contributers, debuggers...a rich community. I think the community needs to be stressed. People don't USE Linux, the community GAINS people.
I don't know maybe a slide-procession showing a sheet of paper with some diagrams, code, cookie crumbles and coffee. The next slide is a PC with a console prompt. The next slide is a depiction of a vast global network superimposed with Q3 screenshots, productivity apps, web browser, etc.
Sort of cartoon like, showing the community culture and how it made Linux come to fruition.
I think 3D can be usefull for some things. Lot's of research goes into human interfaces and factors. One thing 3D could do, for instance, is to "push back" or "fold away", applications which were being used less. Say you have 5 windows open, but only are using 2 of time most of the time...the other 3 slowly move backwards on the z-axis so they cause less clutter. Instead of having "desktops" you could simply have "areas", regions of 3D space housing applications.
I thought I saw this ages (perhaps years) ago on TV. The guy lives in some rural area right? And he was pulling a plane through town. Funny. Actually, I'd love to have a house decorated as an airport. That would be cool. Then again I'm a military brat and spent half my life in airports.
"According to the article, it's one license per authenticated user accessing your site simulatenously - and not one license per user who has ether bothered to authenticate themselves on your site."
Ok, this works for commercial businesses who have ONE services and unknown and faceless/stateless clients/customers. Now what about the academic environment for instance? We have literally thousands upon thousands (30000+) _dedicated_ users, using myriad services. What do WE do? Do we just buy a license for everybody because theoretically everybody could potentially but using a service at the same time (or multiple services at the same time, there is just no way to measure this and return an "average load"). We have people that access services from the intranet and internet. Our users are dedicated, so we can't just come up with some guess as to how many will be using it at the same time.
How about just keep the old MS OSs on the client/workstation end, and just buy a linux server? Nobody's forcing you to upgrade right?
Let the people use their same old Windows apps, but your backend will all be Linux.
This is ridiculous.
/back/ licenses when your load is lower (for whatever reason...maybe you have streamlined your site or something)? Or can't you?
First of all, even IF they were correct in charging people for using built in services over the net, e.g. authentication, how would this work? Would one just guess the maximum load and buy that many licenses? How could you buy
As somebody else mentioned, this is really insidious because it cuts off all open-source/free/non-MS integration products. I want to say that again - This move cuts off third-party integration. That is very dangerous. MS has both the client AND server...once they cut out third party integration, they have an entire monopoly.
Also, why wouldn't one just choose NOT to use the built-in services. For instance, here at Cornell U., we use Kerberos pervasively. W2K, I believe, supports PAM (Pluggable Authentication (Module?)). Now, we COULD use the build in PAM functionality, but if we have to buy 30000 extra licenses for it why should we? That's just a feature we'll have to disregard and throw away, and come up with our own kludge or keep using our infrastructure as it is (which is pretty good anyway). This is so dumb. Everything is authenticated in our environment, so there isn't a distinction between "intranet" services and "internet" services. The services are services, and inside and outside use go through pretty much the same authentication and authorization process. I'm not sure how many of the other "features" we'd be using.
Isn't a jury supposed to be made up of "peers". But WHOSE peers? The plaintiff's or the defendent's? In most cases the peers of these two groups are identical. But in a case like this, clearly at least 50% of the jury should be people with technical expertise, computer engineers, etc.
Right? Is there a lawyer in the house?
Yes. Right now, extremists and special interests rule the vote. Politicians have to court them to get votes. There are not enough "average" voters to even them out. If we can get more "average joes" voting, I think we would see a lot better politics, and a higher awareness. In fact, the internet itself might theoretically be the instrument for direct democracy. Republics were created because it was simply logistically impossible to have a direct democracy past a certain population...with the internet everybody from anywhere can vote /directly/. Perhaps when voters sign up they should be issued a key (public + private), so they can be verified when they go to vote. It would then be their responsibility to hold on to this key and reuse it as it identifies them to the voting mechanism.
To just clarify, if every screwdriver you buy breaks after the first use, the "solution" is not to throw it away (which would, admittibly be a quick and correct action) and just keep buying more, but to go back to the store or company and tell them that all their screwdrivers are pieces of crap and are breaking on you and that they should do something (i.e., getting to the root of the problem).
This line of thinking doesn't solve the problem. Saying that we should simply throw away defective people (a la the screwdriver analogy), DOESN'T SOLVE the problem that people become defective. Sure, we can and DO throw away, shun, alienate, etc., people we consider defective, weak, whatever, but that doesn't /solve/ the problem. I think a human being will grow up to be "normal" if there are no negative influences on them during their growth. When somebody is not "normal", the easy solution is to discard them...the correct solution is to try to find /why/ they are that way, instead of blaming and discarding them...it makes no sense.
"I think the ensemble approach is a bad thing for Star Trek"
v es Data. We have Giordi LaForge, an African American character who despite his blindness is the main engineer. We have Q, the omnipotent being who all the while is plagued by human foibles himself. Throw in an Earl Grey drinking Englishman, and a few other characters, and couple this all with very well written, intriguing, suspenseful, interesting plots and you have a great success. I don't think I ever got sick of TNG while it was on. I don't think I ever thought to myself "this is so contrived" like I do about the newer stupid "love-boat"/"soap-opera" Star Trek series out today (DS9, Voyager).
On the contrary, I think the very essence of Star Trek was about the group. The original Star Trek was not about people flying around in a space ship. It was about a black woman communications officer, a Russian pilot (or whatever), a Japanese officer, etc. The whole idea was that they could illustrate, using the idea of a bunch of people forced to work together against a common enemy out in space, that we are all in the same boat, that we're all together and that we're all "special". They were all different reflections of humanity.
Likewise TNG followed in those footsteps. We have a Klingon officer who represents the aggressiveness in us. We have Troy and Guinen, who represents the mystical in us. We have the analytical-yet-more-human-than-the-humans-themsel
BTW, I am not a trekkie...I just happen to appreciate good sci fi, and really hate when it goes to crap...
I don't know, although people sling a lot of mud at RH, RH and it's devel lab were the one's employing rasterman (iirc), and other cool people to do work on Linux stuff. You can't knock em for that. Look at it this way: if they are really developing free open-source materials, the only thing they can do is raise awareness...I mean, if the community doesn't like their stuff they'll disregard it.
/set/ standards (which would be sort of underhanded), and compete with LSB.
It doesn't look like their trying to
The more people on board the better I say.
#define anal
Ok, here is an example of an article mysteriously appearing down in the listing. 10 minutes ago immediately after the article "Interview: Query Queen Elizabeth II's Webmaster" was "One Chip For All Your Wireless Needs". CmdrTaco posted this article at 11:39 AM, which made it show up between the other two. Now I know I'm not losing it...some delay occured between when this article was actually posted, and when it showed up on Slashdot, in which meantime another article appeared before it. My only questions are why/how the 11:39 article got postponed until after 12:20, and if we expect such delays, should we be sorting by "posted-by" time or actual appearance time? It's just confusing to me to see articles "magically" appearing further down the listing.
#undef anal
Yeah, after Wolf3D had been out a while and there were some TCs for it, I went back and played it a bick and got utterly sick to my stomach from all the weird dimensions. Duke3D did this to me too. Quake et al. didn't, but they're the modern polygon-based environments and don't have as bad perspective problems.
What other choices, e.g. FreeBSD, did you consider? Were there non-open-source candidates, or was open-source-ness itself a critical feature?
This seems to have a touch of scare in it, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were true. It's funny that all the charts are in MS Excel.
I don't get it.
/anybody/ from protecting themselves /against/ nukes and ballistic missiles. With Russia's crumbling, the risk of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons getting into the "wrong" hands, what I would assume is that we should all have more /defenses/ against them. It's not like we're going to incite a war by attacking somebody with ANTI-ballistic missile weapons right?
Arent' ABMs, AGAINST ballistic missiles. They're purely defensive right? Why would we ever want to stop
I loved Wolfenstein. I disagree with the poster who said that Wolfenstein was thin on plot. On the contrary, in contrast with Doom, Quake, etc., Wolfenstein was plot rich. There was a believable background, and a historical atmosphere MUCH scarier and creepier than all the demons in hell rushing out of it's gaping hole at you. Wolfenstein was rich with atmosphere (despite it's by-modern-standards crude graphics). It was so damn creepy exploring the halls, the deepest corridors of the nightmare that was the Nazi psyche. It totally freaked me out. It was very well done. I'm glad they're making a new one. Throughout the years of "kill the demons"/"kill the enemies", I have been waiting for something like this.
Now, on to a quote from the article, on another topic:
"What happens is that some of these kids who aren't succeeding socially turn to video games," she reported. "And they don't learn social skills. They aren't learning how to solve problems. Instead, there they are in front of a screen."
And of course this is the KID'S fault and the VIDEO GAME'S fault, NOT the fault of those who alienate and shun them. So blame the victim. It's not societies responsibility to REACH OUT and HELP kids. Instead let's just let them rot, and then blame them and the video game industries, when, after being alienated and shunned for years they do something wacky, instead of taking a look at ourselves, and wondering what WE did wrong to allow such a thing to happen before our eyes. Kick em when their down.
You know, it's almost as if some people just have willingful mental blocks just so that they can stay safe in the homogenous nondescript majority thinking.
That's why I usually enter bogus personal info and email addresses.
;)
Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you
I think karma should be universal. I proposed an "auto-moderation" system, in which each person was always a moderator. The first thing this cures, is the need for moderators, and meta-moderators and meta-meta-moderators, and... etc. You would gain karma by "doing good stuff". If /posts/ you made were voted a /net/ positive amount, your karma goes up. If /moderations/ you made were in line with moderations of others (you are on the largest side), then your karma goes up (presumably, because most other people /agree/ with you).
I think this would simplify and automate things. There wouldn't need to be special rules and special cases. Slashdot would just moderate itself. Some care would have to be taken to see that all the constants are tweaked right so things to go awry, but once it's set, we're good. You'd get better karma by "doing good stuff".
Doh...well, I guess Rob changed it because I'm seeing 1...
i'm not worthy...
Is /THAT/ why all most posts are starting with Score 2? I thought something screwy was going on...
Man, I wish I was as arrogant as Signal 11... ;)