Once you've done that research, you are no longer basing your opinions on the document in question, but rather on the reseach you've done yourself.
Contrast this with Britannica (for a convenient example). You would do well to consider anything you read there to be factual, without performing any further research (or even thinking).
As an aside, I wonder how many people actually did such research based on this article.
Is anyone else a bit disillusioned about this whole idea?
I find that the best way by far to learn about Linux or other operating systems is this: set myself a task (eg. to run a DNS), and then research how to do it, and do it, and keep on trying until I get it right. Then move onto another task.
Not only does this make you learn things quickly, it teaches you the methods for solving any future problems you may come across that aren't in the book. Are we going to end up with a generation of Linux users who wouldn't know their fat from a fiddle as soon as something strange happens? We could even give them a title, Muddle Causing SuSE(andotherdistro) Engineers
Absolutely true. This is also something that will never be true about the open source encyclopaedias.
One can be sure that every word in Britannica has been picked over with a finetooth comb by a collaborative effort, and Britannica is considered one of the world's most reliable sources of accurate information.
The approach of the open source encyclopaedias is to throw together a lot of diatribe about anything, and hope that the good bits float to the top. For example, it will be easy to search the encyclopaedia and find highly contradictory entries.
Another more pertinent point: that article was in fact written by the designer and main manager of the open source encyclopaedias, so of course he is going to write something which favours his view. Any English student will tell you that an exposé of a speaker's own work is very low on the authoritative scale. This is not to say that the open source encyclopaedias therefore suck, it is saying that the posted article should be taken with a grain of salt.
Not at all.
Suppose I have a system protected by a single password prompt, which uses a 40-bit key on some unusual crypto alg.
If I tell everyone the algorithm name and keysize, it's only a matter of time before it's cracked. However, any attacker won't know you have to type "All your base are belong to us" at 3 letters/second, send a form feed, and append 'brouhaha' to your password as well as getting the encryption right. The number of hackers who have a go at your system will be drastically cut down by the obscurity in place.
America's Sweethearts is a satire of the American movie industry (in the same vein as much British comedy). The fact that these reviewers have somehow missed this (even despite the movie's title) leaves me screaming with laughter, and just adds to the wonderful comic value that this movie has.
Every element which you and Jon described as 'awful' is funny because it takes off things that happened for real, and the movie works so well because of the strong cast who play their part to perfection. If the rest of the American audiences are as dimwitted as J. Katz, then:
I will continue laughing for some time
The movie will be a much greater hit overseas than in America.
For a review by someone who actually knows what they are talking about, check here.
Can you explain your sig? I've stared at it for ages and it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. You are the real unitron? ok, which impostors don't you rate? what has your slashdot id got to do with this? or is this an impostor post which doesn't rate highly? or you ignore impostors ???
I think I'm asking this question on behalf of many Slashdot readers..
You're lucky you don't live in New Zealand; the Government would have deregulared it ages ago, sold that company off overseas, and then wondered why on earth prices would go up
Slashdot Mirror
Once you've done that research, you are no longer basing your opinions on the document in question, but rather on the reseach you've done yourself.
Contrast this with Britannica (for a convenient example). You would do well to consider anything you read there to be factual, without performing any further research (or even thinking).
As an aside, I wonder how many people actually did such research based on this article.
Quick, someone release an e-book of this so we can use Dmitry's software and feel cool!
Is anyone else a bit disillusioned about this whole idea?
I find that the best way by far to learn about Linux or other operating systems is this: set myself a task (eg. to run a DNS), and then research how to do it, and do it, and keep on trying until I get it right. Then move onto another task.
Not only does this make you learn things quickly, it teaches you the methods for solving any future problems you may come across that aren't in the book. Are we going to end up with a generation of Linux users who wouldn't know their fat from a fiddle as soon as something strange happens? We could even give them a title, Muddle Causing SuSE(andotherdistro) Engineers
All they need now is a case that has room for more than one of those beasts..
The topic is online encyclopaedias. Therefore, comments about journalism site unavailability are offtopic.
The troll quota and readness are simply a reflection of the fact that k5 has a much larger userbase.
If Slashdot were a small site and k5 were a huge one, the problem would be the other way around.
I agree with you on the story submission/rejection thing, k5's idea for that is excellent.
I can't wait for the section on Beowulf clusters.
Leaving out topic is not a flaw. In fact, there are many topics which Britannica does not have.
A 'flaw' in an encyclopaedia is incorrect information, and/or irrelevant or unspecific information.
An encyclopaedia is not the book of all information; it is the book of correct knowledge.
Absolutely true. This is also something that will never be true about the open source encyclopaedias.
One can be sure that every word in Britannica has been picked over with a finetooth comb by a collaborative effort, and Britannica is considered one of the world's most reliable sources of accurate information.
The approach of the open source encyclopaedias is to throw together a lot of diatribe about anything, and hope that the good bits float to the top. For example, it will be easy to search the encyclopaedia and find highly contradictory entries.
Another more pertinent point: that article was in fact written by the designer and main manager of the open source encyclopaedias, so of course he is going to write something which favours his view. Any English student will tell you that an exposé of a speaker's own work is very low on the authoritative scale. This is not to say that the open source encyclopaedias therefore suck, it is saying that the posted article should be taken with a grain of salt.
Can you elaborate?
(in the field of security, of course, not English in general)
Not at all.
Suppose I have a system protected by a single password prompt, which uses a 40-bit key on some unusual crypto alg.
If I tell everyone the algorithm name and keysize, it's only a matter of time before it's cracked. However, any attacker won't know you have to type "All your base are belong to us" at 3 letters/second, send a form feed, and append 'brouhaha' to your password as well as getting the encryption right. The number of hackers who have a go at your system will be drastically cut down by the obscurity in place.
Every element which you and Jon described as 'awful' is funny because it takes off things that happened for real, and the movie works so well because of the strong cast who play their part to perfection. If the rest of the American audiences are as dimwitted as J. Katz, then:
- I will continue laughing for some time
- The movie will be a much greater hit overseas than in America.
For a review by someone who actually knows what they are talking about, check here.Ah, it all makes sense now. Thanks for the info
Can you explain your sig? I've stared at it for ages and it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. You are the real unitron? ok, which impostors don't you rate? what has your slashdot id got to do with this? or is this an impostor post which doesn't rate highly? or you ignore impostors ???
I think I'm asking this question on behalf of many Slashdot readers..
At least it doesn't make you go through all this signup and spam shit to get to its webpages online
I thought that was the idea of Open Source
You read the wrong advisory, dumbass. sadmind/IIS came out several weeks ago, and relatively few IIS servers had the vulnerability.
However, Code Red has only just come out (and colonized the world in very short order), and most IIS servers have the problem.
Jul 20 17:40:02 legend kernel: Packet log: input DENY ppp0 PROTO=6 148.243.173.8:50401 210.55.125.189:80 L=40 S=0x00 I=31495 F=0x4000 T=237 (#22)
(etc)
I have 60 hits from this in the last 16 hours, on my miserable dialup in the small backcorners of the internet..
According to David Eddings, barratry is where you sink your own ship in order to steal the goods.
Silly american lawyers..
with that Slapp thing, is that what they mean when they say "We'll slapp a lawsuit on them"
also, I saw someone say that so-and-so wasn't a crime but it can get a countersuit.. i thought you could only sue when the law was broken?
Your tagline is the coolest thing I have ever seen on Slashdot
Yeah, and Napster is perfectly legal cos people surely aren't going to trade anything copywritten with it.
You're saying Milosevic shouldn't have been handed over to international justice?
You're lucky you don't live in New Zealand; the Government would have deregulared it ages ago, sold that company off overseas, and then wondered why on earth prices would go up
Plasma looks a lot like hot grits, I understand
Did you actually run benchmarks on a P4?