If this continues, will there still be a need for OpenBSD?
People in general always perceive that there must be a "need" for an entity, and then they watch for signs from God that this "need" is eroding. For some reason, this "need" never seems to increase, always decrease. This is probably a parallel with the human instinct to decry death over the living. An excellent example of this behavior is the past decade of Apple's existance, where the populace has always doubted the viability and need for a corporation such as Apple, and give wise advice that certaintly, by next November, this thrashing, rotting beast will not contaminate our existance. It has never been true, but that does not change people's minds. This scenario fits well with doubting the viability and need of OpenBSD. People will always use it, always be improving on it, as long as people like to do so, and the inherent "need" of this does not significantly play in the viability of the platform. Political distress would be much more likely to weaken a project.
Given the history between Theo and the FreeBSD camp, I can't ever see the projects merging.
I believe you must have intended the NetBSD project, which would still have a much higher chance of reintegrating with OpenBSD than Open with Free. In any case, it is a quite slim possibility that such a "merger" per se would occur.
You said that Cruise found the vaccine for Ms. Hot Chick after she injected herself. Considering that a vaccine is just a weakened virus made to stimulate the "memory" of the immune system, what good is a vaccine going to be after the host has already been effective against the unweakened form of the virus? It won't do a damn thing, and she should die anyways.
I shouldn't even bother to point out holes in movies like this, I suppose.
Almost all of the people semi proficient with the Mac tend to use Ircle (or derivative), which does not have the capability to connect to their servers. Yeah, there's the option of EZTalk - but blech, who wants to use that ugly Happy Cheery JoyJoy thing? Certaintly not all the Mac people who left.
And the CGI driven IRC - the Web, IMNSHO, was not designed for IRC:) Although I remember trying it a long time ago, to see how bad it was, and I was thoroughly impressed, the wrong way of course.
For all the Mac people who got displaced by Talkcity (used to be eWorld, sort of), there's a new channel at #mactalk on the open project network. (irc.linux.com)
There is no client available for the Mac from TC. It is Win32 only.
Please do not block all ICMP traffic. Blocking all ICMP messages does _not_ increase security (at least for some types of ICMPs), all it does is unnecessarily break things. You need to keep "no-fragment" ICMP messages intact (or encounter lack of communication with many rather large networks out there), and should keep "ICMP Destination unreachable" packets intact, unless you particularly enjoy long, pointless waits.
However, blocking especially ICMP Redirect is usually ok, assuming there is nothing that needs it at your site. ICMP Echo may be disabled, if you don't want to let inside hosts find out if outside hosts are up, and the security benefits seem substantial enough for you.
Let's first ignore the claims that it is FreeBSD's fault (I am sure others will cover this flawed thinking adequately.) The fatal flaw with this argument is that if it's FreeBSD's fault, why the hell is Microsoft using it? If it's FreeBSD's fault, shouldn't they be moving as quickly as possible to move their operations to the obviously superior Windows NT? Or is their goal to blame, but not to improve? Either they don't care, and like to point fingers instead, or they are currently with the superior solution, and it's a comparative policy advantage over Windows NT. We don't even have to arrive at technical arguments to see why their pandering would fail to fool the logic of a legally braindead squirrel.
I believe what we see with that is similar with some of the more derogatory ramblings of theists. Though I am an atheist, it is not my duty to convert others, and therefore I rarely have debates about it (and when I do they are calm and constructive, not angery). Indeed, religious discourse is a truly evil thing, and some atheists get it into their head that because they aren't religious then their form of antireligionism is not an evil thing.
There are people on both sides that are unable/unwilling to think very deeply.
Well, some people wouldn't like it, but that's why it would just be an option in the Slashdot preferences. Just like the cusotmizable scoring criteria.
Decent idea. I can certaintly see where users would definately think a little more before they insult and possibly hurt others online. Of course, this would almost certaintly require the removal of anonymous posting-either that, or start ac's with a much lower initial pointcount.
We've seen, and some have been victim of, certain moderators who take up a campaign against a certain individual. Even interesting, informative, and insightful posts instead receive moderation energy pushing them down to the ranks of the trollers, denying their insight to other readers. I think there is a simple solution to that strain of badness: limit the number of times a single moderator may moderate one other individual down. For example, you may have one person moderated down only once in a certain time period by the same moderator: one moderator cannot carry on a campaign to devaluate one account. In my opinion, this represents an easy way to seal one little crack in the Slashdot foundation.
There's some interesting ideas there. I agree that when you impose technological limits, it only encourages people to try to find a way around them (we see this especially with all the `kewl h4xx0r5' stuff out there). And it is also true that bullies, trollers, detrimentors of society generally lose interest in being harmful when society stops paying attention to them. However, that is the major problem: How in the world do you get society to ignore them? It is extremely difficult, especially in a place like slashdot where so many new people are flooding in all the time. Teach one group, and before you know it another group has come in, and become upset at a troll and decided to respond and tell them how detrimental they are (which obviously doesn't help). Someone else mentioned trolling as a fishing term, ie, if you take the bait you lose, and if you don't then you win. I think that is an excellent analogy, and it would probably help the new people understand why it's bad to respond to trolls. I think you're playing up the Slashdot censorship thing, although it would be easy to debate the `slippery-slope' theory (allow it, even if it only affects a few accounts, and it will grow to affect many accounts). It is difficult to see where limited censorship may grow to in the future, and perhaps if we even need to have deletion of comments to have a sane environment. We know that the slippery-slope theory generally holds true when discussing the government, but it's really new ground with an environment such as this, where Rob is not making every attempt to gain power over us (unless you consider those html tags...). Well, good thoughts all around.
That's an excellent idea. Entire threads would have to be moved as one, of course, but randomization would really be a big problem-solver as far as big-story-moderation-troubles. Even an option for normal users to randomize the order would be beneficial, as well. Personally, I don't see a major problem with implementing something like this. Other ideas? It would certaintly take care of the `first post' crud that we all enjoy seeing so much.
Your point is valid, but it all boils down to one thing. Is it cheaper to increase hardware speed and decrease software speed, or to let up on hardware research and blast money into better code? And do consumers stop buying slower software (that may have more features, pointless ones or not) when they have access to faster hardware to run it? No, they buy faster hardware and then buy the slower software. Clean tight code throughout the software industry would be wonderful, but unfortunately it makes no economic sense. In OSS software, we see a shift in ideals, and the ability of linux to run on older hardware is a representation of that. However, it still must remain portable, thus tending to using a higher level language, thus increased size/decreased speed (this is general, not a hard and fast rule). So OSS tends to value the latter more, but it also values clean code (or at least not bloatware), and both of those are valued above the "Let's just rely on faster hardware to pick up the slack" mentality.
Before you start whining about./ "taken a nosedive lately," (why do you incessently whine about slashdot taking nosedives?) try to think what other ways the previous post may have been taken. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, "Humor." As far as I can see, this guy was trying to portray a little bit of humor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd appreciate it if people didn't cynically assume everyone around them is as stupid as a dead rat.
Except they wouldn't use the term "crash." Rather, "Temporary Security Enhancement Through Service Restriction" or similar. Hard to beat the name "IntelliCrash," though;-)
Someone mentioned the VoteHere electronic voting experiment. Unfortunately, we see the growths that we wanted to prevent growing out of it. When one attempts to enter the voting area, it tells me, verbatim:
To enter this area, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 (or later) on a Windows computer. You can upgrade to Internet Explorer 4.0 for free by clicking the button below:
Slashdot Mirror
If this continues, will there still be a need for OpenBSD?
People in general always perceive that there must be a "need" for an entity, and then they watch for signs from God that this "need" is eroding. For some reason, this "need" never seems to increase, always decrease. This is probably a parallel with the human instinct to decry death over the living. An excellent example of this behavior is the past decade of Apple's existance, where the populace has always doubted the viability and need for a corporation such as Apple, and give wise advice that certaintly, by next November, this thrashing, rotting beast will not contaminate our existance. It has never been true, but that does not change people's minds. This scenario fits well with doubting the viability and need of OpenBSD. People will always use it, always be improving on it, as long as people like to do so, and the inherent "need" of this does not significantly play in the viability of the platform. Political distress would be much more likely to weaken a project.
Given the history between Theo and the FreeBSD camp, I can't ever see the projects merging.
I believe you must have intended the NetBSD project, which would still have a much higher chance of reintegrating with OpenBSD than Open with Free. In any case, it is a quite slim possibility that such a "merger" per se would occur.
I haven't seen this movie, and probably won't.
You said that Cruise found the vaccine for Ms. Hot Chick after she injected herself. Considering that a vaccine is just a weakened virus made to stimulate the "memory" of the immune system, what good is a vaccine going to be after the host has already been effective against the unweakened form of the virus? It won't do a damn thing, and she should die anyways.
I shouldn't even bother to point out holes in movies like this, I suppose.
Almost all of the people semi proficient with the Mac tend to use Ircle (or derivative), which does not have the capability to connect to their servers. Yeah, there's the option of EZTalk - but blech, who wants to use that ugly Happy Cheery JoyJoy thing? Certaintly not all the Mac people who left.
:) Although I remember trying it a long time ago, to see how bad it was, and I was thoroughly impressed, the wrong way of course.
And the CGI driven IRC - the Web, IMNSHO, was not designed for IRC
Good day,
Derek
For all the Mac people who got displaced by Talkcity (used to be eWorld, sort of), there's a new channel at #mactalk on the open project network. (irc.linux.com)
There is no client available for the Mac from TC. It is Win32 only.
Please do not block all ICMP traffic. Blocking all ICMP messages does _not_ increase security (at least for some types of ICMPs), all it does is unnecessarily break things. You need to keep "no-fragment" ICMP messages intact (or encounter lack of communication with many rather large networks out there), and should keep "ICMP Destination unreachable" packets intact, unless you particularly enjoy long, pointless waits.
However, blocking especially ICMP Redirect is usually ok, assuming there is nothing that needs it at your site. ICMP Echo may be disabled, if you don't want to let inside hosts find out if outside hosts are up, and the security benefits seem substantial enough for you.
Let's first ignore the claims that it is FreeBSD's fault (I am sure others will cover this flawed thinking adequately.) The fatal flaw with this argument is that if it's FreeBSD's fault, why the hell is Microsoft using it? If it's FreeBSD's fault, shouldn't they be moving as quickly as possible to move their operations to the obviously superior Windows NT? Or is their goal to blame, but not to improve? Either they don't care, and like to point fingers instead, or they are currently with the superior solution, and it's a comparative policy advantage over Windows NT.
We don't even have to arrive at technical arguments to see why their pandering would fail to fool the logic of a legally braindead squirrel.
I believe what we see with that is similar with some of the more derogatory ramblings of theists. Though I am an atheist, it is not my duty to convert others, and therefore I rarely have debates about it (and when I do they are calm and constructive, not angery). Indeed, religious discourse is a truly evil thing, and some atheists get it into their head that because they aren't religious then their form of antireligionism is not an evil thing.
There are people on both sides that are unable/unwilling to think very deeply.
Rob Malda introduced the metamoderation...when you see injustices like this (and it obviously is) go over there and beat up some moderators.
:)
Well, some people wouldn't like it, but that's why it would just be an option in the Slashdot preferences. Just like the cusotmizable scoring criteria.
Decent idea. I can certaintly see where users
would definately think a little more before they
insult and possibly hurt others online. Of course,
this would almost certaintly require the removal
of anonymous posting-either that, or start ac's
with a much lower initial pointcount.
(email at: moeller at dophnic dot myip dot org)
We've seen, and some have been victim of, certain moderators who take up a campaign against a certain individual. Even interesting, informative, and insightful posts instead receive moderation energy pushing them down to the ranks of the trollers, denying their insight to other readers. I think there is a simple solution to that strain of badness: limit the number of times a single moderator may moderate one other individual down. For example, you may have one person moderated down only once in a certain time period by the same moderator: one moderator cannot carry on a campaign to devaluate one account. In my opinion, this represents an easy way to seal one little crack in the Slashdot foundation.
Anybody else have ideas+/opinions?
There's some interesting ideas there. I agree that
when you impose technological limits, it only
encourages people to try to find a way around them
(we see this especially with all the `kewl
h4xx0r5' stuff out there). And it is also true
that bullies, trollers, detrimentors of society
generally lose interest in being harmful when
society stops paying attention to them. However,
that is the major problem: How in the world do you
get society to ignore them? It is extremely
difficult, especially in a place like slashdot
where so many new people are flooding in all the
time. Teach one group, and before you know it
another group has come in, and become upset at
a troll and decided to respond and tell them how
detrimental they are (which obviously doesn't
help). Someone else mentioned trolling as a
fishing term, ie, if you take the bait you lose,
and if you don't then you win. I think that is an
excellent analogy, and it would probably help the
new people understand why it's bad to respond to
trolls.
I think you're playing up the Slashdot
censorship thing, although it would be easy to
debate the `slippery-slope' theory (allow it,
even if it only affects a few accounts, and it
will grow to affect many accounts). It is
difficult to see where limited censorship may
grow to in the future, and perhaps if we even need
to have deletion of comments to have a sane
environment. We know that the slippery-slope
theory generally holds true when discussing the
government, but it's really new ground with an
environment such as this, where Rob is not making
every attempt to gain power over us (unless you
consider those html tags...).
Well, good thoughts all around.
That's an excellent idea. Entire threads would have to be moved as one, of course, but randomization would really be a big problem-solver as far as big-story-moderation-troubles. Even an option for normal users to randomize the order would be beneficial, as well.
Personally, I don't see a major problem with implementing something like this. Other ideas? It would certaintly take care of the `first post' crud that we all enjoy seeing so much.
(remove aircraft maker to email)
Your point is valid, but it all boils down to one thing. Is it cheaper to increase hardware speed and decrease software speed, or to let up on hardware research and blast money into better code? And do consumers stop buying slower software (that may have more features, pointless ones or not) when they have access to faster hardware to run it? No, they buy faster hardware and then buy the slower software. Clean tight code throughout the software industry would be wonderful, but unfortunately it makes no economic sense.
In OSS software, we see a shift in ideals, and the ability of linux to run on older hardware is a representation of that. However, it still must remain portable, thus tending to using a higher level language, thus increased size/decreased speed (this is general, not a hard and fast rule). So OSS tends to value the latter more, but it also values clean code (or at least not bloatware), and both of those are valued above the "Let's just rely on faster hardware to pick up the slack" mentality.
Derek
Before you start whining about ./ "taken a nosedive lately," (why do you incessently whine about slashdot taking nosedives?) try to think what other ways the previous post may have been taken.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, "Humor." As far as I can see, this guy was trying to portray a little bit of humor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd appreciate it if people didn't cynically assume everyone around them is as stupid as a dead rat.
Except they wouldn't use the term "crash." Rather, "Temporary Security Enhancement Through Service Restriction" or similar. ;-)
Hard to beat the name "IntelliCrash," though
Someone mentioned the VoteHere electronic voting experiment. Unfortunately, we see the growths that we wanted to prevent growing out of it. When one attempts to enter the voting area, it tells me, verbatim:
To enter this area, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 (or later) on a Windows computer. You can upgrade to Internet Explorer 4.0 for free by clicking the button below:
Need I say more?