You happen to be in luck, sir. His summary report indicates that we've already been logging his internet activity since the 23rd of February. He's also listed as being a repeat visitor to his local library. It seems he's a big fan of "Cather in the Rye." Looks like another terrorist. Should I send the FBI for him now or wait until he starts reminding people that Hussein doesn't like the U.S. because we were selling weapons to both him and his enemies a few decades ago?
There's many reasons that poking around people's business, be it in a private or public place, is unsettling. For one thing, such acts are indirectly signifying an inability of the american people to respect/trust their neighbors. You can't have a working, civilized, society without respect and trust.
I wonder why you are so worried about what someone might see you saying? Are you that morally degraded that you can't do what's right when nobody knows who you are? And then you have the gall to complain when someone else does the same? Come on now...grow up!
I was in a state of confusion trying to figure out what a dotslasher is. Are they our arch-nemesis or something? Does microsoft run a dotslash website?
The writer is under the impression that it's impossible to take a secure linux kernel and build upon it a less secure operating system.
The writer seems to have heard "All distributions of Linux are the most secure operating systems on earth," when what I usually hear is "Many Linux operating systems mark above average in security." I don't even run Linux, and I'm quite aware that Debian is likely to be more secure than Lindows.
He says that open source doesn't help security, even though his article provides facts which detail that someone could take the linux kernel and build upon it a secure operating system, which is all thanks to open source.
He says "The only way to fully evaluate operating system security, and to compare one operating system's security to another operating system's security, is to have that operating system evaluated under TCSEC or CC," while his article compares one operating system to one possibly insecure open source kernel.
Even if open source advocates lose with a particular Linux distro, we'll win with another. Failing that, there's Open BSD. =)
He's got a general sense of being a doom-prophet which adds to the entertainment.
So, let me get this straight: Mr. Wagner asserts that our open source methods are not working. Yet he states that some (a few or many, he's really vague) linux distros ARE secure. We know that this is because linux is open source. So tell me again how open source is NOT working?
See, until SP3, there was NO WAY for us to make a secure version of Win2K.
I'm happy that microsoft succeeded in making their system secure... though a little displeased that it took SP3 (and it's accompanying EULA to do it). However a victory for microsoft DOES NOT constitute a loss for Linux.
Depending on the license, the benefit might be that one could fork and make their own version of darwin, allowing mac (and x86 Darwing users) an instance of choice....and choice is a beautiful thing.
To think that technology made possible such a disruptive, disrespectful, and slanderous player who would, today, be evenly matched with our world's greatest champion.
I suppose the entire event is saturated with symbolism though, for it was the actions of Fritz' human programmers which allowed it tongue with which to speak.
It really rather mirrors the choices a god would face when creating a people.
One might surmise that we, as humans, only commit sin as god has seen fit for us to do so. That it is his will that we sin, suffer, and make others suffer.
But then, I am no god, and I am no believer in god...
No matter what you do, you'll always be living in both a microcosm and a macrocosm. Nevermind that though, let's get on with the issue at hand.
1 - "...really intelligent people aren't leaving gems of wisdom here..." Are you berating your own post? Oh, wait, of course not. Realists never include themselves in any sociological equations. Now perhaps I enjoy John Carmack's posts merely because I've succumbed to a sheep-like nature. However, I still enjoy them, I'm still going to return.
2 - "You also spelled efficient and conviction wrong..." And I note that you've taken the liberty of inventing a few words yourself. I'm not sure if you realize but it is, in fact, real life (and real jobs) that keeps some of us from scrutinizing our own posts. Perhaps the reason many slashdotters don't analyze their own words to such a severe degree is because they don't take their conversation to be of such dire importance. Seriously, you accuse me of putting so much stock into the comments posted here when I, myself, rate them as just a step above "convenient." In juxtapose, your statement would lead one to believe that you route an incredible amount of energy (though not necessarily an enormous amount of time) to your own posts. Disregard words, and juxtapose our actions, and one would be given the impression that the comments here are of far greater importance to you, rather than I. Your karma "whoreing" is another testament to this theory.
3 - "which is how you refer to my experience to of Slashdot - baseless" You misread my post, great one. Try again.
4 - "cruft" Just wanted to show you where I got the idea that you invent words.
5 - "And here is the direct link..." Can't argue with you on this point. But I'm afraid that you're still not understanding the idea behind my previous posts. My point is that we're both speaking with conjecture. Your failure to realize this leads me to believe that you're not so much a realist as much as you are a mere pessimist.
6 - "So you see, you are arguing, and commenting with a very small subset of people." Doesn't it stand to reason that this place would be a greater pain in the ass for both of us were there more people posting? I wish you would stop complaining about this.
7 - "You think you get good and fresh info from Slashdot comments in general..." I believe the statement was "...Slashdotters end up producing much more reference material..." I usually end up following links posted to smaller sites which go into greater depth on the various subjects.
8 - "I personally post good stuff when I'm not trolling..." I generally do good things when I'm not doing bad things too (yes, that would be me mocking you). Then the rest of your post goes on about how easy it is to karma whore, and why you troll, etc. etc. I don't really care. It's been said many times, and I believe anyone that's been here for a reasonable amount of time knows, that manipulating your karma is easy to do. I don't manipulate my karma, personally. If I really cared about it I'd be posting anonymously right now. If I really cared about this little fight of ours you can bet I'd be posting in HTML format and linking to material to back up my side of the argument as well. But you see, the discussion here isn't as important to me as it is, apparantly, to you. It's just my primary interest here on Slashdot.
All well and good. Yet, in the end, you've substantiated nothing. You could not produce this magical post. You can't prove that the intent of slash is for news rather than discussion. Your statement is just as baseless as mine. I refer to it as a discussion site because that is how I view it. In my case, the articles are rarely what I'm after. The reason being that I have often already read them on other, more effecient, news sites. However Slashdotters end up producing much more reference material than these, I guess in your world, "competing" news sites. That is what I'm after, as I prefer not to take information at face value.
Undoubtedly you have your own internalized rationalizations which lead you to believe (and proclaim) that the discussion here is useless, and that this is a poor excuse for a news site. While I can accept that, I can't understand why you feel the need to hang around under such circumstances. If it's just to start petty flame wars and further degrade the conversation here, that's all well and good. I just hope you realize that, in the end, you've accomplished nothing.
Have fun stroking your ego manifest.
In the meantime I'll continue associating with my populist mob for, as we know, everyone on slashdot agrees on everything. I admire your convition, yet pity your endeavor.
It can't be denied that the subject of this site is related to news, but I still do not believe that Slashdot bills itself as a "news site." The biggest part of slash is its discussion, not its news posting feature.
The real question is, if there's other sites out there that are so much better for what you need, why bother staying here at all?
Slashdot is a website for dicussion on late breaking technology related topics. It's not a news site.
IOW - Your parent has a point when he makes a statement regarding the value of controversial topics; they make for good discussion. Stop treating Slashdot like it's a news site. Go criticize internet.com.
I just checked them out and, yes, they're real punk. I'll tell you something AC, I didn't expect to see anything true to a subculture in this thread. Whoever the hell you are, thanks for being able to see past the RIAA's (mostly successful) attempt at commercializing what should have always been free.
If you know any other Punks, tell them to "hang in there" for me.
One would assume that you would only need to shift the parallex barrier left or right to adjust the image displacement to correspond to a comfortable viewing distance. However, they're pretty light on details about how this parallax barrier works (is it reflective? Does it route light like fiber? What the hell?) So I couldn't say for sure.
Perhaps someone with experience in what Sony claims is "an older, well-known approach to generating a stereo display" could give us a better idea.
This idea has acquired a, somewhat, more positive reception than most other DRM methodologies. However you must keep something in mind: Consumers aren't behind the wheel on this bus.
We all know the RIAA has been getting what they want when it comes to anything related to intellectual property.
So how will it be recieved amongst them? Well I'll let you decide for yourself. However, allow me a chance to display the facts.
The Recording Industry Association of America is an interesting animal. It deviates from our usual assumptions in the way that most corporations work. It is usually assumed that a large corporation wants money, that money is the bottom line. This is not the case with the RIAA. The RIAA wants control. The end result is still money but control is the most effective means to get money.
I've explained this situation before, but for the sake of clarity I'll explain it again. They don't want control just because they're the multinational, multibillion-dollar, multi-million employing incarnation of pure satanic force. They want control because in the entertainment industry, more than any other, this is how you make the most money.
The (literally) billion dollar question is "why?" The answer is simple. Cost and risk. More than any other industry there's more money spent at a higher risk in entertainment (save, possibly, stock trading). Unlike other industries with development processes, the entertainment industry does not gaurantee that a large amount of time and money will produce large profits. So what must they do? They must assure that they are the only sources for their product. They must make it as difficult as possible for users to get music other than theirs.
That's half the reason the RIAA exists, to remove competition between high profiting companies and instead force it upon the rest of the world, including start-ups and independant businesses. I'm getting ahead of myself, however.
So what do they do with this control? They bring on a finite number of artists, have them produce as many CDs as possible, while diluding the mainstream public with as much related advertising as possible.
So you say, "why not hire more artists and make more CDs? Then you'll make more profit!" That's the traditional way of looking at it, but it's altogether untrue. They'll make more money, yes, but they certainly will not make more profit. Albums sold would increase but the cost of developing this music, signing the band, advertising for the band, buying radio play, and everything else associated with music production would increase at a higher rate than their sales.
So you see, keeping a small number of artists (a full CD store doesn't appear to be a small number of artists but when you consider that the RIAA only signs approximately 1000 artists annually you begin to see the situation with clarity) is quite beneficial to them. Making sure that these are the only artists you ever see, hear, or talk about is even more beneficial to them. It's the real reason P2P is under attack.
Given this super short, abridged, and summarized synopsis of the situation let's look at this DRM approach again. This "Squishy DRM" would allow P2P to continue. It would assure that people could not illegally acquire music. Yet, it would also allow consumers to venture with their music taste, and try smaller, less advertised artists/bands/genres. This DRM method would still compromise their control, and thus, their profits. How do you think they will recieve this idea?
Slashdot Mirror
DivX encoded at that.
That all comes down to the genre.
Thank you. If it matters any, I forgive you.
Please sir, AC, put yourself in the mindset of the joke and realize that the entire post was not meant to be taken seriously.
Yes sir!
You happen to be in luck, sir. His summary report indicates that we've already been logging his internet activity since the 23rd of February. He's also listed as being a repeat visitor to his local library. It seems he's a big fan of "Cather in the Rye." Looks like another terrorist. Should I send the FBI for him now or wait until he starts reminding people that Hussein doesn't like the U.S. because we were selling weapons to both him and his enemies a few decades ago?
This one's clever...
...in that completely unintelligent way.
There's many reasons that poking around people's business, be it in a private or public place, is unsettling. For one thing, such acts are indirectly signifying an inability of the american people to respect/trust their neighbors. You can't have a working, civilized, society without respect and trust.
No, say this to him:
And then I got a +1 Interesting.
It's the new karma whoring, people! Enjoy it!
Well he fooled me. I thought he was in the know.
I have an excuse though!
I was in a state of confusion trying to figure out what a dotslasher is. Are they our arch-nemesis or something? Does microsoft run a dotslash website?
You should have mocked him more directly.
"I've got four words for ya': Steve, Ballmer, Monkey, Boy!"
So, let me get this straight: Mr. Wagner asserts that our open source methods are not working. Yet he states that some (a few or many, he's really vague) linux distros ARE secure. We know that this is because linux is open source. So tell me again how open source is NOT working?
See, until SP3, there was NO WAY for us to make a secure version of Win2K.
I'm happy that microsoft succeeded in making their system secure... though a little displeased that it took SP3 (and it's accompanying EULA to do it). However a victory for microsoft DOES NOT constitute a loss for Linux.
Depending on the license, the benefit might be that one could fork and make their own version of darwin, allowing mac (and x86 Darwing users) an instance of choice. ...and choice is a beautiful thing.
So you're that 18%!
Man have I got some questions for you!
To think that technology made possible such a disruptive, disrespectful, and slanderous player who would, today, be evenly matched with our world's greatest champion.
I suppose the entire event is saturated with symbolism though, for it was the actions of Fritz' human programmers which allowed it tongue with which to speak.
It really rather mirrors the choices a god would face when creating a people.
One might surmise that we, as humans, only commit sin as god has seen fit for us to do so. That it is his will that we sin, suffer, and make others suffer.
But then, I am no god, and I am no believer in god...
No matter what you do, you'll always be living in both a microcosm and a macrocosm. Nevermind that though, let's get on with the issue at hand.
1 - "...really intelligent people aren't leaving gems of wisdom here..." Are you berating your own post? Oh, wait, of course not. Realists never include themselves in any sociological equations. Now perhaps I enjoy John Carmack's posts merely because I've succumbed to a sheep-like nature. However, I still enjoy them, I'm still going to return.
2 - "You also spelled efficient and conviction wrong..." And I note that you've taken the liberty of inventing a few words yourself. I'm not sure if you realize but it is, in fact, real life (and real jobs) that keeps some of us from scrutinizing our own posts. Perhaps the reason many slashdotters don't analyze their own words to such a severe degree is because they don't take their conversation to be of such dire importance. Seriously, you accuse me of putting so much stock into the comments posted here when I, myself, rate them as just a step above "convenient." In juxtapose, your statement would lead one to believe that you route an incredible amount of energy (though not necessarily an enormous amount of time) to your own posts. Disregard words, and juxtapose our actions, and one would be given the impression that the comments here are of far greater importance to you, rather than I. Your karma "whoreing" is another testament to this theory.
3 - "which is how you refer to my experience to of Slashdot - baseless" You misread my post, great one. Try again.
4 - "cruft" Just wanted to show you where I got the idea that you invent words.
5 - "And here is the direct link..." Can't argue with you on this point. But I'm afraid that you're still not understanding the idea behind my previous posts. My point is that we're both speaking with conjecture. Your failure to realize this leads me to believe that you're not so much a realist as much as you are a mere pessimist.
6 - "So you see, you are arguing, and commenting with a very small subset of people." Doesn't it stand to reason that this place would be a greater pain in the ass for both of us were there more people posting? I wish you would stop complaining about this.
7 - "You think you get good and fresh info from Slashdot comments in general..." I believe the statement was "...Slashdotters end up producing much more reference material..." I usually end up following links posted to smaller sites which go into greater depth on the various subjects.
8 - "I personally post good stuff when I'm not trolling..." I generally do good things when I'm not doing bad things too (yes, that would be me mocking you). Then the rest of your post goes on about how easy it is to karma whore, and why you troll, etc. etc. I don't really care. It's been said many times, and I believe anyone that's been here for a reasonable amount of time knows, that manipulating your karma is easy to do. I don't manipulate my karma, personally. If I really cared about it I'd be posting anonymously right now. If I really cared about this little fight of ours you can bet I'd be posting in HTML format and linking to material to back up my side of the argument as well. But you see, the discussion here isn't as important to me as it is, apparantly, to you. It's just my primary interest here on Slashdot.
All well and good. Yet, in the end, you've substantiated nothing. You could not produce this magical post. You can't prove that the intent of slash is for news rather than discussion. Your statement is just as baseless as mine. I refer to it as a discussion site because that is how I view it. In my case, the articles are rarely what I'm after. The reason being that I have often already read them on other, more effecient, news sites. However Slashdotters end up producing much more reference material than these, I guess in your world, "competing" news sites. That is what I'm after, as I prefer not to take information at face value.
Undoubtedly you have your own internalized rationalizations which lead you to believe (and proclaim) that the discussion here is useless, and that this is a poor excuse for a news site. While I can accept that, I can't understand why you feel the need to hang around under such circumstances. If it's just to start petty flame wars and further degrade the conversation here, that's all well and good. I just hope you realize that, in the end, you've accomplished nothing.
Have fun stroking your ego manifest.
In the meantime I'll continue associating with my populist mob for, as we know, everyone on slashdot agrees on everything. I admire your convition, yet pity your endeavor.
It can't be denied that the subject of this site is related to news, but I still do not believe that Slashdot bills itself as a "news site." The biggest part of slash is its discussion, not its news posting feature.
The real question is, if there's other sites out there that are so much better for what you need, why bother staying here at all?
That's great and all but...
Slashdot is a website for dicussion on late breaking technology related topics. It's not a news site.
IOW - Your parent has a point when he makes a statement regarding the value of controversial topics; they make for good discussion. Stop treating Slashdot like it's a news site. Go criticize internet.com.
Are you signed?
Mod Parent up +1 Real Punk.
I just checked them out and, yes, they're real punk. I'll tell you something AC, I didn't expect to see anything true to a subculture in this thread. Whoever the hell you are, thanks for being able to see past the RIAA's (mostly successful) attempt at commercializing what should have always been free.
If you know any other Punks, tell them to "hang in there" for me.
One would assume that you would only need to shift the parallex barrier left or right to adjust the image displacement to correspond to a comfortable viewing distance. However, they're pretty light on details about how this parallax barrier works (is it reflective? Does it route light like fiber? What the hell?) So I couldn't say for sure.
Perhaps someone with experience in what Sony claims is "an older, well-known approach to generating a stereo display" could give us a better idea.
"Internet Explorer is -- bar none -- the best browser today. Mozilla doesn't even come semi-close."
What? I apologize. I am only a simple professional web designer. I do not understand what you're saying. It sounds like... "standards are bad?"
This idea has acquired a, somewhat, more positive reception than most other DRM methodologies. However you must keep something in mind: Consumers aren't behind the wheel on this bus.
We all know the RIAA has been getting what they want when it comes to anything related to intellectual property.
So how will it be recieved amongst them? Well I'll let you decide for yourself. However, allow me a chance to display the facts.
The Recording Industry Association of America is an interesting animal. It deviates from our usual assumptions in the way that most corporations work. It is usually assumed that a large corporation wants money, that money is the bottom line. This is not the case with the RIAA. The RIAA wants control. The end result is still money but control is the most effective means to get money.
I've explained this situation before, but for the sake of clarity I'll explain it again. They don't want control just because they're the multinational, multibillion-dollar, multi-million employing incarnation of pure satanic force. They want control because in the entertainment industry, more than any other, this is how you make the most money.
The (literally) billion dollar question is "why?" The answer is simple. Cost and risk. More than any other industry there's more money spent at a higher risk in entertainment (save, possibly, stock trading). Unlike other industries with development processes, the entertainment industry does not gaurantee that a large amount of time and money will produce large profits. So what must they do? They must assure that they are the only sources for their product. They must make it as difficult as possible for users to get music other than theirs.
That's half the reason the RIAA exists, to remove competition between high profiting companies and instead force it upon the rest of the world, including start-ups and independant businesses. I'm getting ahead of myself, however.
So what do they do with this control? They bring on a finite number of artists, have them produce as many CDs as possible, while diluding the mainstream public with as much related advertising as possible.
So you say, "why not hire more artists and make more CDs? Then you'll make more profit!" That's the traditional way of looking at it, but it's altogether untrue. They'll make more money, yes, but they certainly will not make more profit. Albums sold would increase but the cost of developing this music, signing the band, advertising for the band, buying radio play, and everything else associated with music production would increase at a higher rate than their sales.
So you see, keeping a small number of artists (a full CD store doesn't appear to be a small number of artists but when you consider that the RIAA only signs approximately 1000 artists annually you begin to see the situation with clarity) is quite beneficial to them. Making sure that these are the only artists you ever see, hear, or talk about is even more beneficial to them. It's the real reason P2P is under attack.
Given this super short, abridged, and summarized synopsis of the situation let's look at this DRM approach again. This "Squishy DRM" would allow P2P to continue. It would assure that people could not illegally acquire music. Yet, it would also allow consumers to venture with their music taste, and try smaller, less advertised artists/bands/genres. This DRM method would still compromise their control, and thus, their profits. How do you think they will recieve this idea?