For one, after viewing the articles that were targeted they had simply copy-pasted someone else's work with no commentary of their own.
Secondly, the blog owner did play ball and removed the content. And lastly, the original posters are anything but original. Since the whole issue here is that they didn't write anything of their own. It's not like a/. submission. It's is exactly like pasting 2 sentences of someone elses work with not a single word of your own mixed in.
See my post above yours? The one you replied to. Yeah, that's it. It wasn't questioning the existence of a link. So I'm not sure why you're pointing it out to me.
Also, please stop calling that analysis. The dude who wrote that is involved in the issue. He is presenting his side of the story, he is not providing analysis.
That's isn't analysis, that is a person involved in the dispute making his case.
And furthermore, read what I actually wrote. I didn't say they did not link to the article. I pointed out that *UNLIKE* slashdot their "postings" had *NO* commentary. None. Zero. I don't mean the user comments. I mean scroll up on this page and find "Ian Lamont points us to The Industry Standard..."
Now replace everything in that article submission with a paragraph from the linked article. Then just link the headline to the article.
Do you get it yet? That were not citing an article. They were taking a section of an article and using that as their "entire" content that people could respond to.
Lastly, you are a paranoid freak if you think I know you from Adam let alone have a vendetta against you.
If you actually RTFA and followed the links enough, you'd see there is a good difference between what/. does and what this drudge retort was doing.
/. submissions are often quotes from an article along with some commentary. The retort's posts has no commentary, and were 100% made up of pieces from the article. And presented in a manner that did not make that clear.
What I find the bestest is how much of a cocky ass you were about this when didn't even bother to have a clue what you were talking about.
From what I saw the retort posts had "zero" of their own content. Basically someone at the retort would post the headline from an article, a few sentences from the article. And that's it. Comment away!
There was no "So Yahoo is running a story on..."
It was actually just a piece of Yahoo's story. So I can see the issue and they certainly did not look like a typical post and reply here on/.
You have big balls my friend. Either that or your stupid. Or maybe you have photo's of someone at the office? Bah, I could keep guessing here, but seriously, I can't imagine this will make you popular at work.
Oh, you are right though. The website does suck.
Xbox live surely predates LotRO. And I'm sure we can find something even before that. In fact, lots of games (just not MMO's) has similar stuff. Madden's been doing it for years and years.
And more to the point I'd think Warhammer Online's upcoming version of this is the one they're really after. LotRO's version is just shorta shabby.
He's either trolling or crazy. Or one other I'll leave till later.
Given that most of the beta has shifted across race dynamics (dwarf vs greenskin, chaos vs empire, elven factions), with only certain races available at certain times, he has certainly seen members of the other race in the three months he's beta tested. If he didn't he played with his monitor off.
Second, his WoW numbers are totally fabricated. His experiences there of "average" numbers are made up. That's painstaking research to try and do, know way possible to get it 100% accurate, and based on his post and common sense no way he knows that or even enough to guess at it. Anyone that has played WoW PvP in any serious amount will know he's lying. You don't get S3 (Season 3) gear from battlegrounds, you get S1 gear. S3 gear requires you Arena where there is no balance issue at all (arena is not faction based in any way), or since patch 2.4 from Tier 6 content where you can token trade from PvE content.
He made up some gear imbalance from AV. If you don't know, the more you do battlegrounds the more points you get. You get some from losing, but more for winning. But there's a finite amount of gear to get from battlegrounds. It's all S1 gear, and it's not hard to get even if you lose over and over.
So please, when I replied earlier he was just a 2 I was expecting to see modded down. But he's now a 5 that is nothing but lies. Obvious fabrications of someone that is most likely upset that in his eye you NEED at least 3 races else HIS worries are going to kill everything about the game. When he sucked in BG's in WoW it wasn't him sucking it was the other guys had better gear. He's someone with every made up excuse in the book, the problem is the only place where they are real in his in mind.
It is true that some PvP servers are shifted one way or another. And yet others are balanced just fine. That's normal. Some severs are going to randomly have a bigger imbalance then the normal amount, and in some cases those will get amplified as people flock to the winner. In WoW, there's just as many Alliance servers as there are Horde servers like that. And then plenty of balanced servers. That says more about the people playing then the balance of the game. And there's no reason to think WAR will be any different.
A lot of the cool RvR is isntanced in WAR.
Also, I don't buy for a second chaos will outnumber empire and co. The same "evil" wins ruled pre WoW thoughts too and Alliance outnumbered them by quite a bit.
The side with "normal" looking races will get a majority of the pre-existing guilds coming over, a trend that just doesn't show itself in betas.
Yes, I recognize the distinction. However, the poster I responded to was not discussing that distinction. In fact, it was clear he was removing that distinction and commenting on just blogging in the workplace in general.
Having 1st hand experience in different levels of government and private, I pointed out that every place is different. The most lax personal use I've ever had was at a private gig I worked at for 5 years. I've had government locations locked down so that even wiki was blocked and no personal use allowed. I've had government entities allow personal usage with rules governing the time spent.
In the case of government all political use is dissalowed as you pointed out. However, as I mentioned that is not what the OP I replied to was going for. He was clearly insinuating that in government internet policies were a lower standard then private. As if most private entities don't allow any personal use.
They aren't. Many companies also allow personal use of the internet (with varying rules regulating that use). Many companies don't. Many government entities do. Many don't.
Is it OK to spend 5 minutes in the hallway talking to co-workers about the big game last night? Some places/bosses wouldn't care. Others would. Some places give you breaks and lunches. Many professionals don't a whistle that blows telling them it's break time. They manage their own time.
There is no "one size fits all here". And certainly no "lower standard" you could guess at based on the article.
No, I'm not ignorant of history. However, what I don't do is cherry pick my facts. Nor do I play semantical games like "less" and "lesser". Nor do I pretend to lay the entire blame of government corruption and change around the world at the hands of the US. Certainly not in the Americans. That would be like blaming the US solely for Haiti which is absurd. I don't like the US's stance there, but I will not blame them for every man woman and child lost there. Furthermore, I certainly wouldn't compare the US involvement in South America to Manifest Destiny. Hence, lesser evil. Though because I am not ignorant of history is why I included issues in South America.
So in conclusion, that you play idealistic games that overstate your case because the facts aren't there to support you isn't going to impress me. You're empty rebuttal's won't either.
They wouldn't want a legislative fix. How are you all confusing this with some "rights" issue or big-brother. This is cyber warfare. Something the USAF has taken seriously for over a decade. If the government's backdoor was ordered into the commercial OS then Chinese computers running that OS would either:
1. Not run windows anymore
or
2. Be unplugged for the net when it mattered.
This is the USAF wanting to be able to wage warfare in cyberspace. They want the "enemy" computers up and running thinking they're fine before they haxor their boxer.
Your problem is you aren't able to tell apples from oranges.
The Patriot Act is horrid. The laws of this country are very important and should always err on the side of freedom for the people.
But I did not realize this was about the Patriot Act. Heck, I didn't even realize it was about government.
We're talking about a branch of the military that is trusted with weapons able to completely destroy large cities and kill millions of people. Yet let them also spend money to have the ability to take over people's computers and apparently now you're rights are being violated. Nope, sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If you don't trust the military from "getting" you, you need to move. They can do far worse things than hacking your gibson and the potential of your XP machine becoming part of a USAF botnet is way down on the list of things you should worry about from them.
But again, that has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. No more so then if the USAF unveiled a new bomb.
You *might* have some grounds to claims that there would be constitutional violations if the USAF actually took control of your machine.
However:
1. They haven't.
2. They're not planning on it.
If you and and 90% of the other fear-mongering dipshits posting here would use common sense, and read, you'd realize (and you shouldn't have to read this as it should be obvious) that the USAF is trying to stay up on these technologies in case they need to use it against ENEMIES, not their own people.
So next time, think a bit before calling someone naive.
And save your *sigh* for when you can make a point. Comments like that and your attempted insult by calling me "naive" due to you own inability to read means nothing. Make a point or don't. But don't bother throwing insults out with nothing else.
3rd admendment? HAHA. Do you call the police every time the Amry conducts a training excercise because they're trying to kill you and violating your right to live? That's just funny.
OMG the USAF is spending money to take over machines. They're coming for me. Call me when we get to the book burnings, k bud?
There is no reason to believe the primary objective, or even secondary objective, of this project (or the botnet project) is to take of the machines of US citizens.
Just because of the USAF has planes and bombs and constantly practices using them, and spends money researching new ones, does not mean they are playing to use them on Americans. And this is no different. Zero nada none.
All this is is the USAF spending money because they consider cyber warfare a serious threat. And they would be stupid to consider otherwise. Couple with a majority of/. posters, like yourself, being complete and utter fuckwads about the whole thing.
Really? Like spending money on research for blowing stuff up is unethical for a military?
It amazes me that on a tech site like this so many people are blind to the fact that the cyber landscape is a battlefield militaries are preparing for.
And when you're dead because your military couldn't defend you, the other nation that just "owned" your nation will pry it out of your hands.
Like it or not, the US has been pretty benevolent for a lone super power. Yes, you can point to Iraq where the US toppled a longstanding dictator that really was "evil". Sure, but that's about as bad as it gets less you go back a few 100 years to the native Americans. There are lesser evils the US has done, like some issues with South American governments. And more. But overall the US has been pretty damn good for what power their wield.
It's not like the Dutch or English or French have clean records. And hell, screw the Russians and Chinese when it comes to the thought of them having lone super power status.
The US isn't perfect, but they are pretty damn good overall. And like it or not "cyber warfare" is a real battlefield. Your military would be doing you a disservice if they were not doing things like this.
20 years is not too short a time. Don't make excuses to justify a the world standing by while scum like Saddam stayed in power. There are plenty of scum past and present that are embarassments to the world.
Stop being truthful. Just hate Bush and the US and Guitmo like everyone else. Ignore that the people there (a vast majority anyways) were actively fighting against the US. There's no fun in that.
What the US should have done is released them right away so they could recapture them over and over
OK, sarcasm aside. I'm not a big fan of everything the US has done. But some very "liberal" people are blinded by Iraq. Iraq was the worlds embarassment. The world should never have let Saddam stay in power there. No apologies for going in. That doesn't mean I believe why where we're there. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have gone to other places and stopped maniac dictators. But Iraq should have been toppled long before the US went in. And it was all the free nations of the world that should have done it.
Yes, it's ASCOM compliant so it does allow mount control.
As far as "really" as good. My initial impression is yes. I like it better. Easier to use. Tons of information.
The interface is pretty smooth. I went after Eta Carinae first thing. Search went easy. I had several different images to flip through on the "zoomed in" detail view. Several options for research. Even the wiki link for that page. And, "drumroll" when I went to the wiki page for it, it respected FF as my default browser and used that for the browser.
So far my initial impressions are very high. But I won't know for sure if it'll replace Starry Night for me until I get a viewing session outside with it.
Take your "EVERY OS SHOULD BE FREE" tangent elsewhere.
You obviously don't do astronomy. I have single EP's that cost me $500. The worm gear in my mount costs more then XP. A simple piece of machined aluminum tubing that does nothing but serve as an adapter for me costs almsot as much as XP does. Hell, Starry Night that this will most likely replace for me costs more then XP does. Astronomy aint cheep. In software, sure there are some freebies. I've used Cartes du Ciel for a while but it is no where near as good as Starry Nights.
If this were MAC software would you be on some tangent about the cost of the OS and the hardware? I doubt it. You're just a confused fool on some tangent how they missed the target market when you're clearly not the target market.
I'm looking at this as potentially (will have to see) replacing a very expensive piece of software for me. Your complaints just aint valid.
I don't really know if it's actually overstated at this point. I would be surprised if a lot of astronomers didn't push their data to it. That's one of the nice features of the software. Look, the twin kecks aren't controlled by Starry Night. But this can totally replace starry night for me it looks like, and as a repository I would absoltely love to have access to real time data and images from *professionals*.
Slashdot Mirror
I find your post very interesting.
/. submission. It's is exactly like pasting 2 sentences of someone elses work with not a single word of your own mixed in.
For one, after viewing the articles that were targeted they had simply copy-pasted someone else's work with no commentary of their own.
Secondly, the blog owner did play ball and removed the content. And lastly, the original posters are anything but original. Since the whole issue here is that they didn't write anything of their own. It's not like a
See my post above yours? The one you replied to. Yeah, that's it.
It wasn't questioning the existence of a link. So I'm not sure why you're pointing it out to me.
Also, please stop calling that analysis. The dude who wrote that is involved in the issue. He is presenting his side of the story, he is not providing analysis.
That's isn't analysis, that is a person involved in the dispute making his case.
And furthermore, read what I actually wrote. I didn't say they did not link to the article. I pointed out that *UNLIKE* slashdot their "postings" had *NO* commentary. None. Zero. I don't mean the user comments. I mean scroll up on this page and find "Ian Lamont points us to The Industry Standard..."
Now replace everything in that article submission with a paragraph from the linked article. Then just link the headline to the article.
Do you get it yet? That were not citing an article. They were taking a section of an article and using that as their "entire" content that people could respond to.
Lastly, you are a paranoid freak if you think I know you from Adam let alone have a vendetta against you.
If you actually RTFA and followed the links enough, you'd see there is a good difference between what /. does and what this drudge retort was doing.
/. submissions are often quotes from an article along with some commentary. The retort's posts has no commentary, and were 100% made up of pieces from the article. And presented in a manner that did not make that clear.
What I find the bestest is how much of a cocky ass you were about this when didn't even bother to have a clue what you were talking about.
From what I saw the retort posts had "zero" of their own content. Basically someone at the retort would post the headline from an article, a few sentences from the article. And that's it. Comment away!
/.
There was no "So Yahoo is running a story on..."
It was actually just a piece of Yahoo's story. So I can see the issue and they certainly did not look like a typical post and reply here on
and get your company's website /.'d
You have big balls my friend. Either that or your stupid. Or maybe you have photo's of someone at the office? Bah, I could keep guessing here, but seriously, I can't imagine this will make you popular at work.
Oh, you are right though. The website does suck.
Xbox live surely predates LotRO. And I'm sure we can find something even before that. In fact, lots of games (just not MMO's) has similar stuff. Madden's been doing it for years and years.
And more to the point I'd think Warhammer Online's upcoming version of this is the one they're really after. LotRO's version is just shorta shabby.
He's either trolling or crazy. Or one other I'll leave till later.
Given that most of the beta has shifted across race dynamics (dwarf vs greenskin, chaos vs empire, elven factions), with only certain races available at certain times, he has certainly seen members of the other race in the three months he's beta tested. If he didn't he played with his monitor off.
Second, his WoW numbers are totally fabricated. His experiences there of "average" numbers are made up. That's painstaking research to try and do, know way possible to get it 100% accurate, and based on his post and common sense no way he knows that or even enough to guess at it. Anyone that has played WoW PvP in any serious amount will know he's lying. You don't get S3 (Season 3) gear from battlegrounds, you get S1 gear. S3 gear requires you Arena where there is no balance issue at all (arena is not faction based in any way), or since patch 2.4 from Tier 6 content where you can token trade from PvE content.
He made up some gear imbalance from AV. If you don't know, the more you do battlegrounds the more points you get. You get some from losing, but more for winning. But there's a finite amount of gear to get from battlegrounds. It's all S1 gear, and it's not hard to get even if you lose over and over.
So please, when I replied earlier he was just a 2 I was expecting to see modded down. But he's now a 5 that is nothing but lies. Obvious fabrications of someone that is most likely upset that in his eye you NEED at least 3 races else HIS worries are going to kill everything about the game. When he sucked in BG's in WoW it wasn't him sucking it was the other guys had better gear. He's someone with every made up excuse in the book, the problem is the only place where they are real in his in mind.
It is true that some PvP servers are shifted one way or another. And yet others are balanced just fine. That's normal. Some severs are going to randomly have a bigger imbalance then the normal amount, and in some cases those will get amplified as people flock to the winner. In WoW, there's just as many Alliance servers as there are Horde servers like that. And then plenty of balanced servers. That says more about the people playing then the balance of the game. And there's no reason to think WAR will be any different.
A lot of the cool RvR is isntanced in WAR. Also, I don't buy for a second chaos will outnumber empire and co. The same "evil" wins ruled pre WoW thoughts too and Alliance outnumbered them by quite a bit. The side with "normal" looking races will get a majority of the pre-existing guilds coming over, a trend that just doesn't show itself in betas.
Yes, I recognize the distinction. However, the poster I responded to was not discussing that distinction. In fact, it was clear he was removing that distinction and commenting on just blogging in the workplace in general.
Having 1st hand experience in different levels of government and private, I pointed out that every place is different. The most lax personal use I've ever had was at a private gig I worked at for 5 years. I've had government locations locked down so that even wiki was blocked and no personal use allowed. I've had government entities allow personal usage with rules governing the time spent.
In the case of government all political use is dissalowed as you pointed out. However, as I mentioned that is not what the OP I replied to was going for. He was clearly insinuating that in government internet policies were a lower standard then private. As if most private entities don't allow any personal use.
They aren't. Many companies also allow personal use of the internet (with varying rules regulating that use). Many companies don't. Many government entities do. Many don't.
Is it OK to spend 5 minutes in the hallway talking to co-workers about the big game last night? Some places/bosses wouldn't care. Others would. Some places give you breaks and lunches. Many professionals don't a whistle that blows telling them it's break time. They manage their own time.
There is no "one size fits all here". And certainly no "lower standard" you could guess at based on the article.
HAHA. Wonder what dipshit came along and modded it troll when I'm 100% correct.
No, I'm not ignorant of history. However, what I don't do is cherry pick my facts. Nor do I play semantical games like "less" and "lesser". Nor do I pretend to lay the entire blame of government corruption and change around the world at the hands of the US. Certainly not in the Americans. That would be like blaming the US solely for Haiti which is absurd. I don't like the US's stance there, but I will not blame them for every man woman and child lost there. Furthermore, I certainly wouldn't compare the US involvement in South America to Manifest Destiny. Hence, lesser evil. Though because I am not ignorant of history is why I included issues in South America.
So in conclusion, that you play idealistic games that overstate your case because the facts aren't there to support you isn't going to impress me. You're empty rebuttal's won't either.
They wouldn't want a legislative fix. How are you all confusing this with some "rights" issue or big-brother. This is cyber warfare. Something the USAF has taken seriously for over a decade. If the government's backdoor was ordered into the commercial OS then Chinese computers running that OS would either:
1. Not run windows anymore
or
2. Be unplugged for the net when it mattered.
This is the USAF wanting to be able to wage warfare in cyberspace. They want the "enemy" computers up and running thinking they're fine before they haxor their boxer.
Your problem is you aren't able to tell apples from oranges.
The Patriot Act is horrid. The laws of this country are very important and should always err on the side of freedom for the people.
But I did not realize this was about the Patriot Act. Heck, I didn't even realize it was about government.
We're talking about a branch of the military that is trusted with weapons able to completely destroy large cities and kill millions of people. Yet let them also spend money to have the ability to take over people's computers and apparently now you're rights are being violated. Nope, sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If you don't trust the military from "getting" you, you need to move. They can do far worse things than hacking your gibson and the potential of your XP machine becoming part of a USAF botnet is way down on the list of things you should worry about from them.
But again, that has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. No more so then if the USAF unveiled a new bomb.
Naivety? LOL.
You *might* have some grounds to claims that there would be constitutional violations if the USAF actually took control of your machine.
However:
1. They haven't.
2. They're not planning on it.
If you and and 90% of the other fear-mongering dipshits posting here would use common sense, and read, you'd realize (and you shouldn't have to read this as it should be obvious) that the USAF is trying to stay up on these technologies in case they need to use it against ENEMIES, not their own people.
So next time, think a bit before calling someone naive.
And save your *sigh* for when you can make a point. Comments like that and your attempted insult by calling me "naive" due to you own inability to read means nothing. Make a point or don't. But don't bother throwing insults out with nothing else.
3rd admendment? HAHA. Do you call the police every time the Amry conducts a training excercise because they're trying to kill you and violating your right to live? That's just funny.
OMG the USAF is spending money to take over machines. They're coming for me. Call me when we get to the book burnings, k bud?
Dear /. moron.
/. posters, like yourself, being complete and utter fuckwads about the whole thing.
There is no reason to believe the primary objective, or even secondary objective, of this project (or the botnet project) is to take of the machines of US citizens.
Just because of the USAF has planes and bombs and constantly practices using them, and spends money researching new ones, does not mean they are playing to use them on Americans. And this is no different. Zero nada none.
All this is is the USAF spending money because they consider cyber warfare a serious threat. And they would be stupid to consider otherwise. Couple with a majority of
Really? Like spending money on research for blowing stuff up is unethical for a military?
It amazes me that on a tech site like this so many people are blind to the fact that the cyber landscape is a battlefield militaries are preparing for.
Wow? Really? No fin duh to be honest with you.
And when you're dead because your military couldn't defend you, the other nation that just "owned" your nation will pry it out of your hands.
Like it or not, the US has been pretty benevolent for a lone super power. Yes, you can point to Iraq where the US toppled a longstanding dictator that really was "evil". Sure, but that's about as bad as it gets less you go back a few 100 years to the native Americans. There are lesser evils the US has done, like some issues with South American governments. And more. But overall the US has been pretty damn good for what power their wield. It's not like the Dutch or English or French have clean records. And hell, screw the Russians and Chinese when it comes to the thought of them having lone super power status. The US isn't perfect, but they are pretty damn good overall. And like it or not "cyber warfare" is a real battlefield. Your military would be doing you a disservice if they were not doing things like this.
20 years is not too short a time. Don't make excuses to justify a the world standing by while scum like Saddam stayed in power. There are plenty of scum past and present that are embarassments to the world.
Stop being truthful. Just hate Bush and the US and Guitmo like everyone else. Ignore that the people there (a vast majority anyways) were actively fighting against the US. There's no fun in that.
What the US should have done is released them right away so they could recapture them over and over
OK, sarcasm aside. I'm not a big fan of everything the US has done. But some very "liberal" people are blinded by Iraq. Iraq was the worlds embarassment. The world should never have let Saddam stay in power there. No apologies for going in. That doesn't mean I believe why where we're there. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have gone to other places and stopped maniac dictators. But Iraq should have been toppled long before the US went in. And it was all the free nations of the world that should have done it.
Yeah, because when you don't have a point, dismiss people with opposing viewpoints via a conspiracy theory.
Yes, it's ASCOM compliant so it does allow mount control. As far as "really" as good. My initial impression is yes. I like it better. Easier to use. Tons of information. The interface is pretty smooth. I went after Eta Carinae first thing. Search went easy. I had several different images to flip through on the "zoomed in" detail view. Several options for research. Even the wiki link for that page. And, "drumroll" when I went to the wiki page for it, it respected FF as my default browser and used that for the browser. So far my initial impressions are very high. But I won't know for sure if it'll replace Starry Night for me until I get a viewing session outside with it.
Take your "EVERY OS SHOULD BE FREE" tangent elsewhere.
You obviously don't do astronomy. I have single EP's that cost me $500. The worm gear in my mount costs more then XP. A simple piece of machined aluminum tubing that does nothing but serve as an adapter for me costs almsot as much as XP does. Hell, Starry Night that this will most likely replace for me costs more then XP does. Astronomy aint cheep. In software, sure there are some freebies. I've used Cartes du Ciel for a while but it is no where near as good as Starry Nights.
If this were MAC software would you be on some tangent about the cost of the OS and the hardware? I doubt it. You're just a confused fool on some tangent how they missed the target market when you're clearly not the target market.
I'm looking at this as potentially (will have to see) replacing a very expensive piece of software for me. Your complaints just aint valid.
I don't really know if it's actually overstated at this point. I would be surprised if a lot of astronomers didn't push their data to it. That's one of the nice features of the software. Look, the twin kecks aren't controlled by Starry Night. But this can totally replace starry night for me it looks like, and as a repository I would absoltely love to have access to real time data and images from *professionals*.