Re:This isnt a credible news source
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
Dude... it's Slashdot. They really ought to just change it from "News For Nerds" to "Discussion by Nerds" because, anymore, the stories are abhoredly biased or from nonsense like this. The writeups are absolutely awful sometimes, to the point where they don't even reflect the actual article that's linked, and the jabs from the editors obviously scream "hello - we're so highly professional that our editors feel no qualms about injecting personal philosophy into writeups they won't even spellcheck!"
It would be one thing to do this if they didn't act like they were a news site and just treated it more like a guided discussion forum.... so, which'll it be this time. Offtopic? Troll? Flamebait? Or, are you going to go for the "asshat delight" and just show us all what mentally retarded group home patients with mod points can do by running it down with overrateds?
We've got powerpoint and the ppt translated to PDF, plus a dead server desperately trying to host an HTML-ized version.
This was a brilliant fscking idea... who in their right fscking mind puts a powerpoint presentation online anyway? You should be shot for doing stupid things like that...
I guess the most amusing part is that anybody thinks we should be stupid enough to listen to someone talk about DNS in the first place when they're dumb enough to put their conference presentation online in a powerpoint file...
What amuses me about all of this is that ISPs and stupid technology writers keep waving that flag, but it's not like Google is trying to be underhanded about how the service works. They seem to make it pretty clear what's going to happen when you sign up.
Essentially, anyone who blocks Gmail invites would be saying "well, I understand that you agreed to what Google offered, but I feel as though I have more say in your decisions, so I'm rescinding your approval and issuing a denial on your behalf". How is THAT not an abuse of privacy? If they really felt that their customers' privacy was at risk, why wouldn't they just offer a warning? Blocking the e-mails is essentially saying that you have more say in your customer's decisions than they do online, PLUS it indicates that you were watching their mail in the first place!
Do you I smell a pile of boving excrement wafting on the breeze from the direction of a few dirty ISPs and freemail providers?
Arms for Hostages: wasn't this the deal that let American hostages be released?
Isn't this the country that doesn't negotiate with terrorists?
The Contras were no worse than the Sandinistas.
Good justification! There's nothing like settling for the lesser of two evils when you could shut the whole operation down from both ends or, at least not stick your damn nose into it in the first place. Of course, what you meant to say there was actually "the Contras weren't the communists" seeing as how that's they reason old pscyhofuck decided he should make them everyone pals.
it's people like you who supported Saddam Hussein, who was every one of those things.
Excuse me? Would you care to elaborate, then, one what kind of person I am? Because I must be confused as to my actual type seeing as how I'm not in favor of aiding ANY psychopaths.
#3: *cough*bullshit*cough*. In 1989, the period of highest HIV/AIDS spending, the government could have taken 1.3% of the military spending it had budgeted and transferred it to AIDS spending. That would have have resulted in an increase in that sector of 58%. In 1989, the government was spending about $4500 per month per person ONLY FOR NEWLY REPORTED CASES FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. Assuming about 59000 existing cases of full blown AIDS by playing with the recorded numbers (that seems awful low to me..), the budgeted amount for AIDS was well under half of what it would have needed to be to adequately handle the problem. In addition, the problem continued to sore out of hand until the mid 90s when it reversed trend. You can speculate on the reasons however you want.
When you buy a house, you go into massive debt--that's not a bad thing.
It's a VERY bad thing. Justify, if you will, the fact that I can't purchase anymore more than a run down shitsucker on the outskirt of the ghetto for about $70k. At one time, adjusted for inflation, that would have bought TWO houses. This bullshit idea that basing your entire eceonomy around nonexistant money (aka "credit") is ridculous and it's going to do us in when, someday, people wake up and realize that the dollar bill isn't worth jack shit anymore because you have to have about a billion of them to buy a burrito.
Takes too long for HIV to cause AIDS and it's only communicable through fluid transfer. If it was airborn you can guarantee the CDC would do just what you said.
So, in other words you're trying to counter my absolutely 100% factual statements about the things he did in the four points above by.....
... pretending they didn't happen? And you tell ME to go study history?
And then you call me cliche by... oh, get this original assault:
Pulling out the ad hominem bullshit.
I like how whenever someone on/. doesn't have an intelligent, valid retort they just pull that out. Here's an ad hominem for you: you're an idiot, and you're boring, and you didn't actually even say anyting in your post.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that paying respect for the dead, particularly of a man who had a great and positive effect on the entire world...
First of all, that's a load of crap for any number of reasons. Here's a quick bulleted list to get the fact that Reagan was a raving psychopath and a flat out asshole out of the way:
Iran Contra: Giving 2000+ free missiles AND miscellaneous weapons parts to a state you yourself declared terrorist doesn't make a good impression. It's certainly not positive.
Nicaraguan Contras: Supporting pyschotic insurgents that rape women and children, mutilate men, women, and children, and just generally turn the country into a bloodbath isn't the best way to have a "positive effect on the entire world".
Ignoring HIV/AIDS because it's a "gay problem" and you're a bible thumping moron doesn't improve jack shit. Epidemics aren't positive whether you hate "fags" or not.
Deficits are not positive by definition. Huge deficits are less positive.
Whether or not Reagan actually played any heavy role in the downfall of communism - an already failing system in many places - is extremely debateable.
That said, maybe Chirac wouldn't have snubbed us if Bush hadn't thumbed his nose at the entire world, turned his back, and marched off beating his own drum. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't take real kindly to being insulted like that - especially when they're on the soil of a nation that has, for the last 50 years, made cruel sport of the person's nationality for no particularly good reason. It's called international diplomacy, and our current president has failed miserably at it. Now, you people are surprised that the rest of the world bites its thumb at us? Cripes.. pull your heads out of your own asses before you suffocate... you only get respect if you earn it.
You're surprised that a man who once said that the only Nazi state in the world is Israel was outsmarted by a soap star? Pshaw... hell.. to be a soap star, you at least have to be smart enough to memorize your lines. Duke isn't even smart enough to remember the time he said that rape laws were only necessary because there was a disproportionate number of white women raped by black men to black women raped by white men.
You are wrong, but I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Go to the bank, get a loan, and sign the contract without reading any of it. Make it quite clear that you did not read anything beyond the instructions on how to fill in the various blanks and keep a witness nearby who can vouch for that fact. Then, try to default on the interest on the loan, and when you go to collections, take it to court and attempt to argue that you are under no obligation to pay back anymore money than what they loaned you because you didn't read the contract.
Go ahead. I want to see it. Put your money where your mouth is, since you have such an amazing grasp of contract law.
Although Northwest had a privacy policy for information included on the Web site, plaintiffs do not contend that they actually read the privacy policy prior to providing Northwest with their personal information
So, which procedure would it be, exactly, that says that contractual obligations are null and void on one party's behalf if the other party doesn't explicitly say they read the contract? If this were flipped and the contract said something, they signed it, and now they were pissed because they're being held to something they didn't bother to read, that would be different. But these people are saying 'look, the contract we signed says this, they did this something else', so obviously somebody at some point must have read it to know this. So, just because they didn't expclicitly state they read that (mind you, the plaintiffs didn't break any portion of the agreement), the OTHER PARTY isn't obligated to fulfill it's own duties?
Sorry. But I call "Legal Bullshit" unless you can tell me what "procedure" it is that states that if I don't read something but still follow my obligations that the other party can just break it's end of the bargain whenever it wants.
A lot of the agreements state that just by opening the box( the EULA is sealed within the box) you have agreed to the terms!
That's why they can't sensibly be enforced. You can't agree to contractual obligations without the opportunity to read them. That's bad faith dealing. It would be like walking into a bank, them handing you a big fat check, and then sending you the contract to read and sign AFTER you cash it. There's just no way that would ever stand up in any reasonable court.
They sue you, you walk into court with a sealed copy of the software and hand it to the judge and say "this is the agreement I was given when I purchased the product. If you want to view the contract they're holding me to, you'll have to read it before you break the seal. By the way, it's inside the seal."
If you did not read it, you can't have agreement, and hence no contract.
Oh no, nuh uh, no way. If you can prove you're understanding of the contract you signed was intentionally hindered in some way by the other party, you can break the contract and get out. If, on the other hand, you are given a contract, given the opportunity to read and understand it, and you willfully choose to waive those opportunities, that's your own problem. If that wasn't the case, I could just go out to the bank, sign a contract for a loan, default, and argue that I didn't read it, so I'm under no obligation to repay the money.
A contract is a record of agreement based on the faith of the two parties involved. You can only break it if you can prove one or the other is acting in bad faith. Being stupid is not bad faith, it's just being stupid, and it's not the other person's fault.
This is a really bad ruling. It's basically saying that you have no reason to expect that a second party is going to do what they say whether you read and understood what they said or not. This, in effect, says that privacy policies don't mean jack shit and nobody is obligated to follow them.
The point is that the difference is pointless semantics
You obviously do not know the difference. By acquitting Simpson of the murder charges, the jury was, in effect, saying "we do not believe that there is enough evidence to assuage our doubt that he actively participated in killing these two individuals, or performed some intentional action or actions, with intent to kill, that led to their death.
By convicting him of wrongful death and more importantly two counts of battery (neither of which the original post bothered to mention, mind you) - one against Goldman, the other his wife, the jury was effectively saying "though you may not have killed them, you are responsible, to some degree, for the loss that the grieving relatives have suffered in the form of companionship and/or support."
In addition, if the original poster hadn't just been talking out of his ass, he'd have mentioned that in CA you can not have your pension garnered in order to pay on judgements against you, so Simpson stayed sitting pretty though he lost most of what he had previously collected.
I love how people take a position on shit like this, even though they obviously have paid absolutely no attention to it, and have no clue what they're talking about. I'm going to add this to the "McDonald's Lady Was Just An Idiot" story that keeps making the rounds among people who obviously have no fucking clue what actually happened before, during, or after the lawsuit. Just another example of someone with a soapbox that's just as empty as their damn head.
.. illustrated so many different things that are wrong with our media-infatuated legal system.
For example, the fact that people like you apparently don't understand the difference between homicide and wrongful death, or the difference between criminal and civil proceedings and judgements, but feel obligated to talk about them anyway because you were allowed to be a third party participant via CourtTV. Maybe you should take a basic Civics class before you try to analyze a court system you are obviously 100% clueless about. Just a thought...
He made three million dollars. I should be 1/2 as lucky as him..... sheesh
Re:journalists
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What, you think bloggers are impartial conveyors of information? If anything, blogs are 1% news items and 99% political commentary.
You just described the three major twenty four hour "news" outlets: CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. The only way to get information from them a lot of the time anymore seems to be to put the TV on mute and watch the blurbs scrolling on the bottom of the screen.
The point that the original poster was trying to make was that the media are just a bunch of hyenas looking to further their own careers. If that means slanting stories to the popular opinion - so be it. If that means slanting the stories to incite the TV equivalent of a flamewar - so be it. You touched on Slashdot. Well,/. has ads to sell, so if slanting the stories and having the editors make snide comments keeps people coming back that's what they'll do.
If all of the sources - blogs, journalists, talking heads, etc. are all on the same crappy level, what difference does it make which one you pick? They may all be full of shit, but at least the bloggers are interesting.
So you're saying that all Linux users should roll their own kernels?
Yes. Despite the fact that I said nothing close to that, that's what I said.
Since the point obviously escaped through that hollow pumpkin sitting on top of your neck, I'll explicitly state what was pretty clearly implied:
If you don't know how to use Linux as it works now, don't use Linux.
Would you give your car keys to somebody who obviously didn't know how to drive and then blame the auto manufacturer for not making a car that drives itself? Of course not. Why would you blame the Linux patching procedure - which works, mind you - because you gave Linux to somebody who didn't know how to use it? That's stupid. Maybe having a more user-friendly way to patch the kernel would be nice, but there isn't one right now. You have two options:
Go build one or get someone to do it for you.
Quit bitching and wait until someone else does.
And no, people like me aren't strangling anything. Linux has more important deficiencies than whether or not lazy people like that guy's brother can patch the kernel. If he can't, he shouldn't be using Linux right now because he's either not interested in learning how to use it, or he's not the target audience at the moment.
The patching system works and it's your responsibility to learn how to use it. When the time comes, something more "friendly" will be implemented to replace the current system. That time is not now, so right now, you can either learn how to use Linux, or not use it. Real complicated concept, isn't it?
It's whiny people like you who think the whole goal of the system should be to get everybody on earth to use it that made me switch to BSD. Linux works for what it's intended for right now. Don't get bitchy just because you're not the target audience at the moment.
So, in other words, the problem isn't that you intentionally set up a Linux box for an individual who you knew wasn't equipped to maintain it... it's that the patch doesn't take into consideration the fact that there are people out there who are too lazy to learn some basic tasks to maintain their system?
I think I'm beginning to see what's going on here...
Besides, if he sits around long enough flicking his boogers about, up2date and emerge will be able to do it with some very incredibly complex typing that all fits on one line.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude... it's Slashdot. They really ought to just change it from "News For Nerds" to "Discussion by Nerds" because, anymore, the stories are abhoredly biased or from nonsense like this. The writeups are absolutely awful sometimes, to the point where they don't even reflect the actual article that's linked, and the jabs from the editors obviously scream "hello - we're so highly professional that our editors feel no qualms about injecting personal philosophy into writeups they won't even spellcheck!"
It would be one thing to do this if they didn't act like they were a news site and just treated it more like a guided discussion forum.... so, which'll it be this time. Offtopic? Troll? Flamebait? Or, are you going to go for the "asshat delight" and just show us all what mentally retarded group home patients with mod points can do by running it down with overrateds?
We've got powerpoint and the ppt translated to PDF, plus a dead server desperately trying to host an HTML-ized version.
This was a brilliant fscking idea... who in their right fscking mind puts a powerpoint presentation online anyway? You should be shot for doing stupid things like that...
I guess the most amusing part is that anybody thinks we should be stupid enough to listen to someone talk about DNS in the first place when they're dumb enough to put their conference presentation online in a powerpoint file...
What amuses me about all of this is that ISPs and stupid technology writers keep waving that flag, but it's not like Google is trying to be underhanded about how the service works. They seem to make it pretty clear what's going to happen when you sign up.
Essentially, anyone who blocks Gmail invites would be saying "well, I understand that you agreed to what Google offered, but I feel as though I have more say in your decisions, so I'm rescinding your approval and issuing a denial on your behalf". How is THAT not an abuse of privacy? If they really felt that their customers' privacy was at risk, why wouldn't they just offer a warning? Blocking the e-mails is essentially saying that you have more say in your customer's decisions than they do online, PLUS it indicates that you were watching their mail in the first place!
Do you I smell a pile of boving excrement wafting on the breeze from the direction of a few dirty ISPs and freemail providers?
Arms for Hostages: wasn't this the deal that let American hostages be released?
Isn't this the country that doesn't negotiate with terrorists?
The Contras were no worse than the Sandinistas.
Good justification! There's nothing like settling for the lesser of two evils when you could shut the whole operation down from both ends or, at least not stick your damn nose into it in the first place. Of course, what you meant to say there was actually "the Contras weren't the communists" seeing as how that's they reason old pscyhofuck decided he should make them everyone pals.
it's people like you who supported Saddam Hussein, who was every one of those things.
Excuse me? Would you care to elaborate, then, one what kind of person I am? Because I must be confused as to my actual type seeing as how I'm not in favor of aiding ANY psychopaths.
#3: *cough*bullshit*cough*. In 1989, the period of highest HIV/AIDS spending, the government could have taken 1.3% of the military spending it had budgeted and transferred it to AIDS spending. That would have have resulted in an increase in that sector of 58%. In 1989, the government was spending about $4500 per month per person ONLY FOR NEWLY REPORTED CASES FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. Assuming about 59000 existing cases of full blown AIDS by playing with the recorded numbers (that seems awful low to me..), the budgeted amount for AIDS was well under half of what it would have needed to be to adequately handle the problem. In addition, the problem continued to sore out of hand until the mid 90s when it reversed trend. You can speculate on the reasons however you want.
When you buy a house, you go into massive debt--that's not a bad thing.
BullshitBullshitBullshitBullshitBullshitBullshit BullshitBullshitBullshitBullshitBullshitBullshitBu llshitBullshitBullshitBullshitBullshit
It's a VERY bad thing. Justify, if you will, the fact that I can't purchase anymore more than a run down shitsucker on the outskirt of the ghetto for about $70k. At one time, adjusted for inflation, that would have bought TWO houses. This bullshit idea that basing your entire eceonomy around nonexistant money (aka "credit") is ridculous and it's going to do us in when, someday, people wake up and realize that the dollar bill isn't worth jack shit anymore because you have to have about a billion of them to buy a burrito.
Takes too long for HIV to cause AIDS and it's only communicable through fluid transfer. If it was airborn you can guarantee the CDC would do just what you said.
So, in other words you're trying to counter my absolutely 100% factual statements about the things he did in the four points above by.....
... pretending they didn't happen? And you tell ME to go study history?
And then you call me cliche by... oh, get this original assault:
Pulling out the ad hominem bullshit.
I like how whenever someone on /. doesn't have an intelligent, valid retort they just pull that out. Here's an ad hominem for you: you're an idiot, and you're boring, and you didn't actually even say anyting in your post.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that paying respect for the dead, particularly of a man who had a great and positive effect on the entire world...
First of all, that's a load of crap for any number of reasons. Here's a quick bulleted list to get the fact that Reagan was a raving psychopath and a flat out asshole out of the way:
Whether or not Reagan actually played any heavy role in the downfall of communism - an already failing system in many places - is extremely debateable.
That said, maybe Chirac wouldn't have snubbed us if Bush hadn't thumbed his nose at the entire world, turned his back, and marched off beating his own drum. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't take real kindly to being insulted like that - especially when they're on the soil of a nation that has, for the last 50 years, made cruel sport of the person's nationality for no particularly good reason. It's called international diplomacy, and our current president has failed miserably at it. Now, you people are surprised that the rest of the world bites its thumb at us? Cripes.. pull your heads out of your own asses before you suffocate... you only get respect if you earn it.
You're surprised that a man who once said that the only Nazi state in the world is Israel was outsmarted by a soap star? Pshaw... hell.. to be a soap star, you at least have to be smart enough to memorize your lines. Duke isn't even smart enough to remember the time he said that rape laws were only necessary because there was a disproportionate number of white women raped by black men to black women raped by white men.
You are wrong, but I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Go to the bank, get a loan, and sign the contract without reading any of it. Make it quite clear that you did not read anything beyond the instructions on how to fill in the various blanks and keep a witness nearby who can vouch for that fact. Then, try to default on the interest on the loan, and when you go to collections, take it to court and attempt to argue that you are under no obligation to pay back anymore money than what they loaned you because you didn't read the contract.
Go ahead. I want to see it. Put your money where your mouth is, since you have such an amazing grasp of contract law.
I'm reading TFA. It says this:
Although Northwest had a privacy policy for information included on the Web site, plaintiffs do not contend that they actually read the privacy policy prior to providing Northwest with their personal information
So, which procedure would it be, exactly, that says that contractual obligations are null and void on one party's behalf if the other party doesn't explicitly say they read the contract? If this were flipped and the contract said something, they signed it, and now they were pissed because they're being held to something they didn't bother to read, that would be different. But these people are saying 'look, the contract we signed says this, they did this something else', so obviously somebody at some point must have read it to know this. So, just because they didn't expclicitly state they read that (mind you, the plaintiffs didn't break any portion of the agreement), the OTHER PARTY isn't obligated to fulfill it's own duties?
Sorry. But I call "Legal Bullshit" unless you can tell me what "procedure" it is that states that if I don't read something but still follow my obligations that the other party can just break it's end of the bargain whenever it wants.
A lot of the agreements state that just by opening the box( the EULA is sealed within the box) you have agreed to the terms!
That's why they can't sensibly be enforced. You can't agree to contractual obligations without the opportunity to read them. That's bad faith dealing. It would be like walking into a bank, them handing you a big fat check, and then sending you the contract to read and sign AFTER you cash it. There's just no way that would ever stand up in any reasonable court.
They sue you, you walk into court with a sealed copy of the software and hand it to the judge and say "this is the agreement I was given when I purchased the product. If you want to view the contract they're holding me to, you'll have to read it before you break the seal. By the way, it's inside the seal."
Actually, if the beer people said that drinking lots of it could cause fetal alchohol syndrome, and they did, they held up to their word!
Heh.. yes, well.. it's good to know that some people in this world still maintain a sense of pride in their work.
If you did not read it, you can't have agreement, and hence no contract.
Oh no, nuh uh, no way. If you can prove you're understanding of the contract you signed was intentionally hindered in some way by the other party, you can break the contract and get out. If, on the other hand, you are given a contract, given the opportunity to read and understand it, and you willfully choose to waive those opportunities, that's your own problem. If that wasn't the case, I could just go out to the bank, sign a contract for a loan, default, and argue that I didn't read it, so I'm under no obligation to repay the money.
A contract is a record of agreement based on the faith of the two parties involved. You can only break it if you can prove one or the other is acting in bad faith. Being stupid is not bad faith, it's just being stupid, and it's not the other person's fault.
This is a really bad ruling. It's basically saying that you have no reason to expect that a second party is going to do what they say whether you read and understood what they said or not. This, in effect, says that privacy policies don't mean jack shit and nobody is obligated to follow them.
The point is that the difference is pointless semantics
You obviously do not know the difference. By acquitting Simpson of the murder charges, the jury was, in effect, saying "we do not believe that there is enough evidence to assuage our doubt that he actively participated in killing these two individuals, or performed some intentional action or actions, with intent to kill, that led to their death.
By convicting him of wrongful death and more importantly two counts of battery (neither of which the original post bothered to mention, mind you) - one against Goldman, the other his wife, the jury was effectively saying "though you may not have killed them, you are responsible, to some degree, for the loss that the grieving relatives have suffered in the form of companionship and/or support."
In addition, if the original poster hadn't just been talking out of his ass, he'd have mentioned that in CA you can not have your pension garnered in order to pay on judgements against you, so Simpson stayed sitting pretty though he lost most of what he had previously collected.
I love how people take a position on shit like this, even though they obviously have paid absolutely no attention to it, and have no clue what they're talking about. I'm going to add this to the "McDonald's Lady Was Just An Idiot" story that keeps making the rounds among people who obviously have no fucking clue what actually happened before, during, or after the lawsuit. Just another example of someone with a soapbox that's just as empty as their damn head.
Nah. That just means banks and telcoms are dying.
Hey wait....
For example, the fact that people like you apparently don't understand the difference between homicide and wrongful death, or the difference between criminal and civil proceedings and judgements, but feel obligated to talk about them anyway because you were allowed to be a third party participant via CourtTV. Maybe you should take a basic Civics class before you try to analyze a court system you are obviously 100% clueless about. Just a thought...
Hypothetically, not being one of the crooks who helped to instigate this whole nightmare in the first place would've been a good start.
I had to take the battery out to get it up.
One of us is one seriously sick bastard.
Oh man, I never even thought of that! Subliminal pun wars!
Oh great... I can see where this is going.
Discernible reasons:
He made three million dollars. I should be 1/2 as lucky as him..... sheesh
What, you think bloggers are impartial conveyors of information? If anything, blogs are 1% news items and 99% political commentary.
You just described the three major twenty four hour "news" outlets: CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. The only way to get information from them a lot of the time anymore seems to be to put the TV on mute and watch the blurbs scrolling on the bottom of the screen.
The point that the original poster was trying to make was that the media are just a bunch of hyenas looking to further their own careers. If that means slanting stories to the popular opinion - so be it. If that means slanting the stories to incite the TV equivalent of a flamewar - so be it. You touched on Slashdot. Well, /. has ads to sell, so if slanting the stories and having the editors make snide comments keeps people coming back that's what they'll do.
If all of the sources - blogs, journalists, talking heads, etc. are all on the same crappy level, what difference does it make which one you pick? They may all be full of shit, but at least the bloggers are interesting.
So you're saying that all Linux users should roll their own kernels?
Yes. Despite the fact that I said nothing close to that, that's what I said.
Since the point obviously escaped through that hollow pumpkin sitting on top of your neck, I'll explicitly state what was pretty clearly implied:
If you don't know how to use Linux as it works now, don't use Linux.
Would you give your car keys to somebody who obviously didn't know how to drive and then blame the auto manufacturer for not making a car that drives itself? Of course not. Why would you blame the Linux patching procedure - which works, mind you - because you gave Linux to somebody who didn't know how to use it? That's stupid. Maybe having a more user-friendly way to patch the kernel would be nice, but there isn't one right now. You have two options:
And no, people like me aren't strangling anything. Linux has more important deficiencies than whether or not lazy people like that guy's brother can patch the kernel. If he can't, he shouldn't be using Linux right now because he's either not interested in learning how to use it, or he's not the target audience at the moment.
The patching system works and it's your responsibility to learn how to use it. When the time comes, something more "friendly" will be implemented to replace the current system. That time is not now, so right now, you can either learn how to use Linux, or not use it. Real complicated concept, isn't it?
It's whiny people like you who think the whole goal of the system should be to get everybody on earth to use it that made me switch to BSD. Linux works for what it's intended for right now. Don't get bitchy just because you're not the target audience at the moment.
So, in other words, the problem isn't that you intentionally set up a Linux box for an individual who you knew wasn't equipped to maintain it... it's that the patch doesn't take into consideration the fact that there are people out there who are too lazy to learn some basic tasks to maintain their system?
I think I'm beginning to see what's going on here...
Besides, if he sits around long enough flicking his boogers about, up2date and emerge will be able to do it with some very incredibly complex typing that all fits on one line.