Sometimes the moderation on/. is discouraging. My parent post was marked 20% Troll. I wasn't trolling. I have never knowingly trolled on Slashdot. My comments are either serious attempts to add something to the discussion, or stupid jokes on something that struck me as humorous.
My parent post was a serious attempt to explain how a person could support a politician who was caught in a lie and in bad policies. It's bi-partisan, but at the moment the subject is Bush because he is in power. So I took it from the point-of-view of single-issue Repbulicans. As some of you noted, you can do the same in reverse and find single-issue Democrats. Well done.
No, as one of you surmised, my issue is not abortion. I picked the examples I did because I had heard of them in various news reports over the years. Granted my always-on sense of humor tried to word some of them in funny ways, but that wasn't to troll but just make me laugh (and anyone else who has my sense of humor). Thus the "pappy" word, a word that takes me back to Mark Twain's Mississippi region in my mind. I meant no real disrespect.
I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat. In fact, I find the very concept of political parties to be counter-productive, but I've expressed that before on/. and been shot down mercilessly. In any case, all I wanted to do was to point out how some people think in terms of a single issue and no reasoning can reach that person since reasoning is hardly in play. Thank you to those of you who found my post helpful. To those of you who called me a Troll, please re-read the definition of that word and realize that just because you disagree with a post doesn't make it automatically a troll. Otherwise half the world is made up of trolls to you, and that's a lot of bridges...
"We just need to face it: about 45% of this country is going to support Bush no matter what."
First of all, since only about 50% of the population will vote, it's only about half of that 45% who will be voting for Bush. Basically, one-quarter of the country falls into this category, and one-quarter into the Kerry camp, and one-half in the Who Knows? category. OK, with that out of the way, let's play devil's advocate and speculate on why those people will vote for Bush despite what you say:
Liberal Attacks: "Yeah sure, figures it's in the New York Times, that bastion of liberal thought. Let me check Fox News to get the real story. Heh, just as I thought, they don't even mention it, must not be true. Just more liberal lies."
Patterns of Birth: "I was born Republican, my pappy was Republican, his pappy was too, and I'm gonna die Republican."
One-Issue Paramount: "I wish Bush would be more forthcoming about these things, but hey, he's going to (fight abortion / put conservatives on the Supreme Court / fight for school prayer / put tax money in my pocket / keep them liberals away from my wallet / keep America safe)."
Shared Beliefs: "We got ourselves a born-again Christian in the White House, and by God, we've got to keep him there!"
Shared Geography: "He's from Texas! Not like them panty-waists from Taxachusetts."
Rambo Syndrome: "He got tough with them terrorists, and he's gonna keep getting tough, and that's the way I like it!"
How do you reason with such persons? Basically, you don't. If they want to microfocus on one particular issue, ain't nothing you can say to negate it. Just remember, it's really only 25% of the country.
"PJ is 100% clear that she believes that "differences of opinion" and "trolling" are one in the same thing as far as she is concerned."
This is, of course, a completely false charge that anyone can verify for themselves over at Groklaw any time they want. Typically, it was an AC who made the false charge.
"but we do store plaintext KEK (Key Encryption Key) and Master Keys and what not for banking networks, ATMs, etc.. They are in a safe. It takes two people to open the safe. It takes two other people to enter the plaintext into the HSMs (There's much more involved - such as the audit trail, and so on...) I dare ya to social engineer that."
Heh, you don't ever want to make that last statement!:) But overall, I agree that the steps you outline reduce the danger considerably.
"I hit the icing on the cake Wednesday. My company rolled out a PGP solution for Outlook. Good, right? Wrong! The policy is to write down your passphrase on a paper, give it to IT, who will then store your passphrase for safekeeping in case you lose it."
(My jaw drops)
That is truly stunning in its short-sided cluelessness. Now a social engineer has to make only one line of attack and he or she has everyone's password at once. Brilliant.
Yes, that is the point, really. They focus on whatever gets votes, and terrorism is the big topic at the moment for obvious and horrible reasons. Cybersecurity should also be focused on properly, but because it's considered a lesser priority we have one cybersecurity czar after another resigning.
"Well airline security wasn't really an issue before Al-Queda's sightseeing tour of New York and DC, either. "
One quibble about that sentence: Airline security became an issue in the early 70s when hijacking came in vogue. All those security checks and rules are used to at the airport? Didn't exist back in the 60s and earlier. The hijackers would do something like smuggle a gun on board, and they would react by installing metal detectors. Then the hijackers would ratchet up the ante, and the security people would add a new check. Finally, security became fairly good at airports, such that hijacking went down in frequency. So the people who might have tried hijacking now tried, say, putting bombs on board, and the escalation of cat-and-mouse moved in a new direction.
It is a sad irony that people became trained to sit quietly during a hijacking since that was the best way to ensure your safety: wait it out until it was over and you'd be fine. The 9/11 hijackers used that psychology to their advantage. But that advantage is forever gone, for never again will passengers sit quietly by waiting for it to be over. That fact is how I know there will not be another 9/11 incident of the type we saw that horrible day. Instead, terrorists will try something entirely new. Something to think about as you wait in that endless line at the airport, realizing that they are busy chasing yesterday's terrorists, and probably haven't a clue what tomorrow's terrorists might dream up. Depressing thought, but probably realistic, given the history of airport security for the past forty years.
Please note, this is a rant that is not directed at one political party of the other, for both do it. But since the Bush team is in power, they will have to do as an example of what I mean.
All politics is about power, the obtaining of it and the maintaining and expanding it. The focus when running for office is to say and promise whatever it takes to get you into office. Once there, the focus becomes hanging on to power at all costs. The way to do that is to play on voter's fears, desires, insecurities, in such a way as to get them to think you will solve their problems better than the next guy. Thereby saving your job.
This is true no matter the topic, and no matter the importance of the topic. Right now, Topic A is security, and boy is that a vital topic. So vital, you'd think politicians would put their usual partisan techniques and actually get something done. But no, even here with lives at stake, it's politics as usual. Is computer security a hot-button issue for the average voter? Not enough to throw someone out of office over. So does this get priority? Nope.
Look at the vulnerability of chemical plants to attacks. There were proposals to beef up security, the chemical industry squawked at the costs, the plan got scaled back. Why? Isn't security important? Sure, just ask Union Carbide about Bhopal. More importantly, ask thousands of Indians about Union Carbide in Bhopal. It is important, but it's not attacting votes, so it gets shunted aside. That's all that matters, folks. It's about maintaining power. So no matter how many security czars they get, unless that becomes a hot-button issue for the voters, it'll never be a hot-button issue for the Bush White House (or any other president that comes along).
It is nowadays. The strengthening of copyright laws, and the defense of such laws against court cases designed to bring them back to rational levels, has become a major industry in itself.
Thank you for the good reminders. In discussing my manuscript with other writers, who have helped me with grammar and plot issues, I hope I'm not being immodest when I suggest I have passed the first seven rejection reasons, and at least two of the next three (is my plot unique? I took an existing archetype and twisted it my way while subverting several common elements in a way that should surprise most readers -- but hey, maybe someone else beat me to it and I don't know about it).
So I find myself in the last 1-5% category, and most of the rejections I got from the agents had variations of your last four reasons listed: Nice writing, but not for us. We have no time to take on anyone new. You should get published, alas we cannot be the ones, etc. I think it's the old syndrome of you need to be published already before anyone gives you the time to get published. That's OK, I'll keep trying. And I appreciate the tips.
I agree with his overall premise. The extremes of the Dot Com era were replaced by equal extremes later of the opposite view. For example, during the boom people said, "The Net will change everything!" When the bust hit, people said, "Oh, that wasn't true, it's just one more tool and nothing really changes." But that's not correct either.
"I think the Internet will have great effects, and that what we've seen so far is nothing compared to what's coming."
That's been my view all along, both during the boom and during the bust. We ain't seen nothing yet. When you create a means of communication such that almost anyone on the planet can interact with anyone else on the planet, great things will develop from it. We saw only the baby steps during the boom, and the bulk of what will develop is yet to come. But it is coming. People love to jump off fads and disavow them. That's especially tempting if you lost money in the process. But the idea of person-to-person direct communciation, and everyone-is-an-author concept, is no fad. People love to communicate, they love to express themselves, and the streamlining that the Net makes possible has, is, and will continue to make breakthroughs in the business world.
Just give it time and we'll see wonders yet unimagined.
Boy has/. been overrun by astroturfers or what? I'm called paranoid by saying you should tread cautiously when dealing with Microsoft? I admited I didn't know their motives, but I said to exercise caution given their history and their anti-OS statements in the past. And for that I got cursed at, modded down, called paranoid, and told to shut up. Remarkable. This used to be a place where if you refered to Microsoft's past people knew what you were talking about. But now they throw you a CPL bone and suddenly we're supposed to say, "Thank you, sir, may I please have another?"
Go ahead, think whatever way you wanted. I saw a bunch of posts wondering what license was being used. Since I read the article I knew the answer. So I posted the answer, gave some links that provided background, and then offered some words of caution. For that I was slammed. Boy, astroturfing campaigns work. They succeeded on/. to the extent that we are supposed say nice things when the gangster throws a fireworks party for the neighborhood. Enjoy the free hot dogs and soda, but try not to sign any contracts, k?
Yep, it's possible that the GPL will follow suite some day. And it's possible that this release will never be exploited by Microsoft some day. I don't have the answers. I was just providing information since I saw lots of "What license is being used?" questions, and I wanted to hint that caution is always warranted before accepting a gift from Microsoft.
You're right, it's only because it's Microsoft doing this that there is any cause for questioning. But it is Microsoft, they do have their history, and they do have their mindset. Ignore their history at our peril. That's all I was saying is to be cautious.
Since this is another Microsoft project being released as open source, let's examine which license they chose. My distrust of Microsoft is such that I would prefer they pick the GPL for releasing stuff, since then there is nothing they could do to later gum up the works (what, Microsoft do something sneaky? Never!).
In this case, they chose the IBM-developed Common Public License, or CPL. What is the CPL? Here is what the Wikipedia says. Note this section:
"The CPL is a copyleft license, broadly similar to the GNU General Public License in its terms. The main addition is a patent clause designed to prevent unscrupulous contributors from contributing code which infringes on their patents, and then attempting to charge royalties; in such a situation, the CPL requires the contributor to grant a royalty-free license to all recipients. This additional requirement renders the CPL incompatible with the GPL (in the opinion of Eben Moglen)..."
Hmm..incompatible with the GPL. Let's see what Groklaw has said about the CPL. All right, call me paranoid, but with Microsoft's history, I would tread cautiously. This may be altruistic of them, and maybe they are really nice guys, and trying to be good corporate citizens. Or maybe there is another motive that will become clear in the future. Time will tell.
I support everyone's right to do whatever they want. I'm not telling anyone how to enjoy a movie. I'm talking about how I enjoy a movie. If you want to examine my reasons and see if it applies to you, go for it. If you want to reject my reasons, that's cool.
That's the beauty of opinions. We all have them, and we can back them up with our reasons why. What works for you may not work for me, and there ain't nothing wrong with that. But since you also wait unti the end, and you also like watching credits, I would think you could at least comment on my reasons in support of my opinion, or tell us why you like to wait, rather than call me a name.
I got what the original poster was saying, and know it was RoTK specific, and that's cool. I was commenting on what the other guy said, however. I'm so used to seeing the entire theatre mass up as one to exit, that I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who enjoys sitting there and then exiting at my leisure without any crowds at all.
Ah, I was wondering who that other person sitting alone in that row over there was as the masses went fleeing for the exit. Now I know, and I'm glad to meetcha.
I completely agree with what you said. Oh, there are some movies I don't care for and so I get up right away. But usually I like to stay for the credits, and mostly for the reason you gave: to stay in the movie state for as long as I can. We enter a different conscious state when we watch movies. That state is broken when the movie ends, and is really broken when you turn around up the aisle and start jostling the crowds as you flee for your car. If you have just watched a great movie, what's the rush? Why not enjoy the end music that is designed to encapsulate the mood of the movie? If it's a modern day drama, you can see where it was filmed, you can catch the music credits to see who is singing those songs (hey, whaddya know, the cast of Chicago really did their own singing!), you can see in the credits who played that third guy from the left whose face seemed so familiar but you can't quite put a name to his face, and so on.
And with RoTK, if you left early you left without seeing those beautiful paintings of the main characters, and as the only time the end song was played. Those were worth staying for. So let people snipe at you by saying, 'Duh, I can think about those things as I drive away in my car' (in a totally different state of mind while you obey traffic laws), or 'Dude, you're stuck up cuz you think you're better than me' (when this is not a comparison of people with people). Staying for the end credits is worth doing.
"Just a quick query -- is your 1200 pages doublespaced courier 12pt, or what? 'Cause if it is, that's a monster of a book. And if it isn't, it's probably even bigger. How many volumes are you splitting it into?:)"
The page count is my estimate of the final product, not what it is in my word processor. I know how books tend to wind up at 55-60 characters per line and 35-40 lines per page, at least in the SF/fantasy paperback arena. Book one came in at a little over 400 pages, and the outlines of books two and three are similar. It could be one big book as it is one big story, but I've been careful to create a natural story arc for each standalone book so that each reads well it its own right.
But several of you have made the point that publishers prefer knowing that at least a first draft exists of the entire story, so on I go writing. This has been a very interesting thread to me, and I appreciate everyone's input very much.
I've actually emailed Cory, and he was the one who suggested I try the traditional route first, and only then start exploring alternatives. So your suggestion was a good one. Thanks.
I appreciate the offer, but I'm hesitant to do this at this stage with someone I don't know. In time, yes, that is the sort of thing I might do. But not just yet, as I hope you'll understand.
Thank you for the insider view. I appreciate your thoughts about self-publishing, an option I keep open for myself (if only I could solve the publicity issue, the one thing print publishers are really good at).
I just bought your book. I'm interested in your take on darker fantasy themes, and I wanted to support a fellow writer.
Slashdot Mirror
My parent post was a serious attempt to explain how a person could support a politician who was caught in a lie and in bad policies. It's bi-partisan, but at the moment the subject is Bush because he is in power. So I took it from the point-of-view of single-issue Repbulicans. As some of you noted, you can do the same in reverse and find single-issue Democrats. Well done.
No, as one of you surmised, my issue is not abortion. I picked the examples I did because I had heard of them in various news reports over the years. Granted my always-on sense of humor tried to word some of them in funny ways, but that wasn't to troll but just make me laugh (and anyone else who has my sense of humor). Thus the "pappy" word, a word that takes me back to Mark Twain's Mississippi region in my mind. I meant no real disrespect.
I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat. In fact, I find the very concept of political parties to be counter-productive, but I've expressed that before on /. and been shot down mercilessly. In any case, all I wanted to do was to point out how some people think in terms of a single issue and no reasoning can reach that person since reasoning is hardly in play. Thank you to those of you who found my post helpful. To those of you who called me a Troll, please re-read the definition of that word and realize that just because you disagree with a post doesn't make it automatically a troll. Otherwise half the world is made up of trolls to you, and that's a lot of bridges...
First of all, since only about 50% of the population will vote, it's only about half of that 45% who will be voting for Bush. Basically, one-quarter of the country falls into this category, and one-quarter into the Kerry camp, and one-half in the Who Knows? category. OK, with that out of the way, let's play devil's advocate and speculate on why those people will vote for Bush despite what you say:
Liberal Attacks: "Yeah sure, figures it's in the New York Times, that bastion of liberal thought. Let me check Fox News to get the real story. Heh, just as I thought, they don't even mention it, must not be true. Just more liberal lies."
Patterns of Birth: "I was born Republican, my pappy was Republican, his pappy was too, and I'm gonna die Republican."
One-Issue Paramount: "I wish Bush would be more forthcoming about these things, but hey, he's going to (fight abortion / put conservatives on the Supreme Court / fight for school prayer / put tax money in my pocket / keep them liberals away from my wallet / keep America safe)."
Shared Beliefs: "We got ourselves a born-again Christian in the White House, and by God, we've got to keep him there!"
Shared Geography: "He's from Texas! Not like them panty-waists from Taxachusetts."
Rambo Syndrome: "He got tough with them terrorists, and he's gonna keep getting tough, and that's the way I like it!"
How do you reason with such persons? Basically, you don't. If they want to microfocus on one particular issue, ain't nothing you can say to negate it. Just remember, it's really only 25% of the country.
This is, of course, a completely false charge that anyone can verify for themselves over at Groklaw any time they want. Typically, it was an AC who made the false charge.
Heh, you don't ever want to make that last statement! :) But overall, I agree that the steps you outline reduce the danger considerably.
(My jaw drops)
That is truly stunning in its short-sided cluelessness. Now a social engineer has to make only one line of attack and he or she has everyone's password at once. Brilliant.
"Well airline security wasn't really an issue before Al-Queda's sightseeing tour of New York and DC, either. "
One quibble about that sentence: Airline security became an issue in the early 70s when hijacking came in vogue. All those security checks and rules are used to at the airport? Didn't exist back in the 60s and earlier. The hijackers would do something like smuggle a gun on board, and they would react by installing metal detectors. Then the hijackers would ratchet up the ante, and the security people would add a new check. Finally, security became fairly good at airports, such that hijacking went down in frequency. So the people who might have tried hijacking now tried, say, putting bombs on board, and the escalation of cat-and-mouse moved in a new direction.
It is a sad irony that people became trained to sit quietly during a hijacking since that was the best way to ensure your safety: wait it out until it was over and you'd be fine. The 9/11 hijackers used that psychology to their advantage. But that advantage is forever gone, for never again will passengers sit quietly by waiting for it to be over. That fact is how I know there will not be another 9/11 incident of the type we saw that horrible day. Instead, terrorists will try something entirely new. Something to think about as you wait in that endless line at the airport, realizing that they are busy chasing yesterday's terrorists, and probably haven't a clue what tomorrow's terrorists might dream up. Depressing thought, but probably realistic, given the history of airport security for the past forty years.
Yes, I have. What do I win?
All politics is about power, the obtaining of it and the maintaining and expanding it. The focus when running for office is to say and promise whatever it takes to get you into office. Once there, the focus becomes hanging on to power at all costs. The way to do that is to play on voter's fears, desires, insecurities, in such a way as to get them to think you will solve their problems better than the next guy. Thereby saving your job.
This is true no matter the topic, and no matter the importance of the topic. Right now, Topic A is security, and boy is that a vital topic. So vital, you'd think politicians would put their usual partisan techniques and actually get something done. But no, even here with lives at stake, it's politics as usual. Is computer security a hot-button issue for the average voter? Not enough to throw someone out of office over. So does this get priority? Nope.
Look at the vulnerability of chemical plants to attacks. There were proposals to beef up security, the chemical industry squawked at the costs, the plan got scaled back. Why? Isn't security important? Sure, just ask Union Carbide about Bhopal. More importantly, ask thousands of Indians about Union Carbide in Bhopal. It is important, but it's not attacting votes, so it gets shunted aside. That's all that matters, folks. It's about maintaining power. So no matter how many security czars they get, unless that becomes a hot-button issue for the voters, it'll never be a hot-button issue for the Bush White House (or any other president that comes along).
It is nowadays. The strengthening of copyright laws, and the defense of such laws against court cases designed to bring them back to rational levels, has become a major industry in itself.
My deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the loved one they lost.
So I find myself in the last 1-5% category, and most of the rejections I got from the agents had variations of your last four reasons listed: Nice writing, but not for us. We have no time to take on anyone new. You should get published, alas we cannot be the ones, etc. I think it's the old syndrome of you need to be published already before anyone gives you the time to get published. That's OK, I'll keep trying. And I appreciate the tips.
"I think the Internet will have great effects, and that what we've seen so far is nothing compared to what's coming."
That's been my view all along, both during the boom and during the bust. We ain't seen nothing yet. When you create a means of communication such that almost anyone on the planet can interact with anyone else on the planet, great things will develop from it. We saw only the baby steps during the boom, and the bulk of what will develop is yet to come. But it is coming. People love to jump off fads and disavow them. That's especially tempting if you lost money in the process. But the idea of person-to-person direct communciation, and everyone-is-an-author concept, is no fad. People love to communicate, they love to express themselves, and the streamlining that the Net makes possible has, is, and will continue to make breakthroughs in the business world.
Just give it time and we'll see wonders yet unimagined.
Go ahead, think whatever way you wanted. I saw a bunch of posts wondering what license was being used. Since I read the article I knew the answer. So I posted the answer, gave some links that provided background, and then offered some words of caution. For that I was slammed. Boy, astroturfing campaigns work. They succeeded on /. to the extent that we are supposed say nice things when the gangster throws a fireworks party for the neighborhood. Enjoy the free hot dogs and soda, but try not to sign any contracts, k?
Yep, it's possible that the GPL will follow suite some day. And it's possible that this release will never be exploited by Microsoft some day. I don't have the answers. I was just providing information since I saw lots of "What license is being used?" questions, and I wanted to hint that caution is always warranted before accepting a gift from Microsoft.
You're right, it's only because it's Microsoft doing this that there is any cause for questioning. But it is Microsoft, they do have their history, and they do have their mindset. Ignore their history at our peril. That's all I was saying is to be cautious.
In this case, they chose the IBM-developed Common Public License, or CPL. What is the CPL? Here is what the Wikipedia says. Note this section:
"The CPL is a copyleft license, broadly similar to the GNU General Public License in its terms. The main addition is a patent clause designed to prevent unscrupulous contributors from contributing code which infringes on their patents, and then attempting to charge royalties; in such a situation, the CPL requires the contributor to grant a royalty-free license to all recipients. This additional requirement renders the CPL incompatible with the GPL (in the opinion of Eben Moglen)..."
Hmm..incompatible with the GPL. Let's see what Groklaw has said about the CPL. All right, call me paranoid, but with Microsoft's history, I would tread cautiously. This may be altruistic of them, and maybe they are really nice guys, and trying to be good corporate citizens. Or maybe there is another motive that will become clear in the future. Time will tell.
Not in these parts...
That's the beauty of opinions. We all have them, and we can back them up with our reasons why. What works for you may not work for me, and there ain't nothing wrong with that. But since you also wait unti the end, and you also like watching credits, I would think you could at least comment on my reasons in support of my opinion, or tell us why you like to wait, rather than call me a name.
I got what the original poster was saying, and know it was RoTK specific, and that's cool. I was commenting on what the other guy said, however. I'm so used to seeing the entire theatre mass up as one to exit, that I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who enjoys sitting there and then exiting at my leisure without any crowds at all.
I completely agree with what you said. Oh, there are some movies I don't care for and so I get up right away. But usually I like to stay for the credits, and mostly for the reason you gave: to stay in the movie state for as long as I can. We enter a different conscious state when we watch movies. That state is broken when the movie ends, and is really broken when you turn around up the aisle and start jostling the crowds as you flee for your car. If you have just watched a great movie, what's the rush? Why not enjoy the end music that is designed to encapsulate the mood of the movie? If it's a modern day drama, you can see where it was filmed, you can catch the music credits to see who is singing those songs (hey, whaddya know, the cast of Chicago really did their own singing!), you can see in the credits who played that third guy from the left whose face seemed so familiar but you can't quite put a name to his face, and so on.
And with RoTK, if you left early you left without seeing those beautiful paintings of the main characters, and as the only time the end song was played. Those were worth staying for. So let people snipe at you by saying, 'Duh, I can think about those things as I drive away in my car' (in a totally different state of mind while you obey traffic laws), or 'Dude, you're stuck up cuz you think you're better than me' (when this is not a comparison of people with people). Staying for the end credits is worth doing.
The page count is my estimate of the final product, not what it is in my word processor. I know how books tend to wind up at 55-60 characters per line and 35-40 lines per page, at least in the SF/fantasy paperback arena. Book one came in at a little over 400 pages, and the outlines of books two and three are similar. It could be one big book as it is one big story, but I've been careful to create a natural story arc for each standalone book so that each reads well it its own right.
But several of you have made the point that publishers prefer knowing that at least a first draft exists of the entire story, so on I go writing. This has been a very interesting thread to me, and I appreciate everyone's input very much.
I've actually emailed Cory, and he was the one who suggested I try the traditional route first, and only then start exploring alternatives. So your suggestion was a good one. Thanks.
I appreciate the offer, but I'm hesitant to do this at this stage with someone I don't know. In time, yes, that is the sort of thing I might do. But not just yet, as I hope you'll understand.
I just bought your book. I'm interested in your take on darker fantasy themes, and I wanted to support a fellow writer.
Thanks for the encouragement and advice. I appreciate hearing these things.