While I can believe this (I had my own weird mood swings on Ritalin for a bit in high school), I'm frankly inclined to say that every so often, in a large world, you just plain get some crazy kids every once in awhile. With teenagers, you get the hormones all out of whack that's messing them up anyway -- combine the two, and blammo. It's the price you pay for living among humans.
The lawsuit is misguided and stupid. Although it's worth mentioning I wouldn't buy violent games for teenagers.
Think about it. The stock options are the payoff for SCO's directors for going along with this thing. They test the PR waters by starting the whole IP action ahead of time.
Meanwhile, the "trading firm" picks up shares of SCO whenever a director wants to sell it.
Microsoft avoids an outright buyout which would, today, cause quite the PR backlash. But when they turn up as the owner of UNIX in a couple years, nobody's shocked...
Or, the "independent" (does it strike anyone else that's not an accurate term?) artists could go on EMusic, and get paid more than a fraction of a cent per track while their customers pay a very reasonable $10/month flat fee.
* GentooLamer has joined #gentoo <GentooLamer> recompiling ssh right now, got some good pr0n to watch in the meantime <fomit-instructions> yeah me too <gcc-O9> I'm out of pr0n I compiled KDE last week
I don't think Flash is inappropriate when the medium being conveyed is in Flash's domain (i.e. homestarrunner). However, if it's being used for "splash pages" (thankfully mostly extinct these days) or navigation, it's being misused. HTML links work perfectly well.
This is all very entertaining, and you've managed to demonstrate to the world quite well my propensity to permit myself to get dragged into silly side arguments and meaningless defense of personal attacks. It's a failing of mine, I readily admit. I am far from a skilled debater.
But at the end of the day, I still entirely refuse to accept (as I've pointed out in another reply to a more sensible reply to my post) that the a documentary alleging atrocities not garnering headlines is proof of media bias or censorship. You are utterly convinced, by your own admission, that it shows media bias. I am not. No amount of dancing around various points relating to debate or what-not is going to change that.
Certainly I can accept that. I can't accept that the mere existence of a documentary alleging atrocities not garnering headlines is evidence of media bias or censorship.
Right, and because I don't care to spend the time tracking this and a million other accusatory little pieces of media, especially given that I've not yet become privy to the secret of expanding my day to 240 hours, I must accept it as true? Not on your life.
Oh, right, but that's irresponsible of me, not to become a globetrotter tracking down proof. Or maybe I'm just a tool of the establishment. Well, nice to know I'm useful to someone, at least.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say a lot of these probably happened inside cut-rate shared-hosting environments, where Linux is uber-popular and security is often kept lax to keep customer questions at a minimum. Let's face it, it's easier to clean up a defaced homepage than try to explain chmod to folks...
I never said I was willing to accept that the story might be true. I'm just not willing to leap to the conclusion that the media's biased when there are many other potential explanations for the lack of its attention. I'm perfectly willing to cast doubt on any tale told by any man unless he can substantiate otherwise -- and in this case the burden of proof is on the accuser.
I'm merely pointing out that labelling something a "documentary" lends it no real credibility, and provided one very visible example. Trying to claim that because this little film didn't make it to the headlines, that people are clearly biased against it, has quite the dose of wishful thinking attached to it.
Did it strike you that part of the reason it was never brought to the forefront could possibly because someone did look at it and found it impossible to substantiate? We quite rightly rail on news media when they throw rumors around that later turn out to be debunked; now are we to claim that due diligence is equivalent to bias?
To instead bless it with a status of martyrdom strikes me as the actions of someone who rubs his hands with glee at the prospect of seeing the American military kicked in the 'nads very publicly, and frankly without concern for substantiation of the claims involved.
Does anyone see any arguments against digitally signed mail, besides the large over-head of layering security onto a system that started w/o any, by design?
The fact that the private keys are going to be stored on PCs owned by people who don't grok public/private key care one bit. Not to mention that a new worm should have no trouble lifting those keys off the box and spraying them around for a new forge attack.
I had a message written up along those lines, essentially informing postmaster@... that I'd be denying mail from their domain as they chose to use phenomenally stupid virus software. Manually sent, of course.
Then Sobig stopped, so I never got around to using it.
No, because the whole "12-year-old gets sued" sensation has no grounding whatsoever in law or even common sense, but rather is simply a PR war designed to play off the "please, someone, think of the children!" mindset.
Too bad THAT will never come out. I wouldn't be TERRIBLY shocked of my door flew off it's hinges right now and I was faced with a squad of FBI claiming me as a "domestic terrorist" and locking me up without trial.
So will they load you up in the black helicopters, when they come to get you, then?
I smell someone coming here to promote their book... Peter Phillips, is that you?
I always used to laugh at the comments that one could buy a Slashdot story, but now I'm beginning to wonder how much you paid Michael under the table to get this on the front page...
Just from a front-page glance, I'd be willing to wager AiM and the featured PC site are really not all that related. AiM appears, from its headlines, to be a serious media watchdog site, whereas PC appears, from the many posts of the "top 25", to be a collective exercise in tinfoil-hat appreciation.
Slashdot Mirror
While I can believe this (I had my own weird mood swings on Ritalin for a bit in high school), I'm frankly inclined to say that every so often, in a large world, you just plain get some crazy kids every once in awhile. With teenagers, you get the hormones all out of whack that's messing them up anyway -- combine the two, and blammo. It's the price you pay for living among humans.
The lawsuit is misguided and stupid. Although it's worth mentioning I wouldn't buy violent games for teenagers.
California's got its own track record, there. Actually pretty much everyone does, including the feds...
So I'm reading your post and it hits me...
Microsoft wants to absorb SCO.
Think about it. The stock options are the payoff for SCO's directors for going along with this thing. They test the PR waters by starting the whole IP action ahead of time.
Meanwhile, the "trading firm" picks up shares of SCO whenever a director wants to sell it.
Microsoft avoids an outright buyout which would, today, cause quite the PR backlash. But when they turn up as the owner of UNIX in a couple years, nobody's shocked...
But it helps if they're running Windows.
Or, the "independent" (does it strike anyone else that's not an accurate term?) artists could go on EMusic, and get paid more than a fraction of a cent per track while their customers pay a very reasonable $10/month flat fee.
Oh, wait, that already happens.
(Disclosure: I'm an EMusic addict.)
Subscribe to Project Censored now and get a free tinfoil hat!
I think you mean:
Gentoo
Flaming opportunities?
;-)
I don't think Flash is inappropriate when the medium being conveyed is in Flash's domain (i.e. homestarrunner). However, if it's being used for "splash pages" (thankfully mostly extinct these days) or navigation, it's being misused. HTML links work perfectly well.
This is all very entertaining, and you've managed to demonstrate to the world quite well my propensity to permit myself to get dragged into silly side arguments and meaningless defense of personal attacks. It's a failing of mine, I readily admit. I am far from a skilled debater.
But at the end of the day, I still entirely refuse to accept (as I've pointed out in another reply to a more sensible reply to my post) that the a documentary alleging atrocities not garnering headlines is proof of media bias or censorship. You are utterly convinced, by your own admission, that it shows media bias. I am not. No amount of dancing around various points relating to debate or what-not is going to change that.
Certainly I can accept that. I can't accept that the mere existence of a documentary alleging atrocities not garnering headlines is evidence of media bias or censorship.
Right, and because I don't care to spend the time tracking this and a million other accusatory little pieces of media, especially given that I've not yet become privy to the secret of expanding my day to 240 hours, I must accept it as true? Not on your life.
Oh, right, but that's irresponsible of me, not to become a globetrotter tracking down proof. Or maybe I'm just a tool of the establishment. Well, nice to know I'm useful to someone, at least.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say a lot of these probably happened inside cut-rate shared-hosting environments, where Linux is uber-popular and security is often kept lax to keep customer questions at a minimum. Let's face it, it's easier to clean up a defaced homepage than try to explain chmod to folks...
I never said I was willing to accept that the story might be true. I'm just not willing to leap to the conclusion that the media's biased when there are many other potential explanations for the lack of its attention. I'm perfectly willing to cast doubt on any tale told by any man unless he can substantiate otherwise -- and in this case the burden of proof is on the accuser.
I'm merely pointing out that labelling something a "documentary" lends it no real credibility, and provided one very visible example. Trying to claim that because this little film didn't make it to the headlines, that people are clearly biased against it, has quite the dose of wishful thinking attached to it.
Did it strike you that part of the reason it was never brought to the forefront could possibly because someone did look at it and found it impossible to substantiate? We quite rightly rail on news media when they throw rumors around that later turn out to be debunked; now are we to claim that due diligence is equivalent to bias?
To instead bless it with a status of martyrdom strikes me as the actions of someone who rubs his hands with glee at the prospect of seeing the American military kicked in the 'nads very publicly, and frankly without concern for substantiation of the claims involved.
The fact that the private keys are going to be stored on PCs owned by people who don't grok public/private key care one bit. Not to mention that a new worm should have no trouble lifting those keys off the box and spraying them around for a new forge attack.
I had a message written up along those lines, essentially informing postmaster@... that I'd be denying mail from their domain as they chose to use phenomenally stupid virus software. Manually sent, of course.
Then Sobig stopped, so I never got around to using it.
Or, it could also speak volumes of the credibility, substantiability, etc. of that story. After all, anyone can make a documentary with little to no regard for any of the above.
No, because the whole "12-year-old gets sued" sensation has no grounding whatsoever in law or even common sense, but rather is simply a PR war designed to play off the "please, someone, think of the children!" mindset.
While that is certainly true, it does not by any stretch follow that Sharman is indemnifying its users against the need to observe copyright law.
Book sales, I'd wager.
So will they load you up in the black helicopters, when they come to get you, then?
I smell someone coming here to promote their book... Peter Phillips, is that you?
I always used to laugh at the comments that one could buy a Slashdot story, but now I'm beginning to wonder how much you paid Michael under the table to get this on the front page...
Just from a front-page glance, I'd be willing to wager AiM and the featured PC site are really not all that related. AiM appears, from its headlines, to be a serious media watchdog site, whereas PC appears, from the many posts of the "top 25", to be a collective exercise in tinfoil-hat appreciation.
Right, because we all need to get our news from the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.