Take a look: Security in Linux - is the what people are talking about?. So, what was my primary conclusion? If we listen to this guy, Linux will never have a decent market share with the average computer (l)user. Oh, and also - this guy needs to actually look at the products he's insulting. Please, intelligent discussion on real, actual, useful information on why Linus is inherently more secure - I'd really appreciate the data.
How long does something have to exist and be used in the market before it is no longer a fad? Do you have any clue?
Re:A few software fashions that are doing too well
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 1
Spoken like a true programmer. No wait, spoken like a true "wish it were still the 50's - it is in my dark and dank basement!" fanatic. Some of use move on....
Re:Let's vote for the greatest forgotten...
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ah, and then there is the other fad - point to Microsoft and say - "That's crap. Never used it, never will, won't even look, but it's crap. It's a fad! Watch it disappear."
I suggest you get off the bandwagon and do a little of your own thinking...
p.s. Stop making me defend Microsoft, you insensative clods!
Hey! Thanks for the calculations - I appreciate you putting the time into this. Did you calculate the new cells as being only 50% as effective as the current ones? Just wondering if I should recheck. Again, thanks!
Would you like to show the numbers on this? I'm sure I could take a couple of minutes and prove your statements completely incorrect, but I'd rather you spend the time correcting yourself for once...
Well, I believe that the "Portland Five" were taken down due to this, along with Mr. Mike Hamish (or however you spell his name). I'm sure there are several other examples. 'Course, that fact that it has been used doesn't make it legitimate. And I'm making no statements here that these people are actually guilty - just that they are accused of terrorism, et al. Anyway, have fun with that one.
I sincerely doubt that most FBI agents would agree that using these new powers are morally wrong. And no, I'm not going to say whether or not I agree. But at least attempt to understand that some people have different moral values, and that basing an arguement on whether something is moral or not, in this country, is a surefire way to get yourself ignored. A counter-example that I'm sure law-enforcement officials will use is that it isn't immoral to stop someone from hurting another person, even though you are encroaching on their freedom. Lame example, of course, 'cause its hard for me to come up with a good example of something I have trouble sympathizing with, but at the very least, let's leave the "moral" part out of this arguement - especially since there are SO many other ways to win.
Unlike most of the "it's obvious" responses I read through the thread on this article (followed by a simplistic explanation of a single cause, etc.), these researchers (and the publishers) did a great job carefully explaining how they did the testing, what their conclusions were, and why the conclusion was the only one possible. They did not attempt to tie in a bunch of agendas to their research, they merely stated the clear and definite tie between our actions and the temperature difference.
Now, if only we here at/. can follow this example, and watch for this clarity in other "scientific studies" - if they aren't being this clear and precise, then they are pushing an agenda (and since that is such a simple conclusion, it's likely wrong (at least in some circumstances), but close enough...)
Once again, we have a case where the court system is overstepping its bounds - without any precedent or constitutional reference, a court decides that a law is invalid. When our checks & balances are messed up, how do we fix them? Why are we allowing our courts to destroy the rule of law? To see some more examples of this happening, check out this article by Orson Scott Card. It is one of many, and brings up some good, and scary, points.
Just a thought - I hear a lot of people complaining about these blacklist services, and how they are not responsive when some group or whatever "makes a mistake" or is spoofed, and gets blacklisted. And I've heard threats, etc. from these people. The question I want to raise is: did the spammers execute these attacks, or did these other people? If it is the "other people", then this is a good example of why this method of attack is stupid. Or, as they might see it, why it is so effective. I'll say this however - don't come to me with your simple (and therefore usually stupid) solutions to these issues unless you'd like to actually think about what is going on.
I'm all for killing spam, but laws like these all come down to one thing: enforcement. Anyone want to bet that prosecuting/defending these cases are about to be a real growth industry for lawyers, and are liable to kill of a few good companies?
Okay, damn. Thought the average reader kept up with technology news. THEY ARE, AND HAVE, BUILT "QUANTUM COMPUTERS". They don't work well, and are very simplistic at this point, but they do seem to work, and they need something, like this laser, to bring them to the next level (like, for example, being useful). Here's a link: IBM's computer (one of many)
Slashdot Mirror
I run Windows XP on some of my boxes, and none of them have Outlook Express on them. It was pretty simple to uninstall. So what are you talking about?
Take a look: Security in Linux - is the what people are talking about?. So, what was my primary conclusion? If we listen to this guy, Linux will never have a decent market share with the average computer (l)user. Oh, and also - this guy needs to actually look at the products he's insulting. Please, intelligent discussion on real, actual, useful information on why Linus is inherently more secure - I'd really appreciate the data.
Thanks!
How long does something have to exist and be used in the market before it is no longer a fad? Do you have any clue?
Spoken like a true programmer. No wait, spoken like a true "wish it were still the 50's - it is in my dark and dank basement!" fanatic. Some of use move on....
Ah, and then there is the other fad - point to Microsoft and say - "That's crap. Never used it, never will, won't even look, but it's crap. It's a fad! Watch it disappear."
I suggest you get off the bandwagon and do a little of your own thinking...
p.s. Stop making me defend Microsoft, you insensative clods!
So, how long (or has it already happened?) until we've got DVD compression software that automatically edits this crap out?
Someone lied in their registration? My GOSH, what is the world coming to!!!?!?!?!
What happened September 1918?
Hey! Thanks for the calculations - I appreciate you putting the time into this. Did you calculate the new cells as being only 50% as effective as the current ones? Just wondering if I should recheck. Again, thanks!
Thanks for taking the time to look this up!
I really hope you are not a programmer. If you are, please never apply for any job where I have anything to do with the final product. Thanks!
Would you like to show the numbers on this? I'm sure I could take a couple of minutes and prove your statements completely incorrect, but I'd rather you spend the time correcting yourself for once...
Well, I believe that the "Portland Five" were taken down due to this, along with Mr. Mike Hamish (or however you spell his name). I'm sure there are several other examples. 'Course, that fact that it has been used doesn't make it legitimate. And I'm making no statements here that these people are actually guilty - just that they are accused of terrorism, et al. Anyway, have fun with that one.
I sincerely doubt that most FBI agents would agree that using these new powers are morally wrong. And no, I'm not going to say whether or not I agree. But at least attempt to understand that some people have different moral values, and that basing an arguement on whether something is moral or not, in this country, is a surefire way to get yourself ignored. A counter-example that I'm sure law-enforcement officials will use is that it isn't immoral to stop someone from hurting another person, even though you are encroaching on their freedom. Lame example, of course, 'cause its hard for me to come up with a good example of something I have trouble sympathizing with, but at the very least, let's leave the "moral" part out of this arguement - especially since there are SO many other ways to win.
Unlike most of the "it's obvious" responses I read through the thread on this article (followed by a simplistic explanation of a single cause, etc.), these researchers (and the publishers) did a great job carefully explaining how they did the testing, what their conclusions were, and why the conclusion was the only one possible. They did not attempt to tie in a bunch of agendas to their research, they merely stated the clear and definite tie between our actions and the temperature difference.
/. can follow this example, and watch for this clarity in other "scientific studies" - if they aren't being this clear and precise, then they are pushing an agenda (and since that is such a simple conclusion, it's likely wrong (at least in some circumstances), but close enough...)
Now, if only we here at
Excellent. You are bad! Therefore you can never do anything that is right and good! So go stand in the corner, you evil monkey!
Point = try to see in color.
for the most part, at least. I don't have to worry about this stuff...
Bad, poorly thought out, poorly documented book.
Good point. Thought I'd checked that one already....
My mistake - thought you meant the JUDGE said that, but it was the DMA, which should eat siht and die, after all. Sorry for the confusion.
Missed where it said that in the article? Is it that you are reading a different article, or that you are smoking something I'm not?
Once again, we have a case where the court system is overstepping its bounds - without any precedent or constitutional reference, a court decides that a law is invalid. When our checks & balances are messed up, how do we fix them? Why are we allowing our courts to destroy the rule of law? To see some more examples of this happening, check out this article by Orson Scott Card. It is one of many, and brings up some good, and scary, points.
Just a thought - I hear a lot of people complaining about these blacklist services, and how they are not responsive when some group or whatever "makes a mistake" or is spoofed, and gets blacklisted. And I've heard threats, etc. from these people. The question I want to raise is: did the spammers execute these attacks, or did these other people? If it is the "other people", then this is a good example of why this method of attack is stupid. Or, as they might see it, why it is so effective. I'll say this however - don't come to me with your simple (and therefore usually stupid) solutions to these issues unless you'd like to actually think about what is going on.
I'm all for killing spam, but laws like these all come down to one thing: enforcement. Anyone want to bet that prosecuting/defending these cases are about to be a real growth industry for lawyers, and are liable to kill of a few good companies?
Okay, damn. Thought the average reader kept up with technology news. THEY ARE, AND HAVE, BUILT "QUANTUM COMPUTERS". They don't work well, and are very simplistic at this point, but they do seem to work, and they need something, like this laser, to bring them to the next level (like, for example, being useful). Here's a link: IBM's computer (one of many)