Good thing you came along and posted that or I would have been really embarassed.
Same here. The possibilities were endless, anagrams being what they are and all. I was thinking something along the lines of "Red Dwarf", but it didn't have the right number of letters, or letters. Other than that it was showing promise though.
Point? None...kind of like, well, nevermind. If I call Dr. Who pointless I'll get modded into oblivion, so I won't.
Y2K wasn't a disaster, _because_ people like me busted our asses to make sure things wouldn't break. (In my case, medical diagnostic systems). The fact that it ended up to be a non-event was specifically because of the efforts, not because it didn't have the potential to be a huge problem.
That said, this is strictly a case of the EU posturing, and is a political rather than a technical problem. Other than being completely and utterly different in cause and potential threat than Y2K, your comments are right on.
The smartass in me wants to say "Well, Gore invented it, Bush destroyed it; seems fair" but I'm not going to.
How about making it user customisable with defaults based on their geographical location?
Far as that goes, why couldn't they change the label based on the IP space of the place calling up the page? Known Taiwanese subnet? There ya go, it's called one thing. Known Chinese subnet? Here you go, it's called what you want to call it. Give 'em an option to change from that default behavoir. Think of it as live, real-time, address-based translation of the name.
Hell - they're Google. Let 'em invent a standard header to deal with it, so apache can serve up the right version just like it does the languages preferences stuff. It's not like the browser authors (well, most of 'em) wouldn't support something like that.
You're still subscribing?
Why in the name of crikey would you want to do that? Continuing to shoot money their way is essentially reinforcing their poor behaviour.
Well, I haven't used up my pages yet. As to if I'll send more money? (shrug) Dunno. I'm not really seeing any benefit to being a subscriber other than being able to see the dups before they're posted,y'know?
Fer crying out loud, its not only a repost, its *still* up on the/. front page!!!
Once again, I saw this before it happened (subscribers see articles before they go "green") and reported it to the "If you see a serious problem with this article, report it to daddypants@slashdot.org". I sent the email, with a link and everything to Zonk's post of the same thing.
Just like last time, nothing happened. No acknowledgement of the email (automated _or_ human), and the dupe went out.
Hey editors, does anyone read the daddypants emails? Am I wasting my time?
I mean, if you're not going to do anything about it anyway, remove the mailto: link.
I've been really told, by an AC. Wow. No context, no specifics, I'm just an idiot. Coming from someone who doesn't even have the balls to say who he is, I'm content with that. Grow up.
How can we expect them to secure their Macs, when they barely know how to shutdown or turn on the computer.
You don't need to train them, that's the point. The firewall is on and tight by default. Automatic updates are on by default. The ports that don't need to be on, are off, by default. You have to _know something_ to make the system unsafe, in sharp contrast to Windows.
I'm curious. How much do you actually know about OSX? It's interesting how often Windows people who bash Macs, don't actually have hands on experience with them, when it's almost inevitable that Mac users who badmouth windows are doing so due to years of direct experience with it.
So, did I guess right? You're making assumptions that people have to be trained to secure OSX, when in fact it's secure out of the box, so I'm guessing I'm at least somewhat right.
He was pointing out how ineffective this "worst nightmare" has been for Microsoft.
How so? He's showing the stock price of a company that ESR has nothing to do with, with Microsoft's stock price, and this is somehow supposed to show a correlation of some sort?
How terrible it has been for them, to have this guy as their worst nightmare.
What a pompous ass.
Excuse please, but what possible point could you be making by comparing stock price of Microsoft with the stock price of a dot-bomb company whose stock symbol happens to look like "linux"? Yes, they're _a_ vendor of Linux solutions. Are you of the mistaken impression that the entire Linux industry somehow tracks into that stock price, or were you perhaps trying to imply that it's relevant somehow?
For the record, subscribers _do_ see stories before they're posted to the world. And, there's a link to click "If you see a serious problem with this article, click here" which is a mailto: to someone "at" slashdot.
That said, I've used it twice, and both stories went green "as-is" with the glaring problems, so I don't know if that goes to the bit-bucket, or if anyone is listening. Maybe nobody said "Hey, this is a dupe" at that point, or maybe, just maybe, nobody is reading those messages. Any internal slashdotty-type person care to comment?
Sure, it's about legitimate technical questions, but the fact remains that throwing in abortion, partisan politics, and the death penalty, is a clear case of someone intentionally trying to turn a technical discussion into a long, off-topic discussion. If that's not flamebait, I don't know what you think _is_ flamebait.
Right. Further, there is a "politics" section at slashdot, and this one isn't in it. It's nice to have a bastion of nerdliness to retreat to when the real news gets too heavy; slashdot is a nice escape from all the real-world crap. Then, you get a rant disguised as a question, and it's annoying enough that I thought it was worth pointing out. Glad to know someone agrees, but I bet I'm gonna burn some serious karma today.
1. We already blame the criminal. Its called criminal justice and the penal system. We've had that solution in place since, oh, the dawn of time. Violence keeps happening, though, doesn't it?
The criminal justice and penal systems, at least in the US, are a joke. Left-leaning judges and lawmakers value "giving the criminal another chance" over the rights of people who haven't ever committed a crime in the first place. Why spend money on someone who has already decided to be a criminal, when that money _should_ be spent on _good_ people?
(skipped (2) which was a pointless rant)
3. Yes, guns kill people. People who fire those guns at people go to prison, but the guns remain. This is something legislation can actually DO SOMETHING about, specifically, don't let violent criminals buy guns. Any pragmatist (that is, someone who does not fanatically follow some ideology), right wing or left wing, can see and appreciate the value of gun control.
Give me a break. Criminals, by _definition_, ignore laws. They buy guns illegally today. They shoot people with them, illegally, today. The only thing gun control accomplishes is to disarm the law-abiding people, which - guess what? Makes the criminals safer, and the law-abiding people easier targets for the criminals. I don't see this as a good thing. If you disagree with the above, could you enumerate clearly why, rather than the usual name-calling responses I see to this?
Blaming peers and law enforcement for "failing" the Columbine killers is asinine. Parents, hell yes. But the peers and cops? Give me a break.
Well, going by you I'd say obviously not. Moving towards a more authoritarian position as Hillary is doing is moving to the right (GOP's position), yet in your original post you say she's moving to the left. You are clearly wrong. It's not that big of a deal, so get over it.
She _is_ doing the leftist thing - putting blame for what she perceives as a problem on anything other than the person making that action.
About your reasons for posting as an AC, er, yeah, whatever. Perhaps you see this as a "smackdown contest", I see it as a discussion. Maybe that's why I am comfortable posting from an actual account; I'm here to discuss, not to play smakdown games or whatever your reasons are.
Well, there is no -1 wrong moderation so I'd say troll is probably the closest to the truth. Your conception of the political spectrum is laughably ill-informed.
A fascinating concept,coming from an A/C such as yourself. Why not have the balls to stand behind your words, I wonder?
No matter - you go on to tell me that left & right don't exist. Fine, whatever. I didn't come up with the terms, but everyone knows what they mean in this context, don't they?
I've taken the tests. I'm a slightly right-leaning libertarian. That's great, but until the libertarians get their shit together, they'll continue to get trivial amounts of votes. They keep going for the big races, which is foolish to start. Get local offices. Work those into state offices. Then get a representative or to, and maybe a Senator. _THEN_ go for President. There's no point at all in trying to go for the top slot when any independant, in today's 2-party climate, can get nothing done. Get a base out there, and _then_ talk to me about voting for your presidential candidate.
Until the Libertarians get their shit together, I'll keep voting for the less-abhorrant of the two front runners. To do otherwise is foolish. At this time.
(blaming things instead of people)
If you think that, you don't truly understand the position of Democrats.
I don't think so. Bill and Hillary didn't like ugly guns. Made up a name, figured "Assault weapons" was a scary-enough name for their purposes. Of course, this meant "A gun with two or more of a flash hider, bayonet lug, and pistol grip" rather than any functional distinction, but it sounded good.
Instead of prosecuting known felons who tried to buy guns and were turned down after a background check - a felony in itself - they decided to inconvenience people who wanted features on a gun that didn't have _any_ value to a criminal. (When was the last drive-by bayoneting you heard of?)
This is an example of Hillary specifically, and democrats in general, taking action on a type of object rather than on the people who are causing the problem. The criminals whose background checks failed (You remember the line, "(large number) of felons, theives and whateverelse prevented from buying guns" - yet in all of his 8 years, Clinton's government only prosecuted SEVEN people for it. They've self-identified, you have their current address, and you know they'll come back to the shop after the waiting period. Why weren't the criminals taken in? Because they wanted to ban an object, not to stop criminals.
This is the same as Hillary blaming everyone but the kid who installs the hack in the game. The game exists, yes. The hack exists, yes. But the person who applies the hack to the game, is the kid. That's the cause of a kid seeing (bad, animated) porn. I'm fully supportive of people who want to see bad, animated porn, all they want, but the choice (and/or blame) for it falls on the individual making the choice, not anyone else.
It's also not her moving towards the right - it's more of the same from her - blame anyone but the person responsible. Best if you can blame a _thing_, then you don't offend a voter.
The article is about Hillary, not about everyone who discussed the matter.
Also, you mention that 94% of republicans voted for the patriot act - which time, and what percentage of democrats voted for it, exactly? Why the ambiguity in your.sig? (I think I know)
But I do have an issue when you state that "anyone is free to donate to an organization which will do it for them." Often people contribute to lobbying efforts inadvertantly.
Well, that's the responsibility of the person joining or donating to an organization, isn't it? I'm all for conservation of natural resources. Greenpeace, however, is for that _and_ for stopping hunting. I see hunting as essential in conservation, so I choose to donate to someone else whose many points of view line up with my own. A bit of research, sure, but if you find a group with say a 90% plus fit, go for it. Ducks Unlimited & Pheasants Forever are strong in land stewardship, _and_ aren't anti-hunting, so I work with them.
AARP, yes, they send money to strange causes in my opinion. It's a case of balance and research. If something they do is morally abhorant to you, don't give 'em money, benefits or no.
For the record, I'm a democrat, but I totally agree with you- I hope that Hillary keeps going left. Real far left. Why? Because she'll screw herself into losing the primaries. Because, lord knows, we have no chance of winning the White House if she's our candidate. HOPEFULLY, we'll get INTELLIGENT candidates on both sides...i will donate time and money to the first candidate from ANY party that has a plan for ENDING LOBBYING and FIXING CAMPAIGN FINANCE!
It's unfortunate that you posted this as an AC. I'd really like to know why you think lobbying is bad. Hear me out. Lobbyists are hired by people who give a shit enough about something to pay to have their opinions heard. Anyone is free to donate to an organization which will do it for them. Those who care enough about something to do something about it, _deserve_ to be heard more loudly than someone who just wants to bitch about something and not do anything about it.
And campaign finance - yeah, fix it. But that doesn't mean "ban organizations from telling their members how politicians stand on issues related to the organization", which is what McCain/Feingold does (in part). I don't think campaign finance reform should include stepping on the first amendment rights. Also, as we saw last election, the groups like MoveOn and SWift Boat Vets (there, balanced, I think, right?) were both way out of hand, and exempt from controls. It has to be fixed, but what they did last time isn't even close to right.
The more she does stupid things like this, the easier it will be to defeat her when she runs for President. It's funny how the most leftist of politicians do exactly the sorts of things that they accuse the right of.
Hillary specifically, and Democrats in general, have a long history of blaiming _things_ for the actions of people. I think it's a case of them not wanting to offend someone who might vote for them someday. "Oh, we can't blame the criminal for doing that, we should blame society/the gun/the judicial system/anybody but the bad guy". Just like this case - let's blame the game manufacturer/reviewing organization, instead of the kid who goes out, downloads a program that adds this functionality to an existing product, and chooses to install it. The kid is making this happen, but she's blaming anyone but the kid.
Yes, I'm sure I'll be modded into oblivion for this, but this is politics.slashdot.org. Before you mod this down as "flamebait" or something, consider that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they're posting flamebait, or off topic, or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing you came along and posted that or I would have been really embarassed.
Same here. The possibilities were endless, anagrams being what they are and all. I was thinking something along the lines of "Red Dwarf", but it didn't have the right number of letters, or letters. Other than that it was showing promise though.
Point? None...kind of like, well, nevermind. If I call Dr. Who pointless I'll get modded into oblivion, so I won't.
In the same sentence he's call them idiots he gives the wrong web address.
For the record, www.pennyarcade.com is taken...I just checked. Ah well, could have been fun to turn it into a commentary site or something.
Y2K wasn't a disaster, _because_ people like me busted our asses to make sure things wouldn't break. (In my case, medical diagnostic systems). The fact that it ended up to be a non-event was specifically because of the efforts, not because it didn't have the potential to be a huge problem.
That said, this is strictly a case of the EU posturing, and is a political rather than a technical problem. Other than being completely and utterly different in cause and potential threat than Y2K, your comments are right on.
The smartass in me wants to say "Well, Gore invented it, Bush destroyed it; seems fair" but I'm not going to.
How about making it user customisable with defaults based on their geographical location?
Far as that goes, why couldn't they change the label based on the IP space of the place calling up the page? Known Taiwanese subnet? There ya go, it's called one thing. Known Chinese subnet? Here you go, it's called what you want to call it. Give 'em an option to change from that default behavoir. Think of it as live, real-time, address-based translation of the name.
Hell - they're Google. Let 'em invent a standard header to deal with it, so apache can serve up the right version just like it does the languages preferences stuff. It's not like the browser authors (well, most of 'em) wouldn't support something like that.
You're still subscribing? Why in the name of crikey would you want to do that? Continuing to shoot money their way is essentially reinforcing their poor behaviour.
Well, I haven't used up my pages yet. As to if I'll send more money? (shrug) Dunno. I'm not really seeing any benefit to being a subscriber other than being able to see the dups before they're posted,y'know?
I don't suppose that whatever rocket scientist who modded that post "redundant" would care to explain their thinking?
Fer crying out loud, its not only a repost, its *still* up on the /. front page!!!
Once again, I saw this before it happened (subscribers see articles before they go "green") and reported it to the "If you see a serious problem with this article, report it to daddypants@slashdot.org". I sent the email, with a link and everything to Zonk's post of the same thing.
Just like last time, nothing happened. No acknowledgement of the email (automated _or_ human), and the dupe went out.
Hey editors, does anyone read the daddypants emails? Am I wasting my time? I mean, if you're not going to do anything about it anyway, remove the mailto: link.
Annoyed,
djh101010
...doing just what I just did? I mean, just once?
I've been really told, by an AC. Wow. No context, no specifics, I'm just an idiot. Coming from someone who doesn't even have the balls to say who he is, I'm content with that. Grow up.
How can we expect them to secure their Macs, when they barely know how to shutdown or turn on the computer.
You don't need to train them, that's the point. The firewall is on and tight by default. Automatic updates are on by default. The ports that don't need to be on, are off, by default. You have to _know something_ to make the system unsafe, in sharp contrast to Windows.
I'm curious. How much do you actually know about OSX? It's interesting how often Windows people who bash Macs, don't actually have hands on experience with them, when it's almost inevitable that Mac users who badmouth windows are doing so due to years of direct experience with it.
So, did I guess right? You're making assumptions that people have to be trained to secure OSX, when in fact it's secure out of the box, so I'm guessing I'm at least somewhat right.
He was pointing out how ineffective this "worst nightmare" has been for Microsoft.
How so? He's showing the stock price of a company that ESR has nothing to do with, with Microsoft's stock price, and this is somehow supposed to show a correlation of some sort?
How terrible it has been for them, to have this guy as their worst nightmare. What a pompous ass.
Excuse please, but what possible point could you be making by comparing stock price of Microsoft with the stock price of a dot-bomb company whose stock symbol happens to look like "linux"? Yes, they're _a_ vendor of Linux solutions. Are you of the mistaken impression that the entire Linux industry somehow tracks into that stock price, or were you perhaps trying to imply that it's relevant somehow?
For the record, subscribers _do_ see stories before they're posted to the world. And, there's a link to click "If you see a serious problem with this article, click here" which is a mailto: to someone "at" slashdot.
That said, I've used it twice, and both stories went green "as-is" with the glaring problems, so I don't know if that goes to the bit-bucket, or if anyone is listening. Maybe nobody said "Hey, this is a dupe" at that point, or maybe, just maybe, nobody is reading those messages. Any internal slashdotty-type person care to comment?
Sure, it's about legitimate technical questions, but the fact remains that throwing in abortion, partisan politics, and the death penalty, is a clear case of someone intentionally trying to turn a technical discussion into a long, off-topic discussion. If that's not flamebait, I don't know what you think _is_ flamebait.
Right. Further, there is a "politics" section at slashdot, and this one isn't in it. It's nice to have a bastion of nerdliness to retreat to when the real news gets too heavy; slashdot is a nice escape from all the real-world crap. Then, you get a rant disguised as a question, and it's annoying enough that I thought it was worth pointing out. Glad to know someone agrees, but I bet I'm gonna burn some serious karma today.
I thought this was "news for nerds", not "political drivel in article descriptions".
1. We already blame the criminal. Its called criminal justice and the penal system. We've had that solution in place since, oh, the dawn of time. Violence keeps happening, though, doesn't it?
The criminal justice and penal systems, at least in the US, are a joke. Left-leaning judges and lawmakers value "giving the criminal another chance" over the rights of people who haven't ever committed a crime in the first place. Why spend money on someone who has already decided to be a criminal, when that money _should_ be spent on _good_ people?
(skipped (2) which was a pointless rant)
3. Yes, guns kill people. People who fire those guns at people go to prison, but the guns remain. This is something legislation can actually DO SOMETHING about, specifically, don't let violent criminals buy guns. Any pragmatist (that is, someone who does not fanatically follow some ideology), right wing or left wing, can see and appreciate the value of gun control.
Give me a break. Criminals, by _definition_, ignore laws. They buy guns illegally today. They shoot people with them, illegally, today. The only thing gun control accomplishes is to disarm the law-abiding people, which - guess what? Makes the criminals safer, and the law-abiding people easier targets for the criminals. I don't see this as a good thing. If you disagree with the above, could you enumerate clearly why, rather than the usual name-calling responses I see to this?
Blaming peers and law enforcement for "failing" the Columbine killers is asinine. Parents, hell yes. But the peers and cops? Give me a break.
Well, going by you I'd say obviously not. Moving towards a more authoritarian position as Hillary is doing is moving to the right (GOP's position), yet in your original post you say she's moving to the left. You are clearly wrong. It's not that big of a deal, so get over it.
She _is_ doing the leftist thing - putting blame for what she perceives as a problem on anything other than the person making that action.
About your reasons for posting as an AC, er, yeah, whatever. Perhaps you see this as a "smackdown contest", I see it as a discussion. Maybe that's why I am comfortable posting from an actual account; I'm here to discuss, not to play smakdown games or whatever your reasons are.
Well, there is no -1 wrong moderation so I'd say troll is probably the closest to the truth. Your conception of the political spectrum is laughably ill-informed.
A fascinating concept,coming from an A/C such as yourself. Why not have the balls to stand behind your words, I wonder?
No matter - you go on to tell me that left & right don't exist. Fine, whatever. I didn't come up with the terms, but everyone knows what they mean in this context, don't they?
I've taken the tests. I'm a slightly right-leaning libertarian. That's great, but until the libertarians get their shit together, they'll continue to get trivial amounts of votes. They keep going for the big races, which is foolish to start. Get local offices. Work those into state offices. Then get a representative or to, and maybe a Senator. _THEN_ go for President. There's no point at all in trying to go for the top slot when any independant, in today's 2-party climate, can get nothing done. Get a base out there, and _then_ talk to me about voting for your presidential candidate.
Until the Libertarians get their shit together, I'll keep voting for the less-abhorrant of the two front runners. To do otherwise is foolish. At this time.
(blaming things instead of people)
If you think that, you don't truly understand the position of Democrats.
I don't think so. Bill and Hillary didn't like ugly guns. Made up a name, figured "Assault weapons" was a scary-enough name for their purposes. Of course, this meant "A gun with two or more of a flash hider, bayonet lug, and pistol grip" rather than any functional distinction, but it sounded good.
Instead of prosecuting known felons who tried to buy guns and were turned down after a background check - a felony in itself - they decided to inconvenience people who wanted features on a gun that didn't have _any_ value to a criminal. (When was the last drive-by bayoneting you heard of?)
This is an example of Hillary specifically, and democrats in general, taking action on a type of object rather than on the people who are causing the problem. The criminals whose background checks failed (You remember the line, "(large number) of felons, theives and whateverelse prevented from buying guns" - yet in all of his 8 years, Clinton's government only prosecuted SEVEN people for it. They've self-identified, you have their current address, and you know they'll come back to the shop after the waiting period. Why weren't the criminals taken in? Because they wanted to ban an object, not to stop criminals.
This is the same as Hillary blaming everyone but the kid who installs the hack in the game. The game exists, yes. The hack exists, yes. But the person who applies the hack to the game, is the kid. That's the cause of a kid seeing (bad, animated) porn. I'm fully supportive of people who want to see bad, animated porn, all they want, but the choice (and/or blame) for it falls on the individual making the choice, not anyone else.
It's also not her moving towards the right - it's more of the same from her - blame anyone but the person responsible. Best if you can blame a _thing_, then you don't offend a voter.
I wasn't aware there were any leftist politicians.
The easiest explaination for your perception, is that you're too far left to be able to notice.
The article is about Hillary, not about everyone who discussed the matter. Also, you mention that 94% of republicans voted for the patriot act - which time, and what percentage of democrats voted for it, exactly? Why the ambiguity in your .sig? (I think I know)
But I do have an issue when you state that "anyone is free to donate to an organization which will do it for them." Often people contribute to lobbying efforts inadvertantly.
Well, that's the responsibility of the person joining or donating to an organization, isn't it? I'm all for conservation of natural resources. Greenpeace, however, is for that _and_ for stopping hunting. I see hunting as essential in conservation, so I choose to donate to someone else whose many points of view line up with my own. A bit of research, sure, but if you find a group with say a 90% plus fit, go for it. Ducks Unlimited & Pheasants Forever are strong in land stewardship, _and_ aren't anti-hunting, so I work with them.
AARP, yes, they send money to strange causes in my opinion. It's a case of balance and research. If something they do is morally abhorant to you, don't give 'em money, benefits or no.
For the record, I'm a democrat, but I totally agree with you- I hope that Hillary keeps going left. Real far left. Why? Because she'll screw herself into losing the primaries. Because, lord knows, we have no chance of winning the White House if she's our candidate. HOPEFULLY, we'll get INTELLIGENT candidates on both sides...i will donate time and money to the first candidate from ANY party that has a plan for ENDING LOBBYING and FIXING CAMPAIGN FINANCE!
It's unfortunate that you posted this as an AC. I'd really like to know why you think lobbying is bad. Hear me out. Lobbyists are hired by people who give a shit enough about something to pay to have their opinions heard. Anyone is free to donate to an organization which will do it for them. Those who care enough about something to do something about it, _deserve_ to be heard more loudly than someone who just wants to bitch about something and not do anything about it.
And campaign finance - yeah, fix it. But that doesn't mean "ban organizations from telling their members how politicians stand on issues related to the organization", which is what McCain/Feingold does (in part). I don't think campaign finance reform should include stepping on the first amendment rights. Also, as we saw last election, the groups like MoveOn and SWift Boat Vets (there, balanced, I think, right?) were both way out of hand, and exempt from controls. It has to be fixed, but what they did last time isn't even close to right.
The more she does stupid things like this, the easier it will be to defeat her when she runs for President. It's funny how the most leftist of politicians do exactly the sorts of things that they accuse the right of.
Hillary specifically, and Democrats in general, have a long history of blaiming _things_ for the actions of people. I think it's a case of them not wanting to offend someone who might vote for them someday. "Oh, we can't blame the criminal for doing that, we should blame society/the gun/the judicial system/anybody but the bad guy". Just like this case - let's blame the game manufacturer/reviewing organization, instead of the kid who goes out, downloads a program that adds this functionality to an existing product, and chooses to install it. The kid is making this happen, but she's blaming anyone but the kid.
Yes, I'm sure I'll be modded into oblivion for this, but this is politics.slashdot.org. Before you mod this down as "flamebait" or something, consider that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they're posting flamebait, or off topic, or whatever.