it looks like you're the type who judges people's experience with linux to be proportional to their slashdot ID#. Good plan, stick with that. In 97 I was evaluating Linux for the US govt to replace the Irix and AIX machines we had, so don't argue such a minor point with me, it's beside the point.
Nothing says you can't claim on your resume that you contributed to RedHat until now, and I highly doubt that changing it to "RedHat/Fedora" is really going to make a difference to a perspective employer.
you whine as if:
1- you had some sort of arrangement with RedHat as a developer for them (which you didn't, I can safely assume)
2- they owe you something or somehow screwed you out of something that was yours to claim (they don't, and never did)
3- you care about other people's resumes (you're so caring, I'm sure)
face it, you might not like RedHat, but it doesn't mean that you don't sound like you're throwing a little tantrum. which, from the looks of it, seems to be a pattern with you.
p.s. I see no mention of your name in credits for RedHat products, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places...please point me to where that is.
and RedHat had no name recognition back then in 1998, either, but you put it on your resume back then. How is Fedora any different ? And for what reason would you have to remove it ?
This sounds like more whining about nothing. You HAD no "rug" to be pulled with redhat, only one that you imagined.
Keep pretending that RedHat has, until now, all about the community, making things free, and not out to make money. While you're at it, make sure you pretend that throwing a desk on a kid's throat is self-defense, and that the easter bunny will bring you a hanakuh gift, too.
The fact is, RedHat did nothing more than raise prices and change their direction. You don't think Suse and others will do the same ? RedHat has made more inroads in terms of credibility than any other distro, and that means good news, whether you admit it or not.
Don't be so dramatic. Fedora *is* RH9, and for the people who had support contracts for their enterprise version, nothing has changed. Complain all you want, but don't be so hyperbolic about it.
gutless ? they're doing what no other Linux distro company is doing. if you think that they are "making nice" with Microsoft based on little press release blurbs, then you're not only mistaken, but naive.
war analogies aren't going to change the fact that RedHat has one main interest, and that is RedHat's future...which it should be. Microsoft might be less off their radar, but it's not because they have taken a 'soft path'....it's because they've started to look out for the people they should: themselves.
I think RedHat's recent moves are good for RedHat. Just because a company isn't anti-Microsoft doesn't mean that they are a bad company.
I'm going to say that punching and spitting back from the beginning is justifiable. Waiting instead to harm the bully in some more violent or dramatic way later is not justifiable, and will only serve to teach kids that 'geeks' or 'losers' are people who:
1-take a beating for a long time without doing anything about it, then 2-shoot/maim/destroy the people mentioned in #1
it's a familiar and stereotypical pattern that most of the US have seen on TV in events such as Columbine High School. I'm not comparing you fighting back against a bully to Columbine, I'm making the point that kids will do better to learn that punching people back when they are first picked on is infinitely better than doing nothing, bottling it up, and somehow 'plotting' a revenge later that usually contains some larger measure of violence.
(a desk coming down on one's larynx is a lot more violent and dramatic act than a daily punch and spitting on)
about the school, most people don't mention things to schools because they think that it *will* take weeks or months for something to actually happen. if they'd only try, they'd see that most schools in this country are very interested and motivated to end violence.
I was brought up to not wait for time to pass while getting punched, spit on, whatever. Punch and spit people back, and you won't come to the point where you're throwing desks on people.
The new generation of dweebs seems to be content with bottling up frustration about getting picked on, then in some dramatic fashion, get on with payback.
The solution is to teach kids (like I learned) that fighting back to begin with will save you a LOT of trouble in the future.
"It just seems my whole generation was brought up to think that "ball your fist up and teach the asshole a lesson" isn't an option."
you didn't grow up in Boston, I'll hazard a guess. just because it didn't dawn on you until _after_ bullying happened doesn't mean that the same happened to your *entire* generation.
(although I'm going to guess our ages aren't similar)
yeah. it definitely doesn't have anything to do with any sorts of silly physical security analysis, internal code audits, cryptography, reverse engineering, or investigation of design choices that include encryption algorithms, physical media, or network media and access controls.
nope. it's only about counting votes. rriiiiiigggghhht.
I'm gonna go out on a not-too-long limb and say that he's a 'e-voting' expert because he's done, written, and published investigations on electronic ourvoting techniques, devices, and related technology in the past.
Your welcome in advance for leading you to such a huge stretch of understanding and logic.
oh of course, I'm not arguing for it. I was only curious about how anyone here has dealt with slashdotting without having to be geographically load balanced, or distributed across multiple-connections.
There have been 3 different online magazines I have worked where we have survived a slashdotting, but that was about 2 years ago. I assume that these days the amount of traffic is even larger.
QoS ? how's that help with the stabilizing of a site in the face of spiking legitimate traffic ? I would think that throttling the traffic would only serve to produce a 'partial' slashdotting, at best. maybe one out of every 5 requests are handled, etc.
ISP filtering what and how ? http traffic ?
how can 'syn-flooding' help mitigate a slashdotting, seeing how a 'synflood' is itself a DOSing-style attack ?
multiple "POPs" and akamaization, I will agree with, but most sites aren't able to withstand those costs.
I'm curious if anyone has any techniques on withstanding a slashdotting when the only situation is a classic 1 connection, load-balanced, static html-driven site.
Yes, and you have enough maturity to call people 'poor baby' ? and asking if I'm "crying" ? That's an example of immature behavior, plain and simple. That's why I asked if you were 12. It was facetious. I was implying that your responses had the maturity of a twelve year old, not that you had the intelligence of one.
Getting defensive about your age just helps to prove that point, and the insistence of my "wrongness" only furthers the image of a child throwing a tantrum. Cross your arms and stamp on the floor until you get your way.
The fact is, YOU are right -- I can't prove that it was removed from the paid-for area, but neither can you...you can only prove that it's removed only from the free Table of Contents. You are only relying on the reports of others for that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't relying on the word and credibility of someone else what you would call a "logical fallacy" ? An "appeal to authority", I guess ?:)
By the way, if archive.org has nothing to do with the story, fine...it certainly has a lot to do with the discussion about it, because there are many posts on this topic about it. Since removing content from archive.org is so ridiculously easy, then I find it *quite* relevant to the story. I am apparently not the only holder of this opinion.
If time.com is to be held at the center of some conspiracy to hide or make disappear the story, then why haven't they made the effort to have it removed from archive.org....which amounts, basically, in one email ?
Can you harness your intelligence, good looks, and maturity into answering that one ?
and yes, the Internet Archive will gladly remove content from its database, if asked.
If Time was so concerned that the story is somehow a liability to them, then why was that story not removed from archive.org ? because they are too dumb to figure out how to email a request for removal ? I doubt it.
the suggestion is that Time somehow removed it or was coerced to remove that particular story. if you can't find many many other stories in Time that is much more critical of Bush Jr or Bush Sr, then you're not looking hard enough. I sincerely doubt that the article was somehow taken away by the guys in black helicopters.
Foxnews, yes....but Time, no. Why ? Beause Time.com knows that the articles are cached just about everywhere on the web: google, akamai, and archive.org just to mention a few. Going out of their way to remove the story isn't going to prevent people from reading it elsewhere. The conspiracy theory is just that, a theory, whether the story exists on time.com or not.
whether or not it was taken down at time.com or not doesn't change the fact that your name-calling tone isn't about as mature as my 5 year old.
for the record, the article is alive and well in the Internet Archive:
the link the parent post shows:
"Please Note: The March 02, 1998 issue of TIME Magazine is now premium paid content on TIME.com. If you have questions about payment options"
which explains that the content in Time is not publicly viewable without payment. This is the parent post's main point.
what part of this don't you understand ?
Slashdot Mirror
it looks like you're the type who judges people's experience with linux to be proportional to their slashdot ID#. Good plan, stick with that. In 97 I was evaluating Linux for the US govt to replace the Irix and AIX machines we had, so don't argue such a minor point with me, it's beside the point.
Nothing says you can't claim on your resume that you contributed to RedHat until now, and I highly doubt that changing it to "RedHat/Fedora" is really going to make a difference to a perspective employer.
you whine as if:
1- you had some sort of arrangement with RedHat as a developer for them (which you didn't, I can safely assume)
2- they owe you something or somehow screwed you out of something that was yours to claim (they don't, and never did)
3- you care about other people's resumes (you're so caring, I'm sure)
face it, you might not like RedHat, but it doesn't mean that you don't sound like you're throwing a little tantrum. which, from the looks of it, seems to be a pattern with you.
p.s. I see no mention of your name in credits for RedHat products, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places...please point me to where that is.
exactly! I won't be surprised at all if Novell follows somewhat of RedHat's lead and makes a focus on 'enterprise' customers.
and RedHat had no name recognition back then in 1998, either, but you put it on your resume back then. How is Fedora any different ? And for what reason would you have to remove it ?
This sounds like more whining about nothing. You HAD no "rug" to be pulled with redhat, only one that you imagined.
"Red Hat is our work, not theirs."
1- Bullshit.
2- don't do that
Keep pretending that RedHat has, until now, all about the community, making things free, and not out to make money. While you're at it, make sure you pretend that throwing a desk on a kid's throat is self-defense, and that the easter bunny will bring you a hanakuh gift, too.
The fact is, RedHat did nothing more than raise prices and change their direction. You don't think Suse and others will do the same ? RedHat has made more inroads in terms of credibility than any other distro, and that means good news, whether you admit it or not.
Don't be so dramatic. Fedora *is* RH9, and for the people who had support contracts for their enterprise version, nothing has changed. Complain all you want, but don't be so hyperbolic about it.
gutless ? they're doing what no other Linux distro company is doing. if you think that they are "making nice" with Microsoft based on little press release blurbs, then you're not only mistaken, but naive.
war analogies aren't going to change the fact that RedHat has one main interest, and that is RedHat's future...which it should be. Microsoft might be less off their radar, but it's not because they have taken a 'soft path'....it's because they've started to look out for the people they should: themselves.
I think RedHat's recent moves are good for RedHat. Just because a company isn't anti-Microsoft doesn't mean that they are a bad company.
I'm going to say that punching and spitting back from the beginning is justifiable. Waiting instead to harm the bully in some more violent or dramatic way later is not justifiable, and will only serve to teach kids that 'geeks' or 'losers' are people who:
1-take a beating for a long time without doing anything about it, then
2-shoot/maim/destroy the people mentioned in #1
it's a familiar and stereotypical pattern that most of the US have seen on TV in events such as Columbine High School. I'm not comparing you fighting back against a bully to Columbine, I'm making the point that kids will do better to learn that punching people back when they are first picked on is infinitely better than doing nothing, bottling it up, and somehow 'plotting' a revenge later that usually contains some larger measure of violence.
(a desk coming down on one's larynx is a lot more violent and dramatic act than a daily punch and spitting on)
about the school, most people don't mention things to schools because they think that it *will* take weeks or months for something to actually happen. if they'd only try, they'd see that most schools in this country are very interested and motivated to end violence.
I was brought up to not wait for time to pass while getting punched, spit on, whatever. Punch and spit people back, and you won't come to the point where you're throwing desks on people.
The new generation of dweebs seems to be content with bottling up frustration about getting picked on, then in some dramatic fashion, get on with payback.
The solution is to teach kids (like I learned) that fighting back to begin with will save you a LOT of trouble in the future.
"It just seems my whole generation was brought up to think that "ball your fist up and teach the asshole a lesson" isn't an option."
you didn't grow up in Boston, I'll hazard a guess.
just because it didn't dawn on you until _after_ bullying happened doesn't mean that the same happened to your *entire* generation.
(although I'm going to guess our ages aren't similar)
did you have an retard sandwich for breakfast ?
http://avirubin.com/vote/
yeah. it definitely doesn't have anything to do with any sorts of silly physical security analysis, internal code audits, cryptography, reverse engineering, or investigation of design choices that include encryption algorithms, physical media, or network media and access controls.
nope. it's only about counting votes.
rriiiiiigggghhht.
I'm gonna go out on a not-too-long limb and say that he's a 'e-voting' expert because he's done, written, and published investigations on electronic ourvoting techniques, devices, and related technology in the past.
Your welcome in advance for leading you to such a huge stretch of understanding and logic.
but it don't play no songs and don't have no screen, right ? ;)
you got a 40 gig device that can play audio files that is not an ipod ? well don't keep it to yourself, bucko. share your discovery with everyone.
i say no you don't have one, not one that can display all of songs/albums/volume/time on a little screen. i call bullsh*t. show me.
I can't get 40 gig of files on any other device less than 5 x 3 inches, and fit it in my pocket.
Can you ?
With your same reasoning, a Tablet PC is also a piece of crap not worth the money either. But you paid for one, didn't ya ?
oh of course, I'm not arguing for it. I was only curious about how anyone here has dealt with slashdotting without having to be geographically load balanced, or distributed across multiple-connections.
There have been 3 different online magazines I have worked where we have survived a slashdotting, but that was about 2 years ago. I assume that these days the amount of traffic is even larger.
QoS ? how's that help with the stabilizing of a site in the face of spiking legitimate traffic ? I would think that throttling the traffic would only serve to produce a 'partial' slashdotting, at best. maybe one out of every 5 requests are handled, etc.
ISP filtering what and how ? http traffic ?
how can 'syn-flooding' help mitigate a slashdotting, seeing how a 'synflood' is itself a DOSing-style attack ?
multiple "POPs" and akamaization, I will agree with, but most sites aren't able to withstand those costs.
I'm curious if anyone has any techniques on withstanding a slashdotting when the only situation is a classic 1 connection, load-balanced, static html-driven site.
"There are ways to stop a slashdotting"
Do you have any suggestions on that ?
My pride is quite fine, friend. :)
You've paid for access ? What a price to pay to prove such a minor point. But hey, maybe you're off your meds and you can't help i.t
I'll celebrate in public with you how you have proven me wrong. You really humiliated me there. Feel proud. Good luck with that.
"Yet I have enough maturity to check my facts."
:)
Yes, and you have enough maturity to call people 'poor baby' ? and asking if I'm "crying" ? That's an example of immature behavior, plain and simple.
That's why I asked if you were 12. It was facetious. I was implying that your responses had the maturity of a twelve year old, not that you had the intelligence of one.
Getting defensive about your age just helps to prove that point, and the insistence of my "wrongness" only furthers the image of a child throwing a tantrum. Cross your arms and stamp on the floor until you get your way.
The fact is, YOU are right -- I can't prove that it was removed from the paid-for area, but neither can you...you can only prove that it's removed only from the free Table of Contents. You are only relying on the reports of others for that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't relying on the word and credibility of someone else what you would call a "logical fallacy" ? An "appeal to authority", I guess ?
By the way, if archive.org has nothing to do with the story, fine...it certainly has a lot to do with the discussion about it, because there are many posts on this topic about it. Since removing content from archive.org is so ridiculously easy, then I find it *quite* relevant to the story. I am apparently not the only holder of this opinion.
If time.com is to be held at the center of some conspiracy to hide or make disappear the story, then why haven't they made the effort to have it removed from archive.org....which amounts, basically, in one email ?
Can you harness your intelligence, good looks, and maturity into answering that one ?
archive.org has it safe and sound.
"It hurts when you're wrong, doesn't it? It makes you cry, doesn't it?"
how old are you ? Twelve ?
and yes, the Internet Archive will gladly remove content from its database, if asked.
If Time was so concerned that the story is somehow a liability to them, then why was that story not removed from archive.org ? because they are too dumb to figure out how to email a request for removal ? I doubt it.
the suggestion is that Time somehow removed it or was coerced to remove that particular story. if you can't find many many other stories in Time that is much more critical of Bush Jr or Bush Sr, then you're not looking hard enough. I sincerely doubt that the article was somehow taken away by the guys in black helicopters.
a th finder.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/special_r eport.clintons_29.html
Foxnews, yes....but Time, no. Why ? Beause Time.com knows that the articles are cached just about everywhere on the web: google, akamai, and archive.org just to mention a few. Going out of their way to remove the story isn't going to prevent people from reading it elsewhere. The conspiracy theory is just that, a theory, whether the story exists on time.com or not.
whether or not it was taken down at time.com or not doesn't change the fact that your name-calling tone isn't about as mature as my 5 year old.
for the record, the article is alive and well in the Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990224202208/cgi.p
I can't go to the paid-only access because I'm not a paying customer, and I'm not going to be just to prove you wrong.
the link the parent post shows: "Please Note: The March 02, 1998 issue of TIME Magazine is now premium paid content on TIME.com. If you have questions about payment options" which explains that the content in Time is not publicly viewable without payment. This is the parent post's main point. what part of this don't you understand ?