Band records album. Makes money for record company. Band gets percentage of revenue.
Where are you getting lost?
It seems that Slashdotters are outright arguing to fuck over bands here. Should we do the same for software companies through warez? Nobody ever answers my question.
For some reason, mp3 downloading is justified around here, yet software piracy is frowned upon.
Really, it's just that people are used to the convenience of mp3s and have justified it in their minds as a culture movement against evil record companies, when really it's just people freeloading music that artists recorded to be sold for money.
But most people here aren't musicians, so they don't get it. They're programmers and admins and script kiddies. But once you start talking about warez, they'll pull the morality crown on you.
Random hackers attack things. Stop trying to pin it on some one mysterious group. It makes you look so incredibly paranoid.
Yes, Linux servers are not perfect. Accept this, patch, fix, and move on. Microsoft did, and they haven't had a break-in since October of 2000. According to a recent article, they're attacked 2500 to 3000 times daily.
I've pointed out before that Windows is way more widespread than Linux, and so is more attacked and vulnerable, but then zealots come on and say Apache is the most-used on the net and yet not the most breached. But to this, it's already the most-breached operating system.
Hoot and holler about the reasons all you want, but them's the facts.
We REALLY, REALLY need to stop with the "Linux is invincible, Windows sucks" attitude. It's flat-out not true, and it's severely holding the community image back in the minds of the rest of the rational computing world who just uses what they use to get the job done and don't treat operating systems like religious belief systems.
You're thinking of when the first RPC vulnerability hit (which was patched two months before, by the way...to all those Debian-heads crying out how the kernel exploit was patched in September), and Microsoft used Akamai for a short while because the trojan was set to DDOS one of their URLs.
During an oddly-underpublicized security Webcast Monday, Microsoft revealed that hackers subject the company to 2500 to 3000 electronic attacks every day, or over 100,000 a month. Yet despite this massive number of attacks, the last successful intrusion occurred over three years ago, during the infamous October 2000 security breach. But the software giant says the biggest security risk to the company isn't external electronic attack of its Web properties, but rather its huge fleet of mobile workers and partners--some 60,000 strong--that access the company's 175 remote access points on a regular basis.
We've taken a deep look inside Microsoft to see how we can improve security at every level," sad Mike Nash, the vice president of the Security Business Unit at Microsoft, during the Webcast. "A lot of the technology we use Microsoft applies directly to [customers'] work."
Microsoft revealed some other interesting statistics during the Webcast. The company uses Computer Associates' eTrust security management suite to secure its networks. It uses two-factor authentication (user name/password and smart card) to better secure its intellectual property.
It sucks, because it makes fanatical zealots look like flaming hypocrites.
The rest of us rational folks knew all along Linux wasn't perfect, but heaven forbid we mention it to the Mandrake and Gentoo kiddies on Slashdot. I've been modded down just for having this sig, which is ridiculous.
Seeing Gentoo itself be attacked with a remote exploit--especially in light of the fact that Linux is the most breached as it is--is just not surprising to me at all. The reason is because no system is perfect, especially not OSS. And we've been reading about a lot of high-profile break-ins lately, which is just funny.
Yes, it makes a lot of people look stupid when this stuff happens, and I do enjoy it, because I'm always branded as a Microsoft shill just for pointing out obvious truths. And then the news speaks for itself.
I've read several Tolkien books and biographies and followed his letters. I know a little about the guy.
"Stanley U[nwin] & I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author's veto on objectionable features or alterations." Letters 201 and 210 show his opinion of one (extremely bad) proposal, but even after panning the proposed treatment in letter 201 (7 Sept 1957), he wrote: "I am quite prepared to play ball, if they are open to advice." So he was not opposed to film treatments in principle, or to making money off his book.
He was stubborn about certain things, as you must know if you were as well-informed as you imply. Tolkien never minded violence done to the plot, but he would brook no alterations at all to his characters. I'm reasonably certain that he wouldn't have approved of the monkeying around Jackson's done with them.
For someone so stubborn, he sure was willing to completely remove the "unnecessary" Helm's Deep, among other things. This was a change he readily offered himself.
Changes were necessary because these are FILMS. The books still exist. They weren't magically negated.
You've also failed to notice that Tolkien himself was in a very different situation than that of his heirs. He needed the money. He lived a penurous existence as a professor. The position did not pay particularly well, as it was expected that Oxford professors had independent means. Tolkien did not.
Rrriigghhtt. As the books grew in popularity, he was crying out financially and so signed off the movie rights.
His savings would have made a very uncomfortable retirement for him, and he in fact extended his tenure by an optional two years for financial reasons, something he'd never have done had he not been in dire straits. The only thing that gave him comfort in his old age was the quite unexpected success of LOTR. Even then he never became personally wealthy. Selling the movie rights was something he had to do in order to feel financially secure.
If he was really so stubborn, he would have never, ever relinquished creative control. No matter which way you look at it--financial concerns were above creative concerns. I've read his letters. Have you?
Even then only a very large amount of money could have induced him to give up creative control; he said this outright. Evidently the folks who optioned it weren't willing to pay, so we have his wonderfully pithy commentary on a story treatment that was sent to him for approval.
"...I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient tounderstand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about...."
Peter Jackson and company meet and surpass his requirement for understanding and respecting the source material. We both know Tolkien would not be as stubbornly angry as you make him out to be.
His heirs on the other hand have no such financial goal.
You are absolutely joking, right?
Christopher Tolkien has been "scraping his daddy's wastepaper backets" for decades, as it has been put. The only thing worthy that he put out was the Silmarillion. Everything else, he needlessly edits and composites. It's how he made his fortune.
There's been a further 30 years of LOTR sales since Tolkien died, and I doubt any of them need be in any financial difficulty at all. It simply isn't necessary for them to sell anything.
And yet they do. You're being completely naive. Your fanboyism is clouding your judgement of financial motives.
For a fan-geek to become incensed over CJRT's reluctance to license any more of his father's legacy is ridiculous.
No, it's perfectly natural. If you're really a so-called "fan-geek," you want to see the film made. Even if the Tolkien Estate thinks it knows more about the pros and cons of selling off movie rights...than J.R.R. Tolkien himself..."Art or Cash."
He did read the book, and if you watched the Extended DVDs, you'd know why they changed things for the movies. The summarized reason is: they're movies, which are different mediums than books.
Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers were made by some damned respectful people. Watching the Extended Edition DVDs, it's like these people were obsessed with being respectful of the source material, to a point.
Nothing is being "destroyed" here with Peter Jackson and WETA at the helm.
Haha. You outed yourself with the use of the word "prostitute." A Tolkien purist.
Guess who sold the movie rights to his works specifically for the purpose of more money? Guess who even offered suggestions for editing out parts of the story for movie adaptations, such as cutting out the "unecessary" Helm's Deep?
People like to attribute all this stubbornness to J.R.R Tolkien, but he was as much aware of the difficulties in adaptation as anyone. He was changing his core mythology all the way until the end and even rewrote parts of the Hobbit to make it fit. I think he wasn't any more strict about his story than any other author. But people like the image of the stubborn old English professor with the pipe who wrote about hobbits.
Why couldn't Ian Holm handle it? He was the perfect Bilbo.
Do you know how old Christopher Lee is? Or Ian McKellen, for that matter? Come on, Ian Holm could do just one whimsical prequel film if those two wizards had to do three whole war movies, flying around the landscapes of New Zealand. What's so damned demanding about the role of Bilbo? I mean, seriously?
Hey, dumbass. That was over 500 years ago. Have you even read the Hobbit? Or seen the prologue in the Fellowship of the Ring film?
Smeagol killed Deagol for the ring. Eventually, he ended up in the Misty Mountains and lived there for centuries. Then, Frodo came across the ring and brought it out of the mountains, setting in motion the eventual journey of the ring to Mount Doom little over 50 years later.
Gollum looks and behaves exactly as he does in the trilogy as he does in the Hobbit. It's only a difference of about 50 years.
Bilbo, Elrond, Gandalf, and probably a few general cameos.
If Peter Jackson and WETA takes control of it (and they in all likelihood will), the original cast members needed will surely jump aboard. Especially since it's just one movie and would be a nice change of pace from the grueling three-movie shoot. Imagine how even more improved the performances will be when the actors are able to ease into a much smaller storyline.
If anything, it HAS to be made just so we can have Gandalf the Grey for another movie. He is sorely missed after becoming the White.
Oh, please. Peter Jackson captured the whimsical nature of Hobbiton and that first half of Fellowship of the Ring perfectly. Every scene between Gandalf and Bilbo was magic. It'd just be that same tone throughout the Hobbit, with hints of the darker world to come in the LOTR trilogy.
You know, people hack things. Kiddies hack servers.
Why does it always have to be a "determined effort" against Open Source? Honestly...how paranoid do you have to be to think that? You do realize a lot of idiot kiddie (and professional) hackers are aware of Linux.
Let me put your underlying implication to rest--no, it wasn't Microsoft. No reason to believe such. It was just some idiot hacker, like it always is.
But according to most admins here, they don't immediately apply Microsoft patches, so they can do their little "tests" to make sure everything keeps running fine.
But when Linux has a kernel exploit and is patched, people will point to that--"But it's already patched! Download the new kernel!"
I get flamed and downmodded constantly for my sig. And yet, here is an outright exploit in the very Linux kernel itself. Open Source software is as insecure as any other large application. How does that crow taste?
I know I risk being downmodded, but I just had to say this. I get flamed for being a so-called "Microsoft shill" constantly for pointing out the obvious--operating systems are as secure as their admins/makers. It's not a religion, folks. Here is a buffer overflow exploit embedded right in the kernel.
It'd be nice if the community showed a little humility, but, of course, next week this story will be forgotten and drowned out by repeat dupes of some "Microsoft hole" that is really an executable attachment ran by Outlook users or something.
Nothing ever changes, but at least it's good to know the developer community around Linux knows their software is not perfect and constantly strives to make it better. It's all those vocal "anti-M$" trolls that have called Slashdot (and OsNews.com) their home who look pretty stupid right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Band records album. Makes money for record company. Band gets percentage of revenue.
Where are you getting lost?
It seems that Slashdotters are outright arguing to fuck over bands here. Should we do the same for software companies through warez? Nobody ever answers my question.
You admit I wasn't trolling. All I do is post my opinion. If you disagree, you should reply and say so, and we can discuss. Not mod me down.
For some reason, mp3 downloading is justified around here, yet software piracy is frowned upon.
Really, it's just that people are used to the convenience of mp3s and have justified it in their minds as a culture movement against evil record companies, when really it's just people freeloading music that artists recorded to be sold for money.
But most people here aren't musicians, so they don't get it. They're programmers and admins and script kiddies. But once you start talking about warez, they'll pull the morality crown on you.
A "job" implies a contract between you and your employer.
And just what the hell do you think a record contract is?
How am I trolling?
I've unchecked my karma bonus and everything because I know this is offtopic. I was just curious?
When I say, you're kidding, right?
Random hackers attack things. Stop trying to pin it on some one mysterious group. It makes you look so incredibly paranoid.
Yes, Linux servers are not perfect. Accept this, patch, fix, and move on. Microsoft did, and they haven't had a break-in since October of 2000. According to a recent article, they're attacked 2500 to 3000 times daily.
I love it.
I've pointed out before that Windows is way more widespread than Linux, and so is more attacked and vulnerable, but then zealots come on and say Apache is the most-used on the net and yet not the most breached. But to this, it's already the most-breached operating system.
Hoot and holler about the reasons all you want, but them's the facts.
We REALLY, REALLY need to stop with the "Linux is invincible, Windows sucks" attitude. It's flat-out not true, and it's severely holding the community image back in the minds of the rest of the rational computing world who just uses what they use to get the job done and don't treat operating systems like religious belief systems.
Why does everyone assume some one group is behind it?
Couldn't it be that, as with every other public website out there, random hackers try to break in for fun and vandalism?
Come on. I'm fully expecting someone to implicate Microsoft in some way, as they do in every OSS break-in article.
You're thinking of when the first RPC vulnerability hit (which was patched two months before, by the way...to all those Debian-heads crying out how the kernel exploit was patched in September), and Microsoft used Akamai for a short while because the trojan was set to DDOS one of their URLs.
The "threat" passed and everyone forgot about it.
http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Artic le/ArticleID/41035/windowspaulthurrott_41035.html
During an oddly-underpublicized security Webcast Monday, Microsoft revealed that hackers subject the company to 2500 to 3000 electronic attacks every day, or over 100,000 a month. Yet despite this massive number of attacks, the last successful intrusion occurred over three years ago, during the infamous October 2000 security breach. But the software giant says the biggest security risk to the company isn't external electronic attack of its Web properties, but rather its huge fleet of mobile workers and partners--some 60,000 strong--that access the company's 175 remote access points on a regular basis.
We've taken a deep look inside Microsoft to see how we can improve security at every level," sad Mike Nash, the vice president of the Security Business Unit at Microsoft, during the Webcast. "A lot of the technology we use Microsoft applies directly to [customers'] work."
Microsoft revealed some other interesting statistics during the Webcast. The company uses Computer Associates' eTrust security management suite to secure its networks. It uses two-factor authentication (user name/password and smart card) to better secure its intellectual property.
It sucks, because it makes fanatical zealots look like flaming hypocrites.
The rest of us rational folks knew all along Linux wasn't perfect, but heaven forbid we mention it to the Mandrake and Gentoo kiddies on Slashdot. I've been modded down just for having this sig, which is ridiculous.
Seeing Gentoo itself be attacked with a remote exploit--especially in light of the fact that Linux is the most breached as it is--is just not surprising to me at all. The reason is because no system is perfect, especially not OSS. And we've been reading about a lot of high-profile break-ins lately, which is just funny.
Yes, it makes a lot of people look stupid when this stuff happens, and I do enjoy it, because I'm always branded as a Microsoft shill just for pointing out obvious truths. And then the news speaks for itself.
That's right. They are Win32 emulators. That's why you can even run some Windows 1.0 executables (such as MS-DOS Executive) with minor tweaking.
I've read several Tolkien books and biographies and followed his letters. I know a little about the guy.
"Stanley U[nwin] & I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author's veto on objectionable features or alterations." Letters 201 and 210 show his opinion of one (extremely bad) proposal, but even after panning the proposed treatment in letter 201 (7 Sept 1957), he wrote: "I am quite prepared to play ball, if they are open to advice." So he was not opposed to film treatments in principle, or to making money off his book.
He was stubborn about certain things, as you must know if you were as well-informed as you imply. Tolkien never minded violence done to the plot, but he would brook no alterations at all to his characters. I'm reasonably certain that he wouldn't have approved of the monkeying around Jackson's done with them.
For someone so stubborn, he sure was willing to completely remove the "unnecessary" Helm's Deep, among other things. This was a change he readily offered himself.
Changes were necessary because these are FILMS. The books still exist. They weren't magically negated.
You've also failed to notice that Tolkien himself was in a very different situation than that of his heirs. He needed the money. He lived a penurous existence as a professor. The position did not pay particularly well, as it was expected that Oxford professors had independent means. Tolkien did not.
Rrriigghhtt. As the books grew in popularity, he was crying out financially and so signed off the movie rights.
His savings would have made a very uncomfortable retirement for him, and he in fact extended his tenure by an optional two years for financial reasons, something he'd never have done had he not been in dire straits. The only thing that gave him comfort in his old age was the quite unexpected success of LOTR. Even then he never became personally wealthy. Selling the movie rights was something he had to do in order to feel financially secure.
If he was really so stubborn, he would have never, ever relinquished creative control. No matter which way you look at it--financial concerns were above creative concerns. I've read his letters. Have you?
Even then only a very large amount of money could have induced him to give up creative control; he said this outright. Evidently the folks who optioned it weren't willing to pay, so we have his wonderfully pithy commentary on a story treatment that was sent to him for approval.
"...I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient tounderstand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about...."
Peter Jackson and company meet and surpass his requirement for understanding and respecting the source material. We both know Tolkien would not be as stubbornly angry as you make him out to be.
His heirs on the other hand have no such financial goal.
You are absolutely joking, right?
Christopher Tolkien has been "scraping his daddy's wastepaper backets" for decades, as it has been put. The only thing worthy that he put out was the Silmarillion. Everything else, he needlessly edits and composites. It's how he made his fortune.
There's been a further 30 years of LOTR sales since Tolkien died, and I doubt any of them need be in any financial difficulty at all. It simply isn't necessary for them to sell anything.
And yet they do. You're being completely naive. Your fanboyism is clouding your judgement of financial motives.
For a fan-geek to become incensed over CJRT's reluctance to license any more of his father's legacy is ridiculous.
No, it's perfectly natural. If you're really a so-called "fan-geek," you want to see the film made. Even if the Tolkien Estate thinks it knows more about the pros and cons of selling off movie rights...than J.R.R. Tolkien himself..."Art or Cash."
He did read the book, and if you watched the Extended DVDs, you'd know why they changed things for the movies. The summarized reason is: they're movies, which are different mediums than books.
Another closed-minded purist.
Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers were made by some damned respectful people. Watching the Extended Edition DVDs, it's like these people were obsessed with being respectful of the source material, to a point.
Nothing is being "destroyed" here with Peter Jackson and WETA at the helm.
Haha. You outed yourself with the use of the word "prostitute." A Tolkien purist.
Guess who sold the movie rights to his works specifically for the purpose of more money? Guess who even offered suggestions for editing out parts of the story for movie adaptations, such as cutting out the "unecessary" Helm's Deep?
People like to attribute all this stubbornness to J.R.R Tolkien, but he was as much aware of the difficulties in adaptation as anyone. He was changing his core mythology all the way until the end and even rewrote parts of the Hobbit to make it fit. I think he wasn't any more strict about his story than any other author. But people like the image of the stubborn old English professor with the pipe who wrote about hobbits.
Why couldn't Ian Holm handle it? He was the perfect Bilbo.
Do you know how old Christopher Lee is? Or Ian McKellen, for that matter? Come on, Ian Holm could do just one whimsical prequel film if those two wizards had to do three whole war movies, flying around the landscapes of New Zealand. What's so damned demanding about the role of Bilbo? I mean, seriously?
Sorry for the typo.
Hey, dumbass. That was over 500 years ago. Have you even read the Hobbit? Or seen the prologue in the Fellowship of the Ring film?
Smeagol killed Deagol for the ring. Eventually, he ended up in the Misty Mountains and lived there for centuries. Then, Frodo came across the ring and brought it out of the mountains, setting in motion the eventual journey of the ring to Mount Doom little over 50 years later.
Gollum looks and behaves exactly as he does in the trilogy as he does in the Hobbit. It's only a difference of about 50 years.
Bilbo, Elrond, Gandalf, and probably a few general cameos.
If Peter Jackson and WETA takes control of it (and they in all likelihood will), the original cast members needed will surely jump aboard. Especially since it's just one movie and would be a nice change of pace from the grueling three-movie shoot. Imagine how even more improved the performances will be when the actors are able to ease into a much smaller storyline.
If anything, it HAS to be made just so we can have Gandalf the Grey for another movie. He is sorely missed after becoming the White.
Oh, please. Peter Jackson captured the whimsical nature of Hobbiton and that first half of Fellowship of the Ring perfectly. Every scene between Gandalf and Bilbo was magic. It'd just be that same tone throughout the Hobbit, with hints of the darker world to come in the LOTR trilogy.
It would, quite frankly, rock.
You know, people hack things. Kiddies hack servers.
Why does it always have to be a "determined effort" against Open Source? Honestly...how paranoid do you have to be to think that? You do realize a lot of idiot kiddie (and professional) hackers are aware of Linux.
Let me put your underlying implication to rest--no, it wasn't Microsoft. No reason to believe such. It was just some idiot hacker, like it always is.
Every time there's some sort of compromise on a high-profile Linux network, some idiot tries to implicate Microsoft on the basis of idle speculation.
Why it continues to be modded up as "Insightful" every time, I'll never know. Honestly, what insight was gleamed by this post?
But according to most admins here, they don't immediately apply Microsoft patches, so they can do their little "tests" to make sure everything keeps running fine.
But when Linux has a kernel exploit and is patched, people will point to that--"But it's already patched! Download the new kernel!"
I get flamed and downmodded constantly for my sig. And yet, here is an outright exploit in the very Linux kernel itself. Open Source software is as insecure as any other large application. How does that crow taste?
I know I risk being downmodded, but I just had to say this. I get flamed for being a so-called "Microsoft shill" constantly for pointing out the obvious--operating systems are as secure as their admins/makers. It's not a religion, folks. Here is a buffer overflow exploit embedded right in the kernel.
It'd be nice if the community showed a little humility, but, of course, next week this story will be forgotten and drowned out by repeat dupes of some "Microsoft hole" that is really an executable attachment ran by Outlook users or something.
Nothing ever changes, but at least it's good to know the developer community around Linux knows their software is not perfect and constantly strives to make it better. It's all those vocal "anti-M$" trolls that have called Slashdot (and OsNews.com) their home who look pretty stupid right now.