you clearly have no sense of the word hacker within the context of this article.
No, you're one of those anal fruits who thinks "hacker" and "cracker" have any difference in meaning outside of your close circle of Slashbot buddies.
Hackers means just what everyone thinks it means. That how language works.
If a business leaves its front door open, and I walk in, can they put me in jail for five years because they where closed? what if here is no indication that they are closed?
You're trespassing in either case. You should know enough to assume the business wouldn't want your presence there. Especially if you have to "hack" their system to get in.
What "most hackers want anyway" is to brag to their friends about their exploits. Please. They are not freedom fighters making the world safer for others, and they are not "messengers" who should be praised for breaking into people's computer systems. Simply because something is insecure does not give one the "right" to break into it.
I think this is obvious to most people, but there are those Slashbots who will instinctively disagree because they feel the need to glorify people who do this sort of thing. It will never change the fact that it is illegal.
Of course I'm not. The opposite is true, and I'm merely pointing out the obvious.
It's amusing how so many shoot down what they can not perceive in the name of science. When science is firstly about discovery... and then verification.
Get back to me when something is "discovered" in the first place.
(how do the child prodigies know stuff they shouldn't know?
Here's an idea. They're born with brains more apt to performing those skills?
etc.. how comes some people remember fragments of what happened in the past and then verify it to be true? and so on)
What about the vastly greater amount of people who "remember fragments of what happened in the past" and are outright wrong? There are bound to be a few who coincidentally nail something. Selective memory is amusing.
It's that I'm getting fscking sick of your "endlessly hyped to be" comment.
Poor baby. So don't read it.
Oh, wow; I solved your problem in the space of four words. Such wonders in this age.
The only thing that is seemingly endless is your hammering of this statement. You make the same point over and over again, nothing to do with whether or not I agree with it (did I say I disagree?)
Honestly, I don't really care.
That is what is -1, Redundant. You are probably quite right that not many people use X over network, but I've never heard it endlessly hyped, because as you say, not many people use / know about it.
There is an entire cadre of minority remote X Slashbots who chime in every single X article relating their anectdotal remote X experiences as if they matter to the other 95% of X users. They have a hard time accepting cold, hard facts.
There we go, so you don't have to recompile a kernel after all. It's not your or my fault the ntfs module didn't come with you distro, it just didn't. The point is, you're wrong, you don't have to recompile your kernel.
I'm absolutely right. Many times before, I've had to recompile the entire kernel for simple device support. You're deluded if you think this is not sometimes necessary. I brought up NTFS as an example of needing to compile something when the package was broken, like most things related to Linux.
Forgotten about that kernel / module / reboot thingy already have we?
How could I? The absurdity of it still makes me shake my head. I type this now using Mozilla in Windows XP.
Oh yes, thank you sir, so much, for your time.
You should feel privileged for it. Write me again so I can respond.
1.) Skim article summary. 2.) Begin post with "In related news..." or "In other news..." 3.) Write unrelated and obviously improbable "news story." 4.) Wait for crackhead moderators to instantly mod your post up to "+5 Funny." 5.) Revel in your uncreativity and unoriginality. Do it all over again in the next article.
Funny, me being on neither a corporate nor a university network. Funny how I, being a desktop user, should somehow outnumber myself.
Than you are, obviously, in an even smaller minority than I previously guessed. Next.
I'll skip your second comment, as it was just stupid and pointless.
Way to crush my argument.
Who mentioned Linux?
I did.
I certainly never did. I was talking about X. To be specific, that includes Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, AIX, Windows (with Exceed), and Mac OSX (with X added on top). Whoops, almost forgot Irix. I happen to know a LOT of users of X. Most use it on *nix systems, but not all. The majority actually aren't running Linux either.
The majority actually are running Linux. Very few people using non-Linux systems bother running X because they usually have much better graphical user interfaces to get their work done with. You and I both know this.
Yes, these are the same thousands upon thousands who are not using X at all, no doubt.
Now that you mention it, I wonder if the actual usage statistics of X are much smaller than endlessly hyped as well.
Are you serious about this, or just being stupid?
My point was that what was said was so random and unrelated, I mentioned that there are situations where a gun wouldn't be fired as well. My point was that it had nothing to do with anything, much like what I was quoting. However, you latched onto it hook, line, and sinker, and suddenly veer off into a bizarre iteration of the usage of guns.
Situations where a gun wouldn't be fired: Any time your life isn't being threatened, you're not target practicing, and you're not hunting. If you're ALWAYS having your life threatened, hunting, or target practicing, then how'd you find time to spout rubbish on/.?
See? A very weird outburst having nothing to do with anything. You end it with an unrelated and nonclever attempt to insult me by saying I feel my life is always threatened and so I must have little time to "spout rubbish on/." You could have tried a little harder.
We have moved past the 80's, through the 90's, and all the way up to the year 2003. Somewhere in there this thing called "networking" became commonplace, along with the internet and households having multiple computers.
Also, random resolution switching and cursor theming. Good thing X just now caught up.
Another thing that became commonplace was true desktop environments, not hacked add-ons like KDE and GNOME.
Along about the same time, standalone desktop machines became less the norm (along with the electric typewriter) and were replaced with home networks.
Those home networks are made up of desktop machines. I'm waiting for a point here.
Witness the growth of Netgear, Linksys, et al. You may never fit into the networking revolution, but you must accept it has happened and move along.
Wow. You suggest I'm not part of some abstract "networking revolution." In fact, I type this on a network. Again, another pointless diatribe. Obviously, you had no way to address my points and so resorted to strange outbursts that in some way attempt to attack my character, but fail weakly.
That was incredibly lame. Gee. Whoopi Goldberg. I think the appropriate response would be "har har har," but the Slashbots will of course mod you up for no intelligent reason. It was neither funny nor clever.
As a matter of fact I had to compile a new module last night because it didn't ship with Red Hat. The RPM from the NTFS Sourceforge page, of course, didn't work. If all you've got to throw at me is an odd bedtime comment, you need to go take a breather and get back to me. Next.
You can still get your apps to look like windows 3.1 because the 3d look of windows 95 upwards is just provided by a different toolkit overriding the standard windows (3.1) look.
Well, that's two examples so far. Waiting for any others.
Windows has a less standardised UI then a KDE/Gnome mix. some toolbars are drag able, some are docable, sometimes ctrl+insert works for copy, sometimes ctrl+tab changes windows and sometimes alt+f6 changes windows.
How ridiculous. To claim Windows has a less standardized user interface than KDE and GNOME reaks of simple bias. I have never run across the keyboard shortcuts you speak of, and yet almost every application I use in Linux has a different sent of commands.
At the moment I have IE 5.5 word 97 and outlook 2000 open.
IE and Outlook have single lines to the right of the menu bars, word has double lines.
Gee, whiz, Word has two lines instead of one.
The menus in outlook and word can be un-docked, IE's menues can only be draged about a bit.
I'm still waiting for those claimed inconsistencies that compare to the hell of the KDE/GNOME world.
Alt+tab changes element focus in outlook and IE, but inserts a tab in word.
I don't know what you changed, but I'm using Word XP and Alt+Tab changes Windows. It doesn't matter which application I run; Alt+Tab brings up a gray box allowing me to cycle through windows. This has been the default since the Windows 95 days. Next.
IE has a 'handle' in the bottom right of the window border, word has a simila (but different) handle, Outlook doesn't.
I'm looking and don't see what you're rambling about. Even if it were true, a different "handle" look in the bottom-right corner of the window border hardly compares to the hell that is GNOME/KDE.
I have to deal with dozens of oddities in windows.
Does Windows have the horrible cut-and-paste of the Linux world? How about a media player with "://" and a tooltip of "MRL Browser" as its open button? Or the awful save dialogs of GNOME? Or all the conflicting windowing libraries?
There are hundreds upon hundreds of oddities in the Linux world. Entire websites have been sprung devoted to them. The supposed oddities you mention with Windows are incredibly minor and ineffective in comparison.
I'm extremely curious why Michael registered it for another two years instead of just handing the domain over. If he's working at Slashdot and not doing anything with the site, what does he need it for? What other purpose would it serve other than to specifically prevent others from using it? Sorry, but that's freaking lame. That's cybersquatting! Thanks, Michael...
1.) Skim article summary. 2.) Begin post with "In other news..." or "In related news..." 3.) Write unrelated and obviously impossible "news article" that is in no way clever or original. 4.) Wait for "+5 Funny" moderations. 5.) Gloat over what intellectual fortitude it took to craft the phrase "Microsoft Zippo (TM)."
I will either be modded down, ignored, or there will be those who feel the need to continue the lameness with further attempts at being funny by extending my list of steps with references to this post, or worse yet, a "Profit!" joke.
Slashdot Mirror
id hasn't announced a decision yet.
As I said, it's all speculation.
Next.
Not Microsoft's fault if id caves.
It's all speculation, and really all we know is that Microsoft has likely been pushing id for an X-Box exclusive.
you clearly have no sense of the word hacker within the context of this article.
No, you're one of those anal fruits who thinks "hacker" and "cracker" have any difference in meaning outside of your close circle of Slashbot buddies.
Hackers means just what everyone thinks it means. That how language works.
If a business leaves its front door open, and I walk in, can they put me in jail for five years because they where closed? what if here is no indication that they are closed?
You're trespassing in either case. You should know enough to assume the business wouldn't want your presence there. Especially if you have to "hack" their system to get in.
Next.
What "most hackers want anyway" is to brag to their friends about their exploits. Please. They are not freedom fighters making the world safer for others, and they are not "messengers" who should be praised for breaking into people's computer systems. Simply because something is insecure does not give one the "right" to break into it.
I think this is obvious to most people, but there are those Slashbots who will instinctively disagree because they feel the need to glorify people who do this sort of thing. It will never change the fact that it is illegal.
As if nobody saw that one coming. Sigh.
You are claiming knowledge you do not have.
... and then verification.
Of course I'm not. The opposite is true, and I'm merely pointing out the obvious.
It's amusing how so many shoot down what they can not perceive in the name of science. When science is firstly about discovery
Get back to me when something is "discovered" in the first place.
(how do the child prodigies know stuff they shouldn't know?
Here's an idea. They're born with brains more apt to performing those skills?
etc.. how comes some people remember fragments of what happened in the past and then verify it to be true? and so on)
What about the vastly greater amount of people who "remember fragments of what happened in the past" and are outright wrong? There are bound to be a few who coincidentally nail something. Selective memory is amusing.
Nice dodge.
They make this thing called "Google." Why don't you go find out?
You're learning.
It's that I'm getting fscking sick of your "endlessly hyped to be" comment.
Poor baby. So don't read it.
Oh, wow; I solved your problem in the space of four words. Such wonders in this age.
The only thing that is seemingly endless is your hammering of this statement. You make the same point over and over again, nothing to do with whether or not I agree with it (did I say I disagree?)
Honestly, I don't really care.
That is what is -1, Redundant. You are probably quite right that not many people use X over network, but I've never heard it endlessly hyped, because as you say, not many people use / know about it.
There is an entire cadre of minority remote X Slashbots who chime in every single X article relating their anectdotal remote X experiences as if they matter to the other 95% of X users. They have a hard time accepting cold, hard facts.
There we go, so you don't have to recompile a kernel after all. It's not your or my fault the ntfs module didn't come with you distro, it just didn't. The point is, you're wrong, you don't have to recompile your kernel.
I'm absolutely right. Many times before, I've had to recompile the entire kernel for simple device support. You're deluded if you think this is not sometimes necessary. I brought up NTFS as an example of needing to compile something when the package was broken, like most things related to Linux.
Forgotten about that kernel / module / reboot thingy already have we?
How could I? The absurdity of it still makes me shake my head. I type this now using Mozilla in Windows XP.
Oh yes, thank you sir, so much, for your time.
You should feel privileged for it. Write me again so I can respond.
1.) Skim article summary.
2.) Begin post with "In related news..." or "In other news..."
3.) Write unrelated and obviously improbable "news story."
4.) Wait for crackhead moderators to instantly mod your post up to "+5 Funny."
5.) Revel in your uncreativity and unoriginality. Do it all over again in the next article.
Well, at least you used your karma bonus modifier to tell me that.
Funny, me being on neither a corporate nor a university network. Funny how I, being a desktop user, should somehow outnumber myself.
/.?
/." You could have tried a little harder.
Than you are, obviously, in an even smaller minority than I previously guessed. Next.
I'll skip your second comment, as it was just stupid and pointless.
Way to crush my argument.
Who mentioned Linux?
I did.
I certainly never did. I was talking about X. To be specific, that includes Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, AIX, Windows (with Exceed), and Mac OSX (with X added on top). Whoops, almost forgot Irix. I happen to know a LOT of users of X. Most use it on *nix systems, but not all. The majority actually aren't running Linux either.
The majority actually are running Linux. Very few people using non-Linux systems bother running X because they usually have much better graphical user interfaces to get their work done with. You and I both know this.
Yes, these are the same thousands upon thousands who are not using X at all, no doubt.
Now that you mention it, I wonder if the actual usage statistics of X are much smaller than endlessly hyped as well.
Are you serious about this, or just being stupid?
My point was that what was said was so random and unrelated, I mentioned that there are situations where a gun wouldn't be fired as well. My point was that it had nothing to do with anything, much like what I was quoting. However, you latched onto it hook, line, and sinker, and suddenly veer off into a bizarre iteration of the usage of guns.
Situations where a gun wouldn't be fired: Any time your life isn't being threatened, you're not target practicing, and you're not hunting. If you're ALWAYS having your life threatened, hunting, or target practicing, then how'd you find time to spout rubbish on
See? A very weird outburst having nothing to do with anything. You end it with an unrelated and nonclever attempt to insult me by saying I feel my life is always threatened and so I must have little time to "spout rubbish on
We have moved past the 80's, through the 90's, and all the way up to the year 2003. Somewhere in there this thing called "networking" became commonplace, along with the internet and households having multiple computers.
Also, random resolution switching and cursor theming. Good thing X just now caught up.
Another thing that became commonplace was true desktop environments, not hacked add-ons like KDE and GNOME.
Along about the same time, standalone desktop machines became less the norm (along with the electric typewriter) and were replaced with home networks.
Those home networks are made up of desktop machines. I'm waiting for a point here.
Witness the growth of Netgear, Linksys, et al. You may never fit into the networking revolution, but you must accept it has happened and move along.
Wow. You suggest I'm not part of some abstract "networking revolution." In fact, I type this on a network. Again, another pointless diatribe. Obviously, you had no way to address my points and so resorted to strange outbursts that in some way attempt to attack my character, but fail weakly.
Next.
That was incredibly lame. Gee. Whoopi Goldberg. I think the appropriate response would be "har har har," but the Slashbots will of course mod you up for no intelligent reason. It was neither funny nor clever.
You are right. You disagree with me, so I deserve to be modded as "-1 Redundant." The true cliche of Slashdot.
As a matter of fact I had to compile a new module last night because it didn't ship with Red Hat. The RPM from the NTFS Sourceforge page, of course, didn't work. If all you've got to throw at me is an odd bedtime comment, you need to go take a breather and get back to me. Next.
You used your karma bonus modifier just to post that? Shameless.
There are multiple toolkits in windows.
You can still get your apps to look like windows 3.1 because the 3d look of windows 95 upwards is just provided by a different toolkit overriding the standard windows (3.1) look.
Well, that's two examples so far. Waiting for any others.
Windows has a less standardised UI then a KDE/Gnome mix. some toolbars are drag able, some are docable, sometimes ctrl+insert works for copy, sometimes ctrl+tab changes windows and sometimes alt+f6 changes windows.
How ridiculous. To claim Windows has a less standardized user interface than KDE and GNOME reaks of simple bias. I have never run across the keyboard shortcuts you speak of, and yet almost every application I use in Linux has a different sent of commands.
At the moment I have IE 5.5 word 97 and outlook 2000 open.
IE and Outlook have single lines to the right of the menu bars, word has double lines.
Gee, whiz, Word has two lines instead of one.
The menus in outlook and word can be un-docked, IE's menues can only be draged about a bit.
I'm still waiting for those claimed inconsistencies that compare to the hell of the KDE/GNOME world.
Alt+tab changes element focus in outlook and IE, but inserts a tab in word.
I don't know what you changed, but I'm using Word XP and Alt+Tab changes Windows. It doesn't matter which application I run; Alt+Tab brings up a gray box allowing me to cycle through windows. This has been the default since the Windows 95 days. Next.
IE has a 'handle' in the bottom right of the window border, word has a simila (but different) handle, Outlook doesn't.
I'm looking and don't see what you're rambling about. Even if it were true, a different "handle" look in the bottom-right corner of the window border hardly compares to the hell that is GNOME/KDE.
I have to deal with dozens of oddities in windows.
Does Windows have the horrible cut-and-paste of the Linux world? How about a media player with "://" and a tooltip of "MRL Browser" as its open button? Or the awful save dialogs of GNOME? Or all the conflicting windowing libraries?
There are hundreds upon hundreds of oddities in the Linux world. Entire websites have been sprung devoted to them. The supposed oddities you mention with Windows are incredibly minor and ineffective in comparison.
I'm extremely curious why Michael registered it for another two years instead of just handing the domain over. If he's working at Slashdot and not doing anything with the site, what does he need it for? What other purpose would it serve other than to specifically prevent others from using it? Sorry, but that's freaking lame. That's cybersquatting! Thanks, Michael...
At least there is censorware.net.
How many Simpsons' quotes must we endure in this article's discussions?
Gotta love double standards.
1.) Skim article summary.
2.) Begin post with "In other news..." or "In related news..."
3.) Write unrelated and obviously impossible "news article" that is in no way clever or original.
4.) Wait for "+5 Funny" moderations.
5.) Gloat over what intellectual fortitude it took to craft the phrase "Microsoft Zippo (TM)."
I will either be modded down, ignored, or there will be those who feel the need to continue the lameness with further attempts at being funny by extending my list of steps with references to this post, or worse yet, a "Profit!" joke.