I would have rated this post as logical, but noone knows...:)
Indeed, it only fits to people that don't use that much teir cellphones. But when you are supposed to work on Web design, a project can take a while. And you can still but the silent mode and isolate yourself for five minutes. Places have been designed for this special purpose.
sticking to the relevant way of using the 'fair' mechanism, I'd like to thank those two students, and the whole bunch of people who fought Diebold's obnoxious use of the DMCA.
You did a fucking awesome job. And you proved that personal actions really matter in this deincarnated world.
This is no time to loosen the backlash ; Dieblod may ask for some 'mediation', my advice would be not to give them any relief. They *must* pay for what they've done.
despite my personal experience wasn't about the computer field, I had to spend two years at home working for appliance to one of the French "grande ecole". The work rythm was exhausting, and I couldn't afford to work at home.
My first logical reaction was to go study at one of the Paris public library. This is a great place for socializing, for people in there are all in the same state of mind, ie working hard, but willing to take some enjoyable breaks. So at some point you *have* to meet some people, because this is bound to happen. I met some of my best friends there.
Furthermore, there is such a crazy atmosphere created by all these people working, just like a huge bubble of thoughts and reflexions (the feeling also relies on the physical disposition of people inside the library : in my example, there were 3000 people in each room, with a 10 m tall ceiling, plenty of space and light, and 50 people tables : amazing). It gave me a tremendous incentive to study hard.
Obviously, the prerequesites is that the library be quite large, and quite enjoyable, and that you have a laptop (but this is affordable, compared to the alternative of renting a work place). If you live in a populated area, it should be OK.
I now remind this time as one of the most exciting period of my life.
You should give it a try : it's free, enticing to work, full of exciting people. And of course nothing prevents you from having a break for lunch with your friends, girlfriend, dog, real doll, water puppet:)
fuck, this michael is a creation of the devil. What kind of frustrated man can do things like that ?
What kind of pretentious guy can blame all journalists for being impartial ? What kind of pretentious guy can proclame himself a journalist when workig at/. ?
Fuck, every day passing by reveals that/. is not that different from any other fucking big corporation...
Fisrt, as many of/.ers put it in previous posts, the rating system can only at best be a piece of advice, not a perfect rule. Parents remain, in the last times, the rulers of their offspring.
But beyond that, the rating system is flawed, because the raters take into account the amount of violence, but do not put it into perspective with the overall meaning of the game.
Let's take two games that have been rating similarly : Manhunt and Diablo II. Both received the M17+ rating from the ESRB. How can a common sense person imagine that those two games express an equivalent violent content ? Of course, the core of Diablo, and of Manhunt, is to slash people. One might even say that Diablo is the game which entices you into slashing as many people as you can. But what is the meaning of Diablo, and how violence is depicted ? Diablo's world is based on fantasy ; it is not meant to depict some real stuff. You slash monsters, in a fantasy-modeled world. Graphics are unrealistic, exactly as the plot is, exactly as the battles are, exactly as all the game is. Thus, it has nothing to do with the common representation of real violence. On the other hand, Manhunt makes its best to make you believe that you are in a real world. The basic priciple -man hunt- has been considered to be implemented in a real-TV show some years ago. The graphics are realistic. You shoot someone in the head, the head is gone. You shoot someone in the leg, the leg is gone. They emphasize the common feelings of fear, hatred, suffering, etc. This game *can* be obnoxious to some personalitites, of course. But the fact is that this game has been rated M17+, exactly as Diablo was.
From that point of view, how can you consider seriously an organism that does not make the difference between fantasy and reality ? Personnaly, I don't. It's exactly like GTA. GTA was about fun, not death. Resident Evil was about fear, and death. But GTA has been banned. More than the content of a game, I think that the ESRB should focus on the representation. It's much more of a trauma when you are violently killed in a realistic way by hunters, than when you crash your 120 pixel car against a tank...
That's my point. The ESRB should consider what the games are about. But judging on how many people you kill in a single game is not enough, for this is non-sense. Why not forbid Civilization ? It could be seen as an enticing to imperialism, too. The main thing is that those guys (and girls) from the ESRB did not play any games, and do not understand that the vast majority of games feeds the imagination of players, whereas others feed frustration. This is what it should be about...
this requires an explanation that gets out of the computer field.
I can do nothing but agree on the crude constatation that some people do not know anything about computers, because they do not feel attracted by it, because there are multiple reasons not to be attracted by a iron box. Besides, there are people that do not understand, or don't want to understant things that go beyond the computer realm. Let's make the distinction.
This is a tough constatation, but this is it.
But my opinion in this subject is to say that people can be trained. The former part of people I described (like my mother for instance) needs to be teached, and that's it. The fact that the computer field has always been claimed as a geek/hacker property, for instance, makes me think of the old druids in ancient Eastern Europe.
Just imagine one moment that cell phones, that are as accessible as computers, were claimed by geeks, that put some strange stuff that you don't know all over their devices, and send them troughout the world. What's your reaction ? Fear, basically. There is no computer mongering like for cell phones, because people are scared.
And then, people are let in their ignorance. The more ignorance, the more fear. etc.etc.etc. My mam's example is perfect in that sense : she didn't want to learn computers, until I got abroad for studies purposes. Then she has an incentive (write) that outcame her fear/ignorance about computers. And by now, my mother knows as you and me how to use a desktop. This is as simple as that. Educate people. They do not know this realm. Put some fucking necessary courses at school, from 6 years old, to 45 through professional formation. That way everyone will be more at ease with computers.
this is a way of thinking the problem of course. I didn't say that Expose wasn't good.
But then you are trying to defend your point in a ill-suited manner.
The main thing about virtual desktops is that they force you to be organized. You know what you are doing with the documents you are using. I can understand that people don't want to behave that way.
But let me make two remarks.
Expose, like expocity will be only of some use to non-professional people (professional know how to work on computers). Expose is of no use to PAO addicts or something in that flavour. It was just a prerequesite.
Then, if it not meant for people that are specifically working with computers, in my opinion, this is an enticing to lazzyness. You don't know how to handle organization on a 17 display ? No prob, Expose is here. Again, so good. But I think that it would be so much more clever to learn people how to use efficiently the computer. And that's it. Again, if you want to use it, do it. I'm a pro-choice activist...:)
Do you really think that virtual desktops are that complex ? Do you think that Joe Average can't understand that if you divide a table in eight equal parts you can just put papers related to different subjects so as to be more organized ? I disagree on that point.
My analysis is that nobody has ever been accustomed to virtual desktops. I was a Windows user some time ago, I switched to Linux, I found that virtual desktops were a good feature, I just disciplined myself to be organized that way. And it worked. And I've been successfully using virtual desktops so far.
I'm not saying here that Expose is not good, it *is* good. So the project is worthy in itself. But virtual desktops can handle the same type of situations, but with the incentive of not having a crappy desktop.
Exactly the same feeling about this story.
But Microsoft is not the US right ?
Two different issues here, and I'm not going to debate the former one. Finkelstein already did the job.
However, this is a good step for free software, indeed. And I sincerely think that OO is able to cope with the requirements of the employment agency. I won't say what OO would be able to cope with in my opinion, I don't want flamewars over MS.
Jeez, is this auto-censorship ? I need a cigarette...
Do we really need this ? Don't we all already know that hackers are, and will remain the fucking martyrs of the computer field ?
At first sight, I was quite rejoiced : it is so rare to see 'cracker' instead of 'hacker'. And then, pssshhhh, vanished are the hopes.
We've all been reading plenty of stuff like that before, but this article put some other sneaky insight.
Did you notice, first, how the martyr theme was well represented ? (okok offtopic)
The main thing is that, by now, the average hacker is a sympathetic guy. He has children , he is not obese, he is not illiterate, ie he is not a bear. Even though the bear cliche was quite tough, there is another threat here. The pattern of evil hidden behind respectable appearances is made shallower and shallower as the article goes on. The author almost finish by an breaking point like : beware, the hackers can be everywhere. A truly scary incitation to irrational fear. Again, this is strange this has been written in Israel (offtopic !).
Secondly, the hacker seems to be granted by the state departments a holy grace that makes the average citizen think : 'how the bad hacker, full of revenge, which is at last spared by the authorities'. Truly pathetic : maybe only there hackers are granted such a favorized treatment. Who knows ?
And, eventually, the deja-vu pattern of for the most part, Ashkenazim, secular, leftist hacker. BTW, do you think that there is still leftists in Israel (offtopic, but so true !) ?
typical example of the blind application of law. This is why we need lawyers, unfortunately. I dream of a world in which I wouldn't need a lawyer to defend myself against that kind of crapy sue.
I think everything has been said already in the forum.
Except that we should get ready with our petition forms, because this guy will certainly be recognized culprit.
Being labelled arrogant is maybe the worst thing someone can say to me. You hit a loaded point here. Whatever. But I maintain my point : Linux is more secure than Windows.
For vulnerabilities : go there, or there. Again, crude attack figures does not mean anything. And vulnerabilities, in my opinion, does not mean much, for they cater to local overcomes.
Maybe a more interesting comparison would be to know how much money did the OSS and proprietary software worlds lost in the following of viruses, and vulnerabilities.
you will notice that I always answer to people, even people like you, in a very polite manner (I allow some fucking derivated in my mail, and you may be the beneficiary of one of them).
So your main is question is : why I allow to put "we" in my mails to speak of the free community software ? I'm not going to enter into my deeds inside the free community, it has nothing to do with the problem. You may have noticed that people often believe in belonging to some communities, whereas often it is not true. Exemple : the community of the newspaper readers. You are a newspaper reader, and you feel like belonging to the community, because you imagine that every other newspaper readers do the same thing as you, with the same habits, putting one leg over the other, playing with the glasses. This is called the virtual social representation (if my translation is ok, which is not sure at all). Read Jurgen Habermas if you want to know more about that. The main point is that such communities does'nt exist in the real world. This caters too to the national communities. I'm going to take my own exemple : I'm French, I'm supposed to be part of the French community. Even if I'm happy (sometimes unhappy) to be French, who ever asked me if I wanted to be a French guy, and not an American one ? The fact is that I had no choice to choose my community, I was compelled to stick to it.
Thus I use we, because the free software community answers those two objectives.
When Alan Cox reply my mail within a month, I can say that yes, the free software community exists in the real world.
When I was forced for so many years to be part of the Microsoft community which I was compelled to obey, yes, at the age of 15, when I was able to go away from it, I could choose a community that I was willing to participate in. I was given a choice at a time, and I did it.
Those two main reasons make me using the we without any feeling of superiority. And that's it.Oh yeah, and concerning the security problem, which will be debated again for 200 years, I posted some links in the first reply to my initial mail. If you want to have a glance, you are welcome...
first to say, I've red some impressive posts from your part. Thanks.
Again, this is a methodological management. If you ever red JJ. Rousseau (french philosopher), you may remember something like [...]the first ones who put some barriers around their lands created this world of anger, cruelty, suffering. If only one would have uprooted the barriers and yelled 'Don't follow this exemple ! You are lost if you forget that land belongs to none of us, and that crop are to us all'[...]
The translation is awful, I must admit. My point here is to say that underlining differences in such an agressive stance could lead, and led in the past, to the emergence of property. When you emphasize the fact that "X is better than Y", at some point, you will think that it has more value, thus you will be able to sell it at a better price than your neighbour, then you enclose your farm. If the comparison of the value of two products is not the main pattern of thinking, then there are many practical differences. You can still say that your product is better, but as it is not the primary affirmation you make in a forum, or in a distric assembly, this is no trouble. This is still choice, however. Why do you think that people have the sense of property at such a point ? Do you think it's part of the human nature ? I don't think so. I think that some people have been yelling during ages that that 'X was better than Y', and ended convincing people that it was the meaning of all life. I'm not against comparison at all, I'm against comparison put at the highest level of the human life. When I go to a supermarket and see 50 different peanuts brands, I can't bear it. This is why I don't go in supermarkets.
I thought Linux was secure... Guess not. Who told you that Linux was secure ? Your grandma ? Linux is more secure than Windows, of course. But it's not immunized against cracker. The computer world is based on a set of rules that can be broken. The better you are mastering these rules, the more secure your boxes are. But these rules can be broken, which means that, given human nature, they are bound to be broken occasionnaly. Furthermore, you will have noticed that if often relies on human use mistakes (password cracking for instance).
Free software sucks, Microsoft rules. Here I can almost physically feel the frustration of advocates of the proprietary world that can do nothing but bash any free software flaw they might encounter. However they deserve a clear, sound, and honest answer. My dears fellows, the free software world never proclamed himself the embodiment of security. We do our best to ensure it. And don't mix things up : our main problem with Redmond handling of security is about post-treatment. We do not appreciate the culture of hiding ; you can see here how coherent we are with ourselves.
Gentto is better than Debian ; oh no it's Redhat ; oh no it's Slackware. Hey guys, are you really part of the free software world ? Can you just realize these are the precise sentences that led to proprietary software/world ? And don't you think that you should adopt a more conservative stance ? Don't you think that the moral of this sad story is that nobody is preserved from crackers ? Wake up men, this is the very crucial moment where we must stand united. Keep your ammo for you real foes.
There are some days when you would think that the free software world is not that 'free as in freedom'...
Regards, JDif
Nurturing the hacker fantasy
on
Mafia Tech Support
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hi,
despite the fact that this was written with such a fictionnal (and thus amusing) tone, and point of view (don't you think that it could have been a good introduction to a Casino-like movie ?), I have another concern about that kind of press release.
Such statements as "I'm a hacker for the mob and I'm proud of it" mix two differents things, that, even if they are well distinguished by the average geek population, might seem confusing, and maybe upseting, for the average non-geek population.
In a nutshell, this article will probably provide some more exposure for the 'bad, immoral, nasty hacker' character that is already wide-spread worldwide. If I'm not a/. reader and a willing-to-learn guy/girl (which is the case of many, many, many people around the globe), my first reaction will be to say : 'damn, those motherfuckers already put some viruses on my computer, now they're getting with the mob, ; kill'em'all, buddy, kill that fucking hacker'
By writing this, this guy wants to sail away from the hacker community ('yep guys, I fuck you deep, I earn 50000$ with my hacking skills'), AND from the whole mob, the true one. And this kind of behaviour had never resulted in something else that despise, anger, and fear from the uninformed people. Many people remain well uninformed about hackers at this time ; in my opinion, the hacker community shouldn't be labelled that way.
Because maybe at some point hackers will be hanged by the mob...
I don't think we disagree on the core subject : I'm not strictly following my logic either...:0 It was meant to follow a theorical assertion, that seems justified to me(I can't see where you disagree with me on the figures), and inspect where it can lead.
I didn't say the whole money would obviously be brought back, even if I think that it can be. I just wanted to underline that maybe this was a greedy operation, and that's it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have rated this post as logical, but noone knows... :)
Indeed, it only fits to people that don't use that much teir cellphones. But when you are supposed to work on Web design, a project can take a while. And you can still but the silent mode and isolate yourself for five minutes. Places have been designed for this special purpose.
Regards,
Jdif
Regards,
Jdif
sticking to the relevant way of using the 'fair' mechanism, I'd like to thank those two students, and the whole bunch of people who fought Diebold's obnoxious use of the DMCA.
You did a fucking awesome job. And you proved that personal actions really matter in this deincarnated world.
This is no time to loosen the backlash ; Dieblod may ask for some 'mediation', my advice would be not to give them any relief. They *must* pay for what they've done.
Regards,
Jdif
I'm not going to discuss your point in details, I've been there for studying.
But such a response shows that you may have never visited a public library.
And that you don't know what taxes are for.
Regards,
Jdif
despite my personal experience wasn't about the computer field, I had to spend two years at home working for appliance to one of the French "grande ecole". The work rythm was exhausting, and I couldn't afford to work at home.
My first logical reaction was to go study at one of the Paris public library. This is a great place for socializing, for people in there are all in the same state of mind, ie working hard, but willing to take some enjoyable breaks. So at some point you *have* to meet some people, because this is bound to happen. I met some of my best friends there.
Furthermore, there is such a crazy atmosphere created by all these people working, just like a huge bubble of thoughts and reflexions (the feeling also relies on the physical disposition of people inside the library : in my example, there were 3000 people in each room, with a 10 m tall ceiling, plenty of space and light, and 50 people tables : amazing). It gave me a tremendous incentive to study hard.
Obviously, the prerequesites is that the library be quite large, and quite enjoyable, and that you have a laptop (but this is affordable, compared to the alternative of renting a work place). If you live in a populated area, it should be OK.
I now remind this time as one of the most exciting period of my life.
You should give it a try : it's free, enticing to work, full of exciting people. And of course nothing prevents you from having a break for lunch with your friends, girlfriend, dog, real doll, water puppet :)
Regards,
Jdif
fuck, this michael is a creation of the devil.
What kind of frustrated man can do things like that ?
What kind of pretentious guy can blame all journalists for being impartial ? What kind of pretentious guy can proclame himself a journalist when workig at /. ?
Fuck, every day passing by reveals that /. is not that different from any other fucking big corporation...
Hopefully, still many real insightful people.
Thanks for casting a light on this point.
Regards,
jdif
Fisrt, as many of /.ers put it in previous posts, the rating system can only at best be a piece of advice, not a perfect rule. Parents remain, in the last times, the rulers of their offspring.
But beyond that, the rating system is flawed, because the raters take into account the amount of violence, but do not put it into perspective with the overall meaning of the game.
Let's take two games that have been rating similarly : Manhunt and Diablo II. Both received the M17+ rating from the ESRB. How can a common sense person imagine that those two games express an equivalent violent content ? Of course, the core of Diablo, and of Manhunt, is to slash people. One might even say that Diablo is the game which entices you into slashing as many people as you can. But what is the meaning of Diablo, and how violence is depicted ? Diablo's world is based on fantasy ; it is not meant to depict some real stuff. You slash monsters, in a fantasy-modeled world. Graphics are unrealistic, exactly as the plot is, exactly as the battles are, exactly as all the game is. Thus, it has nothing to do with the common representation of real violence. On the other hand, Manhunt makes its best to make you believe that you are in a real world. The basic priciple -man hunt- has been considered to be implemented in a real-TV show some years ago. The graphics are realistic. You shoot someone in the head, the head is gone. You shoot someone in the leg, the leg is gone. They emphasize the common feelings of fear, hatred, suffering, etc. This game *can* be obnoxious to some personalitites, of course. But the fact is that this game has been rated M17+, exactly as Diablo was.
From that point of view, how can you consider seriously an organism that does not make the difference between fantasy and reality ? Personnaly, I don't. It's exactly like GTA. GTA was about fun, not death. Resident Evil was about fear, and death. But GTA has been banned. More than the content of a game, I think that the ESRB should focus on the representation. It's much more of a trauma when you are violently killed in a realistic way by hunters, than when you crash your 120 pixel car against a tank...
That's my point. The ESRB should consider what the games are about. But judging on how many people you kill in a single game is not enough, for this is non-sense. Why not forbid Civilization ? It could be seen as an enticing to imperialism, too. The main thing is that those guys (and girls) from the ESRB did not play any games, and do not understand that the vast majority of games feeds the imagination of players, whereas others feed frustration. This is what it should be about...
Regards,
Jdif
this requires an explanation that gets out of the computer field.
I can do nothing but agree on the crude constatation that some people do not know anything about computers, because they do not feel attracted by it, because there are multiple reasons not to be attracted by a iron box. Besides, there are people that do not understand, or don't want to understant things that go beyond the computer realm. Let's make the distinction.
This is a tough constatation, but this is it.
But my opinion in this subject is to say that people can be trained. The former part of people I described (like my mother for instance) needs to be teached, and that's it. The fact that the computer field has always been claimed as a geek/hacker property, for instance, makes me think of the old druids in ancient Eastern Europe.
Just imagine one moment that cell phones, that are as accessible as computers, were claimed by geeks, that put some strange stuff that you don't know all over their devices, and send them troughout the world. What's your reaction ? Fear, basically. There is no computer mongering like for cell phones, because people are scared.
And then, people are let in their ignorance. The more ignorance, the more fear. etc.etc.etc. My mam's example is perfect in that sense : she didn't want to learn computers, until I got abroad for studies purposes. Then she has an incentive (write) that outcame her fear/ignorance about computers. And by now, my mother knows as you and me how to use a desktop. This is as simple as that. Educate people. They do not know this realm. Put some fucking necessary courses at school, from 6 years old, to 45 through professional formation. That way everyone will be more at ease with computers.
Regards,
Jdif
this is a way of thinking the problem of course. I didn't say that Expose wasn't good.
But then you are trying to defend your point in a ill-suited manner.
The main thing about virtual desktops is that they force you to be organized. You know what you are doing with the documents you are using. I can understand that people don't want to behave that way.
But let me make two remarks.
Expose, like expocity will be only of some use to non-professional people (professional know how to work on computers). Expose is of no use to PAO addicts or something in that flavour. It was just a prerequesite.
Then, if it not meant for people that are specifically working with computers, in my opinion, this is an enticing to lazzyness. You don't know how to handle organization on a 17 display ? No prob, Expose is here. Again, so good. But I think that it would be so much more clever to learn people how to use efficiently the computer. And that's it. Again, if you want to use it, do it. I'm a pro-choice activist... :)
Regards,
jdif
Do you really think that virtual desktops are that complex ? Do you think that Joe Average can't understand that if you divide a table in eight equal parts you can just put papers related to different subjects so as to be more organized ? I disagree on that point.
My analysis is that nobody has ever been accustomed to virtual desktops. I was a Windows user some time ago, I switched to Linux, I found that virtual desktops were a good feature, I just disciplined myself to be organized that way. And it worked. And I've been successfully using virtual desktops so far.
I'm not saying here that Expose is not good, it *is* good. So the project is worthy in itself. But virtual desktops can handle the same type of situations, but with the incentive of not having a crappy desktop.
And that's it :0
Regards,
jdif
at first sight, I'd say here
But maybe some people believe that innovation is what you can only see.
Regards,
jdif
I still don't understand why you labeled the site as auto-censorship. I would consider it as anti-auto-censorship.
Nonetheless, it was interesting, ie truly scary.
Regards,
jdif
Exactly the same feeling about this story. But Microsoft is not the US right ? Two different issues here, and I'm not going to debate the former one. Finkelstein already did the job.
However, this is a good step for free software, indeed. And I sincerely think that OO is able to cope with the requirements of the employment agency. I won't say what OO would be able to cope with in my opinion, I don't want flamewars over MS.
Jeez, is this auto-censorship ?
I need a cigarette...
Regards,
jdif
It may even be the most uncritical component of this world.
Regards,
jdif
At first sight, I was quite rejoiced : it is so rare to see 'cracker' instead of 'hacker'. And then, pssshhhh, vanished are the hopes.
We've all been reading plenty of stuff like that before, but this article put some other sneaky insight.
- Did you notice, first, how the martyr theme was well represented ? (okok offtopic)
- The main thing is that, by now, the average hacker is a sympathetic guy. He has children , he is not obese, he is not illiterate, ie he is not a bear. Even though the bear cliche was quite tough, there is another threat here. The pattern of evil hidden behind respectable appearances is made shallower and shallower as the article goes on. The author almost finish by an breaking point like : beware, the hackers can be everywhere. A truly scary incitation to irrational fear. Again, this is strange this has been written in Israel (offtopic !).
- Secondly, the hacker seems to be granted by the state departments a holy grace that makes the average citizen think : 'how the bad hacker, full of revenge, which is at last spared by the authorities'. Truly pathetic : maybe only there hackers are granted such a favorized treatment. Who knows ?
- And, eventually, the deja-vu pattern of for the most part, Ashkenazim, secular, leftist hacker. BTW, do you think that there is still leftists in Israel (offtopic, but so true !) ?
Regards,Jdif
typical example of the blind application of law. This is why we need lawyers, unfortunately. I dream of a world in which I wouldn't need a lawyer to defend myself against that kind of crapy sue.
I think everything has been said already in the forum.
Except that we should get ready with our petition forms, because this guy will certainly be recognized culprit.
Ready ? Go ? Spam !
Regards,
Jdif
jdif
Being labelled arrogant is maybe the worst thing someone can say to me. You hit a loaded point here. Whatever. But I maintain my point : Linux is more secure than Windows.
For viruses : go there
For vulnerabilities : go there, or there.
Again, crude attack figures does not mean anything. And vulnerabilities, in my opinion, does not mean much, for they cater to local overcomes.
Maybe a more interesting comparison would be to know how much money did the OSS and proprietary software worlds lost in the following of viruses, and vulnerabilities.
Regards,
Jdif
you will notice that I always answer to people, even people like you, in a very polite manner (I allow some fucking derivated in my mail, and you may be the beneficiary of one of them).
So your main is question is : why I allow to put "we" in my mails to speak of the free community software ? I'm not going to enter into my deeds inside the free community, it has nothing to do with the problem. You may have noticed that people often believe in belonging to some communities, whereas often it is not true. Exemple : the community of the newspaper readers. You are a newspaper reader, and you feel like belonging to the community, because you imagine that every other newspaper readers do the same thing as you, with the same habits, putting one leg over the other, playing with the glasses. This is called the virtual social representation (if my translation is ok, which is not sure at all). Read Jurgen Habermas if you want to know more about that. The main point is that such communities does'nt exist in the real world. This caters too to the national communities. I'm going to take my own exemple : I'm French, I'm supposed to be part of the French community. Even if I'm happy (sometimes unhappy) to be French, who ever asked me if I wanted to be a French guy, and not an American one ? The fact is that I had no choice to choose my community, I was compelled to stick to it.
Thus I use we, because the free software community answers those two objectives.
- When Alan Cox reply my mail within a month, I can say that yes, the free software community exists in the real world.
- When I was forced for so many years to be part of the Microsoft community which I was compelled to obey, yes, at the age of 15, when I was able to go away from it, I could choose a community that I was willing to participate in. I was given a choice at a time, and I did it.
Those two main reasons make me using the we without any feeling of superiority. And that's it.Oh yeah, and concerning the security problem, which will be debated again for 200 years, I posted some links in the first reply to my initial mail. If you want to have a glance, you are welcome...Regards,
Jdif
first to say, I've red some impressive posts from your part. Thanks.
Again, this is a methodological management. If you ever red JJ. Rousseau (french philosopher), you may remember something like [...]the first ones who put some barriers around their lands created this world of anger, cruelty, suffering. If only one would have uprooted the barriers and yelled 'Don't follow this exemple ! You are lost if you forget that land belongs to none of us, and that crop are to us all'[...]
The translation is awful, I must admit. My point here is to say that underlining differences in such an agressive stance could lead, and led in the past, to the emergence of property. When you emphasize the fact that "X is better than Y", at some point, you will think that it has more value, thus you will be able to sell it at a better price than your neighbour, then you enclose your farm. If the comparison of the value of two products is not the main pattern of thinking, then there are many practical differences. You can still say that your product is better, but as it is not the primary affirmation you make in a forum, or in a distric assembly, this is no trouble. This is still choice, however. Why do you think that people have the sense of property at such a point ? Do you think it's part of the human nature ? I don't think so. I think that some people have been yelling during ages that that 'X was better than Y', and ended convincing people that it was the meaning of all life. I'm not against comparison at all, I'm against comparison put at the highest level of the human life. When I go to a supermarket and see 50 different peanuts brands, I can't bear it. This is why I don't go in supermarkets.
Regards,
JDif
This bastard had a better laptop than mine.
Regards,
Jdif
Regards
Jdif
218 posts and some rare appropriate reactions.
- I thought Linux was secure... Guess not. Who told you that Linux was secure ? Your grandma ? Linux is more secure than Windows, of course. But it's not immunized against cracker. The computer world is based on a set of rules that can be broken. The better you are mastering these rules, the more secure your boxes are. But these rules can be broken, which means that, given human nature, they are bound to be broken occasionnaly. Furthermore, you will have noticed that if often relies on human use mistakes (password cracking for instance).
- Free software sucks, Microsoft rules. Here I can almost physically feel the frustration of advocates of the proprietary world that can do nothing but bash any free software flaw they might encounter. However they deserve a clear, sound, and honest answer. My dears fellows, the free software world never proclamed himself the embodiment of security. We do our best to ensure it. And don't mix things up : our main problem with Redmond handling of security is about post-treatment. We do not appreciate the culture of hiding ; you can see here how coherent we are with ourselves.
- Gentto is better than Debian ; oh no it's Redhat ; oh no it's Slackware. Hey guys, are you really part of the free software world ? Can you just realize these are the precise sentences that led to proprietary software/world ? And don't you think that you should adopt a more conservative stance ? Don't you think that the moral of this sad story is that nobody is preserved from crackers ? Wake up men, this is the very crucial moment where we must stand united. Keep your ammo for you real foes.
There are some days when you would think that the free software world is not that 'free as in freedom'...Regards,
JDif
despite the fact that this was written with such a fictionnal (and thus amusing) tone, and point of view (don't you think that it could have been a good introduction to a Casino-like movie ?), I have another concern about that kind of press release.
Such statements as "I'm a hacker for the mob and I'm proud of it" mix two differents things, that, even if they are well distinguished by the average geek population, might seem confusing, and maybe upseting, for the average non-geek population.
In a nutshell, this article will probably provide some more exposure for the 'bad, immoral, nasty hacker' character that is already wide-spread worldwide. If I'm not a /. reader and a willing-to-learn guy/girl (which is the case of many, many, many people around the globe), my first reaction will be to say : 'damn, those motherfuckers already put some viruses on my computer, now they're getting with the mob, ; kill'em'all, buddy, kill that fucking hacker'
By writing this, this guy wants to sail away from the hacker community ('yep guys, I fuck you deep, I earn 50000$ with my hacking skills'), AND from the whole mob, the true one. And this kind of behaviour had never resulted in something else that despise, anger, and fear from the uninformed people. Many people remain well uninformed about hackers at this time ; in my opinion, the hacker community shouldn't be labelled that way.
Because maybe at some point hackers will be hanged by the mob...
Regards,
Jdif
Hi,
:0
I don't think we disagree on the core subject : I'm not strictly following my logic either...
It was meant to follow a theorical assertion, that seems justified to me(I can't see where you disagree with me on the figures), and inspect where it can lead.
I didn't say the whole money would obviously be brought back, even if I think that it can be. I just wanted to underline that maybe this was a greedy operation, and that's it.
Regards,
Jdif