Honnestly, between packing the plane with dual layer DVDs or 300gb+ hard drives, the latter's got more bandwidth. And I'm sure an Übergeek will come up in a few minutes with something even nicer
Disclaimer: I'm British, so I may have misunderstood some aspect of the problem.
No. Actually, I think you have a rather good view of the situation. I thought almost the same thing: thieves want this information because it is "secret". So it has to be secured. What if we suddenly make all SSNs publicly listed and stop trating them like they're our very souls.
Isn't there some system that would replace our "security through obscurity" attitude by a "OpenSociety" way of dealing with personal information. I mean, I'm sure there some other -- and better -- way of verifyring someone's ID than to rely entirely on a few random numbers. I all those numbers are made public, what interest is left to steal them? We'd just have to think of a new, "open" way to deal with the issue.
WRONG! Cheaper IS better, because it sells more. People expect to pay peanuts for a computer that works out of the box nowadays. Small computer shops pop up everywhere because people are now shopping for the best price and will travel 100km to save $1 for a RAM stick that'll blow up in their face.
Indeed, quality seems to be a thing of the past. I'd take my old beige pentium 200 over an overheating shitbox that has more neons than mb of RAM anytime. Sure, you can still pay more and get better products, but we'd all be running IBM servers =P
I mean that most hackers seem to want to "screw with the system" a little.
What? You really think non-geeks in the army are brainwashed cannon fodder? Come on!
You can hate the system and still be in the army. You'll still get to play around with guns and learn cool stuff. A nice example would be here, in Quebec. You may know that there is some sort of a separatist movement here, and many French-speaking Quebecers have a deep hatred towards the English Canadians. Still, there are a lot of them in the Canadian army, serving (and bitching about) Her Majesty the Queen.
My point is: you can get into an organisation, play the game, obey and still hate every bit of it. Hackers would fit in the military as nicely as any redneck.
And I'll tell you, one of the reasons why you don't see more innovation in the free software world is because of idiots like yourself who would rather bitch about what is out there that they don't like
Is that all it takes to discourage OSS? I understand your point, but I don't completely agree. If you can be stopped from doing something you love just because most people complain, while very few actualy appreciate, then I'd say you're simply not strong enough.
Instead of quitting, people with balls will think of ways to improve the product. And they won't put the blame on their "clients", saying "look, you don't wanna help, deal with it". Poeple are free to criticize and you are free to quit any time. It is not their job to improve YOUR idea.
Though I may agree on some points with you, I see no reason to quit. I hope not everyone in the OSS community will be so easy to discourage.
I've never understood the human reasoning of fear, especially as it applies to something like this. IANAAP (i am not an astro physicist,) but I bet there is a far better chance of being killed in a car or struck by lightning than being wiped out by a gamma radiation burst.
I think it's rather simple. We feel we have some control over our cars, this is why many people feel secure in a car but won't ever take the plane because they are scared, probably because they cannot control it, eventhough statisticaly, it is far more secure to fly than to drive.
I guess the same applies to gamma radiation bursts -- it is an event on which we have no control at all. We are scared because we will never know it is about to happen, and there is nothing we can do about it.
That lack of control on events of such a cataclysmic nature is a good reason to feel insecure.
Until the Sahara desert and both of the Arctic Circles are completely populated with big cities, things are not so crowded here that we need to move to Martian suburbs.
It's not just for the fun of it. You don't go and colonize a planet because you feel like it. The idea is to create a human outpost, so if something happens on Earth, then some of our civilization will remain elsewhere.
If the planet collapses, neither Sahara nor the Arctic Circles will be spared.
From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.
Well you know, some people pay a lot of money for older cars and they can use them as daily drivers without a problem. Those machines we terribly solid and the engines we very tough.
You might not talk on an old phone, but you do know that the wires and poles carrying your signal were probably installed before you were born, right? And that the whole telephone concept was invented WAY before the shuttle...
The shuttle might be old, but upgrades were made to it. The astronauts do not wear the same suits. The Canadian Arm was not there in 1981. The program has been improved over the years and it might still be 100% OK to continue with it.
You know, even if the shuttle isn't filled with cool blue LEDs and covered with silver metal-like plastic, it can be appropriate for what it has to accomplish.
So I don't know what to do about it, but I'm really goddamn tired of whiners who depend on computers to run large chunks of their lives but still think of it, more or less, as that magical glowy box.
Then let's just stop presenting computers as magical glowy boxes. Everywhere you can see an ad about how easy it is to surf this or that website. Then there are stores selling "internet ready" computers. Then there are telcos and other ISPs trying to pretend that you just put the CD in and the whole internet is there for you to marvel at.
People don't know shit about shit and we can't blame them. They just expect everything to be easy with computers, because everyone tells them so. Have you seen any ad saying "so, it was hard to connect? Now your computer's hijacked? You've received threats from the RIAA? Well. Tough luck!... ". You probably haven't.
Telling people it's easy sells. It sells computers, internet access and a whole lot of useless gadgets. People just don't know. Don't be pissed at them.
Yeah. That's what I meant by responsibility. It's up to people to chose the right browser, the right OS and the proper tools to protect themselves. We shouldn't need the government to do that. But then again, people just want a 200$ PC that works out of the box and they don't want to learn shit about shit.
Try mistyping the link to legitimate websites.
I agree this is a pain in the ass. But most search engines offer tools and/or parameters to narrow your search to what you are looking for. Just learn. It is not the ISP's or the govt's duty to teach us that.
I don't even do a search on google anymore without restricting results to site:edu or site:org.
Stop searching for breasts;P
Not everyone is computer literate. Not everyone wants to be computer literate.
And that's exactly the problem. People seem to think that when you get a computer, everything will be working like they please and the whole internet will kneel before them. That's not how it works. You need to learn how to use a washing machine before you throw your 50$ shirt in it, right? How about learning how to properly use the computer?
I'm not going to the extreme of suing people for becoming part of a zombie network, but they should be aware that computers require some degree of knowledge and competence. To this day, there is no such thing as a turn-key computer -- you'll have to learn something and you need to know that when you visit a casino site, you're very likely to see pornography in popup windows if you've not been careful enough to install, say, Firefox.
Maybe someday computer will be completely automatic and they'll do what is allowed by the government. But I'd rather whish that some day, people will be computer literate enough to use plain computers...
People can now choose to ban certain sites from coming into their house.
Uh yeah. Like they were forced to see pr0n before? People did not have the opportunity to close their browser windows before that bill was passed? Yeah... I know the problem. I always feel the urge to click on Fark's boobies links too. I hope that bill will come to Canada soon to save my soul.
Seriously though, I agree with you, I don't think it's really against people's freedoms. However, when people rely on the state to "protect" them instead of taking their own responsibilities, I find it stupid. Just like when someone sues McDonald's because the food is fat. Or cigarette makers because they're addicted. Fuck! Take care of yourself and act like an adult. Do people really NEED laws to behave? How about judgement and common sense?....
Slashdot Mirror
I for one welcome our new beowulf cluster of advertising overlords.
Honnestly, between packing the plane with dual layer DVDs or 300gb+ hard drives, the latter's got more bandwidth. And I'm sure an Übergeek will come up in a few minutes with something even nicer
and saw nothing about locking in the chinese netizens [...] albeit san porn
You saw NOTHING??
Disclaimer: I'm British, so I may have misunderstood some aspect of the problem.
No. Actually, I think you have a rather good view of the situation. I thought almost the same thing: thieves want this information because it is "secret". So it has to be secured. What if we suddenly make all SSNs publicly listed and stop trating them like they're our very souls.
Isn't there some system that would replace our "security through obscurity" attitude by a "OpenSociety" way of dealing with personal information. I mean, I'm sure there some other -- and better -- way of verifyring someone's ID than to rely entirely on a few random numbers. I all those numbers are made public, what interest is left to steal them? We'd just have to think of a new, "open" way to deal with the issue.
I can't help but feel sorry for the 3 people in this country who still don't have a Gmail account.
Let's flood their inbox with gmail invites. =D
I tend to find that especially amongst "geeks", Google IS God. :)
everything concerning your sexuality
What? Like one can use Google Image search to find free sex pictures? You gotta be kidding... =P
perfect liquid [...] a shot of vodka
Whew. Perfect liquid? I'd rather say it was a cask strenght single malt.
The King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes.
Is George Lucas somehow involved in this book?
Cheaper != Better.
WRONG! Cheaper IS better, because it sells more. People expect to pay peanuts for a computer that works out of the box nowadays. Small computer shops pop up everywhere because people are now shopping for the best price and will travel 100km to save $1 for a RAM stick that'll blow up in their face.
Indeed, quality seems to be a thing of the past. I'd take my old beige pentium 200 over an overheating shitbox that has more neons than mb of RAM anytime. Sure, you can still pay more and get better products, but we'd all be running IBM servers =P
I mean that most hackers seem to want to "screw with the system" a little.
What? You really think non-geeks in the army are brainwashed cannon fodder? Come on!
You can hate the system and still be in the army. You'll still get to play around with guns and learn cool stuff. A nice example would be here, in Quebec. You may know that there is some sort of a separatist movement here, and many French-speaking Quebecers have a deep hatred towards the English Canadians. Still, there are a lot of them in the Canadian army, serving (and bitching about) Her Majesty the Queen.
My point is: you can get into an organisation, play the game, obey and still hate every bit of it. Hackers would fit in the military as nicely as any redneck.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing though?
Yeah. It's good. The hell with DW. They should make Frontpage for linux instead. Way better. =P
And I'll tell you, one of the reasons why you don't see more innovation in the free software world is because of idiots like yourself who would rather bitch about what is out there that they don't like
Is that all it takes to discourage OSS? I understand your point, but I don't completely agree. If you can be stopped from doing something you love just because most people complain, while very few actualy appreciate, then I'd say you're simply not strong enough.
Instead of quitting, people with balls will think of ways to improve the product. And they won't put the blame on their "clients", saying "look, you don't wanna help, deal with it". Poeple are free to criticize and you are free to quit any time. It is not their job to improve YOUR idea.
Though I may agree on some points with you, I see no reason to quit. I hope not everyone in the OSS community will be so easy to discourage.
No, I don't actually sit around worrying about gamma ray bursts,
Neither do I. I *know* my tinfoil hat will protect me.
I've never understood the human reasoning of fear, especially as it applies to something like this. IANAAP (i am not an astro physicist,) but I bet there is a far better chance of being killed in a car or struck by lightning than being wiped out by a gamma radiation burst.
I think it's rather simple. We feel we have some control over our cars, this is why many people feel secure in a car but won't ever take the plane because they are scared, probably because they cannot control it, eventhough statisticaly, it is far more secure to fly than to drive.
I guess the same applies to gamma radiation bursts -- it is an event on which we have no control at all. We are scared because we will never know it is about to happen, and there is nothing we can do about it.
That lack of control on events of such a cataclysmic nature is a good reason to feel insecure.
Until the Sahara desert and both of the Arctic Circles are completely populated with big cities, things are not so crowded here that we need to move to Martian suburbs.
It's not just for the fun of it. You don't go and colonize a planet because you feel like it. The idea is to create a human outpost, so if something happens on Earth, then some of our civilization will remain elsewhere.
If the planet collapses, neither Sahara nor the Arctic Circles will be spared.
From a technology standpoint, I don't use the same computers that were out in 1981. I don't drive a car that was made or designed in 1981. I don't even talk on a phone whose carrier techology was around in 1981.
Well you know, some people pay a lot of money for older cars and they can use them as daily drivers without a problem. Those machines we terribly solid and the engines we very tough.
You might not talk on an old phone, but you do know that the wires and poles carrying your signal were probably installed before you were born, right? And that the whole telephone concept was invented WAY before the shuttle...
The shuttle might be old, but upgrades were made to it. The astronauts do not wear the same suits. The Canadian Arm was not there in 1981. The program has been improved over the years and it might still be 100% OK to continue with it.
You know, even if the shuttle isn't filled with cool blue LEDs and covered with silver metal-like plastic, it can be appropriate for what it has to accomplish.
So I don't know what to do about it, but I'm really goddamn tired of whiners who depend on computers to run large chunks of their lives but still think of it, more or less, as that magical glowy box.
... ". You probably haven't.
Then let's just stop presenting computers as magical glowy boxes. Everywhere you can see an ad about how easy it is to surf this or that website. Then there are stores selling "internet ready" computers. Then there are telcos and other ISPs trying to pretend that you just put the CD in and the whole internet is there for you to marvel at.
People don't know shit about shit and we can't blame them. They just expect everything to be easy with computers, because everyone tells them so. Have you seen any ad saying "so, it was hard to connect? Now your computer's hijacked? You've received threats from the RIAA? Well. Tough luck!
Telling people it's easy sells. It sells computers, internet access and a whole lot of useless gadgets. People just don't know. Don't be pissed at them.
The conception of Jesus was not the "immaculate conception"; the conception of Mary was.......
:)
Blah blah blah. Like they say...
Hehehe
which he aquired back when Nissan was still selling vehicles as Datsun
That would be in the mid-80's....
For example, this [multimap.com] is where I live!
Whoa. Can you actualy see the shadow of my mouse cursor???
In the US, the latter would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, not to mention completely impossible to enforce.
You're saying this like every bill, law and decision passed in the US makes sense.
You have never seen a pop-up window?
;P
Yeah. That's what I meant by responsibility. It's up to people to chose the right browser, the right OS and the proper tools to protect themselves. We shouldn't need the government to do that. But then again, people just want a 200$ PC that works out of the box and they don't want to learn shit about shit.
Try mistyping the link to legitimate websites.
I agree this is a pain in the ass. But most search engines offer tools and/or parameters to narrow your search to what you are looking for. Just learn. It is not the ISP's or the govt's duty to teach us that.
I don't even do a search on google anymore without restricting results to site:edu or site:org.
Stop searching for breasts
Not everyone is computer literate. Not everyone wants to be computer literate.
And that's exactly the problem. People seem to think that when you get a computer, everything will be working like they please and the whole internet will kneel before them. That's not how it works. You need to learn how to use a washing machine before you throw your 50$ shirt in it, right? How about learning how to properly use the computer?
I'm not going to the extreme of suing people for becoming part of a zombie network, but they should be aware that computers require some degree of knowledge and competence. To this day, there is no such thing as a turn-key computer -- you'll have to learn something and you need to know that when you visit a casino site, you're very likely to see pornography in popup windows if you've not been careful enough to install, say, Firefox.
Maybe someday computer will be completely automatic and they'll do what is allowed by the government. But I'd rather whish that some day, people will be computer literate enough to use plain computers...
People can now choose to ban certain sites from coming into their house.
....
Uh yeah. Like they were forced to see pr0n before? People did not have the opportunity to close their browser windows before that bill was passed? Yeah... I know the problem. I always feel the urge to click on Fark's boobies links too. I hope that bill will come to Canada soon to save my soul.
Seriously though, I agree with you, I don't think it's really against people's freedoms. However, when people rely on the state to "protect" them instead of taking their own responsibilities, I find it stupid. Just like when someone sues McDonald's because the food is fat. Or cigarette makers because they're addicted. Fuck! Take care of yourself and act like an adult. Do people really NEED laws to behave? How about judgement and common sense?