Who are you to make this pronouncement? Is your pride and your dignity worth nothing to you that you would mock those who would stand up for what little they have left in this life?
Is that how you rationalize this to yourself, by claiming that it is somehow foolish or childish to resist, or to want a certain amount of respect in this world?
Posts which would have us sumbit to corporate powers and agendas are moderated up, while posts standing up for the dignity of the Human Person are moderated as trolls.
The only troll around here is the parent who suggested that we are foolish or somehow childish to stand up for our rights, to stand up for our dignity and our pride, and to demand that respect we are due.
I see how it is. The Slashdot moderators in their jobs in the corporate world must rationalize their behavior, their submission, by beating down dissent.
Come on Slashdot, where is your spirit? Why do you accept and moderate up such a defeatist attitude?
Do you really believe that it is childish, foolish, a "fetish" to stand up and demand the respect you are due? Do you really believe that it is foolish to stand up and boldly send the message that we do not want to be treated as livestock?
Stand up and let the advertisers know that we will not be treated this way. How dare we consent to this mistreatment. Stand up.
You are more than how you are marketed. You are more than your utility to the corporation in which you for a time reside.
Posts which would have us sumbit to corporate powers and agendas are moderated up, while posts standing up for the dignity of the Human Person are moderated as trolls.
The only troll around here is the parent who suggested that we are foolish or somehow childish to stand up for our rights, to stand up for our dignity and our pride, and to demand that respect we are due.
I see how it is. The Slashdot moderators in their jobs in the corporate world must rationalize their behavior, their submission, by beating down dissent.
Come on Slashdot, where is your spirit? Why do you accept and moderate up such a defeatist attitude?
You are more than how you are marketed. You are more than your utility to the corporate prison in which you for a time reside.
I have just one question for you. What was your price?
I very literally begin physically shaking when, on those rare occassions where I watch anything other than PBS, a commercial comes on and I am unable to turn the channel (such as when I am watching with someone else).
I need to get up and leave the room, because to some extent I don't want to be rude; some people actually enjoy watching commercials, and some even believe that if they do not watch at least some they are not fulfilling some obligation.
It is incredibly insulting to sit through a commercial. It denies your value as a human being, as a person.
Advertisers treat us as livestock. They fatten and pleasure us on sex and gluttony and sloth. Our souls are butchered and ground and packaged and we feed again this infernal machine, in which carries on that devilish churning, not resting or ceasing until every brother and every sister -- every human soul -- is bought and packged and sold and no one remembers who we are, who we once were but have forever lost.
I choose my behaviors in life specifically with the intention in mind to avoid being treated in a manner not fitting to what I am. I am a free man.
Except of necessity, my own or anothers', I will not purchase a product from a company which I find to treat me other than in the manner my very being merits I be treated.
When you sell out to consumerism, you sell out not only yourself, but sell out also just one step further each and all of us.
You are without excuse. Either you are for us -- for the dignity of the human person -- or you are against us.
Don't be a sell-out. We are better than that, all of us.
Folks who have traditionally been Microsoft users, who have recently installed Linux on an old machine at home or maybe as dual-boot, who have little to no real experience or training with Unix-like systems or with particular open source servers, are going into to the business IT environment and installing Linux-based systems on the hype.
Sure they can get Apache webserver serving pages, they can get Tomcat doing "something", and they can certainly run XMMS quite well on their workstation, but they really have no clue how to properly use these technologies in a production environment.
They see switching to Linux-based systems as being a simple fix.
They aren't willing to extensively review their configuration or product documentation. They aren't willing to put in the significant amount of time that is in fact required to become experts with the technologies.
Yes, they certainly do get a kick out of telling their friends that they have "Linux boxes running their shop", but security suffers due to their naive incompetence.
These techs should be fired.
Open source development may be a "we'll get that feature done when we feel like it" affair, but deploying Linux-based systems in a production environment must not be.
If anything, effectively and securely deploying Linux-based solutions requires more training and knowledge than does deploying Microsoft.
First, realize that these security alerts arise from a set of over 8710 packages. This is an incredibly large base of software, the great majority of which you will not have installed, and certainly not have installed in a production environment.
Second, did you even bother to read those security alerts or investigate what the packages are? Briefly:
node: "Amateur Packet Radio Node program"
libpam-smb: arbitrary code, but no privilege escalation
unzip: no privilege escalation, no arbitrary code, and who uses it?
man-db: only if you go against install-time advice and make it setuid
autorespond: "This vulnerability is currently not believed to be exploitable due to incidental limits on the length of the problematic input, but there may be situations in which these limits do not apply."
netris: "A free, networked version of T*tris"
linux-kernel-2.4.18: most are local only, "STP protocol", or an nfs3 DOS with no arbitrary code or remote root
perl: yes, "execute arbitrary web script within the context of the generated page"
kdelibs: konqueror only, client only
pam-pgsql: arbitrary code, but no privilege escalation
zblast: "shoot 'em up space game"
xpcd: local only
xtokkaetama: local only
"This stuff wouldn't happen if Debian didn't use out of date software, as most of the flaws mentioned were fixed in the new versions!"
And this is why I call troll.
From Debian security FAQ: "The most important guideline when making a new package that fixes a security problem is to make as few changes as possible. Our users and developers are relying on the exact behaviour of a release once it is made, so any change we make can possibly break someone's system. This is especially true in case of libraries: make sure you never change the Application Program Interface (API) or Application Binary Interface (ABI), no matter how small the change is.
This means that moving to a new upstream version is not a good solution, instead the relevant changes should be backported. Generally upstream maintainers are willing to help if needed, if not the Debian security team might be able to help.
In some cases it is not possible to backport a security fix, for example when large amounts of source code need to be modified or rewritten. If that happens it might be necessary to move to a new upstream version, but this has to be coordinated with the security team beforehand."
Re:All your base?
on
Dotcom Era Fads
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But I'm certainly not above laughing at clever derivatives. Are you?
I laughed at a highly-moderated comment posted just several weeks ago, recounting "All your base" with IBM and SCO taking parts.
Sometimes there is nothing funnier than at a particularly unexpected moment someone making a silly reference -- perhaps as a derivative -- to something like "All your base".
"It's a trap!", something I've seen seen in some fairly weird places, which also seems to be really quite silly, is also humorous at some unexpected moment.
The author states, "Computer Programs are Writings." He compares computer programs to written essays. I believe that both his statement and comparision are generally incorrect.
Yes, there may some cases where this is so, such as might be entries in the "obfuscated C code contest". But this is very seldom what we are speaking of when we talk about "computer programs".
More so than it is similar to an essay, the computer program is similar to the collection of specific gears, sprockets, pins, and their particular arrangements which cause a machine to work in a useful and well-defined way. These parts, similarly, like components of computer programs, have yet more primitive components and specifications which provide for those at the higher level.
Perhaps a more useful example due to its comparative complexity is a clock.
That the analogy of gears, pins, sprokets and their arrangement, to software and the computer on which it runs, is successful, is illustrated by the case of the swapped watch internals.
Suppose that we have an existing mechanical clock. Now, suppose we take a duplicate watch casing, but inside we insert a "general purpose gear, ping, and sproket emulator". Like the computer, this device, in order to function in a useful manner, requires a set of instructions. Specifically, these instructions must instruct the emulator how to perform operations with equivalent results to those that were in our existing clock performed by real, rather than emulated gears, pins, and sprokets.
The success of the clockmaker is determined not by creativity in ordering or commentary on the natural world. Rather, success is measured by efficiency, and correctness. Optimality is measured (when it is computationally possible) by precise mathematical metrics. Correctness is determined not by asthetic appeal, creativity, or insight, but by nothing more than the solution being provably correct through the employment of established mathematical techniques. In fact, we might wonder what "correctness" should mean, if anything at all, in the context of an essay.
In the case of the computer program, creatvity or imagination are desirable not in the structure, choice, or ordering of the instructions, but rather in coming upon a correct solution or in visualizing the problem.
A source listing's utility is perhaps directly proportional to its lack of creativity.
Perhaps you have little obligation to endorse a system which will lead to your being unable to pay your creditors, unable to continue your child's education, or unable to continue contributing your share to providing for your partner and yourself the sort of life you have committed to providing for one another. These are the sort of personal oaths and commitments upon which your measure as a person -- the content of your character -- is founded. Had you thought otherwise? Do not listen to those who would confuse you and have you lie to yourself.
Many would say that these relationships are special, that there is something about these relationships that warrants extra consideration. For 2500 years we were told again and again by men in their studies, men in their academies, and men in their ivory towers what is and is not moral, what is and is not ethical. And surprisingly these men, living unto themselves, have come down from their mountain tops and declared to us as if they were prophets having faced the very Good itself, that what it means to be ethical is to ignore what it is that makes each one of us and our relationships unique.
How many of these men -- the very establishers and propogators of the existing patriarchal system which they would have us bend our knee to -- have looked into the face of their child cradeled in their arms? Oh what fools they are, and what fools we are for believing them. Will they say unto this child, this helpless being, "I have brought you into this world, and yet I shun you helpless child, that I may go about the business of helping those halfway across the world who neither your nor I shall ever meet?"
Why, why do we direct our admiration to these men who have not lived, who have brought down and imposed upon us the oppressive patriarchal system, that twisted and corrupted institutions which exists solely to grant and guaruntee them their comfort and their standing above us?
Why do we do this when we already who have and do live already know what is right and what is wrong if only we will turn our gaze inside and to one another?
Look at your child and at your partner; now tell me what it is that is right and what it is that is wrong. Or do not, for you have just seen the very foundation of it.
No, what needs to protest is whatever can motivate constituents in the EU to quickly fire off their positions to their representatives, those who have the power to stop this.
EU Slashdot readers, perhaps of anyone, are the most likely to get on this, if they just had a bit of nudging, or more so the jolt of Slashdot replacing its front page; that isn't something you see every day.
If EU readers see that Slashdot of all places (US-centric, profit) can do this one thing, that these readers surely can write an email or make that phone call to their representatives.
Yes, closing Slashdot may be preaching to the choir, but at this late stage in the game, this is exactly what can be most effective.
We need the EU folks reading Slashdot to get a jolt, to say, "Hey, this really is something Big." We need this, because this is the only way that many of them -- just like Americans -- will take the time to fire off their position to their representatives who have both the duty to represent their constituents and the power to stop this in its tracks.
And Slashdot, what is going to earn you more good will among your readership than taking a bold stand like this? Perhaps there would be more willing to subscribe -- at least for a month -- if they were to see you as politically active and not just a disinterested for-profit news portal.
C'mon Slashdot, even just a prominent alert that could stay at the top of front page. Isn't it for the good of everyone?
I had been a fairly long-time Window Maker user before I came to GNOME, and while I certainly thought I needed my desktop just how I had it, with all of the gizmos and technical (read: overly complex) look, I did not, and now the user experience is simpler.
Looking at the screencapture of your desktop, I have some recommendations if you try GNOME again: 1) Use only a single edge panel at the top of the screen. Why, when to control everything else - a window or an application - you look up, but for the desktop you look down? You'll get used to it quickly. 2) Eliminate the tasks list. 3) Give yourself 10 virtual desktops. I promise you that if your usage is at all similar to my own, if you get rid of that task list and start ordering your use around virtual desktops, you will soon be asking yourself why you ever used that task list in the first place. 4) You can drag/drop windows across virtual desktops by selecting and dragging the miniature version in the virtual desktop selector. 5) Check your Metacity bindings for moving between desktops, and moving windows between desktops, etc. I like the defaults. 6) Ask yourself whether you really need to see CPU and Mem/Swap usage. If you really believe you do, add the applets to your top edge panel, but I suggest leaving them off. Will really miss them? 7) Add the dictionary applet if you think you need it frequently enough that you can't just go Applications->Accessories->Dictionary. 8) Add your "quicklaunch" icons (or a drawer of icons). 9) Add the audio controls, if this is something useful to you. 10) Do you really need to have always visible the volume level of all of your audio devices? Just add the Volume Control applet, and when you need the full listing, it's just a matter of a right click to bring it up.
Perhaps there are non-stock applets that wouuld be useful to you as well, but to be honeset, I have never looked because the need has never arisen.
What if the artist wants the RIAA lifestyle? What if the artist wants big money to produce a music video and use high-end studio equipment?
If that's what the artist wants, I say go ahead. I have not, do not, and will not purchase their music of course, and while I do not infringe copyrights, I will encourage others to share these artists' music at will, but by all means, if what you want is to have an album put out by an RIAA member studio, it certainly seems that it is within your rights to do so.
I suspect that most artists, as much as they may whine about the RIAA and member studios, will not give up the lifestyle afforded them by being on a big label, even after or when their contracts allow them to.
We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Your cam whores and enormous penises will be added to our own. Your credit cards will adapt to service ours. Your inbox, as it has been, is over. From this time forward your hot teens will service us.
As was mentioned previously, if you believe there is an alternative which at least as good but can be completed in a shorter time, bring this up with your superior. Hopefully, either he or she will clarify the task further indicating why your proposed alternative is not an adequate substitute, or your alternative will be accepted.
If no such alternative exists (as it often does not), you still should not say "No".
First, you must appear organized, that you have an up to date and concise listing of tasks, timeframes, and priorities, and that you are making and documenting satisfactory progress on each of these tasks.
You can run this by your superior, update him or her of your status, as well as recall priorities given to existing tasks.
You do not need to say, "No." Instead you can say, "Should we make this a priority over task x?" Put the broad directional decisions in your superior's court if that is appropriate in your relationship/position.
Give a timeframe for its completion based upon the priority assigned to it. If your superior later requests that you change priorities of tasks, document this.
Give the impression that you are making progress on what is on the mind of your superior, and if asked, be prepared on the spot to report the priority and status of all tasks currently in progress.
Anticipating a Debian or Gentoo distribution for this architecture, I'm curious whether it is possible to purchase one of these systems from Apple without OS X installed; the "Apple tax", so to speak.
I know that Slashdot readers have in the past made some noise about Microsoft's practices in this area, specifically concerning laptops.
Have any Slashdot readers have researched this at all, that is, how one might obtain such a system from Apple, and if so, what they have turned up?
"If that's not acceptable, then how about giving other browsers some press time too? Opera's a great example."
Great, so in other words, you are an Opera fan, or Opera developer, and you want Slashdot to advertise for a proprietary software product.
If Opera wants to appear on Slashdot more often, there is a little bar at the top of every page that would be just right for them.
Well, it may have something to do with the fact that Mozilla is a very prominent Open Source project. It ranks up there with OpenOffice.org, The GIMP, GNOME, and KDE.
If you haven't noticed, when it comes to software, Slashdot (and probably the readers too) favors the Free Open Source variety. And why shouldn't they? GNU/Linux and *BSD are open source. Readers who want to hear primarily about proprietary software can certainly find their news in other places; the "Windows Supersite" comes to mind.
And as I recall, don't new Opera releases usually get a front page story? Maybe not beta releases, but then why should they, unless Slashdot starts an advertising service?
"C'mon guys, the pro-Mozilla zealousy is nauseating. I know you want IE to have some competition again, heck I want that too, but don't put all your eggs in one basket."
"Nauseating"? What are you, an Opera developer?
What other "basket" is there?
How exactly are we, developers or otherwise, supposed to, or expected to put our "eggs" in a basket of proprietary software?
What do you suggest, that we offer to do work free of charge for Opera, or maybe just give them, a private company, money just for the hell of it?
"You wouldn't accept it if gas stations used a new gasoline for cars every 5 years and you had to buy a new car and junk the previous one for nothing, I don't see why you mock the same thing with software. if you have money to throw in new machines every 3 to 5 years, I prefer using my investment for as long as I can."
And so you would say, "car is to software" as "gas is to hardware"? I don't know that this is what you are saying. Obviously we need to continue to purchase gas if we want to continue using our car.
It seems to me what you are asking is, "After 5 years would you want to have to stop using a product because of changes in your environment beyond your control?"
Of course the answer is, "No," but I fail to see how this is equivalent to the situation with computer hardware and software. You are certainly able to continue using your existing hardware and software as long as you like.
It might be unreasonable to expect a 5-disc CD changer and GPS navigation in your 5 year old car unless you are willing to pay for the upgrade.
Hey, I'm not a rich man either. I happen to have just gone through the upgrade cycle about a year ago though, so I am not "feeling it" yet. I upgrade once every 4 to 6 years.
I think the case is that enough people are able to afford the upgrades that for a project with limited resources, done on a volunteer basis, there just isn't going to be any interest in supporting older platforms. Everyone wants to move ahead. If you want or need to stay behind, you will have to find an alternative solution.
What's wrong with:
browser: Links, w3m (tables and images), Mozilla 1.0, Dillo, or Opera
window manager: Window Maker, Flux Box, or Oroborus
Emacs/Vim and LaTeX, or GNU TeXmacs for word processing
I've used all of these tools except for Opera, and I find them to be perfectly reasonable.
But if you want the latest and greatest visually, then yes, you are going to have to upgrade.
"Sure, mom can use Linux (except for her bible stuff and her preferred Mah Jong app)"
GNOME 2.x Mahjongg seems quite reasonable to me, and is quite sharp looking too. It should be included in your gnome-games package, er, that is, should hopefully be in the default install.
GnomeSword seems to be a fair enough tool for home Bible reference and study. There is a similar Windows version which she can use before switching to help determine whether it can meet her needs.
GnomeSword anyhow still uses GTK 1.2 (right?), which may or may not for your distro mean a somewhat inconsistent look and feel, so you might find the KDE equivalent, BibleTime preferable.
"The difference is a basic usability in Windows that is intuitive for those of us that *only know* Windows."
Have you tried the latest from Red Hat and Mandrake? If you haven't recently, and you would like to switch, keep trying, or see if you can find a friend or relative who can help you out.
Peterson says in response to a question on damages: "I feel especially passionate about this with respect to the "intent" factor. The intent associated with printing 1,000 counterfeit "Harry Potter" books and that associated with kids sharing music with other kids is obviously different and I can scarcely visualize a scenario where $150,000 per download would be appropriate."
I've already written "my" senators and congress people on this (we'll see what good that does...).
I am just utterly dumbfounded when I see as potential damages for a single act of infringement: $750-$150,000. Can anyone tell me what the basis is for these numbers, or at least whose ass they were pulled out of, and for how much?
Were I to distribute a copy of a track from the latest Metallica album (*shudder*) to one Mr. John Ashcroft, my doing so constitutes a single act of infringement. The theoretical maximum loss to the copyright holder due to this single act of infringement is the price of the album the song is officially distributed on; perhaps the album sells for $14.95. I don't know, I've never purchased an album (it is true!), and as such don't really keep up on prices.
While this is an obvious upper bound, the actual loss to the copyright holder will be far less than this. There a number of factors:
The electronic copy in.mp3 or.ogg format is not a full substitute for the uncompressed CD track.
John (hey, buddy!) has been distributed only 1 of (let's say) 12 tracks.
John has not received a physical duplicate of the printed CD.
John has not been distributed a jewel case.
John has not been distributed "liner notes".
The current retail price of the album may be such that, while John has no objection to being distributed a copy of a single track at no cost to himself, given John's relatively ho-hum interest in the track (understandable), and his limited means (hey, he's Attorney General, not CEO of Haliburton), John would not have acquired a copy of the track at all if it were only available to him at the current retail price.
We see that in the case John would not have been willing to pay any money at all to acquire a copy of the track (on the album), the copyright holder incurs no loss whatsoever by my act of infringing distribution.
Even if John would have been willing to pay the current retail price of the album, his receiving an infringing copy of a single track, or even several tracks, can not be said to result in a loss to the copyright holder in the amount of the current retail price of the album. It can not, beause John may still purchase the album. Given the previously presented list, this should not be at all surprising.
In fact, perhaps one of the few cases in which, although John had previously been willing or able to pay the current retail price of the album, upon hearing the infringing tracks I distributed to him he would no longer be willing to pay the current retail price, is the case in which the album fails to meet John's expectations. So yes, in this case, in the case where the current distribution model results in an uninformed and mislead consumer, perhaps my distributing to John one infringing track will result in a loss to the copyright holder in the amount of the current retail price of the album.
But even this is hardly reasonable, for the same effect could have been acheived through perfectly legal means, either by John hearing the track on the radio and realizing "it is the suck!", through word of mouth, or by Mr. Ashcroft coming over to my place for some head-banging, only to discover the album does not meet his expectations.
And so, if we want to assign a fair damage amount for each act of infringing distribution, on average I suspect it will not be more than about $0.50 a track, for an amateur-produced.mp3 of a track from a 12 track album.
"Arguably the most dangerous consequence, the subpoena power can be put in the hands of anyone willing to pretend to have a copyright claim."
Peterson suggests that this can be abused by swindlers, child abductors, and terrorists to name a few.
How realistic is this? I've never had the privelege of being in court or served a subpoena myself (and as such I'm rather uninformed about the system), but doesn't existing law provide for means to sue or press charges or something of that sort against people who abuse the system?
Sure, you might have to go to court if Cmdr Taco sues you for infringing distribution of the Audioslave album, but certainly you can bring him right back there with a suit of your own once his case is dismissed, to get back your court fees and lost wages, yes?
Can someone explain to me where I am confused here or what I am missing? It seems to me that this would be a sufficient check on the system.
Women shouldn't have to "just let it go past them". They shouldn't have to put up with it at all.
Wonderful, just wonderful. These people think that women aren't even supposed to be offended by the perverted domination fantasies stuck in their face by the opressive and abusive patriarchal system. Take it honey, you know you really want it!
Thank goodness for progress!
If you had any respect at all for yourself or for those you care about you would throw the game in the trash and tell them why you have done so, and why you will never purchase a game like that again.
The world isn't going to change if we continue to accept the slop fit for pigs we are fed.
Fuck this society of ours. It's a fucking shame that these asteroids keep missing.
I immensely enjoy games where communication and imagination are the focus. I despise "shooters". I have never played a game of "Counter-Strike" in my life; I have never seen a game of it played. I do not play games or watch movies which glorify violence for its own sake or endorse abusive attitudes toward women. I do not like to compete. I like to cooperate to better myself and my companions. Are you really so different?
I do so not so much for fear that I will be negatively effected by them (I am now stronger and more mature than that), but because I will not financially support or publically endorse such games and movies.
Do you like nothing more than to blast "L33tMuthA" against the wall and watch his blood splatter, knowing that, somewhere, somehow, you have just put a 13 year-old in his or her "place"?
I think that is sick.
I find your statements to be deeply insulting. As such, I will devote the remainder of this post to describing why this is so.
"It seems they like role playing adventure games with lots of social interaction. Women by nature have better communication skills."
My God, man, if you are going to make sweeping generalizations at least be so kind as to prefix your statements, "I believe it to be the case that". "By nature"? No, in all significant respects, "by social norm".
"Men on the other hand like violent games like Quake. Not that women do not play these kinds of games but being masculine and outdoing each other does not appeal to them as much."
Really, all men, simple as that? Wonderful, just wonderful. And all Jews are bankers, right?
Plenty of women love to play sports and love to compete. Differences across genders are probably more readily ascribed to social norms and presures to maintain the status quo than to anything "by nature".
Tell me, how many years again has society systematically oppressed women, telling them what is and is not the "feminine" thing to do? How many years has the dominant male beating the fuck out of his wife been looked upon as, if not acceptable, at least "normal" or "natural"? And you are prepared to mark the causes of differences you observe up to "nature" without a second thought? How dare you.
Socially imposed gender roles are increasingly a thing of the past. Increasingly it is society, not biology or evolution that drive the development and direction of the modern mind, the modern person. May each one of us do his and her all to further distance ourselves from our primitive and brutal past.
The sooner a woman can walk down the street without having to wonder how many hairy middle-aged men or twenty-somethings would really, truly, in their heart of hearts, just like to tackle her and pump her full of reproductive fluids, the better. It makes a person want to just give up, to say that this world is doomed, that this world is not worth trying to save, and to go find a cave to die in.
Yes, evolution, wonderful! How much longer will it be before we get over the novelty of "apes out of Africa"?
That's where we have been. Let's talk about where we are going.
Slashdot Mirror
Who are you to make this pronouncement? Is your pride and your dignity worth nothing to you that you would mock those who would stand up for what little they have left in this life?
Is that how you rationalize this to yourself, by claiming that it is somehow foolish or childish to resist, or to want a certain amount of respect in this world?
What was your price, man?
Posts which would have us sumbit to corporate powers and agendas are moderated up, while posts standing up for the dignity of the Human Person are moderated as trolls.
The only troll around here is the parent who suggested that we are foolish or somehow childish to stand up for our rights, to stand up for our dignity and our pride, and to demand that respect we are due.
I see how it is. The Slashdot moderators in their jobs in the corporate world must rationalize their behavior, their submission, by beating down dissent.
Come on Slashdot, where is your spirit? Why do you accept and moderate up such a defeatist attitude?
Do you really believe that it is childish, foolish, a "fetish" to stand up and demand the respect you are due? Do you really believe that it is foolish to stand up and boldly send the message that we do not want to be treated as livestock?
Stand up and let the advertisers know that we will not be treated this way. How dare we consent to this mistreatment. Stand up.
You are more than how you are marketed. You are more than your utility to the corporation in which you for a time reside.
Posts which would have us sumbit to corporate powers and agendas are moderated up, while posts standing up for the dignity of the Human Person are moderated as trolls.
The only troll around here is the parent who suggested that we are foolish or somehow childish to stand up for our rights, to stand up for our dignity and our pride, and to demand that respect we are due.
I see how it is. The Slashdot moderators in their jobs in the corporate world must rationalize their behavior, their submission, by beating down dissent.
Come on Slashdot, where is your spirit? Why do you accept and moderate up such a defeatist attitude?
You are more than how you are marketed. You are more than your utility to the corporate prison in which you for a time reside.
How dare you moderate the truth, a troll.
Every word of what I have posted is true.
How dare you.
"Fetish"? How dare you.
I have just one question for you. What was your price?
I very literally begin physically shaking when, on those rare occassions where I watch anything other than PBS, a commercial comes on and I am unable to turn the channel (such as when I am watching with someone else).
I need to get up and leave the room, because to some extent I don't want to be rude; some people actually enjoy watching commercials, and some even believe that if they do not watch at least some they are not fulfilling some obligation.
It is incredibly insulting to sit through a commercial. It denies your value as a human being, as a person.
Advertisers treat us as livestock. They fatten and pleasure us on sex and gluttony and sloth. Our souls are butchered and ground and packaged and we feed again this infernal machine, in which carries on that devilish churning, not resting or ceasing until every brother and every sister -- every human soul -- is bought and packged and sold and no one remembers who we are, who we once were but have forever lost.
I choose my behaviors in life specifically with the intention in mind to avoid being treated in a manner not fitting to what I am. I am a free man.
Except of necessity, my own or anothers', I will not purchase a product from a company which I find to treat me other than in the manner my very being merits I be treated.
When you sell out to consumerism, you sell out not only yourself, but sell out also just one step further each and all of us.
You are without excuse. Either you are for us -- for the dignity of the human person -- or you are against us.
Don't be a sell-out. We are better than that, all of us.
Folks who have traditionally been Microsoft users, who have recently installed Linux on an old machine at home or maybe as dual-boot, who have little to no real experience or training with Unix-like systems or with particular open source servers, are going into to the business IT environment and installing Linux-based systems on the hype.
Sure they can get Apache webserver serving pages, they can get Tomcat doing "something", and they can certainly run XMMS quite well on their workstation, but they really have no clue how to properly use these technologies in a production environment.
They see switching to Linux-based systems as being a simple fix.
They aren't willing to extensively review their configuration or product documentation. They aren't willing to put in the significant amount of time that is in fact required to become experts with the technologies.
Yes, they certainly do get a kick out of telling their friends that they have "Linux boxes running their shop", but security suffers due to their naive incompetence.
These techs should be fired.
Open source development may be a "we'll get that feature done when we feel like it" affair, but deploying Linux-based systems in a production environment must not be.
If anything, effectively and securely deploying Linux-based solutions requires more training and knowledge than does deploying Microsoft.
Let's stop pretending otherwise.
It's full of stars?
Second, did you even bother to read those security alerts or investigate what the packages are? Briefly:
node: "Amateur Packet Radio Node program"
libpam-smb: arbitrary code, but no privilege escalation
unzip: no privilege escalation, no arbitrary code, and who uses it?
man-db: only if you go against install-time advice and make it setuid
autorespond: "This vulnerability is currently not believed to be exploitable due to incidental limits on the length of the problematic input, but there may be situations in which these limits do not apply."
netris: "A free, networked version of T*tris"
linux-kernel-2.4.18: most are local only, "STP protocol", or an nfs3 DOS with no arbitrary code or remote root
perl: yes, "execute arbitrary web script within the context of the generated page"
kdelibs: konqueror only, client only
pam-pgsql: arbitrary code, but no privilege escalation
zblast: "shoot 'em up space game"
xpcd: local only
xtokkaetama: local only
"This stuff wouldn't happen if Debian didn't use out of date software, as most of the flaws mentioned were fixed in the new versions!"
And this is why I call troll.
From Debian security FAQ:
"The most important guideline when making a new package that fixes a security problem is to make as few changes as possible. Our users and developers are relying on the exact behaviour of a release once it is made, so any change we make can possibly break someone's system. This is especially true in case of libraries: make sure you never change the Application Program Interface (API) or Application Binary Interface (ABI), no matter how small the change is.
This means that moving to a new upstream version is not a good solution, instead the relevant changes should be backported. Generally upstream maintainers are willing to help if needed, if not the Debian security team might be able to help.
In some cases it is not possible to backport a security fix, for example when large amounts of source code need to be modified or rewritten. If that happens it might be necessary to move to a new upstream version, but this has to be coordinated with the security team beforehand."
But I'm certainly not above laughing at clever derivatives. Are you?
I laughed at a highly-moderated comment posted just several weeks ago, recounting "All your base" with IBM and SCO taking parts.
Sometimes there is nothing funnier than at a particularly unexpected moment someone making a silly reference -- perhaps as a derivative -- to something like "All your base".
"It's a trap!", something I've seen seen in some fairly weird places, which also seems to be really quite silly, is also humorous at some unexpected moment.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, right?
Lighten up a little, eh?
The author states, "Computer Programs are Writings." He compares computer programs to written essays. I believe that both his statement and comparision are generally incorrect.
Yes, there may some cases where this is so, such as might be entries in the "obfuscated C code contest". But this is very seldom what we are speaking of when we talk about "computer programs".
More so than it is similar to an essay, the computer program is similar to the collection of specific gears, sprockets, pins, and their particular arrangements which cause a machine to work in a useful and well-defined way. These parts, similarly, like components of computer programs, have yet more primitive components and specifications which provide for those at the higher level.
Perhaps a more useful example due to its comparative complexity is a clock.
That the analogy of gears, pins, sprokets and their arrangement, to software and the computer on which it runs, is successful, is illustrated by the case of the swapped watch internals.
Suppose that we have an existing mechanical clock. Now, suppose we take a duplicate watch casing, but inside we insert a "general purpose gear, ping, and sproket emulator". Like the computer, this device, in order to function in a useful manner, requires a set of instructions. Specifically, these instructions must instruct the emulator how to perform operations with equivalent results to those that were in our existing clock performed by real, rather than emulated gears, pins, and sprokets.
The success of the clockmaker is determined not by creativity in ordering or commentary on the natural world. Rather, success is measured by efficiency, and correctness. Optimality is measured (when it is computationally possible) by precise mathematical metrics. Correctness is determined not by asthetic appeal, creativity, or insight, but by nothing more than the solution being provably correct through the employment of established mathematical techniques. In fact, we might wonder what "correctness" should mean, if anything at all, in the context of an essay.
In the case of the computer program, creatvity or imagination are desirable not in the structure, choice, or ordering of the instructions, but rather in coming upon a correct solution or in visualizing the problem.
A source listing's utility is perhaps directly proportional to its lack of creativity.
Perhaps you have little obligation to endorse a system which will lead to your being unable to pay your creditors, unable to continue your child's education, or unable to continue contributing your share to providing for your partner and yourself the sort of life you have committed to providing for one another. These are the sort of personal oaths and commitments upon which your measure as a person -- the content of your character -- is founded. Had you thought otherwise? Do not listen to those who would confuse you and have you lie to yourself.
Many would say that these relationships are special, that there is something about these relationships that warrants extra consideration. For 2500 years we were told again and again by men in their studies, men in their academies, and men in their ivory towers what is and is not moral, what is and is not ethical. And surprisingly these men, living unto themselves, have come down from their mountain tops and declared to us as if they were prophets having faced the very Good itself, that what it means to be ethical is to ignore what it is that makes each one of us and our relationships unique.
How many of these men -- the very establishers and propogators of the existing patriarchal system which they would have us bend our knee to -- have looked into the face of their child cradeled in their arms? Oh what fools they are, and what fools we are for believing them. Will they say unto this child, this helpless being, "I have brought you into this world, and yet I shun you helpless child, that I may go about the business of helping those halfway across the world who neither your nor I shall ever meet?"
Why, why do we direct our admiration to these men who have not lived, who have brought down and imposed upon us the oppressive patriarchal system, that twisted and corrupted institutions which exists solely to grant and guaruntee them their comfort and their standing above us?
Why do we do this when we already who have and do live already know what is right and what is wrong if only we will turn our gaze inside and to one another?
Look at your child and at your partner; now tell me what it is that is right and what it is that is wrong. Or do not, for you have just seen the very foundation of it.
No, what needs to protest is whatever can motivate constituents in the EU to quickly fire off their positions to their representatives, those who have the power to stop this.
EU Slashdot readers, perhaps of anyone, are the most likely to get on this, if they just had a bit of nudging, or more so the jolt of Slashdot replacing its front page; that isn't something you see every day.
If EU readers see that Slashdot of all places (US-centric, profit) can do this one thing, that these readers surely can write an email or make that phone call to their representatives.
Yes, closing Slashdot may be preaching to the choir, but at this late stage in the game, this is exactly what can be most effective.
We need the EU folks reading Slashdot to get a jolt, to say, "Hey, this really is something Big." We need this, because this is the only way that many of them -- just like Americans -- will take the time to fire off their position to their representatives who have both the duty to represent their constituents and the power to stop this in its tracks.
And Slashdot, what is going to earn you more good will among your readership than taking a bold stand like this? Perhaps there would be more willing to subscribe -- at least for a month -- if they were to see you as politically active and not just a disinterested for-profit news portal.
C'mon Slashdot, even just a prominent alert that could stay at the top of front page. Isn't it for the good of everyone?
has Netcraft confirmed it?
I had been a fairly long-time Window Maker user before I came to GNOME, and while I certainly thought I needed my desktop just how I had it, with all of the gizmos and technical (read: overly complex) look, I did not, and now the user experience is simpler.
Looking at the screencapture of your desktop, I have some recommendations if you try GNOME again:
1) Use only a single edge panel at the top of the screen. Why, when to control everything else - a window or an application - you look up, but for the desktop you look down? You'll get used to it quickly.
2) Eliminate the tasks list.
3) Give yourself 10 virtual desktops. I promise you that if your usage is at all similar to my own, if you get rid of that task list and start ordering your use around virtual desktops, you will soon be asking yourself why you ever used that task list in the first place.
4) You can drag/drop windows across virtual desktops by selecting and dragging the miniature version in the virtual desktop selector.
5) Check your Metacity bindings for moving between desktops, and moving windows between desktops, etc. I like the defaults.
6) Ask yourself whether you really need to see CPU and Mem/Swap usage. If you really believe you do, add the applets to your top edge panel, but I suggest leaving them off. Will really miss them?
7) Add the dictionary applet if you think you need it frequently enough that you can't just go Applications->Accessories->Dictionary.
8) Add your "quicklaunch" icons (or a drawer of icons).
9) Add the audio controls, if this is something useful to you.
10) Do you really need to have always visible the volume level of all of your audio devices? Just add the Volume Control applet, and when you need the full listing, it's just a matter of a right click to bring it up.
Perhaps there are non-stock applets that wouuld be useful to you as well, but to be honeset, I have never looked because the need has never arisen.
You aren't the one producing the music.
What if the artist wants the RIAA lifestyle? What if the artist wants big money to produce a music video and use high-end studio equipment?
If that's what the artist wants, I say go ahead. I have not, do not, and will not purchase their music of course, and while I do not infringe copyrights, I will encourage others to share these artists' music at will, but by all means, if what you want is to have an album put out by an RIAA member studio, it certainly seems that it is within your rights to do so.
I suspect that most artists, as much as they may whine about the RIAA and member studios, will not give up the lifestyle afforded them by being on a big label, even after or when their contracts allow them to.
We are the Borg.
You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.
Your cam whores and enormous penises will be added to our own.
Your credit cards will adapt to service ours.
Your inbox, as it has been, is over.
From this time forward your hot teens will service us.
As was mentioned previously, if you believe there is an alternative which at least as good but can be completed in a shorter time, bring this up with your superior. Hopefully, either he or she will clarify the task further indicating why your proposed alternative is not an adequate substitute, or your alternative will be accepted.
If no such alternative exists (as it often does not), you still should not say "No".
First, you must appear organized, that you have an up to date and concise listing of tasks, timeframes, and priorities, and that you are making and documenting satisfactory progress on each of these tasks.
You can run this by your superior, update him or her of your status, as well as recall priorities given to existing tasks.
You do not need to say, "No." Instead you can say, "Should we make this a priority over task x?" Put the broad directional decisions in your superior's court if that is appropriate in your relationship/position.
Give a timeframe for its completion based upon the priority assigned to it. If your superior later requests that you change priorities of tasks, document this.
Give the impression that you are making progress on what is on the mind of your superior, and if asked, be prepared on the spot to report the priority and status of all tasks currently in progress.
Anticipating a Debian or Gentoo distribution for this architecture, I'm curious whether it is possible to purchase one of these systems from Apple without OS X installed; the "Apple tax", so to speak.
I know that Slashdot readers have in the past made some noise about Microsoft's practices in this area, specifically concerning laptops.
Have any Slashdot readers have researched this at all, that is, how one might obtain such a system from Apple, and if so, what they have turned up?
"If that's not acceptable, then how about giving other browsers some press time too? Opera's a great example."
Great, so in other words, you are an Opera fan, or Opera developer, and you want Slashdot to advertise for a proprietary software product.
If Opera wants to appear on Slashdot more often, there is a little bar at the top of every page that would be just right for them.
Well, it may have something to do with the fact that Mozilla is a very prominent Open Source project. It ranks up there with OpenOffice.org, The GIMP, GNOME, and KDE.
If you haven't noticed, when it comes to software, Slashdot (and probably the readers too) favors the Free Open Source variety. And why shouldn't they? GNU/Linux and *BSD are open source. Readers who want to hear primarily about proprietary software can certainly find their news in other places; the "Windows Supersite" comes to mind.
And as I recall, don't new Opera releases usually get a front page story? Maybe not beta releases, but then why should they, unless Slashdot starts an advertising service?
"C'mon guys, the pro-Mozilla zealousy is nauseating. I know you want IE to have some competition again, heck I want that too, but don't put all your eggs in one basket."
"Nauseating"? What are you, an Opera developer?
What other "basket" is there?
How exactly are we, developers or otherwise, supposed to, or expected to put our "eggs" in a basket of proprietary software?
What do you suggest, that we offer to do work free of charge for Opera, or maybe just give them, a private company, money just for the hell of it?
And so you would say, "car is to software" as "gas is to hardware"? I don't know that this is what you are saying. Obviously we need to continue to purchase gas if we want to continue using our car.
It seems to me what you are asking is, "After 5 years would you want to have to stop using a product because of changes in your environment beyond your control?"
Of course the answer is, "No," but I fail to see how this is equivalent to the situation with computer hardware and software. You are certainly able to continue using your existing hardware and software as long as you like.
It might be unreasonable to expect a 5-disc CD changer and GPS navigation in your 5 year old car unless you are willing to pay for the upgrade.
Hey, I'm not a rich man either. I happen to have just gone through the upgrade cycle about a year ago though, so I am not "feeling it" yet. I upgrade once every 4 to 6 years.
I think the case is that enough people are able to afford the upgrades that for a project with limited resources, done on a volunteer basis, there just isn't going to be any interest in supporting older platforms. Everyone wants to move ahead. If you want or need to stay behind, you will have to find an alternative solution.
What's wrong with:
browser: Links, w3m (tables and images), Mozilla 1.0, Dillo, or Opera
window manager: Window Maker, Flux Box, or Oroborus
Emacs/Vim and LaTeX, or GNU TeXmacs for word processing
I've used all of these tools except for Opera, and I find them to be perfectly reasonable.
But if you want the latest and greatest visually, then yes, you are going to have to upgrade.
"Sure, mom can use Linux (except for her bible stuff and her preferred Mah Jong app)"
GNOME 2.x Mahjongg seems quite reasonable to me, and is quite sharp looking too. It should be included in your gnome-games package, er, that is, should hopefully be in the default install.
GnomeSword seems to be a fair enough tool for home Bible reference and study. There is a similar Windows version which she can use before switching to help determine whether it can meet her needs.
GnomeSword anyhow still uses GTK 1.2 (right?), which may or may not for your distro mean a somewhat inconsistent look and feel, so you might find the KDE equivalent, BibleTime preferable.
"The difference is a basic usability in Windows that is intuitive for those of us that *only know* Windows."
Have you tried the latest from Red Hat and Mandrake? If you haven't recently, and you would like to switch, keep trying, or see if you can find a friend or relative who can help you out.
"I feel especially passionate about this with respect to the "intent" factor. The intent associated with printing 1,000 counterfeit "Harry Potter" books and that associated with kids sharing music with other kids is obviously different and I can scarcely visualize a scenario where $150,000 per download would be appropriate."
I've already written "my" senators and congress people on this (we'll see what good that does...).
I am just utterly dumbfounded when I see as potential damages for a single act of infringement: $750-$150,000. Can anyone tell me what the basis is for these numbers, or at least whose ass they were pulled out of, and for how much?
Were I to distribute a copy of a track from the latest Metallica album (*shudder*) to one Mr. John Ashcroft, my doing so constitutes a single act of infringement. The theoretical maximum loss to the copyright holder due to this single act of infringement is the price of the album the song is officially distributed on; perhaps the album sells for $14.95. I don't know, I've never purchased an album (it is true!), and as such don't really keep up on prices.
While this is an obvious upper bound, the actual loss to the copyright holder will be far less than this. There a number of factors:
The electronic copy in .mp3 or .ogg format is not a full substitute for the uncompressed CD track.
John (hey, buddy!) has been distributed only 1 of (let's say) 12 tracks.
John has not received a physical duplicate of the printed CD.
John has not been distributed a jewel case.
John has not been distributed "liner notes".
The current retail price of the album may be such that, while John has no objection to being distributed a copy of a single track at no cost to himself, given John's relatively ho-hum interest in the track (understandable), and his limited means (hey, he's Attorney General, not CEO of Haliburton), John would not have acquired a copy of the track at all if it were only available to him at the current retail price.
.mp3 of a track from a 12 track album.
We see that in the case John would not have been willing to pay any money at all to acquire a copy of the track (on the album), the copyright holder incurs no loss whatsoever by my act of infringing distribution.
Even if John would have been willing to pay the current retail price of the album, his receiving an infringing copy of a single track, or even several tracks, can not be said to result in a loss to the copyright holder in the amount of the current retail price of the album. It can not, beause John may still purchase the album. Given the previously presented list, this should not be at all surprising.
In fact, perhaps one of the few cases in which, although John had previously been willing or able to pay the current retail price of the album, upon hearing the infringing tracks I distributed to him he would no longer be willing to pay the current retail price, is the case in which the album fails to meet John's expectations. So yes, in this case, in the case where the current distribution model results in an uninformed and mislead consumer, perhaps my distributing to John one infringing track will result in a loss to the copyright holder in the amount of the current retail price of the album.
But even this is hardly reasonable, for the same effect could have been acheived through perfectly legal means, either by John hearing the track on the radio and realizing "it is the suck!", through word of mouth, or by Mr. Ashcroft coming over to my place for some head-banging, only to discover the album does not meet his expectations.
And so, if we want to assign a fair damage amount for each act of infringing distribution, on average I suspect it will not be more than about $0.50 a track, for an amateur-produced
What? Oh, yes, it
"Arguably the most dangerous consequence, the subpoena power can be put in the hands of anyone willing to pretend to have a copyright claim."
Peterson suggests that this can be abused by swindlers, child abductors, and terrorists to name a few.
How realistic is this? I've never had the privelege of being in court or served a subpoena myself (and as such I'm rather uninformed about the system), but doesn't existing law provide for means to sue or press charges or something of that sort against people who abuse the system?
Sure, you might have to go to court if Cmdr Taco sues you for infringing distribution of the Audioslave album, but certainly you can bring him right back there with a suit of your own once his case is dismissed, to get back your court fees and lost wages, yes?
Can someone explain to me where I am confused here or what I am missing? It seems to me that this would be a sufficient check on the system.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it should be that way.
Women shouldn't have to "just let it go past them". They shouldn't have to put up with it at all.
Wonderful, just wonderful. These people think that women aren't even supposed to be offended by the perverted domination fantasies stuck in their face by the opressive and abusive patriarchal system. Take it honey, you know you really want it!
Thank goodness for progress!
If you had any respect at all for yourself or for those you care about you would throw the game in the trash and tell them why you have done so, and why you will never purchase a game like that again.
The world isn't going to change if we continue to accept the slop fit for pigs we are fed.
Fuck this society of ours. It's a fucking shame that these asteroids keep missing.
I immensely enjoy games where communication and imagination are the focus. I despise "shooters". I have never played a game of "Counter-Strike" in my life; I have never seen a game of it played. I do not play games or watch movies which glorify violence for its own sake or endorse abusive attitudes toward women. I do not like to compete. I like to cooperate to better myself and my companions. Are you really so different?
I do so not so much for fear that I will be negatively effected by them (I am now stronger and more mature than that), but because I will not financially support or publically endorse such games and movies.
Do you like nothing more than to blast "L33tMuthA" against the wall and watch his blood splatter, knowing that, somewhere, somehow, you have just put a 13 year-old in his or her "place"?
I think that is sick.
I find your statements to be deeply insulting. As such, I will devote the remainder of this post to describing why this is so.
"It seems they like role playing adventure games with lots of social interaction. Women by nature have better communication skills."
My God, man, if you are going to make sweeping generalizations at least be so kind as to prefix your statements, "I believe it to be the case that". "By nature"? No, in all significant respects, "by social norm".
"Men on the other hand like violent games like Quake. Not that women do not play these kinds of games but being masculine and outdoing each other does not appeal to them as much."
Really, all men, simple as that? Wonderful, just wonderful. And all Jews are bankers, right?
Plenty of women love to play sports and love to compete. Differences across genders are probably more readily ascribed to social norms and presures to maintain the status quo than to anything "by nature".
Tell me, how many years again has society systematically oppressed women, telling them what is and is not the "feminine" thing to do? How many years has the dominant male beating the fuck out of his wife been looked upon as, if not acceptable, at least "normal" or "natural"? And you are prepared to mark the causes of differences you observe up to "nature" without a second thought? How dare you.
Socially imposed gender roles are increasingly a thing of the past. Increasingly it is society, not biology or evolution that drive the development and direction of the modern mind , the modern person . May each one of us do his and her all to further distance ourselves from our primitive and brutal past.
The sooner a woman can walk down the street without having to wonder how many hairy middle-aged men or twenty-somethings would really, truly, in their heart of hearts, just like to tackle her and pump her full of reproductive fluids, the better. It makes a person want to just give up, to say that this world is doomed, that this world is not worth trying to save, and to go find a cave to die in.
Yes, evolution, wonderful! How much longer will it be before we get over the novelty of "apes out of Africa"?
That's where we have been. Let's talk about where we are going.