I played a lot of Tribes in the day, well still do.
That is one game where stats fail to tell the whole story. How many points do you get for fixing stuff? Or repairing the heavy at the main entrance who racks up 83 kills and no deaths, largely because you keep him alive with the repair pack and run to and fro with ammo? How many points is piloting the APC that drops off the team what takes out their generator?
I did get invites to a couple of different clans at different times, but I guarantee you, it was not from my position on the score sheet.
Maybe in deathmatching where kills are all, they make more sense. But in my experiences with Tribes, good team play beats hell on a good fighter, he may get lots of kills, but he probably is not going to significantly affect the outcome of the game. Where team-work is important, the final score is the only stat that applies...
Bottom line, reporters, like anyone else, get rewarded for performance. The problem is performance != responsible journalism. In point of fact, what is commonly accepted as responsible journalism != responsible journalism.
For almost any subject, there are more than two diametric opposed positions, however, more often than not, we are only presented those extremist positions. We all understand the rationales for doing this, and meekly accept that we are being poorly served by the fifth estate. Rarely are we presented good science, more often we are presented science with an agenda.
Sad, but too often true. Think about the Greenhouse effect argument. Particularly the early days of that concern. Typically the media, in it's quest to appear impartial would present the scientific opinions of two individuals whose science while perhaps conducted with the best methodologies available, is interpreted through the agenda of some individual. How good is the data you are receiving? How good can it be after being filtered by the researchers bias? But wait, then someone typically performs analysis and evaluation of that data, further whetting the results against an agenda. This data is then typically presented to the leading proponent of that agenda, who further distorts the facts, and lastly to a member of the media, who performs the last and most serious distortion of all, by combining that data with the other extremist position. Great entertainment, not so good on the defense of truth. So for Greenhouse effect, we get the selected science to further the agendas of a crook and crackpot. Somewhere along the way something is lost.
But don't despair totally. It appears that there are responsible scientists in the world, and they labor mightily to correct these situations, but the damage is done. But by this time the damage is done. The populace has lost interest in the issue, and presenting the facts rarely recaptures it.
I don't know that we can eliminate these issues. I do think the first step is admitting we have a problem. In the case of Greenhouse effect, the major effect has been to prevent us from accomplishing anything. Those extreme positions sell papers, or get Neilson ratings, but they leave the public with a feeling that nothing could be done, and nothing is farther from the truth. By centering public discussion on the impossible extremes, the media encourages us to ignore the braod spectrum of the possible which exists between them.
Can this ever change? Hard to see how, sensationalism sells.
Of course, things are a bit more complex, the media may appear to be impartial, but if so, it is only because there is a balance between the agendas of those individuals and organizations who collectively form "the media."
I blame Joesph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler. There has to be a better way then yelling long and loud the lies at the ends of the spectrum while ignoring the essential truths often found in the middle.
I fail to see the problem. Remember the countless monkeys on countless typewriters thingy right?
Nowadays you can write the finest software of all time if you take that same situation, substitute Devry (or psuedo-educational institution of your choice) graduates (or drop-outs, depending on your level of vitriol) and Visual Studio.NET for the typewriters.
Wait, never mind, somebody beat me to it, after all how many folk out there did Power Builder libraries at some point in their careers...
Re:Can't touch where I am.
on
Cube Farm
·
· Score: 1
Nope.
And, I'm not sure wether to be comforted or horrified that there may be another like her out there...
I'd post the name, but one of my grovelling co-workers has probably wrote her a bot to find web pages with her name on them...
I guess I left out overweening paranoia from the list of her attributes...
Re:Can't touch where I am.
on
Cube Farm
·
· Score: 1
Emphatically NO!
I really should qualify that...
Emphatically NO!
Can't touch where I am.
on
Cube Farm
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Imagine a direct marketing company. At that company, all technical needs analysis and general IT/IS decision making is done by sales managers.
And no they do not do a good job of it.
Nor do they do an inspiring job of sales management either.
In fact the only department which has put forward a successful sales initiative or proposal in 15 years has been the technical group.
And teetering over it all is a peroxide blonde Manager of IT with delusions of CIO-dom, courtesy of a class she found on the back of the matchbook she lights her bong with, dismissed by her subordinates as incompetent, and her peers as "hyper-thyroid." I almost forgot, she is as territorial as all get out, can't manage machines, people, office politics, or even to fill the coffee machine, and makes banker's hours look like double-overtime...
Don't get me started on the accountants, or the Dept of Leguminosae Enumeration as they insist on being called...
Cube farm sounds like an upbeat bed-time story to the denizen of this cubicle.
Oh really? Are you so sure about that? NCR for example had their own Unix-based OS for their ATM's.
Let's think about what an ATM OS does. It accepts user input, and spits out cash, or performs some other transaction. But look at the atomic level. The user ID info is all numeric and magnetically encoded on a card. Sure the card reader can foul up, but that is hardly an OS issue. The user then provides authentication info, again, entirely numeric. Once authenticated the user is prompted for an action which essentially is a combination of an extremely limited set of options, and some numeric data. At that point the information goes elsewhere for action, the ATM idles until told by the authoritative resource what to do next.
The tasks which an ATM needs to perform are trivial. The OS need not be complex to meet these requirements, and a simple stripped OS is trivial to secure and test.
I've done consulting work for Banks, and they are notorious sticklers for security. And we aren't even talking about some of the other security possibilities. For example it is possible to prevent the OS in the ATM from having any "knowledge" regarding the transaction in progress or the user performing that transaction (allthough that does significantly increase the complexity of the ATM OS...)
But, two things. 1) Banks and the manufacturers of ATM's don't walk into Comp USA to buy their OS. So it ain't XP-SP2 we are talking about. This is probably the latest and greatest CE variant. Not a whole lot of CE vulnerabilities I'm aware of... 2) They are secured private networks, and in the case of at least one bank I did some work for, that network is completely physically sequestered from any other network. And oops, 3) Most of the remote exploits don't just happen, some user needs to accept malicious code, or take some compromising action, which you simply cannot do with an ATM, and oops, 4) How many exploit developers have the access needed to develop an exploit on ATM's?
But the real security is in the sequestering. Denying the physical connection is the only bullet proof way I know to secure a network. No copper, no cracking...
I don't see it quite that way. I'm sure Novell wouldn't be short-sighted enough to release the stuff under the GPL. That may well disarm those patents. However, another licensing scheme could be used which would allow the IP to retain it's teeth when needed. IANAL, but I bet someone can find some fairly bullet-proof wording that would allow use of the IP in F/OSS projects without restriction, yet still retain it's usefullness for cross-licensing with the closed source folk.
In any case, I stand by my original position. Why are we cheering Novell? This is a statement of intent, not an action of fact. There are actions it could take to make indisputable their commitment to this course. As they claim to have done with SCO, they could retain ownership of this IP, but grant GNU (as an example) the right to use those patents defensively, up to and including cross-licensing agreements. There are actions which they could take to dispel the questions we all ought to have...
After all, how many of us prognosticated a radiant future when Caldera acquired the rights that SCO is abusing today?
Bottom line, a statement of intent isn't worth the microvoltage it took to post on-line. Again, thanks for nothing, for now.
Finally, how do you propose Novell is to convince others to start opening their IP portfoliios? With wishy-washy statements of intent? I don't think so. If, on the other hand, Novell took the lead in so doing, and made it profitable to do so, then the others will seriously consider that option. This statement has so little potential to effect such a change that it is not worth consideration. Once again, Thanks for nothing Novell, at least for now.
Why would you want to defeat "the system?" Apart from the fact that the term is vague, every software license in the world relies on "the system" to have be enforceable (including the GPL.) Even if you divorce the currency of innovation completely from filthy lucre, these licenses still enforce the currency which matters, the rights of the developer to his or her own work, and to place reasonable conditions on its use and modification.
Without "the system" I fail to see how such rights could be guaranteed. In a utopian world, perhaps such measures would be unnecessary, but that is exactly what it is, Utopian.
Ultimately, why are we celebrating? So Novell is going to use their IP to protect F/OSS. Good, but open-sourcing the IP in question (where relevant and possible) is even better. That would do more to fundamentally alter the IP-landscape than a pledge to defend as offered. That would be a concrete statement. As it is, I guess we wait and see how this is implemented in the near future.
Version Information: Microsoft.NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.573; ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.573
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.
My friend, assuming you are the same AC I rebutted earlier, I stand by my recomendation...
After all if you reread my original post, I was slamming the editors for accepting what would otherwise be a shameless plug.
Leaving your anonymity aside (something you should consider if you want any credibility when you talk about the history of/.) perhaps you want to try defending the editors instead of ranting about the membership, since it is at least somewhat relevant to my original post.
The ISP owns the connection, the hardware, and yes, all the files that reside therein. In the absence of some contractual obligation, they should have the right to read *any* file on their systems, including your mail. When you talk about your privacy rights you are talking about infrigning on the property rights of the ISPs.
An NA pal of mine who works for a local ISP confirms that his employer takes the same stand. But it is worthwhile noting that they have a policy in place prohibiting their staff from so doing without the customer's approval.
Really this is not something the government needs to get involved in, it properly left to the ISPs and their customers to deal with contractually. Legislation in this area is not likely to improve the "traditional" situation...
Actually, a bigger problem is that/. let's just anyone post under AC. Hard to accept your take on/., or criticism regarding posts from someone who can't even be bothered to join the process...
But, let's get a bit more to the point. I'm not going to take criticsim from a slack-jawed troglodyte what can't discern the difference between someone posting about a new product and someone posting about *their* new product. One is news, the other is shameless plugging. This ain't David Letterman or The Tonight Show. You want to plug, talk to The Chin. You want to relay news, log onto/.
For the AC in question, I recomend introductory logic, so you can learn how to prosecute an argument.
The fine editorial staff at/. must be asleep at the wheel.
MMD (mod me down), but really, is this news? Or even news-worthy... If I tried segueing another post into such a schmalzy plug for my product the readership would MMD into next year.
So why does the inspired editorial staff think this is worthy of it's own post?
Editorial staff, if folk want to plug their crap on/. let em do it through the existing banner ads. Make 'em pay for the privelege.
1) I don't have to install notepad, I have a choice there.
2) I've never seen a single exploit around Notepad, there is practically an exploit a week with IE.
3) Notepad is not tightly integrated with the OS as a whole.
4) I can uninstall Notepad, easily, without compromising any other facet of system health.
Really is it a choice to be able to install an alternate browser when you can't uninstall the buggy one, or forgo installing it in the first place? Not really.
Is Microsoft doing anyone a favor by continuing to propogate this nightmare? Not really.
Bottom line, the original decision to integrate the OS and browser so tighly is ludicrous from any reasonable viewpoint. This is not in doubt, as a quick check of the number of serious exploits which have resulted from this decision will bear out. So continuing to adhere to this poor design decision makes the product better how?
Of late Microsoft will try anything to ensure the contiuning dominance of their OS, anything except making the product worthy of dominance.
So Microsoft's culpability is manifest, the one thing I partially agree with you on though is the culpability of the consumer. Not, however, for failing to install an alternate browser, but for failing to exercise the same due diligence they would with other comparable purchases.
Lastly, the Microsoft apologists have the greatest culpability of all. By diluting the core issue, the irresponsible design decision and it's continuing propogation, with such fluff as your post, you are giving Microsoft absolution for their sins.
My question to you sir, is when are you going to proscribe some pennance before granting absolution?
Your premise is true, so long as we aren't talking about Windows...
Take my SO, for example. I recently nuked her Windows and put her on Debian. Got everything nicely set-up and locked down and turned it over to her.
Since that time, no problems, no issues, joy and bliss. The only time Windows runs in the house now is when I'm playing games, and thanks to Transgaming, not even as much any more.
We *can* blame Microsoft, and IE. Linus and gang built in to Linux the ability for real admins to control their users within the OS, without having only education as the sole recourse...
So, real admins know......don't blame your users for what your vendor forgot in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That is one game where stats fail to tell the whole story. How many points do you get for fixing stuff? Or repairing the heavy at the main entrance who racks up 83 kills and no deaths, largely because you keep him alive with the repair pack and run to and fro with ammo? How many points is piloting the APC that drops off the team what takes out their generator?
I did get invites to a couple of different clans at different times, but I guarantee you, it was not from my position on the score sheet.
Maybe in deathmatching where kills are all, they make more sense. But in my experiences with Tribes, good team play beats hell on a good fighter, he may get lots of kills, but he probably is not going to significantly affect the outcome of the game. Where team-work is important, the final score is the only stat that applies...
Oh, the humanity!
For almost any subject, there are more than two diametric opposed positions, however, more often than not, we are only presented those extremist positions. We all understand the rationales for doing this, and meekly accept that we are being poorly served by the fifth estate. Rarely are we presented good science, more often we are presented science with an agenda.
Sad, but too often true. Think about the Greenhouse effect argument. Particularly the early days of that concern. Typically the media, in it's quest to appear impartial would present the scientific opinions of two individuals whose science while perhaps conducted with the best methodologies available, is interpreted through the agenda of some individual. How good is the data you are receiving? How good can it be after being filtered by the researchers bias? But wait, then someone typically performs analysis and evaluation of that data, further whetting the results against an agenda. This data is then typically presented to the leading proponent of that agenda, who further distorts the facts, and lastly to a member of the media, who performs the last and most serious distortion of all, by combining that data with the other extremist position. Great entertainment, not so good on the defense of truth. So for Greenhouse effect, we get the selected science to further the agendas of a crook and crackpot. Somewhere along the way something is lost.
But don't despair totally. It appears that there are responsible scientists in the world, and they labor mightily to correct these situations, but the damage is done. But by this time the damage is done. The populace has lost interest in the issue, and presenting the facts rarely recaptures it.
I don't know that we can eliminate these issues. I do think the first step is admitting we have a problem. In the case of Greenhouse effect, the major effect has been to prevent us from accomplishing anything. Those extreme positions sell papers, or get Neilson ratings, but they leave the public with a feeling that nothing could be done, and nothing is farther from the truth. By centering public discussion on the impossible extremes, the media encourages us to ignore the braod spectrum of the possible which exists between them.
Can this ever change? Hard to see how, sensationalism sells.
Of course, things are a bit more complex, the media may appear to be impartial, but if so, it is only because there is a balance between the agendas of those individuals and organizations who collectively form "the media."
I blame Joesph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler. There has to be a better way then yelling long and loud the lies at the ends of the spectrum while ignoring the essential truths often found in the middle.
If your stupercomputer goes down, you just get in on the X-box class action lawsuit...
Nowadays you can write the finest software of all time if you take that same situation, substitute Devry (or psuedo-educational institution of your choice) graduates (or drop-outs, depending on your level of vitriol) and Visual Studio.NET for the typewriters.
Wait, never mind, somebody beat me to it, after all how many folk out there did Power Builder libraries at some point in their careers...
Or, within context: You take your spice weasel and BAM!
And AGAIN!
Wait... ...NOW!
Is it Wednesday? Then my answer is NOW!
You get the point...
And, I'm not sure wether to be comforted or horrified that there may be another like her out there...
I'd post the name, but one of my grovelling co-workers has probably wrote her a bot to find web pages with her name on them...
I guess I left out overweening paranoia from the list of her attributes...
I really should qualify that...
Emphatically NO!
And no they do not do a good job of it.
Nor do they do an inspiring job of sales management either.
In fact the only department which has put forward a successful sales initiative or proposal in 15 years has been the technical group.
And teetering over it all is a peroxide blonde Manager of IT with delusions of CIO-dom, courtesy of a class she found on the back of the matchbook she lights her bong with, dismissed by her subordinates as incompetent, and her peers as "hyper-thyroid." I almost forgot, she is as territorial as all get out, can't manage machines, people, office politics, or even to fill the coffee machine, and makes banker's hours look like double-overtime...
Don't get me started on the accountants, or the Dept of Leguminosae Enumeration as they insist on being called...
Cube farm sounds like an upbeat bed-time story to the denizen of this cubicle.
Wait a second, you're saying you aren't happy to see me, and that it is an iPod in your pocket?
Let's think about what an ATM OS does. It accepts user input, and spits out cash, or performs some other transaction. But look at the atomic level. The user ID info is all numeric and magnetically encoded on a card. Sure the card reader can foul up, but that is hardly an OS issue. The user then provides authentication info, again, entirely numeric. Once authenticated the user is prompted for an action which essentially is a combination of an extremely limited set of options, and some numeric data. At that point the information goes elsewhere for action, the ATM idles until told by the authoritative resource what to do next.
The tasks which an ATM needs to perform are trivial. The OS need not be complex to meet these requirements, and a simple stripped OS is trivial to secure and test.
I've done consulting work for Banks, and they are notorious sticklers for security. And we aren't even talking about some of the other security possibilities. For example it is possible to prevent the OS in the ATM from having any "knowledge" regarding the transaction in progress or the user performing that transaction (allthough that does significantly increase the complexity of the ATM OS...)
But, two things. 1) Banks and the manufacturers of ATM's don't walk into Comp USA to buy their OS. So it ain't XP-SP2 we are talking about. This is probably the latest and greatest CE variant. Not a whole lot of CE vulnerabilities I'm aware of... 2) They are secured private networks, and in the case of at least one bank I did some work for, that network is completely physically sequestered from any other network. And oops, 3) Most of the remote exploits don't just happen, some user needs to accept malicious code, or take some compromising action, which you simply cannot do with an ATM, and oops, 4) How many exploit developers have the access needed to develop an exploit on ATM's?
But the real security is in the sequestering. Denying the physical connection is the only bullet proof way I know to secure a network. No copper, no cracking...
Set up John Woo as the Judge... ...Now that's a legal batlle!
In any case, I stand by my original position. Why are we cheering Novell? This is a statement of intent, not an action of fact. There are actions it could take to make indisputable their commitment to this course. As they claim to have done with SCO, they could retain ownership of this IP, but grant GNU (as an example) the right to use those patents defensively, up to and including cross-licensing agreements. There are actions which they could take to dispel the questions we all ought to have...
After all, how many of us prognosticated a radiant future when Caldera acquired the rights that SCO is abusing today?
Bottom line, a statement of intent isn't worth the microvoltage it took to post on-line. Again, thanks for nothing, for now.
Finally, how do you propose Novell is to convince others to start opening their IP portfoliios? With wishy-washy statements of intent? I don't think so. If, on the other hand, Novell took the lead in so doing, and made it profitable to do so, then the others will seriously consider that option. This statement has so little potential to effect such a change that it is not worth consideration. Once again, Thanks for nothing Novell, at least for now.
Without "the system" I fail to see how such rights could be guaranteed. In a utopian world, perhaps such measures would be unnecessary, but that is exactly what it is, Utopian.
Ultimately, why are we celebrating? So Novell is going to use their IP to protect F/OSS. Good, but open-sourcing the IP in question (where relevant and possible) is even better. That would do more to fundamentally alter the IP-landscape than a pledge to defend as offered. That would be a concrete statement. As it is, I guess we wait and see how this is implemented in the near future.
Thanks for nothing, so far.
I'm gonna guess Redmond...
'Nuf said
After all if you reread my original post, I was slamming the editors for accepting what would otherwise be a shameless plug.
Leaving your anonymity aside (something you should consider if you want any credibility when you talk about the history of /.) perhaps you want to try defending the editors instead of ranting about the membership, since it is at least somewhat relevant to my original post.
The ISP owns the connection, the hardware, and yes, all the files that reside therein. In the absence of some contractual obligation, they should have the right to read *any* file on their systems, including your mail. When you talk about your privacy rights you are talking about infrigning on the property rights of the ISPs.
An NA pal of mine who works for a local ISP confirms that his employer takes the same stand. But it is worthwhile noting that they have a policy in place prohibiting their staff from so doing without the customer's approval.
Really this is not something the government needs to get involved in, it properly left to the ISPs and their customers to deal with contractually. Legislation in this area is not likely to improve the "traditional" situation...
But, let's get a bit more to the point. I'm not going to take criticsim from a slack-jawed troglodyte what can't discern the difference between someone posting about a new product and someone posting about *their* new product. One is news, the other is shameless plugging. This ain't David Letterman or The Tonight Show. You want to plug, talk to The Chin. You want to relay news, log onto /.
For the AC in question, I recomend introductory logic, so you can learn how to prosecute an argument.
Perhaps it is time to start a new movement/club/organization...
Anything But Acronyms?
ABA for short...
MMD (mod me down), but really, is this news? Or even news-worthy... If I tried segueing another post into such a schmalzy plug for my product the readership would MMD into next year.
So why does the inspired editorial staff think this is worthy of it's own post?
Editorial staff, if folk want to plug their crap on /. let em do it through the existing banner ads. Make 'em pay for the privelege.
Or maybe he did pay for the privelege...
Notepad is not like IE at all:
1) I don't have to install notepad, I have a choice there.
2) I've never seen a single exploit around Notepad, there is practically an exploit a week with IE.
3) Notepad is not tightly integrated with the OS as a whole.
4) I can uninstall Notepad, easily, without compromising any other facet of system health.
Really is it a choice to be able to install an alternate browser when you can't uninstall the buggy one, or forgo installing it in the first place? Not really.
Is Microsoft doing anyone a favor by continuing to propogate this nightmare? Not really.
Bottom line, the original decision to integrate the OS and browser so tighly is ludicrous from any reasonable viewpoint. This is not in doubt, as a quick check of the number of serious exploits which have resulted from this decision will bear out. So continuing to adhere to this poor design decision makes the product better how?
Of late Microsoft will try anything to ensure the contiuning dominance of their OS, anything except making the product worthy of dominance.
So Microsoft's culpability is manifest, the one thing I partially agree with you on though is the culpability of the consumer. Not, however, for failing to install an alternate browser, but for failing to exercise the same due diligence they would with other comparable purchases.
Lastly, the Microsoft apologists have the greatest culpability of all. By diluting the core issue, the irresponsible design decision and it's continuing propogation, with such fluff as your post, you are giving Microsoft absolution for their sins.
My question to you sir, is when are you going to proscribe some pennance before granting absolution?
After all I've spent the last 8 years or so taking machines bought with Windows and using them to run Linux.
Your premise is true, so long as we aren't talking about Windows...
Take my SO, for example. I recently nuked her Windows and put her on Debian. Got everything nicely set-up and locked down and turned it over to her.
Since that time, no problems, no issues, joy and bliss. The only time Windows runs in the house now is when I'm playing games, and thanks to Transgaming, not even as much any more.
We *can* blame Microsoft, and IE. Linus and gang built in to Linux the ability for real admins to control their users within the OS, without having only education as the sole recourse...
So, real admins know... ...don't blame your users for what your vendor forgot in the first place.