I agree, but I have to say that id never "promises" dates. Hell, they hardly ever even mention dates. I've been waiting for the Linux port and tracking it very closely for some time. Dates were never mentioned, much less promises.
While quantum cryptography is, depending on implementation, not hackable, that doesn't account for all the other parts of the system. Bascially, quantum cryptography protects the data in transit, but does nothing to protect the machines its being sent to/from, and certainly doesn't address issues like storage of the data.
Further, what it secure? Not being altered by unauthorized parties (webpages need this), or not being read by unauthorzied parties (goverments need this) or somewhere in between (can't be read without the sender/receiver being notified)?
Security may well be one of the most misunderstood topics, with quantum physics just above it... =)
The creation of a rule and its enforcement are two seperate issues. This discussion is not about enforcement, its about the university's ability to make such a rule legally.
Actually, those rules ONLY apply to sattelite dishes, and exclude WAPs. Check the fcc website for the full article. The relevant portion is:
The following antennas or dishes are covered by these rules:
a "dish" antenna one meter (39.37 inches) or less in diameter (or
any size in Alaska) designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service or to receive
and transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite;
an antenna one meter in diameter or less designed to receive wireless cable or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than by satellite; and
commercially-available analog and digital television antennas.
Antennas used for amateur ("Ham") radio, CB radio, FM or AM radio service, satellite radio or
used as part of a hub to relay signals among antennas are NOT covered by these rules.
I think you may have a fundemental misunderstanding of federal law. If I *own* a building, and can set the rules, pretty much regardless. That doesn't mean I take someone to court if they break them, it means they signed a contract and I can legally throw them out for not abiding my my rules.
The FCC declaring that 2.4 GHz is unregulated doesn't even come into the picture. This is perfectly legal for the university, assuming that they in fact *own* the residence in which it is occuring.
Further, they are no doubt doing it to tightening security of their network (controlling access), and if it did (for some reason) come down to legal action, the university could play that card.
"We, as a service provider, are responsible for maintaining the integrity and security of our network. We prohibit wireless access points from being attached to our network to facilitate this endevour."
If it came down to it, the court may very well see the logic there and side with the university. Which *spectrum* something is on doesn't really matter - they can just prohibit the *device*.
Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*. We can ask the question, we just can't codify the answer into law.
The original poster asked whether it "helps or hurts the political process" which is a question grounded in philosophy/sociology, rather than law. This doesn't really tie in with free speech much.
This argument hinges on the (incorrect) assumption that any benefits garnered by policies made *now* would be evident *now*, and that is often not the case. Sometimes is takes years, even decades after a policy is put in place for the real benefits to be recogized.
I'm not saying I like the current administration (or Kerry, for that matter), but I think your argument is a bit naive.
The phrase "kill the messenger" comes from the days when royalty, emperors, and other rulers would write a message (or have a scribe do it) and then have a messenger take it to the other ruler. Often, if it contained bad news, the recipient would "kill the messenger". In this context, Moore is *not* the messenger, he is the author of the message. Carrying the metaphor further, to "kill the messenger" would be to shoot the projectionist showing the film.
Next, to address the issue of Bush sitting for 7 minutes after he heard we were being attacked: in your infinite wisdom, what would you have done? Better yet, what can you imagine he would have done that would have been better? Excused himself, moved out into the hallway, and still stood there? Maybe gotten into a car and raced off somewhere? Where? To do what? No, he did the right thing, and stayed cool. He is, in essence, a decision maker. In that faculty, he can do his job most anywhere, so long as he is being supplied with information.
Next, I think in your first paragraph you are asserting that "facts are facts, and I saw the footage in the movie, so I know what happened." This is the logical equivalent of saying "creative editing of actual footage is still facts, and still portrays the truth, no matter what." I'll leave it as an excersise for the reader to disprove that.
Lastly, with regard to "Farenhype 9/11", as far as I can tell, it does in fact tell the other side. It doesn't attack Moore, or any of his other films, I think it simply attacks the assertions, implications and "facts" he presents in "Farenheit 9/11". In fact, you said:
"That's a movie about Michael Moore, and Moore's films. It's not a movie about the supposed "other side" of the issues Moore exposes."
And I disagree: it is not a movie about Michael Moore. It is not a movie *about* his films. It is a movie *in response* to his films on the topics of 9/11, terrorism, and the war in Iraq. Your statement that the naming is "just a coincidence" is bait, and is a specious argument. I'm not going to bite.
Your assertion is absurd. Just because I criticize the one political-fringe activist does not require me to also criticize every *other* political-fringe activist. Since I'm addressing Moore, let's talk about Moore. Anything else is offtopic.
I grow weary of "but conservatives have an agenda too" arguments. Its interesting, obvious and completely irrelevant. Lots of politicians have agendas, but again, that's not the point. The point is I object to Moore's "documentary" for the reasons already stated - it intentionally misleads people, and anyone with enough motivation to do research from multiple sources will discover that quite a few of the conclusions Moore wants you to draw from the footage he shows are, in fact, incorrect.
The fact that this happens all the time, or that someone else does it from the right wing, or that it fits within the definition of "documentary" are superfluous. I think it is irresponsible; I would love to see the day when people make documentaries that try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side.
Well, sometimes the "messenger" bears some scrutiny. Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.
And just as determining whether a witness is credible in court is a valid procedure for determining if their testimony is valid, so is analyzing whether Moore is a credible source of information on Bush. He may have done research, but he certainly has an agenda he's pushing, and its not objective fact reporting.
Further, its arguable if your statement is even valid; Farenhype911 may very well be about the "other side" of the issues Moore raises, but since its not out yet, I think we are both speculating. However, I did watch the trailer and it seems to be *only* about those issues (terrorism, 9/11, the war in Iraq). No ad hominem attacks against Moore were present in the trailer.
Where do you get your information that says otherwise?
Of course I saw the film. I wouldn't waste your time and mine talking about it if I didn't.
So what he sat there? I've gotten into this discussion too many times...what do you want him to do? He was in Florida - his actions during those 7 minutes are not going to have *any* impact on the attacks. They will have impact on people's peerception, and the worst thing to do in an emergency is panic - and leaders' actions during crisis can determine whether people panic or handle the crisis smoothly and professionally. He stayed cool - and that's more than most people could do.
You are naive to say that "the footage *is* what happened." You certainly don't know what he was thinking, what intelligence he knew about, or what his plans were based on watching his face in that classroom. What we can see is what he did to take action after he did think. That footage tells just a few seconds of a 20 year story. If you think you know what happened just because you watched Fahrenheit 9/11, well, what can I say? I'm sorry for you. That's what Michael Moore wanted, and as I said before, you prove that there are people out there who will buy it.
The best way to find out if his implications are warrented is to compare them to WHAT HAPPENED.
Moore *has* to imply these things to maintain the "integrity" of the film. If he outright lies, then people can't make the argument "Well, everything he said was true." That argument takes so many people in, when it fundamentally false.
Implications are all Moore has, and you have taken the bait - hook, line and sinker. He wants folks like you to look at the facts *he" presents and draw *his* conclusions. In fact what you should be doing is looking at *all* the facts and deciding for yourself.
I hope this doesn't require me to clarify that *all* the facts are not found in Fahrenheit 9/11. Do some research, then form an opinion.
Sure, MM presented some facts, but the overall impression was not simply misleading, it was outright propoganda. To dignify this work as a "documentary" is outrageous.
I am neither left nor right, Democrat nor Republican, but I think people should have some sense of dignity when they make a film. They should be responsible and not willfully mislead people. This isn't always possible, but we can do better than Fahrenheit 9/11.
He wasn't talking to you. He was talking to the original poster.
But what he said goes for you too, if you're going to make incorrect statements about how the US system works. After all, even if/.ers think differently,/. is news for *nerds*, and I would presume that a nerd would like to know about a topic he posts about.
If you wish to be willfully ignorant and demean a fairly brilliant system by acting as though you have all the answers with no downsides, go ahead.
But don't expect those of us that 1) understand the system 2) took the time to research it and its alternatives and 3) understand the advantages and downsides of it
How can you mod parent "Troll"? I mean, honestly, how many conservative posts do you see that are modded up? I'm not at all sure I've ever seen even one...and you modding here just proves it.
Then again, don't go read The Boston Globe and complain that it's liberal. If you don't want to hear liberal thoughts, don't go to liberal sources (i.e. Slashdot).
Yeah, I don't think you read what I wrote. I've been subscribing since transgaming started offering subscriptions (with a 5 month gap somewhere in the middle), and what I'm saying is *you can't tell if a game will work by reading those forums*.
You are sorely mistaken: the game-specific forums have been "archived" because 90% contained people complaining about how X game didn't work. Now, the only forums people can post to are for 5 or 6 major games that work fairly well, and then ONE other forum that serves as a catchall. This makes searching for and finding game-specific information very difficult, and even when I do the hours of research and tweaking, games that are supposed to work (even a little) simply don't (Painkiller comes to mind recently).
I've been working with Transgaming's products as a subscriber for years, over 5 different distributions on 3 computers. Performance is NOT consistent, and even technical support is NOT consistent.
Don't demean me and tell me that I didn't bother to read or do the work. I have, and that's why I posted in the first place.
"Yeah, everything runs great! WTG Trangaming!! Best $15 I ever spent!"
and the other half say:
"What a piece of shit! Nothing runs, and I tried 37 games! Screw Transgaming, I want my money back!"
And that was my finding...that some people get it to work, and other simply cannot (often, but not always, how much time you want to put into trying to work out all the idiosyncracies).
But that is enough of a problem: if I *pay* for a commercial product, I shouldn't have to pay and THEN find out if some games I want work for me...performance should be consistent. Further, it IS commercial; if I made you pay for software, you'd expect it to work...not that you'd have to spend 6 or 7 hours every so often to get your money out of it.
Don't get confused: we are used to Linux and other free software (as in beer) that we don't have to pay for, but have to spent hours configuring, learning and tweaking to get it to work sometimes. And its worth it, because we learn, and we get free software, and maybe can give something back to the community.
But with Transgaming, its NOT free software, and I shouldn't have to spend hours at a time trying to get acceptable performance out of games I *already* paid for once. Now I have to pay twice, AND spend a lot of time screwing around with esoteric settings, and in the end, it may or may not work, and I don't know if it will EVER work.
Name one other commerical program that charges you monthly (to the tune of $60 a year), simply to use their software which may or may not work as advertised, whose performance varies so wildly that you simply cannot predict whether it will work for you or not until you pay up. I'd say it takes a full work week of my spare time/year to try to set up games I want to play and find out if they will even run - often without success.
Man, I just convinced myself to go cancel my subscription.
You make good points, but if there is one thing I've learned observing which software gets adopted and which does not, its that polish matters.
As the Linux desktop experience matures, acceptance will eventually hinge on its polish - OS X really has that aspect nailed down, and its not a bad goal to pursue. Sure, there are other issues that need to be addressed, and of course power-users will turn it off, but for folks like me that spend a lot of time in IDLE or Kate writing python code, I can spare the CPU cycles on my Athlon 64 3000+ for transparency. And hey, I like the look. =)
This is a good thing, and I don't think it materially adds "bloat" though I'm not knowledgable enough of the code to say that with certainty.
...but I've been waiting for translucency under X forever. It hurts me to admit it because I always thought that I didn't care about "eye-candy" but this is really cool. Why did it take so long?
Oh well...off to look into downloading, though I suppose I'll have to wait for the next version of KDE to take advantage of the new features.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but I have to say that id never "promises" dates. Hell, they hardly ever even mention dates. I've been waiting for the Linux port and tracking it very closely for some time. Dates were never mentioned, much less promises.
Mod parent up. There is really no point in posting comments in a "demo released" thread about how l33t you are because you warezed a game...
While quantum cryptography is, depending on implementation, not hackable, that doesn't account for all the other parts of the system. Bascially, quantum cryptography protects the data in transit, but does nothing to protect the machines its being sent to/from, and certainly doesn't address issues like storage of the data.
Further, what it secure? Not being altered by unauthorized parties (webpages need this), or not being read by unauthorzied parties (goverments need this) or somewhere in between (can't be read without the sender/receiver being notified)?
Security may well be one of the most misunderstood topics, with quantum physics just above it... =)
I think we can thank Philips for the CD, not Sony. Check the second paragraph from the bottom.
The creation of a rule and its enforcement are two seperate issues. This discussion is not about enforcement, its about the university's ability to make such a rule legally.
Actually, those rules ONLY apply to sattelite dishes, and exclude WAPs. Check the fcc website for the full article. The relevant portion is:
The following antennas or dishes are covered by these rules:
a "dish" antenna one meter (39.37 inches) or less in diameter (or any size in Alaska) designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service or to receive and transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite;
an antenna one meter in diameter or less designed to receive wireless cable or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than by satellite; and
commercially-available analog and digital television antennas.
Antennas used for amateur ("Ham") radio, CB radio, FM or AM radio service, satellite radio or used as part of a hub to relay signals among antennas are NOT covered by these rules.
I think you may have a fundemental misunderstanding of federal law. If I *own* a building, and can set the rules, pretty much regardless. That doesn't mean I take someone to court if they break them, it means they signed a contract and I can legally throw them out for not abiding my my rules.
The FCC declaring that 2.4 GHz is unregulated doesn't even come into the picture. This is perfectly legal for the university, assuming that they in fact *own* the residence in which it is occuring.
Further, they are no doubt doing it to tightening security of their network (controlling access), and if it did (for some reason) come down to legal action, the university could play that card.
"We, as a service provider, are responsible for maintaining the integrity and security of our network. We prohibit wireless access points from being attached to our network to facilitate this endevour."
If it came down to it, the court may very well see the logic there and side with the university. Which *spectrum* something is on doesn't really matter - they can just prohibit the *device*.
Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*. We can ask the question, we just can't codify the answer into law.
The original poster asked whether it "helps or hurts the political process" which is a question grounded in philosophy/sociology, rather than law. This doesn't really tie in with free speech much.
This argument hinges on the (incorrect) assumption that any benefits garnered by policies made *now* would be evident *now*, and that is often not the case. Sometimes is takes years, even decades after a policy is put in place for the real benefits to be recogized.
I'm not saying I like the current administration (or Kerry, for that matter), but I think your argument is a bit naive.
In order:
The phrase "kill the messenger" comes from the days when royalty, emperors, and other rulers would write a message (or have a scribe do it) and then have a messenger take it to the other ruler. Often, if it contained bad news, the recipient would "kill the messenger". In this context, Moore is *not* the messenger, he is the author of the message. Carrying the metaphor further, to "kill the messenger" would be to shoot the projectionist showing the film.
Next, to address the issue of Bush sitting for 7 minutes after he heard we were being attacked: in your infinite wisdom, what would you have done? Better yet, what can you imagine he would have done that would have been better? Excused himself, moved out into the hallway, and still stood there? Maybe gotten into a car and raced off somewhere? Where? To do what? No, he did the right thing, and stayed cool. He is, in essence, a decision maker. In that faculty, he can do his job most anywhere, so long as he is being supplied with information.
Next, I think in your first paragraph you are asserting that "facts are facts, and I saw the footage in the movie, so I know what happened." This is the logical equivalent of saying "creative editing of actual footage is still facts, and still portrays the truth, no matter what." I'll leave it as an excersise for the reader to disprove that.
Lastly, with regard to "Farenhype 9/11", as far as I can tell, it does in fact tell the other side. It doesn't attack Moore, or any of his other films, I think it simply attacks the assertions, implications and "facts" he presents in "Farenheit 9/11". In fact, you said:
"That's a movie about Michael Moore, and Moore's films. It's not a movie about the supposed "other side" of the issues Moore exposes."
And I disagree: it is not a movie about Michael Moore. It is not a movie *about* his films. It is a movie *in response* to his films on the topics of 9/11, terrorism, and the war in Iraq. Your statement that the naming is "just a coincidence" is bait, and is a specious argument. I'm not going to bite.
Your assertion is absurd. Just because I criticize the one political-fringe activist does not require me to also criticize every *other* political-fringe activist. Since I'm addressing Moore, let's talk about Moore. Anything else is offtopic.
I grow weary of "but conservatives have an agenda too" arguments. Its interesting, obvious and completely irrelevant. Lots of politicians have agendas, but again, that's not the point. The point is I object to Moore's "documentary" for the reasons already stated - it intentionally misleads people, and anyone with enough motivation to do research from multiple sources will discover that quite a few of the conclusions Moore wants you to draw from the footage he shows are, in fact, incorrect.
The fact that this happens all the time, or that someone else does it from the right wing, or that it fits within the definition of "documentary" are superfluous. I think it is irresponsible; I would love to see the day when people make documentaries that try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side.
Yeah, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is married to...
Oh wait, nevermind.
Well, sometimes the "messenger" bears some scrutiny. Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.
And just as determining whether a witness is credible in court is a valid procedure for determining if their testimony is valid, so is analyzing whether Moore is a credible source of information on Bush. He may have done research, but he certainly has an agenda he's pushing, and its not objective fact reporting.
Further, its arguable if your statement is even valid; Farenhype911 may very well be about the "other side" of the issues Moore raises, but since its not out yet, I think we are both speculating. However, I did watch the trailer and it seems to be *only* about those issues (terrorism, 9/11, the war in Iraq). No ad hominem attacks against Moore were present in the trailer.
Where do you get your information that says otherwise?
Of course I saw the film. I wouldn't waste your time and mine talking about it if I didn't.
So what he sat there? I've gotten into this discussion too many times...what do you want him to do? He was in Florida - his actions during those 7 minutes are not going to have *any* impact on the attacks. They will have impact on people's peerception, and the worst thing to do in an emergency is panic - and leaders' actions during crisis can determine whether people panic or handle the crisis smoothly and professionally. He stayed cool - and that's more than most people could do.
You are naive to say that "the footage *is* what happened." You certainly don't know what he was thinking, what intelligence he knew about, or what his plans were based on watching his face in that classroom. What we can see is what he did to take action after he did think. That footage tells just a few seconds of a 20 year story. If you think you know what happened just because you watched Fahrenheit 9/11, well, what can I say? I'm sorry for you. That's what Michael Moore wanted, and as I said before, you prove that there are people out there who will buy it.
Umm, yes they have. Its called FarenHYPE911. Its coming out on DVD on 05 Oct. You can go to:
the website
to hear more about it.
Not really.
The best way to find out if his implications are warrented is to compare them to WHAT HAPPENED.
Moore *has* to imply these things to maintain the "integrity" of the film. If he outright lies, then people can't make the argument "Well, everything he said was true." That argument takes so many people in, when it fundamentally false.
Implications are all Moore has, and you have taken the bait - hook, line and sinker. He wants folks like you to look at the facts *he" presents and draw *his* conclusions. In fact what you should be doing is looking at *all* the facts and deciding for yourself.
I hope this doesn't require me to clarify that *all* the facts are not found in Fahrenheit 9/11. Do some research, then form an opinion.
Since so many people wish to argue "facts", this article does a fairly good job of it.
David Kopel's ArticleSure, MM presented some facts, but the overall impression was not simply misleading, it was outright propoganda. To dignify this work as a "documentary" is outrageous.
I am neither left nor right, Democrat nor Republican, but I think people should have some sense of dignity when they make a film. They should be responsible and not willfully mislead people. This isn't always possible, but we can do better than Fahrenheit 9/11.
He wasn't talking to you. He was talking to the original poster.
/.ers think differently, /. is news for *nerds*, and I would presume that a nerd would like to know about a topic he posts about.
But what he said goes for you too, if you're going to make incorrect statements about how the US system works. After all, even if
If you wish to be willfully ignorant and demean a fairly brilliant system by acting as though you have all the answers with no downsides, go ahead.
But don't expect those of us that
1) understand the system
2) took the time to research it and its alternatives and
3) understand the advantages and downsides of it
to take you sersiously. I don't.
How can you mod parent "Troll"? I mean, honestly, how many conservative posts do you see that are modded up? I'm not at all sure I've ever seen even one...and you modding here just proves it.
Then again, don't go read The Boston Globe and complain that it's liberal. If you don't want to hear liberal thoughts, don't go to liberal sources (i.e. Slashdot).
Touche!
I played Everquest for years and that was exactly my experience. I stand corrected. =)
Yeah, I don't think you read what I wrote. I've been subscribing since transgaming started offering subscriptions (with a 5 month gap somewhere in the middle), and what I'm saying is *you can't tell if a game will work by reading those forums*.
You are sorely mistaken: the game-specific forums have been "archived" because 90% contained people complaining about how X game didn't work. Now, the only forums people can post to are for 5 or 6 major games that work fairly well, and then ONE other forum that serves as a catchall. This makes searching for and finding game-specific information very difficult, and even when I do the hours of research and tweaking, games that are supposed to work (even a little) simply don't (Painkiller comes to mind recently).
I've been working with Transgaming's products as a subscriber for years, over 5 different distributions on 3 computers. Performance is NOT consistent, and even technical support is NOT consistent.
Don't demean me and tell me that I didn't bother to read or do the work. I have, and that's why I posted in the first place.
The real problem is that half the people say:
"Yeah, everything runs great! WTG Trangaming!! Best $15 I ever spent!"
and the other half say:
"What a piece of shit! Nothing runs, and I tried 37 games! Screw Transgaming, I want my money back!"
And that was my finding...that some people get it to work, and other simply cannot (often, but not always, how much time you want to put into trying to work out all the idiosyncracies).
But that is enough of a problem: if I *pay* for a commercial product, I shouldn't have to pay and THEN find out if some games I want work for me...performance should be consistent. Further, it IS commercial; if I made you pay for software, you'd expect it to work...not that you'd have to spend 6 or 7 hours every so often to get your money out of it.
Don't get confused: we are used to Linux and other free software (as in beer) that we don't have to pay for, but have to spent hours configuring, learning and tweaking to get it to work sometimes. And its worth it, because we learn, and we get free software, and maybe can give something back to the community.
But with Transgaming, its NOT free software, and I shouldn't have to spend hours at a time trying to get acceptable performance out of games I *already* paid for once. Now I have to pay twice, AND spend a lot of time screwing around with esoteric settings, and in the end, it may or may not work, and I don't know if it will EVER work.
Name one other commerical program that charges you monthly (to the tune of $60 a year), simply to use their software which may or may not work as advertised, whose performance varies so wildly that you simply cannot predict whether it will work for you or not until you pay up. I'd say it takes a full work week of my spare time/year to try to set up games I want to play and find out if they will even run - often without success.
Man, I just convinced myself to go cancel my subscription.
You tried the wrong distro...try Gentoo. X.Org works beautifully.
</shameless plug>
You make good points, but if there is one thing I've learned observing which software gets adopted and which does not, its that polish matters.
As the Linux desktop experience matures, acceptance will eventually hinge on its polish - OS X really has that aspect nailed down, and its not a bad goal to pursue. Sure, there are other issues that need to be addressed, and of course power-users will turn it off, but for folks like me that spend a lot of time in IDLE or Kate writing python code, I can spare the CPU cycles on my Athlon 64 3000+ for transparency. And hey, I like the look. =)
This is a good thing, and I don't think it materially adds "bloat" though I'm not knowledgable enough of the code to say that with certainty.
...but I've been waiting for translucency under X forever. It hurts me to admit it because I always thought that I didn't care about "eye-candy" but this is really cool. Why did it take so long?
Oh well...off to look into downloading, though I suppose I'll have to wait for the next version of KDE to take advantage of the new features.