This is no joke--I had this happen to me when I was hired recently. My situation is that my SS card only had part of my middle name and my surname on it and so that's what they used in the system (SAP, BTW--shudder), which, by the way, they use to identify everything associated to you, including paychecks! Explaining to the bank why you're cashing a check with a name on it that you haven't used since you were seven years old is no fun.
When I went down to the local SS office to get it changed, I told the girl changing my account my story and she said that she's been hearing that a lot lately...
Which makes me think: Wasn't the SS number sold by saying that it would NEVER be used as a form of identification (except to the SSA)? WTF happened between here and there, and why the hell hasn't there been more people screaming about this?
While you're directing people over to PNAC's website, you should also point out the signatories as well--the ones that jump out at me are Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
I'm constantly amazed that this kind of uninsightful crap that you consistently trot out over and over again gets modded up as insightful. Probably because of the fact that you are a drooling MS fanboy, you seem to forget perhaps the most important feature that this "coolness" comes with: Next Generation Secure Computing Base.
Yes boys and girls, underneath all the ooo, shiny is that wonderful bit of technology: Trusted Computing. You know, the kind of trust where your computer doesn't trust you? But I suppose you wouldn't want to yell too loudly about that particular feature of Longhorn, now, would you, since it paints MS in a less than favorable light?
So you can have your fucking spinning Notepads and videos looping in the background of windows--to me the price that comes with that technology is simply too high.
"The guy"? Huh. Anyone with minimal intelligence can see the connection. Not to mention all the ACs posting about the connection between this guy's troll accounts. It's all self-evident. What was your point again?
To bad you still don't have anything insightful to offer, other than your tired old conspiracy theories and right wing maniacal vomit. Did it ever occur to you that the reason you got modded down is you? I thought right wingers were the champions of taking personal responsibility.
Or maybe they're just pragmatists, simply taking that position when it suits them (much as the left wingers do).
That much is obvious. You don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about.
KDE is not a Windows clone. You can have it act like pretty much anything you wish--from CDE to MacOS to Windows to (drum roll!) KDE native.
And by the way, Microsoft does it's fair share of stealing from Open Source projects. Just off the top of my head, I remember KDE had the ability to look at remote FTP sites as if they were on your local filesystem--a very cool idea. Not too long after that feature was released in KDE, along comes Microsoft with the exact same feature. Who is copying whom?
Your commentary isn't insightful. It's the same old FUD that comes out of Redmond and their satraps like you.
even if it's a company as evil as IBM (how easily people forget past actions...if you think Microsoft is bad...).
Pretty much nobody has forgotten IBM's past evil deeds. The difference here is that they seem to have turned from their evil ways--unlike Microsoft who seems to keep on pursuing theirs.
As someone else has pointed out, IBM has figured out that software commoditization is well underway and that soon there won't be any money to be made from COTS--a fact that Microsoft seems either to be oblivious to or afraid to acknowledge. So of course IBM embracing F/OSS is mostly a pragmatic move on their part. I don't see anyone here posting that they think IBM is doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
Most people that I've seen are glad that IBM is supporting F/OSS, but that doesn't mean that they implicitly trust them. Get real.
From the "infamous" article that you're talking about:
'Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'. The article basically states that 'Gate's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents'
If anyone is misrepresenting what's being said here, it's you. The story clearly says that Amnesty International was saying that Microsoft was/is violating human rights in China, not Slashdot.
It seems to me that if anyone is promoting propaganda and bias, it's you.
This kind of IP propaganda keeps getting modded as "insightful" or "interesting" when it's nothing more than carefully crafted misinformation. When it comes to this kind intellectual diarrhea, I think RMS said it best:
Copyright apologists often use words like "stolen" and "theft" to describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.
So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system--at least in the US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is "theft." Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority...and misrepresenting what authority says.
The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.
That is to say, the Gentoo Linux operating system has several security advisories announced every week. I don't see a difference between that and Windows.
There's a huge difference, in that the vast majority of the GLSA's that Gentoo issues are for 3rd party packages--not kernel or critical toolchain packages. But of course, to you a vulnerability is a vulnerability, so I suppose if one was found in, say, Adobe Acrobat Reader (for Windows), then that would be Microsoft's fault? By your logic, it would. And don't get me started on the turnaround time it takes for an open source package to patch its vulnerabilities compared to how long it takes Microsoft.
* Christ, man, there's more, but I'll get accused of being a Microsoftie even more than the trolls already do, so I'll stop.
Aside from the fact that you are a drooling MS fanboy, you forgot perhaps the most important feature that Longhorn will have: Next Generation Secure Computing Base.
Yes boys and girls, underneath all the ooo, shiny is that wonderful bit of technology: Trusted Computing. You know, the kind of trust where your computer doesn't trust you? But I suppose you wouldn't want to yell too loudly about that particular feature of Longhorn, now, would you, since it paints MS in a less than favorable light?
So you can have your fucking spinning Notepads and videos looping in the background of windows--to me the price is simply too high.
So your cheesed off because of a frickin' headline? A headline? Yeah, that's bias for you--why, in the three seconds that it would have taken anyone to read the story they might have thought that Microsoft was guilty of human rights violations! My God! However, after those three seconds elapsed, unless they didn't have a clue, they would have figured out what the headline was trying to say.
If a pro-MS site had posted you theoretical headline, I seriously doubt that anyone would be jumping up and down screaming for blood. After all, in the article you're talking about most of replies are asking the same question: What about OSS culpability?
'Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'. The article basically states that 'Gate's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents'
Show me the hypocrisy in Slashdot. The story clearly says that Amnesty International was saying that Microsoft was/is violating human rights in China, not Slashdot. If Amnesty goes and says the same thing about OSS, then I'm sure it would be here on Slashdot as well. It seems to me that your complaint should be directed at Amnesty Intl., not Slashdot.
Err, you might want to get your facts straight before you go spouting off. First off all, it was Red Hat that removed the Taiwanese flag from their "unified" KDE distribution. Second of all, what does this have to do with Google violating human rights? I'm pretty sure that Google isn't based in China and who's to say that they use KDE to admin their server farm?
If you're trying to impugn Slashdot's earlier story (which you fail to provide a link for) you'll have to provide some proof if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
Re:Those who have modded me down are censoring
on
KDE 3.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
No, a web browser and a file manager have nothing to do with each other. Zero, nada. One retrieves visual content via the HTTP protocol, the other scans your filesystem and displays folders and files.
So let's see, according you a browser's only function is to retrieve visual content via the HTTP protocol. So if I go to my address bar and type, oh, I don't know, say, ftp://ftp.corel.com/ what is this visual content in my browser? Oh, it looks like a file listing, complete with cute little icons. Hmm.
Yeah, so I guess you're right--file managers and web browsers have nothing in common.
Hmm. Is it just me, or is it you who sounds like the raving MS fanboy?
It's just that Linux is not as widely used as Windows, but given Windows' popularity, you don't think virus authors would be using tricks involving, oh, the new kernel vulnerability listed in my sig, for instance?
Somebody else was quicker than I was to refute you, so I'll just post what he said here:
Oh no, another local root exploit...that was found a month ago and fixed already. Remember that worm in the past month that affected 1 in 7 emails? Or how about its several variations? Or the other viruses in the past month and their several variations that are still affecting Windows? Please tell me how that local exploit hurt anyone or caused any monetary damage to any business.
Now what was that about ANOTHER Linux breach that you scream about in your.sig?
If you're referring to this story then you might as well shut up now. A choice quote from the comments:
mi2g - authors of the report being discussed, are the single most dissed security company I know of. They're derided by such a long list of organisations, that one might wonder if there's any point giving their work houseroom. They certainly appear to be PR whores, and, bless' em, good at this part of their job.
Vmyths appears to summarise the anti-mi2g camps position. Searches for mi2g on NTK and The Register, (when its search engine is working) for mi2g are as enlightening as they are amusing.
Seriously, moderators, do your homework before modding up trollbait crap like this!
Not to be overly critical, but it really burns my hide to hear uninsightful dribble like this trotted out over and over again as being a reason why the GPL is a bad license. For example:
But you're taking away someone's freedom by dictating how they use your software.
It depends on what you mean. If you mean it affects an end user then you're full of crap. Anybody can use GPLed software without any restrictions. Yes, this means our friends up in Redmond too. However, if what you mean by use is to take someone else's work and pass it off as your own (as the BSD license allows) then you can't. Again, nobody is forcing you to do so, so I fail to see how this is taking away your freedom. If your motives are as above and you don't like it, you are free to write your own damn software.
Even then it's not as restrictive as you claim, because you can use it in your closed source program all you want--you just can't distribute it. If you don't like that, the fallback is regular US Copyright law which says you can't use it at all without the author's permission.
I guess it all comes down to motive. If your motive is to take and not give back, then yes, the GPL is a bad deal for you. If your motive is to share with the world and enrich the body of open software, then the GPL is a good deal. Trying to cast it in terms of absolutes (a you and your ilk try to do) is complete waste of time.
The real world expects results, not some licensing meeting between old UNIX hackers.
WTF? And just what kind of results are you looking for? Do you have any idea what the meeting was about? Do you have the slightest clue what the Free Software Foundation does? Judging from the above, I'd have to say that you don't have a clue.
The FSF isn't about a unified desktop for Linux or any such nonsense. It's about (drum roll) free software. Free as in freedom. So what again does a unified desktop have to do with the FSF meeting again? Oh yeah, it doesn't. You were trolling.
Seriously, there are at most three major toolkits being utilized today (QT, GTK, Motif) on XFree86 and as for X being old--so what? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason that it's been around for so long is that it works?
As for how this makes XFree86, Gnome and KDE all "dead in the water" somehow makes no sense at all. You do realize that as far as the end user is concerned, it makes no different whatsoever what toolkit an app was built with? Again, I fail to see a problem.
And what is this "we" that you speak of? Last time I checked it seemed to me that you hate everything connected with Linux and Open Source Software and that everything Microsoft does is golden. Either you've changed your tune, or you're karma whoring (the latter being the more plausible, especially if your.sig or posting history is any indication).
Seriously, whoever modded this as insightful needs to have their head examined.
Slashdot Mirror
This is no joke--I had this happen to me when I was hired recently. My situation is that my SS card only had part of my middle name and my surname on it and so that's what they used in the system (SAP, BTW--shudder), which, by the way, they use to identify everything associated to you, including paychecks! Explaining to the bank why you're cashing a check with a name on it that you haven't used since you were seven years old is no fun.
When I went down to the local SS office to get it changed, I told the girl changing my account my story and she said that she's been hearing that a lot lately...
Which makes me think: Wasn't the SS number sold by saying that it would NEVER be used as a form of identification (except to the SSA)? WTF happened between here and there, and why the hell hasn't there been more people screaming about this?
While you're directing people over to PNAC's website, you should also point out the signatories as well--the ones that jump out at me are Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Eerie? I'd say well planned!
I'm constantly amazed that this kind of uninsightful crap that you consistently trot out over and over again gets modded up as insightful. Probably because of the fact that you are a drooling MS fanboy, you seem to forget perhaps the most important feature that this "coolness" comes with: Next Generation Secure Computing Base.
Yes boys and girls, underneath all the ooo, shiny is that wonderful bit of technology: Trusted Computing. You know, the kind of trust where your computer doesn't trust you? But I suppose you wouldn't want to yell too loudly about that particular feature of Longhorn, now, would you, since it paints MS in a less than favorable light?
So you can have your fucking spinning Notepads and videos looping in the background of windows--to me the price that comes with that technology is simply too high.
"The guy"? Huh. Anyone with minimal intelligence can see the connection. Not to mention all the ACs posting about the connection between this guy's troll accounts. It's all self-evident. What was your point again?
Now that you've cratered your third account you've gone back to posting from your previous two troll accounts.
To bad you still don't have anything insightful to offer, other than your tired old conspiracy theories and right wing maniacal vomit. Did it ever occur to you that the reason you got modded down is you? I thought right wingers were the champions of taking personal responsibility.
Or maybe they're just pragmatists, simply taking that position when it suits them (much as the left wingers do).
KDE is not a Windows clone. You can have it act like pretty much anything you wish--from CDE to MacOS to Windows to (drum roll!) KDE native.
And by the way, Microsoft does it's fair share of stealing from Open Source projects. Just off the top of my head, I remember KDE had the ability to look at remote FTP sites as if they were on your local filesystem--a very cool idea. Not too long after that feature was released in KDE, along comes Microsoft with the exact same feature. Who is copying whom?
Your commentary isn't insightful. It's the same old FUD that comes out of Redmond and their satraps like you.
As someone else has pointed out, IBM has figured out that software commoditization is well underway and that soon there won't be any money to be made from COTS--a fact that Microsoft seems either to be oblivious to or afraid to acknowledge. So of course IBM embracing F/OSS is mostly a pragmatic move on their part. I don't see anyone here posting that they think IBM is doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
Most people that I've seen are glad that IBM is supporting F/OSS, but that doesn't mean that they implicitly trust them. Get real.
It seems to me that if anyone is promoting propaganda and bias, it's you.
Nice try, though.
Yes boys and girls, underneath all the ooo, shiny is that wonderful bit of technology: Trusted Computing. You know, the kind of trust where your computer doesn't trust you? But I suppose you wouldn't want to yell too loudly about that particular feature of Longhorn, now, would you, since it paints MS in a less than favorable light?
So you can have your fucking spinning Notepads and videos looping in the background of windows--to me the price is simply too high.
So your cheesed off because of a frickin' headline? A headline? Yeah, that's bias for you--why, in the three seconds that it would have taken anyone to read the story they might have thought that Microsoft was guilty of human rights violations! My God! However, after those three seconds elapsed, unless they didn't have a clue, they would have figured out what the headline was trying to say.
If a pro-MS site had posted you theoretical headline, I seriously doubt that anyone would be jumping up and down screaming for blood. After all, in the article you're talking about most of replies are asking the same question: What about OSS culpability?
But, then again, what do I know?
Err, you might want to get your facts straight before you go spouting off. First off all, it was Red Hat that removed the Taiwanese flag from their "unified" KDE distribution. Second of all, what does this have to do with Google violating human rights? I'm pretty sure that Google isn't based in China and who's to say that they use KDE to admin their server farm?
If you're trying to impugn Slashdot's earlier story (which you fail to provide a link for) you'll have to provide some proof if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
Yeah, so I guess you're right--file managers and web browsers have nothing in common.
Even then it's not as restrictive as you claim, because you can use it in your closed source program all you want--you just can't distribute it. If you don't like that, the fallback is regular US Copyright law which says you can't use it at all without the author's permission.
I guess it all comes down to motive. If your motive is to take and not give back, then yes, the GPL is a bad deal for you. If your motive is to share with the world and enrich the body of open software, then the GPL is a good deal. Trying to cast it in terms of absolutes (a you and your ilk try to do) is complete waste of time.
The FSF isn't about a unified desktop for Linux or any such nonsense. It's about (drum roll) free software. Free as in freedom. So what again does a unified desktop have to do with the FSF meeting again? Oh yeah, it doesn't. You were trolling.
Hyperbole, thy name is Overly Critical Guy...
.sig or posting history is any indication).
Seriously, there are at most three major toolkits being utilized today (QT, GTK, Motif) on XFree86 and as for X being old--so what? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason that it's been around for so long is that it works?
As for how this makes XFree86, Gnome and KDE all "dead in the water" somehow makes no sense at all. You do realize that as far as the end user is concerned, it makes no different whatsoever what toolkit an app was built with? Again, I fail to see a problem.
And what is this "we" that you speak of? Last time I checked it seemed to me that you hate everything connected with Linux and Open Source Software and that everything Microsoft does is golden. Either you've changed your tune, or you're karma whoring (the latter being the more plausible, especially if your
Seriously, whoever modded this as insightful needs to have their head examined.