If it was a manager installing spyware on an employee's computer to document that he spent the entire workday/.ing, how many of you crying about how Mr Blake lost his job would be calling for the manager's blood?
First of all, I'm seeing a different theme in the new browser. Second the layout is different (I have the address bar up by menubar), I don't see the padlock, and there are various other differences in the interface. Is this because this is a crappy proof of concept or is this bug just unable to correctly mimic customized features of the browser?
But since when in this thread were we discussing the disease process? We have been discussing the epidemiology of the disease, such as whether or not BSE is common in the US beef market and whether or not CJD and vCJD are the same thing.
"I still don't see you offering to eat a BSE cow."
I never said I was willing to. I am saying that the chance of any given cow (especially one not showing obvious symptoms of BSE when slaughtered) is astronomically small. If that is a basis for someone not eating meat, they might as well never go outside for fear of getting struck by lightning. The only reason Britain had an outbreak was because of husbandry practices existed in pre-mad cow UK.
"I just hate seeing some little bitch whine about another's informed opinion "
For the last fucking time, science is not about opinions, science is about facts.
" I got my PhD from the U of MN, and at least one of us has one."
In microbiology, specializing in prions? Ha, that tells me a lot about Minnesota's biology department.
"I can read the entire linux kernel, it wont make me informed, a kernel programmer or able to have a real opinion about what it is, or where it needs to go."
We are talking about science, not opinions. Need me to explain the difference?
"v=variant thus vCJD - it is not seperate, but a varient."
Vocabulary lesson.
variant Audio pronunciation of "variant" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vâr-nt, vr-)
adj.
1. Having or exhibiting variation; differing.
" Wow, what a jump..."
Both are caused by the same mechanism. Thats about all you have linking CJD and vCJD.
"And if you think downers are not part of the current beef market, you have never been to a slaughter house."
Downers != Cattle killed by BSE. There are a lot of things that can kill cattle, most are not transmittable to humans through consumption.
You see, the reason the UK has an outbreak of mad cow was because cattle in the UK were regularly fed cow byproducts (dead cow). That allowed one cow to infect dozens of others which infect others which infect humans. That is not the case in the US where soybean meal is common feed for cattle and where regulations prohibit feeding cattle meal back to cattle. Thus in order for the cow you eat at McDonald's to have BSE, it would have had to have gotten the mutated protein itself. The chance that your cow generated the mutated protein itself and then was slaughtered before showing obvious symptoms make being hit by lightning look like a sure thing. Hence why only one person in the US has ever been found to have acquired the disease (and most likely got it when she lived in Britain earlier in her life).
"You Sir have no idea how prions work do you?"
Yes I do. CJD does not come from cattle. It occurs randomly (and rarely) in the human population. It is in no way preventable but occurs very rarely and almost always kills late in the victim's life.
"oh, and describing the difference between vCJD and CJD is pretentious and ill informed - it's called vCJD for a reason"
They are two very different diseases. They have similar effects and are probably caused by the same basic mechanism (which is why BSE in humans was given the name variant CJD), but they are two very different diseases caused by two very different causes.
By your logic differentiating between Ebola and AIDS is pretentious and ill informed.
"Come back when you have a PhD to back up your "opinion""
Where did you get your PhD microbiology? Las Vegas Mail Order Institute? Please. I do not need a PhD to read articles and books by leading researchers in the field. From that I have plenty to back up what you ignorantly label an "opinion".
Basically the only way to spread prion-related diseases is either through the consumption of tainted tissue (and since these diseases do not usually cross species that well, that generally would require cannibalism) or through genetics.
Also this research is vital to the understanding of diseases like CJD. For starters it validates the theory that misshaped prions can cause diseases like CJD or BSE, something that has been controversial since the theory was first thought up.
No, there is no well accepted theory that Alzheimers is caused by any sort of proteinaceous infectious particle. Once in a while a case of CJD may be misdiagnosed as Altzheimers and the real condition will be discovered during the autopsy, but that is far from 50% of the time.
Also, there is no evidence or even reason to believe that BSE has entered the US food supply.
BTW, CJD and vCJD (mad cow disease) are two distinct diseases (along with scrapie, chronic wasting disease, and other diseases caused by prions). You don't get CJD from eating beef or any other meat (unless you are Hannibal Lector).
I agree fully. I use my phone to call people and occasionally access the Internet when a normal connection is not available. And once in a while I'll play a game if I get really bored.
Besides, in my experience most of the phones that are offered for free have few of those extra features.
Even if there was available a phone with a great music player and nice camera attached, it would still prefer to get the items individually. Then each one wouldn't be dependent on the others.
"I mean it's obviously reasonable to expect your books to delete themselves after 2 weeks (who here hasn't taken more than 2 weeks to read a book?). "
Ever read a book from the library?
"Even the concept of Copyright is a recent invention, and there were certainly entertainers before Copyright came around. "
Yeah, but that was under a different system. Most were hired by nobels and the church. I have no problem paying $15 for something made under a capitalist system rather being limited to what the ultra-rich want to commission.
"This is kind of like saying that a few shoplifters are going to destroy civilization as we know it. "
Yeah, a few thefts don't hurt the system that much. But with a digital system more than a few can exist.
And even if only a few people are abusing the system, isn't that unfair to all the suckers who are paying for it?
I don't really think DRM will be nearly as big of a deal with ebooks as they are with music and video as it will always be easy to get books without DRM for two reasons.
First, you don't really have to spend a dime to write a book. Time maybe, and you may need to spend something to market it, but it is possible for amateur writers to exist. Musicians usually still need some income to record their album (unless they have rich daddies who buy them fancy computers with music studios built in), and in order to make a major motion picture you almost always need huge amounts of money (even for something like Pi, he had to rely on investments from friends and family). That doesn't mean authors deserve money less than filmmakers or musicians, but rather they have the option of bypassing the whole profit thing.
Second, there are huge amounts of public domain work already out there. People have been writing books for thousands of years, while most music recordings and videos are much more recent. Anna Karenina recently made the best seller list even though it was written in the 1870's.
Re:The Emphasis Should be on Security Issues Not P
on
P2P Leaks Surprises
·
· Score: 1
"He seems to assume that P2P should be legislated against. However, this is a security issue, not an issue specific to P2P systems."
He is using P2P as an example of a technology that can become a major security risk that he feels has been overlooked. He never said it was the only one. But we do need to step up security policies taking into consideration p2p technology.
"The company that started this whole thing is not interested in a debate - they just want to spread fear about their competitor."
Linux is not a competitor, it is a different technology that he is free to embrace. He did not embrace it for these specific purposes and is defending his actions.
"read the bits where his assertions were shown to be false, irrelevant, or disingenious,"
Why read those? The/.ers who posted those were most likely Linux users and thus had a vested interest in shutting him down. Thus by your logic, are their opinions not worthless?
I'm sorry, I honestly don't know how to explain this any clearer. Maybe there is some sort of language barrier between us that is causing you to be unable to understand what the original post meant. Again, if that is because you are not completely familiar with the English language, that is ok, but trust me, he attacked the author of the article because he works for a company that competes with Linux, which qualifies his comment as an argumentum ad hominem. Your insistence that he was trying to defend the CEO against such arguments is just plain false.
"Nope. I am saying that it is probably propaganda based on a vested interest in denigrating Linux's reputation."
Using that logic, anyone in the industry (especially anyone connected to OSS) should be filtered out because they must have some sort of bias.
Going beyond that, why listen to anything right-leaning pundits say about Kerry or left-leaning pundits say about Bush? They clearly have a vested interest in denigrating their opponent.
The best way to make an informed opinion is not to shut everyone else out, but rather consider all sides of the debate.
"I can't fully respond to every wingnut that spouts off about stuff I'm interested in - I'd have no time for anything else"
But you are here responding to the article. In the time you took calling his opinions biased and thus worthless couldn't you have taken the time to consider it without regard to who was making the criticism?
"The key point where this guys whole argument falls apart is that proprietary software isn't any better. I'm confident Microsoft employs a small army of foreigners, and I'm not sure they would be any more reliable than OSS developers"
I really don't know why you guys keep on mentioning MS as an example, as he is clearly not arguing for Windows to repalce Linux. In fact he argues that software used by the government should not use MS as a benchmark and should strive for higher standards.
" Look back at your argumentum ad hominem quote. It wasn't an atack on him it was Ad hominem circumstantial."
Yes, Ad hominem circumstantial is a form of an ad hominem fallacy because it suffers the same faults. The arguement is against the individual making the argument instead of against the argument.
"He is a CEO, the first line removed him from the argument. The poster didn't want flivrouls attacks against him simply because he was a CEO trying to sell his company."
Dude, did you even read the origional post? Is English not your first language (if so, I'll forgive you for misreading the post, but please admit it)? He was clearly pointing out that this man works for a company that competes with Linux and was trying to dismiss it for that reason. Hence the chosen title: "Understand the Source Perspective".
"1) Linux is a major threat to other RTOS vendors."
Which is irrelevant to the discussion.
"2) Large Projects want to code so they aren't depedent on a propritery vendor."
Also has nothing to do with this specific criticism of Linux.
" Go back and look yourself, there are few personal attacks against the CEO"
First of all, I think you meant "It doesn't matter...".
Second, two out of three paragraphs of your post was very specific to Microsoft.
Microsoft has been showing its source code to governments and corporations for the last few years.
Windows is such an easy target for exploitation, getting the source code probably wouldn't be worth the bother.
Third, the one paragraph that you claim would apply to other proprietary software ignores that there is a great difference between how software is treated when it is made by a corporation for the purpose of selling to businesses and individuals (such as Windows) and when it is made by defense contractors for the purpose of being used in a national security related operation. In the later in order to access the software you generally need a security clearance.
Fourth, the concern is not so much terrorists (or more likely foreign agents) gaining copies to it but rather writing it and inserting potentially harmful code. Of course you would know that had you RTFA.
Fifth, ah, why do I bother? You have this preconception of the world as a black and white, Linux vs Windows situation and you will most likely dismiss anything challenging that. But at least I tried.
He didn't say we should use Microsoft Windows, merely that we shouldn't use OSS for sensitive operations. In fact he even discourages the use of Windows just as much as Linux for sensitve government work.
"Even if Linux were as secure as Windows, Windows is the wrong benchmark. Defense systems should be held to a higher standard."
"Are you saying that the major focus of the discussion was about the Source?"
Well lets see, the title of the origional post was "Understand the Source Perspective", the entire first paragraph was solely about the source, and the only part that even attempted to refute the aticle's substance was the very last sentence which is easily refuted. So yes, I am saying the major focus of his post was on the source of the argument.
"The source was removed from the discussion because of his role - that is what the first lines says: Here is the source but dont attack him just focus on the facts."
No, he was adding the source to the discussion. Here is what his first line actually said:
Understand the source perspective before you draw opinions.
In other words, consider the source before you consider the argument.
Of course not. The use of Windows was not meant to be taken literally, but rather as an example of a closed source operating system that we are familiar with. If it was meant to be taken literally, then the origional post was wrong. O'Dowd was not arguing that we use Windows XP for defense projects, in fact quite the opposite. For those of you who failed to RTFA:
Even if Linux were as secure as Windows, Windows is the wrong benchmark. Defense systems should be held to a higher standard.
He is arguing against the use of Linux in sensitve situations, not for Windows. There are other OSs available for the military other than Windows and Linux you know.
Actually it is irrational by definition. The fact that tobacco company reps have financial interests in no way refutes their arguments, nor do they even weaken their arguments. It can refute the argument that they are good people who would never lie should it be proved that that is what is happening, but if they are indeed wrong there must be evidence of it that is independent of the person making the argument.
It may be cause for initial suspicions but to use it within an argument as the gp did is misleading and a logical fallacy. He is diverting the attention away from the issue (whether or not the government should use OSS in sensitive projects) and instead focusing it on the motives of the person making the original claim.
Only on slashdot are complex issues such as the pros and cons of OSS reduced to Richard Stallman vs Steve Ballmer with no possibility of a grey area in between.
Slashdot Mirror
Be honest.
MP3s are obsolete. Do any of these things support Ogg Vorbis files?
First of all, I'm seeing a different theme in the new browser. Second the layout is different (I have the address bar up by menubar), I don't see the padlock, and there are various other differences in the interface. Is this because this is a crappy proof of concept or is this bug just unable to correctly mimic customized features of the browser?
But since when in this thread were we discussing the disease process? We have been discussing the epidemiology of the disease, such as whether or not BSE is common in the US beef market and whether or not CJD and vCJD are the same thing.
I never said I was willing to. I am saying that the chance of any given cow (especially one not showing obvious symptoms of BSE when slaughtered) is astronomically small. If that is a basis for someone not eating meat, they might as well never go outside for fear of getting struck by lightning. The only reason Britain had an outbreak was because of husbandry practices existed in pre-mad cow UK.
"I just hate seeing some little bitch whine about another's informed opinion "
For the last fucking time, science is not about opinions, science is about facts.
In microbiology, specializing in prions? Ha, that tells me a lot about Minnesota's biology department.
"I can read the entire linux kernel, it wont make me informed, a kernel programmer or able to have a real opinion about what it is, or where it needs to go."
We are talking about science, not opinions. Need me to explain the difference?
"v=variant thus vCJD - it is not seperate, but a varient."
Vocabulary lesson.
" Wow, what a jump..."
Both are caused by the same mechanism. Thats about all you have linking CJD and vCJD.
Downers != Cattle killed by BSE. There are a lot of things that can kill cattle, most are not transmittable to humans through consumption.
You see, the reason the UK has an outbreak of mad cow was because cattle in the UK were regularly fed cow byproducts (dead cow). That allowed one cow to infect dozens of others which infect others which infect humans. That is not the case in the US where soybean meal is common feed for cattle and where regulations prohibit feeding cattle meal back to cattle. Thus in order for the cow you eat at McDonald's to have BSE, it would have had to have gotten the mutated protein itself. The chance that your cow generated the mutated protein itself and then was slaughtered before showing obvious symptoms make being hit by lightning look like a sure thing. Hence why only one person in the US has ever been found to have acquired the disease (and most likely got it when she lived in Britain earlier in her life).
"You Sir have no idea how prions work do you?"
Yes I do. CJD does not come from cattle. It occurs randomly (and rarely) in the human population. It is in no way preventable but occurs very rarely and almost always kills late in the victim's life.
"oh, and describing the difference between vCJD and CJD is pretentious and ill informed - it's called vCJD for a reason"
They are two very different diseases. They have similar effects and are probably caused by the same basic mechanism (which is why BSE in humans was given the name variant CJD), but they are two very different diseases caused by two very different causes.
By your logic differentiating between Ebola and AIDS is pretentious and ill informed.
"Come back when you have a PhD to back up your "opinion""
Where did you get your PhD microbiology? Las Vegas Mail Order Institute? Please. I do not need a PhD to read articles and books by leading researchers in the field. From that I have plenty to back up what you ignorantly label an "opinion".
Basically the only way to spread prion-related diseases is either through the consumption of tainted tissue (and since these diseases do not usually cross species that well, that generally would require cannibalism) or through genetics.
Also this research is vital to the understanding of diseases like CJD. For starters it validates the theory that misshaped prions can cause diseases like CJD or BSE, something that has been controversial since the theory was first thought up.
Also, there is no evidence or even reason to believe that BSE has entered the US food supply.
BTW, CJD and vCJD (mad cow disease) are two distinct diseases (along with scrapie, chronic wasting disease, and other diseases caused by prions). You don't get CJD from eating beef or any other meat (unless you are Hannibal Lector).
Remember, getting the trained monkeys at the patent office to accept your application is different from getting a judge to actually enforce it.
Besides, in my experience most of the phones that are offered for free have few of those extra features.
Even if there was available a phone with a great music player and nice camera attached, it would still prefer to get the items individually. Then each one wouldn't be dependent on the others.
Ever read a book from the library?
"Even the concept of Copyright is a recent invention, and there were certainly entertainers before Copyright came around. "
Yeah, but that was under a different system. Most were hired by nobels and the church. I have no problem paying $15 for something made under a capitalist system rather being limited to what the ultra-rich want to commission.
"This is kind of like saying that a few shoplifters are going to destroy civilization as we know it. "
Yeah, a few thefts don't hurt the system that much. But with a digital system more than a few can exist.
And even if only a few people are abusing the system, isn't that unfair to all the suckers who are paying for it?
I don't really think DRM will be nearly as big of a deal with ebooks as they are with music and video as it will always be easy to get books without DRM for two reasons.
He is using P2P as an example of a technology that can become a major security risk that he feels has been overlooked. He never said it was the only one. But we do need to step up security policies taking into consideration p2p technology.
Linux is not a competitor, it is a different technology that he is free to embrace. He did not embrace it for these specific purposes and is defending his actions.
"read the bits where his assertions were shown to be false, irrelevant, or disingenious,"
Why read those? The /.ers who posted those were most likely Linux users and thus had a vested interest in shutting him down. Thus by your logic, are their opinions not worthless?
I'm sorry, I honestly don't know how to explain this any clearer. Maybe there is some sort of language barrier between us that is causing you to be unable to understand what the original post meant. Again, if that is because you are not completely familiar with the English language, that is ok, but trust me, he attacked the author of the article because he works for a company that competes with Linux, which qualifies his comment as an argumentum ad hominem. Your insistence that he was trying to defend the CEO against such arguments is just plain false.
Using that logic, anyone in the industry (especially anyone connected to OSS) should be filtered out because they must have some sort of bias.
Going beyond that, why listen to anything right-leaning pundits say about Kerry or left-leaning pundits say about Bush? They clearly have a vested interest in denigrating their opponent.
The best way to make an informed opinion is not to shut everyone else out, but rather consider all sides of the debate.
"I can't fully respond to every wingnut that spouts off about stuff I'm interested in - I'd have no time for anything else"
But you are here responding to the article. In the time you took calling his opinions biased and thus worthless couldn't you have taken the time to consider it without regard to who was making the criticism?
I really don't know why you guys keep on mentioning MS as an example, as he is clearly not arguing for Windows to repalce Linux. In fact he argues that software used by the government should not use MS as a benchmark and should strive for higher standards.
Yes, Ad hominem circumstantial is a form of an ad hominem fallacy because it suffers the same faults. The arguement is against the individual making the argument instead of against the argument.
"He is a CEO, the first line removed him from the argument. The poster didn't want flivrouls attacks against him simply because he was a CEO trying to sell his company."
Dude, did you even read the origional post? Is English not your first language (if so, I'll forgive you for misreading the post, but please admit it)? He was clearly pointing out that this man works for a company that competes with Linux and was trying to dismiss it for that reason. Hence the chosen title: "Understand the Source Perspective".
"1) Linux is a major threat to other RTOS vendors."
Which is irrelevant to the discussion.
"2) Large Projects want to code so they aren't depedent on a propritery vendor."
Also has nothing to do with this specific criticism of Linux.
" Go back and look yourself, there are few personal attacks against the CEO"
I did, you are wrong.
Second, two out of three paragraphs of your post was very specific to Microsoft.
Third, the one paragraph that you claim would apply to other proprietary software ignores that there is a great difference between how software is treated when it is made by a corporation for the purpose of selling to businesses and individuals (such as Windows) and when it is made by defense contractors for the purpose of being used in a national security related operation. In the later in order to access the software you generally need a security clearance.
Fourth, the concern is not so much terrorists (or more likely foreign agents) gaining copies to it but rather writing it and inserting potentially harmful code. Of course you would know that had you RTFA.
Fifth, ah, why do I bother? You have this preconception of the world as a black and white, Linux vs Windows situation and you will most likely dismiss anything challenging that. But at least I tried.
That should be ggp, not gp. My post was the grandparent, the origional was the great grandparent.
He didn't say we should use Microsoft Windows, merely that we shouldn't use OSS for sensitive operations. In fact he even discourages the use of Windows just as much as Linux for sensitve government work.
What quote?
"Are you saying that the major focus of the discussion was about the Source?"
Well lets see, the title of the origional post was "Understand the Source Perspective", the entire first paragraph was solely about the source, and the only part that even attempted to refute the aticle's substance was the very last sentence which is easily refuted. So yes, I am saying the major focus of his post was on the source of the argument.
"The source was removed from the discussion because of his role - that is what the first lines says: Here is the source but dont attack him just focus on the facts."
No, he was adding the source to the discussion. Here is what his first line actually said:
In other words, consider the source before you consider the argument.It may be cause for initial suspicions but to use it within an argument as the gp did is misleading and a logical fallacy. He is diverting the attention away from the issue (whether or not the government should use OSS in sensitive projects) and instead focusing it on the motives of the person making the original claim.
Only on slashdot are complex issues such as the pros and cons of OSS reduced to Richard Stallman vs Steve Ballmer with no possibility of a grey area in between.