The "think of the children" post would be sarcastic. "Think of the children" on slashdot is ALWAYS sarcastic. The next time you see "think of the children", think "sarcasm", OK?
Why would that irritate him? He's not irritated by criticality, he's irritated by US-based criticality of the EU, which is pretty hypocritical for the reasons he stated.
It doesn't even matter. As far as I know IRC is only used because it's an easy protocol to write, and server code is widely available. If security companies magically make botnet operators stop using IRC they'll just switch to more direct custom protocols, which will have to be reverse-engineered.
Gamers want to game. They want to enter a virtual world and interact with it. That's what games are for.
You want to sit back and watch movies. That's fine, but don't think of yourself as a gamer. Think of yourself as an interactive movie watcher. Gamers care about the _games_, not their interfaces.
Production of hydrogen from water will never be efficient. It doesn't matter how it's transported. Are you suggesting we take the hydrogen that Bush will magically find in a mine somewhere, burn it for power, transport the power, and use it to manufacture hydrogen at the gas stations? There's no way that could be made to work profitably. A hydrogen economy won't work, hydrogen is only good for storage. Give up, people.
Nintendo completely redesigned their controller to make games more fun, while Sony added capacity so people can watch high-resolution cutscenes.
Just because a large group of people all disagree with you doesn't mean you're the one doing the thinking.
You really think that'll work, don't you? I think you really think you can get more energy out of hydrogen than it took to electrolyse water to make it.
He overloaded "=>" to mean "only works with". Your lack of an attempt to apply basic substitution from context to these very phrases probably indicates that you learned about reading last week, and still don't understand it. Thanks.
Of course engineers can't make decisions, engineers suck. They're like wannabe administrative types, but they're too smart to fit in so they dress in suits and hang around with people who like science.
No. They're using hardware to monitor when the conditions are worst-case. It's obviously better than assuming the conditions are always as bad as they could possibly be.
As I said, I do not watch obsessively. I do, at random points, check histories.
That's a relief. When I hear about parents monitoring their kids, I think of my parents tiptoing up behind me to see if I was visiting the message board at linuxnewbies, so they could tiptoe back out and burst in on me noisily, and take away the computer for a month because message boards lead directly to rape and they wanted to protect me. Or standing outside my door listening intently, to make sure I wasn't listening to music with bad words in it (this lasted until I was 14). Or grounding me for two weeks because I stayed out 10 minutes past my 11:00 curfew without calling, when I was 17. So I tend to hate overprotectiveness with a mad passion. It's definitely better to err on the side of privacy.
The original poster I responded to said he checks his logs, history, cookies, and router. That sounds pretty comprehensive to me. About the only thing that doesn't catch is IMs, and this article could easily cause him to install an IM monitor too.
It's not really possible to monitor electronically without cathing close to everything. That's what monitoring programs are good at. They make it as difficult as they can to avoid the surveillance, creating a strict and intolerant atmosphere because the child's every move is monitored.
If there's a legitimate cause for concern, of course you should monitor your kid closely. That doesn't mean you should use a computer to watch every last thing your child does online, just on the off chance they'll start writing depressing poetry or planning a school shooting.
You're right. I was just noticing the other day how much more sure of myself I am than my college professors, and how I must know more than them. I think these things because I'm a dumbass teenager who has an inflated ego. It's probably best to dismiss me based on my age, because all 18-year-olds are the same.
I've worked with children for more than 2 years. I've seen 8-year-olds gargle 3 quarters of a gallon of mouthwash in 2 days, trying to get an alcohol buzz. Don't try to tell me children are trusting and listen to their parents.
And I've been talking to people I didn't know on the Internet since I was 12 . Fortunately, I'm not a dumbass, so I didn't need my parents watching my browsing habits like a hawk to keep my dumb, childish, trusting ass from getting raped. For a while they tried like hell, because they'd been pumped full of shit by people like you, but I eventually convinced them I wasn't stupid and didn't need constant attention. The boobie pictures and computer-related conversations with people I'd never met, which would have made them flip out and take away all my "fun" computer time for a month, have so far failed to scar me for life.
No. I'll hazaard a guess that you're older than me (I'm 18) and therefore farther from childhood. I can assure you that talking to a child about why something is wrong will do very little except arouse their curiosity. If they know you're checking logs and history to make sure they're toeing the line, they'll either push back until you cave (rare, requires both headstrong child and weak parent) or give in and grow up accepting surveillance as a part of life (common). You can watch their computer habits with your eyes if you want to, that's normal and expected. But when you use the computer to make your surveillance constant, flawless, and inescapable, you're doing much more harm than good.
They know that if they get bagged, I will crack down. Of course, I also do check logs, history, cookies, and my router:-). But they know mom & dad check up on them, and they accept that.
Nothing like getting 'em accustomed to surveillance early, eh? Good for 'em to learn they have no privacy early on, so they don't protest later.
Slashdot Mirror
An icon can't be a double entendre. That e up there is the symbol for a window manager, not for acquiring wisdom.
The "think of the children" post would be sarcastic. "Think of the children" on slashdot is ALWAYS sarcastic. The next time you see "think of the children", think "sarcasm", OK?
The second one. But nobody here ever does anything about it besides vote third party and whine. Guess how much that helps?
Or Angels and Demons?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Why would that irritate him? He's not irritated by criticality, he's irritated by US-based criticality of the EU, which is pretty hypocritical for the reasons he stated.
It doesn't even matter. As far as I know IRC is only used because it's an easy protocol to write, and server code is widely available. If security companies magically make botnet operators stop using IRC they'll just switch to more direct custom protocols, which will have to be reverse-engineered.
Gamers want to game. They want to enter a virtual world and interact with it. That's what games are for.
You want to sit back and watch movies. That's fine, but don't think of yourself as a gamer. Think of yourself as an interactive movie watcher. Gamers care about the _games_, not their interfaces.
Production of hydrogen from water will never be efficient. It doesn't matter how it's transported. Are you suggesting we take the hydrogen that Bush will magically find in a mine somewhere, burn it for power, transport the power, and use it to manufacture hydrogen at the gas stations? There's no way that could be made to work profitably. A hydrogen economy won't work, hydrogen is only good for storage. Give up, people.
Nintendo completely redesigned their controller to make games more fun, while Sony added capacity so people can watch high-resolution cutscenes. Just because a large group of people all disagree with you doesn't mean you're the one doing the thinking.
You really think that'll work, don't you? I think you really think you can get more energy out of hydrogen than it took to electrolyse water to make it.
The botnets aren't using public IRC servers, they're using servers specifically set up to control botnets.
He overloaded "=>" to mean "only works with". Your lack of an attempt to apply basic substitution from context to these very phrases probably indicates that you learned about reading last week, and still don't understand it. Thanks.
Of course engineers can't make decisions, engineers suck. They're like wannabe administrative types, but they're too smart to fit in so they dress in suits and hang around with people who like science.
No. They're using hardware to monitor when the conditions are worst-case. It's obviously better than assuming the conditions are always as bad as they could possibly be.
Eh? The stereotypical Linux user was bullied all through high school and hates people. Why are you surprised?
As I said, I do not watch obsessively. I do, at random points, check histories.
That's a relief. When I hear about parents monitoring their kids, I think of my parents tiptoing up behind me to see if I was visiting the message board at linuxnewbies, so they could tiptoe back out and burst in on me noisily, and take away the computer for a month because message boards lead directly to rape and they wanted to protect me. Or standing outside my door listening intently, to make sure I wasn't listening to music with bad words in it (this lasted until I was 14). Or grounding me for two weeks because I stayed out 10 minutes past my 11:00 curfew without calling, when I was 17. So I tend to hate overprotectiveness with a mad passion. It's definitely better to err on the side of privacy.
That's the point. Congressmen don't think, they just do whatever the people with money want.
The original poster I responded to said he checks his logs, history, cookies, and router. That sounds pretty comprehensive to me. About the only thing that doesn't catch is IMs, and this article could easily cause him to install an IM monitor too.
It's not really possible to monitor electronically without cathing close to everything. That's what monitoring programs are good at. They make it as difficult as they can to avoid the surveillance, creating a strict and intolerant atmosphere because the child's every move is monitored.
If there's a legitimate cause for concern, of course you should monitor your kid closely. That doesn't mean you should use a computer to watch every last thing your child does online, just on the off chance they'll start writing depressing poetry or planning a school shooting.
You're right. I was just noticing the other day how much more sure of myself I am than my college professors, and how I must know more than them. I think these things because I'm a dumbass teenager who has an inflated ego. It's probably best to dismiss me based on my age, because all 18-year-olds are the same.
I've worked with children for more than 2 years. I've seen 8-year-olds gargle 3 quarters of a gallon of mouthwash in 2 days, trying to get an alcohol buzz. Don't try to tell me children are trusting and listen to their parents.
And I've been talking to people I didn't know on the Internet since I was 12 . Fortunately, I'm not a dumbass, so I didn't need my parents watching my browsing habits like a hawk to keep my dumb, childish, trusting ass from getting raped. For a while they tried like hell, because they'd been pumped full of shit by people like you, but I eventually convinced them I wasn't stupid and didn't need constant attention. The boobie pictures and computer-related conversations with people I'd never met, which would have made them flip out and take away all my "fun" computer time for a month, have so far failed to scar me for life.
No. I'll hazaard a guess that you're older than me (I'm 18) and therefore farther from childhood. I can assure you that talking to a child about why something is wrong will do very little except arouse their curiosity. If they know you're checking logs and history to make sure they're toeing the line, they'll either push back until you cave (rare, requires both headstrong child and weak parent) or give in and grow up accepting surveillance as a part of life (common). You can watch their computer habits with your eyes if you want to, that's normal and expected. But when you use the computer to make your surveillance constant, flawless, and inescapable, you're doing much more harm than good.
They know that if they get bagged, I will crack down. Of course, I also do check logs, history, cookies, and my router :-). But they know mom & dad check up on them, and they accept that.
Nothing like getting 'em accustomed to surveillance early, eh? Good for 'em to learn they have no privacy early on, so they don't protest later.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198569&cid=162 70537