The difference is that some of us were paying attention when Facebook first started catching on. How many negative stories does one require before they realize that this is a company which is not interested in its users?
Controversies over privacy issues, frequent changes to user interfaces, and increasing commercialization have positioned the big social networking sites at satisfaction levels well below other Web sites...
I'd add an item to that list: users who can't see the seeds of those things and must wait for the 50-foot tree to grow before they can identify it. This is despite repeated examples of other corporations that don't care about their users and customers, more than sufficient to learn what the pattern looks like and how to recognize it in advance. I don't believe the users are so stupid that they're incapable of realizing this. I believe that the "oooh shiny" effect of another trendy bandwagon and the indulgence of their vanity is more important to them than a quality experience, and thus overrides any reasoning they may have performed. So, this is just water finding its own level.
For those who are perceptive, the fact that user satisfaction is so low but those same users continue to use the service tells you anything you might want to know.
Put in the right tag, and ! the wrong one. I'm so confused on how the tag system operates I rarely use it, and yeah sometimes I can't tag stuff either. Maybe it's a Karma thing?
Mine is capped at "Excellent" and has been for a long time now. It's not karma-related.
I think they moved it to the Firehose so you have to put in a little effort if you want to tag a story (presumably to cut down on tags like cyberwarfareisbullshit)
Then why leave a non-functional tagging mechanism in place for non-Firehose stories? It's either incompetent or deceptive. One way or another, something here doesn't add up.
Besides which, if cyberwarfare is bullshit then there is nothing wrong with saying so.
There is probably another possibility, but you mention none I did not already cover. I explained it thusly:
Then there's the general untrustworthiness of the US government as an institution, the idiocy and abuses and mismanagement that it perpetuates and the moral implications of joining up with them.
Copyright madness is certainly an example of this, and not the trait of an institution I want to support with my labor. I don't really understand how you wouldn't think this statement excludes copyright hysteria.
By law I must pay my taxes or very bad things will happen, so I pay my taxes. That part is not a choice. But anywhere I have a legal choice, such as a choice of employers, I refuse to support this particular institution or join up with them in any way that is not mandatory. Maybe they were once a noble, respectable institution but they certainly don't fit that description now. I'd rather not be ashamed of how I get my living. That's why I wouldn't voluntarily work for the US Government.
The USA has a bad habit of arresting anyone with the skills and curiosity to perform such tasks. Instead of arresting and jailing "hackers" they should employ them, and then maybe we'd have enough people for the "cyberwar" they are talking about
It's part of a greater "war on curiosity" that's a fear-based initiative to stamp out any and all behaviors that even slightly deviate from a prescribed norm. Locking up those "evil hackers" is part of this. Another part of this is the way people are getting threatened by cops, security staff, and other jack-booted thugs for legally taking photos in public places. You also can't get a truly good chemistry set anymore, because somebody might use the glassware to make drugs. Now they complain that they can't find good personnel for something that requires initiative, individual thought and a willingness to think outside the box and see things from multiple angles.
That serves them right. They've been systematically stamping out any kind of unapproved curiosity and exploration in the name of safety for a long time now. They've also done nothing but encourage the outsourcing trend of sending a great deal of IT talent to places like India, and you really do want US citizens to perform this kind of national security work. Then there's the general untrustworthiness of the US government as an institution, the idiocy and abuses and mismanagement that it perpetuates and the moral implications of joining up with them. That might further alienate domestic talent that would otherwise be interested. As far as I am concerned, they are reaping what they have sown.
I'm not allowed to tag stories, but the moron who managed to misspell "cyberwarfare" as "cyberwarefare" is free and clear, huh? Nice job, Slashdot.
I can't seem to tag stories either and I have no idea why. I can add a tag and it appears to work, but I have never once refreshed the Slashdot main page and seen any tag I have applied. That is, they seem to just go straight to/dev/null. Tags I try to apply do seem to show up on my user page, however.
Sorry for the tone but I just don't see what part of this is difficult to understand.
If you are truly sorry at this point then why not go back and rewrite your response when you are sober and slightly less hostile? Simple answer:
You aren't sorry at all. You just want people to see you as something other that a prick. Here's some free insight, asshole. It isn't
working.
I was sorry that it was necessary in order to convey the point, for that is unfortunate. I was not sorry in the sense that I wouldn't say it that way again if it was again necessary. See the difference? I'd prefer it not be that way, but now that it is that way due to circumstances beyond my control, I am not going to shy away from being honest about it, not even if people like you can't handle that and feel a need to call me names.
You will agree with me or you will disagree with me and you will handle each according to your maturity and understanding, but either way I will not play this silly game of worrying about your approval. So, do your worst. Then tell me about what is working and for whom.
Incidentally, I browse at -1 so there was no need to make a duplicate post as an AC because your own karma has taken your default score down to -1.
Clearly you know your stuff about Windows and there's no real excuse for posting without reading the article properly.
However, having read several of your responses, your arrogant tone with people sucks & you've become the caricature that people paint of "IT know-it-alls" who they hate calling when they have a problem with their PCs.
Having been in telecoms/IT support myself for some 30 years now, I've discovered the secret to a happy life is to treat others respectfully for them to respect you back - if you make a career of talking down to people, it's you, not them, that becomes the idiot.
I shall follow you postings closely in future and look forward to a time when I can correct you if you make any incorrect statements about UNIX or Linux...
Arrogant means "I'm better than you". If I were arrogant I would never expect him or most others to get anything right, since only someone "as great as me" (or however an arrogant person would say it) could do anything right. I'd expect others to egregiously fail instead of seeing it as something out-of-order that needs to be called out.
No, instead I expect better, especially from someone with a writing style indicating he has a mind and knows how to use it. Such a person is more than capable of reading the summary. He failed, so I called him on it. I refuse to apologize for that, particularly to someone who wants to tell me how one should live a happy life.
I'll correct one erroneous assumption you made there. My work or my career is not in IT at all. It's strictly something I do because I trly enjoy it as a hobby, an intellectual pursuit, and a way to challenge myself.
I'll correct a second erroneous assumption you made there. If you need to think I'm some terrible person for pointing out that I know my own experience better than you do, so be it. What might really drive you crazy is that I don't need your approval and don't care in the slightest about how judgmental you can be of me. Now, on to that correction: I have been using Linux exclusively on my personal computers for well over ten years now. If I am going to make a mistake, it is much more likely I will make a mistake concerning Windows since I don't personally use it. It is absolutely possible, but comparatively much less likely, that I will make a technical error concerning Linux.
So you, sir, have this backwards because you speak of me while knowing nothing about me. If that isn't the very arrogance you are accusing me of, then I could not tell you what would be. You still want to play this game with me? Are you sure? There would be no shame in backing out now. If you don't, you are a fool. I am having to be extremely direct with you because you leave me no other option.
The reason you failed to figure this out on your own is because I was able to read the summary and comprehend the information it contained prior to saying anything at all about Windows. So you assumed, in knee-jerk emotional fashion, that I am a Windows guy. That's the same thing the GGP did with his failure to read and comprehend at least the summary prior to posting a comment. It is no wonder you rise up to defend him. Birds of a feather and all of that.
Also, if you can correct me on something you will be doing me a favor. I won't feel inferior no matter how much your petty nature would take pleasure in such a thing. Instead, I will feel gratitude, for a genuine correction will fix a misperception I may not have noticed otherwise. So please, do bring it on. Do your worst, I implore you. Do you imagine I am afraid of that? It's a shame if you have nothing better to do than track my posts based on some kind of personal "gotcha!" game, but I can make constructive use of that no matter what you intend.
The next time you want to do this, be very sure you know with whom you are dealing. I am no one special and claim no special status whatsoever, yet it is for that very reason that I am not such an easy target for the type of games you want to play.
Henry David Thoreau once said that there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for every one striking at the root.
The scammers themselves are the branches. They are a dime a dozen. Catch one, three more will take his place. This will always be the case so long as there is so potential for ill-gotten profit. I'd rather deal with this problem by reducing the potential for ill-gotten profit. That's the root of this particular evil.
It's just a fact that the more knowledgable, savvy, and wise you are, the less likely it is that you will be successfully targeted by this scam or any other. I do not believe wisdom is something one should keep away from others and hoard like so much silver and gold. So for anyone who will listen, I say that you need not be anyone's victim.
As you have noticed, using stories of vulnerable ignorance as examples of what not to do is in fact a way to help people identify and overcome a weakness before they learn the hard way.
Also, the AC is likely not a scam victim or an immediate relative of a scam victim. I have encountered this time and time again and expected to encounter it this time. If your reject the victim mentality and instead adopt a model of taking full responsibility for one's actions, including accepting when you have mistakenly trusted someone you should not have trusted, you will catch all sorts of flak for this. Most of it will be filled with negative emotion and either poorly reasoned or completely irrational.
The victim mentality is precious and very dear to those who hold it. It absolves them of all blame so they have an excuse for never facing their own character flaws, weaknesses, and other shortcomings. It's always those $EVIL_PEOPLE who cause all of their problems. It doesn't really absolve them of anything, of course, for I have never known a person like this who had any real joy. The pain of facing their own flaws is merely replaced with the pain of being a leaf in the wind, forever at the mercy of external events. Frankly it's beneath them, but they don't see it that way.
It takes a significant amount of courage to be honest about your shortcomings. Sometimes this means seeing with extreme clarity how much of a fool you can be. Your ability to do this is inversely proportional to the size of your ego. If you have a big ego, it needs to be fed with the assurance that you're really alright, a need that wouldn't be there if this were true.
So for many, my rejection of the victim mentality is a painful message. I am doing them no harm, but because it reminds them of what they'd rather deny, they assume that I am the cause of that pain. Now there is a need to rationalize their vitriol towards it, and for them any rationalization will do, however flimsy.
It does not improve matters in the least that many manipulative people will support this false concept of the self because victims are needy and manipulative people need to be needed. Independence is an enemy to them and not something they will ever encourage. Much of modern politics works this way. When people are taken advantage of in this fashion, they now have two barriers to waking up and being honest with themselves: the pain of facing their flaws plus the pain of realizing they were taken advantage of. These are significant barriers to those who are already lacking the courage to conduct honest introspection. I'll also add that negativity of any sort is always a self-feeding cycle.
I think s/he (i.e. causality (777677)) *does* do something, by writing what s/he has written. --- I got some ideas to attempt to help people becoming less ignorant, by reading his/her texts.
That's because you were willing to see those ideas. I can plainly see something that speaks highly of you: you don't need me for those ideas -- at best I only saved you some time. While I would strongly discourage anyone from depending on me, this on the other hand is a service I am glad to rende
It's an AVERAGE people. I know you understand what that word means.
It can refer to a mean, a median, or a mode. It is equally valid to use the word "average" to describe all three.
It would seem that you are referring to the arithmetic mean. The GP may have been referring to the mode. That doesn't mean he's stupid or doesn't understand a widely-understood word.
Just something to think about the next time you feel irritated over a word that has multiple concurrent meanings.
I'm not Windows expert, but isn't this exactly the way the certificate system is supposed to operate? This sounds like a security success story, not a failure.
Driver needs certificate to work with OS. Driver is found to contain security flaw. Certificate is revoked, OS refuses to recognize driver, security hole is closed. Now driver manufacturer has to clean up their act before their drivers are allowed back in the house.
The headline reads "Microsoft has no plans to patch new flaw", but isn't the certificate revocation at least as good as a patch? More so, because it seals off any *other* undiscovered bugs in the driver? Or am I missing something?
Please see this post where I correct a similar false notion. Then, please berate your teachers for failing to transmit basic reading comprehension skills to you. Hint: the signed malicious device driver is incidental and is not the flaw that Microsoft may or may not patch.
Sorry for the tone but I just don't see what part of this is difficult to understand.
But to blame this one of Microsoft is assinine, how were they supposed to do anything different?
Do you have any familiarity whatsoever with this situation?
Windows has an acknowledged flaw/vunlerability related to its handling of.lnk files (shortcuts). That flaw is being exploited to install this malicious driver. The problem has been greatly compounded by the fact that the driver is signed by a previously-trusted private key, but this is not the original flaw. Normally the act of merely plugging in a USB thumbdrive does not immediately install system software such as device drivers. It is that acknowledged.lnk flaw that makes this possible.
If you can install a hardware driver with an exploit, you can also install a worm, rootkit, etc. This attack happens to install a device driver. If Realtek's private key had never been compromised, then instead of installing a malicious device driver, you'd have Windows users plugging in infected USB thumbdrives and immediately becoming members of botnets. The flaw is in the Windows system and its handling of shortcut files.
It is that flaw and only that flaw for which Microsoft is being blamed.
I suppose Microsoft could release a Windows update that revokes trust for any cert signed by VeriSign
Why would they do that when Verisign can revoke only this specific Realtek cert? In fact that's exactly what they have done.
Seriously. Did you even bother to read the summary? At all? I'll quote it for you. This is the summary, verbatim:
"Microsoft has acknowledged the vulnerability that the new malware Stuxnet uses to launch itself with.lnk files, but said it has no plans to patch the flaw right now. The company said the flaw affects most current versions of Windows, including Vista, Server 2008 and Windows 7 32- and 64-bit. Meanwhile, the digital certificate that belonging to Realtek Semiconductor that was used to sign a pair of drivers for the new Stuxnet rootkit has been revoked by VeriSign. The certificate was revoked Friday, several days after news broke about the existence of the new malware and the troubling existence of the signed drivers."
Emphasis is mine. Now go clean the egg off your face.
Don't be obtuse, he raises a good point. Linux is not infallible and shouldn't be treated as such even
Did it occur to you that the more experienced/advanced/technical users who tend to gravitate towards Linux are very much aware of this, that they administer their systems accordingly, and that this is in fact a big reason why successful malware "in the wild" is all but unheard-of on this platform? Compare to "buy the next version of Windows, it's easier and more secure than ever!" that carries the strong implication of "oh, security is someone else's problem". Not noticing or appreciating that difference would also be obtuse.
What I am getting at is that there are both technical and cultural differences between the two platforms.
Yeah but this is a learning distribution for security students. "Download this script-kiddie tool and point it at the XP machine's IP address" doesn't allow for much learning and understanding...
Labeling people as enemy combatants and detaining them without trial sucks and is deplorable. I'd be at a total loss for what to do if I, or someone I cared for, was in that situation. But comparing what happens to a relatively small group of people (GITMO detainees) and what happens to the entire population of China (freedom of speech/access to information) are again, in two totally different leagues. I'm not in any way suggesting I support, let alone tolerate GITMO, but we're talking apples and oranges.
The point is we are doing the very things we say we are against when other nations do them.
If terrorists can drive the US government to abandon its principles and find clever ways to justify it, then that's a victory for those terrorists. It's a real shame, for they do not deserve any victory of any sort.
'll mention another problem. The moment we can write code of non-trivial complexity that can be perfectly verified to be entirely bug-free is the moment I will begin to believe that genetic engineers who plan to release a modified creature into the wild can foresee all possible consequences of their creation.
Which is, of course, impossible. It's impossible to forsee all possible consequences of anything. If that's your criteria for doing something, don't bother getting up in the morning.
Isn't that cute, he took my idea as literally as possible, saw the very absurdity I was trying to highlight, yet missed my greater point of why I would put it that way. No doubt he already decided he doesn't like what I say and won't let a little thing like missing the point stop him from declaring it faulty. Egos are amusing that way, they always have to be better than something, therefore what they dislike is not a mere preference but a finding of actual fault at all times.
While most did understand it, and responded accordingly, I guess some folks need the meaning of my previous post spelled out for them: there is always some amount of risk involved with this and therefore some caution is warrented. It's impossible to foresee all possible consequences yes, but just for that reason the next best thing is to know when you are about to take a risk.
In other words.... That's not my criteria "for doing something." That's my criteria for "releasing a self-replicating creature into the wild that can displace the naturally occurring 'version' and may have unknown effects on entire food chains for many generations to come." By contrast, most things I do can also be undone. This is one genie that isn't going to go back into the bottle once released. And that's the difference. Perhaps a bit of caution is called for even if it's not as sexy as being all gung-ho and leaping ahead as though we have never made a major miscalculation before.
If we are going to do this, it needs to have trials and evaluations more strict than, for example, what the FDA requires before a new drug can be brought to market. Also unlike the FDA drug trials, it should not be mostly the companies that conduct their own testing.
because they know facts don't get through to the public, but crazy people screaming FRANKENFOOD and making micheal moore style "documentaries" do?
If people don't want engineered foods or don't want to do business with these companies, why is it okay to force it on them? There is no justification for it.
Maybe more facts would get to the public if this industry didn't try so hard to deprive people of information. Right now the situation is very plain: "we don't approve of your reason for preferring one brand or type of food over another. Instead of reasoning with you or presenting facts or using ads to try and pursuade you, we are going to deprive you of the information you would need to make such decisions because we make more money that way." Does this sound acceptable to you? Do you want every company to be able to dictate what you are allowed to know about its products, or is Monsanto holding some special status?
Maybe you have a problem with Monsanto's business practices and don't want to reward them with your money. Maybe you don't want some self-appointed tyrant to tell you what reasons you are and are not allowed to use when making purchasing decisions, as though he were the one who earned your money. These things can both be true even if you have no fear whatsoever of GMO crops.
I'd rather a thousand companies go out of business tomorrow than make justifications and excuses for depriving people of freedom and knowledge. It's easy to make fun of Michael Moore and the more extremist types but their irrationality doesn't justify forcing anyone to purchase anything they don't want to have.
It's not so much that I'm afraid of GMOs in themselves, I'm much more afraid of Monsanto owning the rights to my food.
I'm personally more concerned about things like unforseen health effects of consuming GMO, GMOs becoming invasive species, gene transfer from crops to pests creating super invasive species, and becoming dependent on monocultured food stocks leading to blights and starvation.
Monsanto being monsanto does make some of those things more of an issue. They're a lot more cavalier with risks than many organizations would be, and they certainly are doing all they can to press the monoculture, but there are plenty of big risks that don't have anything to do with patents.
If it were anything less critical and vital than our food supply, then I'd say take the risk and see what happens. But things like "widespread famine" or "potential dependency on one vendor for food" are not my concept of the ideal failure mode.
When Microsoft implements vendorlock, it's annoying and inconvenient and maybe expensive. When Monsanto implements vendorlock, it's a whole new level of control. I've never seen a single action or statement from them, an unelected private company, that made them worthy of having the sort of power and control that they are reaching for. If you do some research and know anything about them, you likely would never do business with them or any subsidiaries for any reason. I would be hesitant to trust benevolent, self-denying, noble people with this level of control over the food supply. They want me to trust amoral, self-serving, corporate types with that power? Really? It'd be a funny joke if it were not so absurd and misguided.
Just consider one question: if genetically modified foods are so great, if only ignorant jackasses would ever have a reason to doubt their virtues, if the facts are on the side of those who want to sell them, then why does Monsanto fight so hard and spend so much money and lobby so much to prevent non-GMO food producers from labeling their products as such? Why is it so incredibly important to them that the FDA not allow such a statement of fact on a food label? Whatever happened to the concept of informed consent? Why would someone with all the facts on their side fear informed consent and fight so hard to prevent it? You see, something here just doesn't add up. Anyone who would deprive you of making an informed choice rightly deserves suspicion.
The funny thing is we have been genetically altering plants since the time that botany started being recorded. Matching the perfect set of plants for pollination is also a genetic modification, as is all the cross-breeding of plant species that people have come up with over the last few thousand years.
The difference is that if you selectively pollinate one strain of plant with another strain of the same plant, you end up with a combination that could have occurred in nature. With genetic engineering, you can modify organisms in ways that no amount of selective breeding of existing plants could have produced.
The funny thing is that you believe these two scenarios are comparable in anything more than the most superficial sense of "yeah, something was modified by human activity" with no regard for the magnitude of the modification or whether it could have occurred without human intervention.
Speaking morally or ethically, it's already backwards from how it should be. A farmer can grow natural crops near another farmer who raises patented Monsanto crops. The wind blows and cross-pollination occurs between the two fields. If any legal action is to happen at all, it should be that the farmer growing natural crops can sue Monsanto or the other farmer for failure to contain their customized crops, as they are an unsolicited and unwanted invasion onto his private property. That's not what happens. Instead, Monsanto takes the natural-crop farmer to court demanding payment for use of patented crops against his/her will. That is their intention whether or not their case prevails in court.
So, we already know something about the character, disposition, and motive of the people performing the engineering. And I tell you truly, these people are not worthy of the power they wield. If genetic engineering of important food crops is potentially a great idea, surely the way we are implementing that idea deprives it of any greatness it could have had.
Other people (like me) are concerned about this too, but don't parade around screaming government conspiracy about it. Maybe we tend to be a little more open minded about it too, making us reserve judgement until we get some indication as to whether it's going to have major ecological disadvantages that would outweigh the advantages such as making healthy food cheaper or eradicating malaria.
As another poster has already said, the problem is the control that goes along with the patent rights.
I'll mention another problem. The moment we can write code of non-trivial complexity that can be perfectly verified to be entirely bug-free is the moment I will begin to believe that genetic engineers who plan to release a modified creature into the wild can foresee all possible consequences of their creation. At least with computer code, we design the entire system from the ground up, both the hardware and the software, we have complete control over both, and still cannot guarantee that something will function as intended. Methinks that perfectly verifying no negative and unforeseen consequences with genetics will be more difficult still, since we discovered that system and did not design it and do not fully control it.
Killer bees were an attempt to cross-breed two species of honeybee that normally would never be able to produce offspring. It was supposed to give us the hardiness of the African bee with the docility and honey production of the European bee. What we ended up with was a monster that has caused many highly unpleasant deaths. That wasn't malice on the part of the scientists. It was their inability to completely foresee what the result was going to be and how it was going to interact with an entire interconnected ecosystem of other species. There is precedent for wanting a bit more assurance than what has been offered prior to allowing such creatures in the wild.
I blame the artists, for making such lopsided deals that they roughly break even after the first record and own none of their music. Having made millions for the recording studio they signed with and the studio using that for RIAA membership is a side effect that would go away if not for musicians with stars in their eyes. Keep the music local and keep the live music scene going people, stay away from bad recording deals.
You'd also have to blame the average customer of the major labels for funding this mess in order to hear their top-40 flavor-of-the-week. The ones who have no refined tastes in music and are therefore likely to be interested in whatever is being advertised and promoted.
Um, I thought that the RIAA was composed of the major labels, and is in no way directly accessible and/or responsible to "the little people', namely the actual recording artists.
So what do you suppose happens when there is a certain cost for the artist to deal with a major label, and the RIAA as a trade organization is making decisions that drive up costs for every major label that is a participating member?
They're "the little people" because they have no veto power, not because they don't bear the costs.
And it would not shock me if the labels just spread the expense of these legal fee's across the accounts of all their artists [ie, taxation without representation].
That's generally what happens when there is a significant increase in cost for a corporate entity: all of its clients and/or members experience an increased cost, either in terms of increased fees or in terms of fewer services for the same fee. The question is whether the increase is a legitimate cost of doing business or the direct result of mismanagement.
The bottom line is that this goes on because we (collectively) fund it.
Apple has no right to censor people for speaking their minds under these circumstances.
Actually, it is well within it's rights to censor people posting on its bulletin board. Now, if Apple tries to get a restraining order against Consumer Reports or against people posting on Slashdot, then no, it is not within its rights. Again, I repeat, Apple is 100% within its rights to censor people posting on its forum. Doesn't mean it isn't unfair in some way, but still within it's rights.
It would be well within my rights to call you all sorts of names and insult you for no reason. It would still reflect poorly on my character if I chose to exercise my rights in that fashion. That's what this is really about: knowing the character of a company -- i.e. its willingness to use censorship when convenient -- before you decide whether or not to reward them with your money.
To be very honest, if they discovered the issue from the internet, it probably means it didn't harm them a lot, and they probably can live with the phone for another 11 month.
You really missed the point on that one. The purpose of talking about it on the Internet is so that potential buyers can learn all about what they might be buying before a purchasing decision is made. That's why you have organizations like Consumer Reports. The reference to CU on Apple's own forums was for those who like to rush into things (i.e. making an 11-12 month commitment without really knowing the pros and cons of what they are buying) and have already been inconvenienced. For those people, it served both to validate the existence of the problem and to propose a temporary workaround.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd add an item to that list: users who can't see the seeds of those things and must wait for the 50-foot tree to grow before they can identify it. This is despite repeated examples of other corporations that don't care about their users and customers, more than sufficient to learn what the pattern looks like and how to recognize it in advance. I don't believe the users are so stupid that they're incapable of realizing this. I believe that the "oooh shiny" effect of another trendy bandwagon and the indulgence of their vanity is more important to them than a quality experience, and thus overrides any reasoning they may have performed. So, this is just water finding its own level.
For those who are perceptive, the fact that user satisfaction is so low but those same users continue to use the service tells you anything you might want to know.
Put in the right tag, and ! the wrong one. I'm so confused on how the tag system operates I rarely use it, and yeah sometimes I can't tag stuff either. Maybe it's a Karma thing?
Mine is capped at "Excellent" and has been for a long time now. It's not karma-related.
I think they moved it to the Firehose so you have to put in a little effort if you want to tag a story (presumably to cut down on tags like cyberwarfareisbullshit)
Then why leave a non-functional tagging mechanism in place for non-Firehose stories? It's either incompetent or deceptive. One way or another, something here doesn't add up.
Besides which, if cyberwarfare is bullshit then there is nothing wrong with saying so.
There is probably another possibility, but you mention none I did not already cover. I explained it thusly: Then there's the general untrustworthiness of the US government as an institution, the idiocy and abuses and mismanagement that it perpetuates and the moral implications of joining up with them.
Copyright madness is certainly an example of this, and not the trait of an institution I want to support with my labor. I don't really understand how you wouldn't think this statement excludes copyright hysteria.
By law I must pay my taxes or very bad things will happen, so I pay my taxes. That part is not a choice. But anywhere I have a legal choice, such as a choice of employers, I refuse to support this particular institution or join up with them in any way that is not mandatory. Maybe they were once a noble, respectable institution but they certainly don't fit that description now. I'd rather not be ashamed of how I get my living. That's why I wouldn't voluntarily work for the US Government.
The USA has a bad habit of arresting anyone with the skills and curiosity to perform such tasks. Instead of arresting and jailing "hackers" they should employ them, and then maybe we'd have enough people for the "cyberwar" they are talking about
It's part of a greater "war on curiosity" that's a fear-based initiative to stamp out any and all behaviors that even slightly deviate from a prescribed norm. Locking up those "evil hackers" is part of this. Another part of this is the way people are getting threatened by cops, security staff, and other jack-booted thugs for legally taking photos in public places. You also can't get a truly good chemistry set anymore, because somebody might use the glassware to make drugs. Now they complain that they can't find good personnel for something that requires initiative, individual thought and a willingness to think outside the box and see things from multiple angles.
That serves them right. They've been systematically stamping out any kind of unapproved curiosity and exploration in the name of safety for a long time now. They've also done nothing but encourage the outsourcing trend of sending a great deal of IT talent to places like India, and you really do want US citizens to perform this kind of national security work. Then there's the general untrustworthiness of the US government as an institution, the idiocy and abuses and mismanagement that it perpetuates and the moral implications of joining up with them. That might further alienate domestic talent that would otherwise be interested. As far as I am concerned, they are reaping what they have sown.
I'm not allowed to tag stories, but the moron who managed to misspell "cyberwarfare" as "cyberwarefare" is free and clear, huh? Nice job, Slashdot.
I can't seem to tag stories either and I have no idea why. I can add a tag and it appears to work, but I have never once refreshed the Slashdot main page and seen any tag I have applied. That is, they seem to just go straight to /dev/null. Tags I try to apply do seem to show up on my user page, however.
Sorry for the tone but I just don't see what part of this is difficult to understand.
If you are truly sorry at this point then why not go back and rewrite your response when you are sober and slightly less hostile? Simple answer: You aren't sorry at all. You just want people to see you as something other that a prick. Here's some free insight, asshole. It isn't working.
I was sorry that it was necessary in order to convey the point, for that is unfortunate. I was not sorry in the sense that I wouldn't say it that way again if it was again necessary. See the difference? I'd prefer it not be that way, but now that it is that way due to circumstances beyond my control, I am not going to shy away from being honest about it, not even if people like you can't handle that and feel a need to call me names.
You will agree with me or you will disagree with me and you will handle each according to your maturity and understanding, but either way I will not play this silly game of worrying about your approval. So, do your worst. Then tell me about what is working and for whom.
Incidentally, I browse at -1 so there was no need to make a duplicate post as an AC because your own karma has taken your default score down to -1.
Clearly you know your stuff about Windows and there's no real excuse for posting without reading the article properly.
However, having read several of your responses, your arrogant tone with people sucks & you've become the caricature that people paint of "IT know-it-alls" who they hate calling when they have a problem with their PCs.
Having been in telecoms/IT support myself for some 30 years now, I've discovered the secret to a happy life is to treat others respectfully for them to respect you back - if you make a career of talking down to people, it's you, not them, that becomes the idiot.
I shall follow you postings closely in future and look forward to a time when I can correct you if you make any incorrect statements about UNIX or Linux...
Arrogant means "I'm better than you". If I were arrogant I would never expect him or most others to get anything right, since only someone "as great as me" (or however an arrogant person would say it) could do anything right. I'd expect others to egregiously fail instead of seeing it as something out-of-order that needs to be called out.
No, instead I expect better, especially from someone with a writing style indicating he has a mind and knows how to use it. Such a person is more than capable of reading the summary. He failed, so I called him on it. I refuse to apologize for that, particularly to someone who wants to tell me how one should live a happy life.
I'll correct one erroneous assumption you made there. My work or my career is not in IT at all. It's strictly something I do because I trly enjoy it as a hobby, an intellectual pursuit, and a way to challenge myself.
I'll correct a second erroneous assumption you made there. If you need to think I'm some terrible person for pointing out that I know my own experience better than you do, so be it. What might really drive you crazy is that I don't need your approval and don't care in the slightest about how judgmental you can be of me. Now, on to that correction: I have been using Linux exclusively on my personal computers for well over ten years now. If I am going to make a mistake, it is much more likely I will make a mistake concerning Windows since I don't personally use it. It is absolutely possible, but comparatively much less likely, that I will make a technical error concerning Linux.
So you, sir, have this backwards because you speak of me while knowing nothing about me. If that isn't the very arrogance you are accusing me of, then I could not tell you what would be. You still want to play this game with me? Are you sure? There would be no shame in backing out now. If you don't, you are a fool. I am having to be extremely direct with you because you leave me no other option.
The reason you failed to figure this out on your own is because I was able to read the summary and comprehend the information it contained prior to saying anything at all about Windows. So you assumed, in knee-jerk emotional fashion, that I am a Windows guy. That's the same thing the GGP did with his failure to read and comprehend at least the summary prior to posting a comment. It is no wonder you rise up to defend him. Birds of a feather and all of that.
Also, if you can correct me on something you will be doing me a favor. I won't feel inferior no matter how much your petty nature would take pleasure in such a thing. Instead, I will feel gratitude, for a genuine correction will fix a misperception I may not have noticed otherwise. So please, do bring it on. Do your worst, I implore you. Do you imagine I am afraid of that? It's a shame if you have nothing better to do than track my posts based on some kind of personal "gotcha!" game, but I can make constructive use of that no matter what you intend.
The next time you want to do this, be very sure you know with whom you are dealing. I am no one special and claim no special status whatsoever, yet it is for that very reason that I am not such an easy target for the type of games you want to play.
The scammers themselves are the branches. They are a dime a dozen. Catch one, three more will take his place. This will always be the case so long as there is so potential for ill-gotten profit. I'd rather deal with this problem by reducing the potential for ill-gotten profit. That's the root of this particular evil.
It's just a fact that the more knowledgable, savvy, and wise you are, the less likely it is that you will be successfully targeted by this scam or any other. I do not believe wisdom is something one should keep away from others and hoard like so much silver and gold. So for anyone who will listen, I say that you need not be anyone's victim.
As you have noticed, using stories of vulnerable ignorance as examples of what not to do is in fact a way to help people identify and overcome a weakness before they learn the hard way.
Also, the AC is likely not a scam victim or an immediate relative of a scam victim. I have encountered this time and time again and expected to encounter it this time. If your reject the victim mentality and instead adopt a model of taking full responsibility for one's actions, including accepting when you have mistakenly trusted someone you should not have trusted, you will catch all sorts of flak for this. Most of it will be filled with negative emotion and either poorly reasoned or completely irrational.
The victim mentality is precious and very dear to those who hold it. It absolves them of all blame so they have an excuse for never facing their own character flaws, weaknesses, and other shortcomings. It's always those $EVIL_PEOPLE who cause all of their problems. It doesn't really absolve them of anything, of course, for I have never known a person like this who had any real joy. The pain of facing their own flaws is merely replaced with the pain of being a leaf in the wind, forever at the mercy of external events. Frankly it's beneath them, but they don't see it that way.
It takes a significant amount of courage to be honest about your shortcomings. Sometimes this means seeing with extreme clarity how much of a fool you can be. Your ability to do this is inversely proportional to the size of your ego. If you have a big ego, it needs to be fed with the assurance that you're really alright, a need that wouldn't be there if this were true.
So for many, my rejection of the victim mentality is a painful message. I am doing them no harm, but because it reminds them of what they'd rather deny, they assume that I am the cause of that pain. Now there is a need to rationalize their vitriol towards it, and for them any rationalization will do, however flimsy.
It does not improve matters in the least that many manipulative people will support this false concept of the self because victims are needy and manipulative people need to be needed. Independence is an enemy to them and not something they will ever encourage. Much of modern politics works this way. When people are taken advantage of in this fashion, they now have two barriers to waking up and being honest with themselves: the pain of facing their flaws plus the pain of realizing they were taken advantage of. These are significant barriers to those who are already lacking the courage to conduct honest introspection. I'll also add that negativity of any sort is always a self-feeding cycle.
That's because you were willing to see those ideas. I can plainly see something that speaks highly of you: you don't need me for those ideas -- at best I only saved you some time. While I would strongly discourage anyone from depending on me, this on the other hand is a service I am glad to rende
It can refer to a mean, a median, or a mode. It is equally valid to use the word "average" to describe all three.
It would seem that you are referring to the arithmetic mean. The GP may have been referring to the mode. That doesn't mean he's stupid or doesn't understand a widely-understood word.
Just something to think about the next time you feel irritated over a word that has multiple concurrent meanings.
I'm not Windows expert, but isn't this exactly the way the certificate system is supposed to operate? This sounds like a security success story, not a failure.
Driver needs certificate to work with OS. Driver is found to contain security flaw. Certificate is revoked, OS refuses to recognize driver, security hole is closed. Now driver manufacturer has to clean up their act before their drivers are allowed back in the house.
The headline reads "Microsoft has no plans to patch new flaw", but isn't the certificate revocation at least as good as a patch? More so, because it seals off any *other* undiscovered bugs in the driver? Or am I missing something?
Please see this post where I correct a similar false notion. Then, please berate your teachers for failing to transmit basic reading comprehension skills to you. Hint: the signed malicious device driver is incidental and is not the flaw that Microsoft may or may not patch.
Sorry for the tone but I just don't see what part of this is difficult to understand.
Do you have any familiarity whatsoever with this situation?
.lnk files (shortcuts). That flaw is being exploited to install this malicious driver. The problem has been greatly compounded by the fact that the driver is signed by a previously-trusted private key, but this is not the original flaw. Normally the act of merely plugging in a USB thumbdrive does not immediately install system software such as device drivers. It is that acknowledged .lnk flaw that makes this possible.
Windows has an acknowledged flaw/vunlerability related to its handling of
If you can install a hardware driver with an exploit, you can also install a worm, rootkit, etc. This attack happens to install a device driver. If Realtek's private key had never been compromised, then instead of installing a malicious device driver, you'd have Windows users plugging in infected USB thumbdrives and immediately becoming members of botnets. The flaw is in the Windows system and its handling of shortcut files.
It is that flaw and only that flaw for which Microsoft is being blamed.
Why would they do that when Verisign can revoke only this specific Realtek cert? In fact that's exactly what they have done.
Seriously. Did you even bother to read the summary? At all? I'll quote it for you. This is the summary, verbatim:
Emphasis is mine. Now go clean the egg off your face.
Did it occur to you that the more experienced/advanced/technical users who tend to gravitate towards Linux are very much aware of this, that they administer their systems accordingly, and that this is in fact a big reason why successful malware "in the wild" is all but unheard-of on this platform? Compare to "buy the next version of Windows, it's easier and more secure than ever!" that carries the strong implication of "oh, security is someone else's problem". Not noticing or appreciating that difference would also be obtuse.
What I am getting at is that there are both technical and cultural differences between the two platforms.
Why is the OP - who is denigrating a Linux distro - modded a Troll, whereas the poster above him - denigrating Windows - modded as Funny?
That has since been modded some more and now sits at +4 Funny at the time of this post.
Had he denigrated Apple or its products, it would have gone down to -1 and remained there.
Or use a fresh install of XP.
Yeah but this is a learning distribution for security students. "Download this script-kiddie tool and point it at the XP machine's IP address" doesn't allow for much learning and understanding...
Labeling people as enemy combatants and detaining them without trial sucks and is deplorable. I'd be at a total loss for what to do if I, or someone I cared for, was in that situation. But comparing what happens to a relatively small group of people (GITMO detainees) and what happens to the entire population of China (freedom of speech/access to information) are again, in two totally different leagues. I'm not in any way suggesting I support, let alone tolerate GITMO, but we're talking apples and oranges.
The point is we are doing the very things we say we are against when other nations do them.
If terrorists can drive the US government to abandon its principles and find clever ways to justify it, then that's a victory for those terrorists. It's a real shame, for they do not deserve any victory of any sort.
Which is, of course, impossible. It's impossible to forsee all possible consequences of anything. If that's your criteria for doing something, don't bother getting up in the morning.
Isn't that cute, he took my idea as literally as possible, saw the very absurdity I was trying to highlight, yet missed my greater point of why I would put it that way. No doubt he already decided he doesn't like what I say and won't let a little thing like missing the point stop him from declaring it faulty. Egos are amusing that way, they always have to be better than something, therefore what they dislike is not a mere preference but a finding of actual fault at all times.
While most did understand it, and responded accordingly, I guess some folks need the meaning of my previous post spelled out for them: there is always some amount of risk involved with this and therefore some caution is warrented. It's impossible to foresee all possible consequences yes, but just for that reason the next best thing is to know when you are about to take a risk.
In other words.... That's not my criteria "for doing something." That's my criteria for "releasing a self-replicating creature into the wild that can displace the naturally occurring 'version' and may have unknown effects on entire food chains for many generations to come." By contrast, most things I do can also be undone. This is one genie that isn't going to go back into the bottle once released. And that's the difference. Perhaps a bit of caution is called for even if it's not as sexy as being all gung-ho and leaping ahead as though we have never made a major miscalculation before.
If we are going to do this, it needs to have trials and evaluations more strict than, for example, what the FDA requires before a new drug can be brought to market. Also unlike the FDA drug trials, it should not be mostly the companies that conduct their own testing.
because they know facts don't get through to the public, but crazy people screaming FRANKENFOOD and making micheal moore style "documentaries" do?
If people don't want engineered foods or don't want to do business with these companies, why is it okay to force it on them? There is no justification for it.
Maybe more facts would get to the public if this industry didn't try so hard to deprive people of information. Right now the situation is very plain: "we don't approve of your reason for preferring one brand or type of food over another. Instead of reasoning with you or presenting facts or using ads to try and pursuade you, we are going to deprive you of the information you would need to make such decisions because we make more money that way." Does this sound acceptable to you? Do you want every company to be able to dictate what you are allowed to know about its products, or is Monsanto holding some special status?
Maybe you have a problem with Monsanto's business practices and don't want to reward them with your money. Maybe you don't want some self-appointed tyrant to tell you what reasons you are and are not allowed to use when making purchasing decisions, as though he were the one who earned your money. These things can both be true even if you have no fear whatsoever of GMO crops.
I'd rather a thousand companies go out of business tomorrow than make justifications and excuses for depriving people of freedom and knowledge. It's easy to make fun of Michael Moore and the more extremist types but their irrationality doesn't justify forcing anyone to purchase anything they don't want to have.
It's not so much that I'm afraid of GMOs in themselves, I'm much more afraid of Monsanto owning the rights to my food.
I'm personally more concerned about things like unforseen health effects of consuming GMO, GMOs becoming invasive species, gene transfer from crops to pests creating super invasive species, and becoming dependent on monocultured food stocks leading to blights and starvation.
Monsanto being monsanto does make some of those things more of an issue. They're a lot more cavalier with risks than many organizations would be, and they certainly are doing all they can to press the monoculture, but there are plenty of big risks that don't have anything to do with patents.
If it were anything less critical and vital than our food supply, then I'd say take the risk and see what happens. But things like "widespread famine" or "potential dependency on one vendor for food" are not my concept of the ideal failure mode.
When Microsoft implements vendorlock, it's annoying and inconvenient and maybe expensive. When Monsanto implements vendorlock, it's a whole new level of control. I've never seen a single action or statement from them, an unelected private company, that made them worthy of having the sort of power and control that they are reaching for. If you do some research and know anything about them, you likely would never do business with them or any subsidiaries for any reason. I would be hesitant to trust benevolent, self-denying, noble people with this level of control over the food supply. They want me to trust amoral, self-serving, corporate types with that power? Really? It'd be a funny joke if it were not so absurd and misguided.
Just consider one question: if genetically modified foods are so great, if only ignorant jackasses would ever have a reason to doubt their virtues, if the facts are on the side of those who want to sell them, then why does Monsanto fight so hard and spend so much money and lobby so much to prevent non-GMO food producers from labeling their products as such? Why is it so incredibly important to them that the FDA not allow such a statement of fact on a food label? Whatever happened to the concept of informed consent? Why would someone with all the facts on their side fear informed consent and fight so hard to prevent it? You see, something here just doesn't add up. Anyone who would deprive you of making an informed choice rightly deserves suspicion.
The funny thing is we have been genetically altering plants since the time that botany started being recorded. Matching the perfect set of plants for pollination is also a genetic modification, as is all the cross-breeding of plant species that people have come up with over the last few thousand years.
The difference is that if you selectively pollinate one strain of plant with another strain of the same plant, you end up with a combination that could have occurred in nature. With genetic engineering, you can modify organisms in ways that no amount of selective breeding of existing plants could have produced.
The funny thing is that you believe these two scenarios are comparable in anything more than the most superficial sense of "yeah, something was modified by human activity" with no regard for the magnitude of the modification or whether it could have occurred without human intervention.
Speaking morally or ethically, it's already backwards from how it should be. A farmer can grow natural crops near another farmer who raises patented Monsanto crops. The wind blows and cross-pollination occurs between the two fields. If any legal action is to happen at all, it should be that the farmer growing natural crops can sue Monsanto or the other farmer for failure to contain their customized crops, as they are an unsolicited and unwanted invasion onto his private property. That's not what happens. Instead, Monsanto takes the natural-crop farmer to court demanding payment for use of patented crops against his/her will. That is their intention whether or not their case prevails in court.
So, we already know something about the character, disposition, and motive of the people performing the engineering. And I tell you truly, these people are not worthy of the power they wield. If genetic engineering of important food crops is potentially a great idea, surely the way we are implementing that idea deprives it of any greatness it could have had.
As another poster has already said, the problem is the control that goes along with the patent rights.
I'll mention another problem. The moment we can write code of non-trivial complexity that can be perfectly verified to be entirely bug-free is the moment I will begin to believe that genetic engineers who plan to release a modified creature into the wild can foresee all possible consequences of their creation. At least with computer code, we design the entire system from the ground up, both the hardware and the software, we have complete control over both, and still cannot guarantee that something will function as intended. Methinks that perfectly verifying no negative and unforeseen consequences with genetics will be more difficult still, since we discovered that system and did not design it and do not fully control it.
Killer bees were an attempt to cross-breed two species of honeybee that normally would never be able to produce offspring. It was supposed to give us the hardiness of the African bee with the docility and honey production of the European bee. What we ended up with was a monster that has caused many highly unpleasant deaths. That wasn't malice on the part of the scientists. It was their inability to completely foresee what the result was going to be and how it was going to interact with an entire interconnected ecosystem of other species. There is precedent for wanting a bit more assurance than what has been offered prior to allowing such creatures in the wild.
I blame the artists, for making such lopsided deals that they roughly break even after the first record and own none of their music. Having made millions for the recording studio they signed with and the studio using that for RIAA membership is a side effect that would go away if not for musicians with stars in their eyes. Keep the music local and keep the live music scene going people, stay away from bad recording deals.
You'd also have to blame the average customer of the major labels for funding this mess in order to hear their top-40 flavor-of-the-week. The ones who have no refined tastes in music and are therefore likely to be interested in whatever is being advertised and promoted.
So what do you suppose happens when there is a certain cost for the artist to deal with a major label, and the RIAA as a trade organization is making decisions that drive up costs for every major label that is a participating member?
They're "the little people" because they have no veto power, not because they don't bear the costs.
That's generally what happens when there is a significant increase in cost for a corporate entity: all of its clients and/or members experience an increased cost, either in terms of increased fees or in terms of fewer services for the same fee. The question is whether the increase is a legitimate cost of doing business or the direct result of mismanagement.
The bottom line is that this goes on because we (collectively) fund it.
Apple has no right to censor people for speaking their minds under these circumstances.
Actually, it is well within it's rights to censor people posting on its bulletin board. Now, if Apple tries to get a restraining order against Consumer Reports or against people posting on Slashdot, then no, it is not within its rights. Again, I repeat, Apple is 100% within its rights to censor people posting on its forum. Doesn't mean it isn't unfair in some way, but still within it's rights.
It would be well within my rights to call you all sorts of names and insult you for no reason. It would still reflect poorly on my character if I chose to exercise my rights in that fashion. That's what this is really about: knowing the character of a company -- i.e. its willingness to use censorship when convenient -- before you decide whether or not to reward them with your money.
You really missed the point on that one. The purpose of talking about it on the Internet is so that potential buyers can learn all about what they might be buying before a purchasing decision is made. That's why you have organizations like Consumer Reports. The reference to CU on Apple's own forums was for those who like to rush into things (i.e. making an 11-12 month commitment without really knowing the pros and cons of what they are buying) and have already been inconvenienced. For those people, it served both to validate the existence of the problem and to propose a temporary workaround.