Sure, I guess thats really important, if you dont want to TELL THEM WHERE YOU ARE WHEN YOU CALL.
This isn't because people don't know where they are. When you call 911 it goes to a local call center so you get the right police/fire department. The VOIP phones don't have (yet) a mechanism in place to route them to your state, much less your local police. Maybe I mis-understood your comment though.
Didn't the cell companies go through this? I seem to recall an article in the local paper a while back about cell companies routing 911 calls incorrectly. Might have been a local problem.
Don't like it?
Don't think its tough enough?
Think it's too tough?
Not enforcable?
Get involved in politics and change something. Jeezuz, we get like 40%-50% of the US voting. Everyone has a gripe, but nobody wants to do anything about it. The US should have mandatory voting, like the Australians. Then at least we would know what the country actually wants.
I'm so upset...
Better go play half-life...
Sorry for the rant...
He might be, but he missed the point of the uproar entirely. If this were just a case of a bunch of "wacked out cheerleaders" screaming for MOG's death, etc, for no real reason, then yes, I would agree completely. And in any case, overzealousness is not a good thing.
But the article IMHO isn't about this particular incident, he is using it as an illustration. It's about the "cheerleaders" in particular and how the community (like the Amiga community of old and both political parties) have been taken over by these "cheerleaders".
I mean, come on. Death threats and DOS attacks because somebody showed pictures of someone else's house?
I don't condone what O'Gara did, but as my dear momma used to say "two wrongs, don't make a right".
So if I'm reading this right, Dvorak is saying that (a) O'Gara was wrong in what she was writing, (b) wrong in doing what she did and (c) just doing it to drudge (no pun intended) up a few more pageviews, and that (d) the "Linux community" was in the wrong (or, better yet, had "imploded" and turned into "paranoid Amiga user"s) for kicking her and her half-assed reporting to the curb.
Actually, I think his point wasn't actually about the right or wrong of O'Gara. It was more about the over-reaction of everyone and I whole-heartedly agree. People get way too bent out of shape or something as ridiculous as another persons choice in OS or whether they like this company or that.
I can't imagine what some of these people must be like when they are faced with a real issue in their life.
Of course, his opinion piece is sure to pull more over-reactions.
And apparently it doesn't take much provocation, as the Linux community is slowly evolving into a state of mob rule, with the cheerleaders being paranoid crackpot leftovers from the waning days of Amiga.
That's the quote from the article.
He is not actually calling the Linux community crackpots. He's calling the freaks who go overboard frothing at the mouth and screaming heresey every other post (we all know at least one) the cheerleaders of the group. Probably because they are the most vocal.
What he is trying to point out is that these are the people that make the headlines and grab the press. They are not actually representative of the community, but they will be perceived that way by those on the outside. Muslims have the same issue; a loud and insane minority.
On another note...I remember the last days of the Amiga. BBSs in my area were full of Amiga vs. IBM troll fests. Some of the posts on this site are *extremely* reminiscent if those days. The difference being its the OS now and Linux is not anywhere near being dead...
Actually, the ones that go public in a big way get fixed quickly.
Really? Then how come I am still getting hits in my router, firewall and web logs from external exploited machines that should have been fixed ages ago? Just because someone somewhere has issued a fix, doesn't mean everyone has installed it.
Again, there is a perceived relationship here between installed base and frequency of exploitation, but it's only perceived. I guarantee you that if you pick a random "just-for-fun" web server implementation off of freshmeat and have black hats audit that for security problems against say Apache, they'll be tearing into the low-user base application in no time. Apache has regular security reports, and a large user base. That doesn't make it less secure than MyFirstHTTPD written by Joe Blow.
The thing is, nobody is auditing MyFirstHTTPD, nobody is writing about its exploits in the friendly neighborhood hack site and there aren't thousands of script kiddies out there trying to exploit it.
Most the people out there using exploits aren't actual hackers, they are script kiddies. Trading scripts and tools. Searching the net every time they hear about a new exploit.
What's more secure a door with 3 deadbolts or an invisible door with 1 cheap padlock?
Security issue visibility is not the same thing as security. Just because IE has more exploits publicized (or Firefox has more) doesn't actually mean they're more or less secure, it means they're getting more public attention about their security.
Huh? Actually, the more public the exploits the less secure the browser. An exploit isn't a security problem until someone finds out about it.
The more users use a piece of software, the more it will be targeted. But again, that's not the same thing as saying "the more it will be exploited"
That's not true. If a piece of software is only used by 1000 people, there is not really much of a point in exploiting it to say increase your count of zombied PCs. If 20,000,000 people use a piece of software then that is fertile ground whether you want to zombie some machines or just make a splash. I'm sure there are exploits out there for Windows 3.11, but probably not a lot of interest in finding them.
I'd suspect most people who switched to Firefox did it because they actually experienced a problem with IE, not because it was more ideologically pure.
While I tend to agree, don't underestimate the ideology of PC users...
The problem with that is that Google (for now?) has zip, zilch, nada, and nil to gain directly by ranking any given server up or down. Google does not distribute or sell web servers, nor have any direct stock in any particular server and its success or failure. Microsoft, on the other hand, makes a web server - and if their search engine adjusts ranking in any way based on the presence or absence of that web server, that is rather fishy.
How in the world would Microsoft gain from this unless they made this part of their marketing?
The average web surfer doesn't know what kind of server they are hitting and if a company doesn't know that IIS gives it an advantage (via marketing) then it has no reason to favor IIS.
This whole conspiracy idea is filled with faulty logic...
We're all sorry he did not use your saliva-encrusted fan fiction as the basis for his script for Episodes I-III, but millions of people enjoyed the movies anyway.
Yeah, and millions of people voted for George W. Bush. I guess that means we can't criticize him either.
Comments such as yours and of the two dozen other minority ranters on Slashdot are getting irritating to no end. If you don't like the movies, fine -- click on Preferences, then click on Homepage, and de-select Star Wars. There! wasn't that easy?
Yeah, luckily you can still (so far) voice your opinion on the internet whether you are in the majority or the minority.
Nothing worse than someone bitching about another person voicing their opinion. I mean, feel free to disagree, but don't bitch at people just for having an opinion...
Most people don't actually want a lot of choices. They just want it to be easy.
With Windows, you get... well, Windows. You have to shim other things onto it to get it to be useful. For example, I don't use icons, toolbars, window frames or titlebars. Show me how I can configure Windows to provide that interface, in an easy way... you can't. Not without 10 different third-party products.
You don't use icons or window frames? What? I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Really.
Why should someone be compelled to develop software he doesn't want to develop? When you're forced to do something you don't want to do, that's called work, not a hobby. That isn't what open source is about.
If you want a feature put in an open source product, either do it yourself, wait for someone to do it, or pay someone to do it for you. But never ever ever expect someone to do it for you for free.
Sorry, I'm not going to vote for anyone who doesn't have the experience to do the job. Bush was unqualified when he took office, and he had at least served in elected office. The only elected position Badnarik has held was Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
Here is a list of notables who held no elected position (not including president):
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Andrew Jackson
Herbert Hoover
Thomas Jefferson*
George Washington
*Thomas Jefferson was a candidate for President and came within 3 votes of winning, but was appointed Vice President.
Given that, I am not sure about the whole experience thing. Sure I would like them to know what the hell they are talking about, but being a senator, mayor, congressman, etc. does not IMHO give you the necessary chops to become President.
Maybe we should stop electing all these proffesional politicians and lawyers...
Whether that argument is valid is more of a personal opinion. This is just a new form of vigilante justice which has always been a topic of disagreement. If I knew you were going to kill me tomorrow would I be justified in killing you today?
Except your talking about something that is real world, tangible. The topic at hand is about something that can't touch you unless you let it. But all the users were notified ahead of time that something offensive might happen at some point.
Communication is real world and tangible as are hateful words. Typed words hold just as much meaning as those we speak, they are just as strong. Like I said in another post, is it okay if I kick someone in the nuts as long as I tell them something physical might happen?
The developer was trying to make the world like real life egypt during the time period, but the people in the game that complained only wanted that to happen when it suited them. This is where the problem is. The players are idiots and want it only when THEY say its ok.
Yeah, silly _customers_ (this is a PAY game). Obviously the Developers know whats best for them.
The whole, this simulates the real world non-sense is just that...nonsense. How is that fun? I know, next they could explore genocide or nuclear war or the plague or rape (oh wait they did and the guy was banned) or incest or child molestation or kiddie porn or beastiality and then call their _customers_ whiners when they don't like the content. These all happen daily.
I suppose the same could be said for blacks that were denied entry into cafes in the 50' and 60's. If you don't like it, don't eat there.
About the only thing I see wrong with this situation is the developer didn't say that participants may be subjected to conduct they find offensive (oh, wait.. they did, didn't they?)
So it's okay if I kick you in the nuts as long as I tell ya ahead of time that I might do something physical?
Yeah, I've played the game, but it is still a game. Not everyone perscribes to the social experiment doctrine of the game. I know, I was involved in many an argument about just that, yet they still take money from people who just want to play a game. Why even experiment with racism? We already know what the effects of it are. I'm not saying forget the past, but I hope we have already learned the lessons of the past.
It is a game that involves real people, that's the problem with so much of the internet. People are treated as *Avatars*, when they should be treated as people.
Granted, there is killing in some games, but that is usually the jist of the game. Watching your pixels curl up and die does not have the same emotional impact as being slurred, not for everyone. As rational human beings we should respect eachother.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why everyone is lagging in CS today! They're all dloading ROTS.
Amen brother...
Sure, I guess thats really important, if you dont want to TELL THEM WHERE YOU ARE WHEN YOU CALL.
This isn't because people don't know where they are. When you call 911 it goes to a local call center so you get the right police/fire department. The VOIP phones don't have (yet) a mechanism in place to route them to your state, much less your local police. Maybe I mis-understood your comment though.
Didn't the cell companies go through this? I seem to recall an article in the local paper a while back about cell companies routing 911 calls incorrectly. Might have been a local problem.
Yeah, but it comes with a t-shirt! That makes all the difference!
For that price it better come with a hooker and a bottle of whiskey.
Nothing but whiners.
Don't like it?
Don't think its tough enough?
Think it's too tough?
Not enforcable?
Get involved in politics and change something. Jeezuz, we get like 40%-50% of the US voting. Everyone has a gripe, but nobody wants to do anything about it. The US should have mandatory voting, like the Australians. Then at least we would know what the country actually wants.
I'm so upset...
Better go play half-life...
Sorry for the rant...
Washington state also outlawed killing sasquatch.
Nothing in the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) about sasquatch or big foot.Moderated Funny???
Need a moderation for complete waste of bandwidth.
Jeezuz, can't you make a point in less than 500 words?
He might be, but he missed the point of the uproar entirely. If this were just a case of a bunch of "wacked out cheerleaders" screaming for MOG's death, etc, for no real reason, then yes, I would agree completely. And in any case, overzealousness is not a good thing.
But the article IMHO isn't about this particular incident, he is using it as an illustration. It's about the "cheerleaders" in particular and how the community (like the Amiga community of old and both political parties) have been taken over by these "cheerleaders".
I mean, come on. Death threats and DOS attacks because somebody showed pictures of someone else's house?
I don't condone what O'Gara did, but as my dear momma used to say "two wrongs, don't make a right".
So if I'm reading this right, Dvorak is saying that (a) O'Gara was wrong in what she was writing, (b) wrong in doing what she did and (c) just doing it to drudge (no pun intended) up a few more pageviews, and that (d) the "Linux community" was in the wrong (or, better yet, had "imploded" and turned into "paranoid Amiga user"s) for kicking her and her half-assed reporting to the curb.
Actually, I think his point wasn't actually about the right or wrong of O'Gara. It was more about the over-reaction of everyone and I whole-heartedly agree. People get way too bent out of shape or something as ridiculous as another persons choice in OS or whether they like this company or that.
I can't imagine what some of these people must be like when they are faced with a real issue in their life.
Of course, his opinion piece is sure to pull more over-reactions.
And apparently it doesn't take much provocation, as the Linux community is slowly evolving into a state of mob rule, with the cheerleaders being paranoid crackpot leftovers from the waning days of Amiga.
That's the quote from the article.
He is not actually calling the Linux community crackpots. He's calling the freaks who go overboard frothing at the mouth and screaming heresey every other post (we all know at least one) the cheerleaders of the group. Probably because they are the most vocal.
What he is trying to point out is that these are the people that make the headlines and grab the press. They are not actually representative of the community, but they will be perceived that way by those on the outside. Muslims have the same issue; a loud and insane minority.
On another note...I remember the last days of the Amiga. BBSs in my area were full of Amiga vs. IBM troll fests. Some of the posts on this site are *extremely* reminiscent if those days. The difference being its the OS now and Linux is not anywhere near being dead...
I still use a rotary dial phone. I don't trust those tones to know what number I want.
How do they draw the conclusion that the show got good ratings because of piracy?
I started watching the show because I was over at someones house that Tivo'd it.
Maybe the high viewer-ship was because the show was good...
I doubt piracy helped Gigli at all...
Actually, the ones that go public in a big way get fixed quickly.
Really? Then how come I am still getting hits in my router, firewall and web logs from external exploited machines that should have been fixed ages ago? Just because someone somewhere has issued a fix, doesn't mean everyone has installed it.Again, there is a perceived relationship here between installed base and frequency of exploitation, but it's only perceived. I guarantee you that if you pick a random "just-for-fun" web server implementation off of freshmeat and have black hats audit that for security problems against say Apache, they'll be tearing into the low-user base application in no time. Apache has regular security reports, and a large user base. That doesn't make it less secure than MyFirstHTTPD written by Joe Blow.
The thing is, nobody is auditing MyFirstHTTPD, nobody is writing about its exploits in the friendly neighborhood hack site and there aren't thousands of script kiddies out there trying to exploit it.
Most the people out there using exploits aren't actual hackers, they are script kiddies. Trading scripts and tools. Searching the net every time they hear about a new exploit.
What's more secure a door with 3 deadbolts or an invisible door with 1 cheap padlock?
Security issue visibility is not the same thing as security. Just because IE has more exploits publicized (or Firefox has more) doesn't actually mean they're more or less secure, it means they're getting more public attention about their security.
Huh? Actually, the more public the exploits the less secure the browser. An exploit isn't a security problem until someone finds out about it.
The more users use a piece of software, the more it will be targeted. But again, that's not the same thing as saying "the more it will be exploited"
That's not true. If a piece of software is only used by 1000 people, there is not really much of a point in exploiting it to say increase your count of zombied PCs. If 20,000,000 people use a piece of software then that is fertile ground whether you want to zombie some machines or just make a splash. I'm sure there are exploits out there for Windows 3.11, but probably not a lot of interest in finding them.
I'd suspect most people who switched to Firefox did it because they actually experienced a problem with IE, not because it was more ideologically pure.
While I tend to agree, don't underestimate the ideology of PC users...
W.E.P.
The problem with that is that Google (for now?) has zip, zilch, nada, and nil to gain directly by ranking any given server up or down. Google does not distribute or sell web servers, nor have any direct stock in any particular server and its success or failure. Microsoft, on the other hand, makes a web server - and if their search engine adjusts ranking in any way based on the presence or absence of that web server, that is rather fishy.
How in the world would Microsoft gain from this unless they made this part of their marketing?
The average web surfer doesn't know what kind of server they are hitting and if a company doesn't know that IIS gives it an advantage (via marketing) then it has no reason to favor IIS.
This whole conspiracy idea is filled with faulty logic...
We're all sorry he did not use your saliva-encrusted fan fiction as the basis for his script for Episodes I-III, but millions of people enjoyed the movies anyway.
Yeah, and millions of people voted for George W. Bush. I guess that means we can't criticize him either.
Comments such as yours and of the two dozen other minority ranters on Slashdot are getting irritating to no end. If you don't like the movies, fine -- click on Preferences, then click on Homepage, and de-select Star Wars. There! wasn't that easy?
Yeah, luckily you can still (so far) voice your opinion on the internet whether you are in the majority or the minority.
Nothing worse than someone bitching about another person voicing their opinion. I mean, feel free to disagree, but don't bitch at people just for having an opinion...
Many of us call that CHOICE.
Most people don't actually want a lot of choices. They just want it to be easy.With Windows, you get... well, Windows. You have to shim other things onto it to get it to be useful. For example, I don't use icons, toolbars, window frames or titlebars. Show me how I can configure Windows to provide that interface, in an easy way... you can't. Not without 10 different third-party products.
You don't use icons or window frames? What? I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Really.Why should someone be compelled to develop software he doesn't want to develop? When you're forced to do something you don't want to do, that's called work, not a hobby. That isn't what open source is about.
If you want a feature put in an open source product, either do it yourself, wait for someone to do it, or pay someone to do it for you. But never ever ever expect someone to do it for you for free.
This is why I bought my operating system...
If people are able to sell ink to the public at $8,000 a gallon, I would say they are successful capitalists...
Sorry, I'm not going to vote for anyone who doesn't have the experience to do the job. Bush was unqualified when he took office, and he had at least served in elected office. The only elected position Badnarik has held was Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
Here is a list of notables who held no elected position (not including president):
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Andrew Jackson
Herbert Hoover
Thomas Jefferson*
George Washington
*Thomas Jefferson was a candidate for President and came within 3 votes of winning, but was appointed Vice President.
Given that, I am not sure about the whole experience thing. Sure I would like them to know what the hell they are talking about, but being a senator, mayor, congressman, etc. does not IMHO give you the necessary chops to become President.
Maybe we should stop electing all these proffesional politicians and lawyers...
Whether that argument is valid is more of a personal opinion. This is just a new form of vigilante justice which has always been a topic of disagreement. If I knew you were going to kill me tomorrow would I be justified in killing you today?
Only if you are George Bush...
I cannot believe this was modded as troll.
I think the Sheetrock raises a valid point about security and computers.
Except your talking about something that is real world, tangible. The topic at hand is about something that can't touch you unless you let it. But all the users were notified ahead of time that something offensive might happen at some point.
Communication is real world and tangible as are hateful words. Typed words hold just as much meaning as those we speak, they are just as strong. Like I said in another post, is it okay if I kick someone in the nuts as long as I tell them something physical might happen?
The developer was trying to make the world like real life egypt during the time period, but the people in the game that complained only wanted that to happen when it suited them. This is where the problem is. The players are idiots and want it only when THEY say its ok.
Yeah, silly _customers_ (this is a PAY game). Obviously the Developers know whats best for them.
The whole, this simulates the real world non-sense is just that...nonsense. How is that fun? I know, next they could explore genocide or nuclear war or the plague or rape (oh wait they did and the guy was banned) or incest or child molestation or kiddie porn or beastiality and then call their _customers_ whiners when they don't like the content. These all happen daily.
If you don't like it, don't play it.
I suppose the same could be said for blacks that were denied entry into cafes in the 50' and 60's. If you don't like it, don't eat there.
About the only thing I see wrong with this situation is the developer didn't say that participants may be subjected to conduct they find offensive (oh, wait.. they did, didn't they?)
So it's okay if I kick you in the nuts as long as I tell ya ahead of time that I might do something physical?
Yeah, I've played the game, but it is still a game. Not everyone perscribes to the social experiment doctrine of the game. I know, I was involved in many an argument about just that, yet they still take money from people who just want to play a game. Why even experiment with racism? We already know what the effects of it are. I'm not saying forget the past, but I hope we have already learned the lessons of the past.
It is a game that involves real people, that's the problem with so much of the internet. People are treated as *Avatars*, when they should be treated as people.
Granted, there is killing in some games, but that is usually the jist of the game. Watching your pixels curl up and die does not have the same emotional impact as being slurred, not for everyone. As rational human beings we should respect eachother.