Actually it does have a lot of humor value. It was a joke...
Yes, it has humor value in its original context. However, repeating it without that context deprives it of any value other than as a reference to the original joke.
Is it just me, or is the BitTorrent world slowly converging on features and an architecture that the eDonkey network has had for years?.
No, it's not.
What is happening is that there are people who think that what BitTorrent really needs is to become eDonkey. And then they make a big deal about how they are going to turn BitTorrent into eDonkey.
And then they find out that pretty much nobody wants eDonkey, and that's why they are not using it, but using BitTorrent instead. And their wonderful project slowly dies and is forgotten.
And then we wait half a year, and the next person steps up to the plate to turn BitTorrent into eDonkey.
Yeah, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what companies looking to replace http/ftp want.
See, here's the thing:
Bittorrent only does file transfer. All other p2p clients do file transfer and search.
Bittorrent is massively popular. All other p2p clients are struggling to get anyone to use them.
And what lesson do people learn from this? Apparently that Bittorrent needs search. These are hardly the first people to have tried this, and found that nobody wants it.
Nonsense, you should already know yourself that the Debian/Ubuntu exploit was fixed months ago.
And before that, it was open for years. How many machines might have gotten rooted in that time?
Also, the real kicker with that security hole is that patching it doesn't actually close it! It just prevents it from happening again. To actually close it, you have to delete all keys generated with Debian over the last two years. The patches try to do that for the machine they are installed on, but that won't affect keys which were transferred elsewhere.
And of course, all machines do not get patched in the first place.
Ahem. How often does this happen? Breaking into an up to date linux system is much harder that cracking the typical windows box.
It happens quite a bit. Disregarding whether it is easier to break into a modern Windows or Linux system (Windows certainly hasn't been standing still in terms of security, so it's not quite as easy to make that claim as it used to be), many Linux machines get rooted through insecure applications running on them (such as badly written web apps on web servers), or through dictionary attacks. Or, for that matter, through the Debian OpenSSL hole I alluded to earlier.
It's relevant because the thread started by the AC was about viruses, rootkits and Linux not having them opposed to windows.
It was about how Linux does have rootkits.
You then went on to describe the irrelevant Debian security holes
"Irrelevant"? That was a reply to your post where you assumed that the only way that rootkits get on a machine is when the user installs them as part of other software. I pointed out that most Linux machines get rooted through remote exploitation, and as an example pointed out that the Debian OpenSSL hole made it trivial to do just that.
If you can't follow the thread then what are you doing here?
I'm not sure you're in any position to accuse others of not following the thread.
Because nobody ever broke into a Linux machine over the net. Especially not because Debian left security holes big enough to drive a truck through open for years.
"Correlation is not causation" is the new "FUD" - it's something people can yell when they dislike something but can't figure out how to refute it, without ever really understanding that the term has an actual, specific meaning.
I'm not sure why he would think that, as they won't. Stable elements are quite stable. Granted that iron is the most stable of them all, but that doesn't mean everything has the possiblity of reaching that minimum.
The problem is someone who at least presumes to have educated on the subject gives what he believes is a counter agrument. You then go with the "experts say" retort.
Sure, that would be a stupid thing to do.
However, that has not happened here, so I'm not sure why you would bring it up.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's conceivable that the climate will changed "enough" that "ecological collapse" is possible.
"Mistaken"? Perhaps you are under the "mistaken impression" that ecological collapse has never happened before due to changes in climate and living conditions?
And you also seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Earth has never been significantly warmer than it is now.
And where would you get that silly impression? Of course the Earth has been warmer. However, it's the rate of change that is important here. If the change is slow, life has time to adapt. However, in this case, it is nowhere near slow.
What won't happen is massive extinction of all life.
Yeah, because all the plants that rely on specific climates can just pick up and leave.
If you change the climate enough, there will be massive ecological collapse. It won't be the end of the world, but it doesn't need to be in order to suck majorily. We kind of rely pretty heavily on eating, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps that people prefer to use familiar systems, such as the web, over some limited, unfriendly program designed for tech heads?
I'd have thought that Slashdot, home of the Unix nerds, would appreciate the value of having a simple tool that does a single thing well.
That's why you don't have just one person doing a particular task, you have several people do it and compare results.
Come on, this isn't rocket science.
Actually it does have a lot of humor value. It was a joke...
Yes, it has humor value in its original context. However, repeating it without that context deprives it of any value other than as a reference to the original joke.
Yes, but it would have been funnier if you had actually made an original joke, instead of relying on a worn-out old reference.
If you pulled it off right, it could be funny. But people don't. They just copy the list and rely on people already knowing the joke.
The original worked because it had context. These references don't.
They didn't become redundant the last couple times somebody tried to make this, so I doubt they will become redundant now.
Is it just me, or is the BitTorrent world slowly converging on features and an architecture that the eDonkey network has had for years?.
No, it's not.
What is happening is that there are people who think that what BitTorrent really needs is to become eDonkey. And then they make a big deal about how they are going to turn BitTorrent into eDonkey.
And then they find out that pretty much nobody wants eDonkey, and that's why they are not using it, but using BitTorrent instead. And their wonderful project slowly dies and is forgotten.
And then we wait half a year, and the next person steps up to the plate to turn BitTorrent into eDonkey.
Do you know why he doesn't get it? Because it's not actually funny. It's just a reference, it has no humour value on its own.
I just don't see how this would hurt torrents in any way.
It wouldn't, and nobody said it would. The point is just that nobody wants this.
Yeah, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what companies looking to replace http/ftp want.
See, here's the thing:
Bittorrent only does file transfer. All other p2p clients do file transfer and search.
Bittorrent is massively popular. All other p2p clients are struggling to get anyone to use them.
And what lesson do people learn from this? Apparently that Bittorrent needs search. These are hardly the first people to have tried this, and found that nobody wants it.
And it was nowhere near as big or popular as now, and there was absolutely nothing like Youtube around.
Nonsense, you should already know yourself that the Debian/Ubuntu exploit was fixed months ago.
And before that, it was open for years. How many machines might have gotten rooted in that time?
Also, the real kicker with that security hole is that patching it doesn't actually close it! It just prevents it from happening again. To actually close it, you have to delete all keys generated with Debian over the last two years. The patches try to do that for the machine they are installed on, but that won't affect keys which were transferred elsewhere.
And of course, all machines do not get patched in the first place.
Ahem. How often does this happen? Breaking into an up to date linux system is much harder that cracking the typical windows box.
It happens quite a bit. Disregarding whether it is easier to break into a modern Windows or Linux system (Windows certainly hasn't been standing still in terms of security, so it's not quite as easy to make that claim as it used to be), many Linux machines get rooted through insecure applications running on them (such as badly written web apps on web servers), or through dictionary attacks. Or, for that matter, through the Debian OpenSSL hole I alluded to earlier.
It's relevant because the thread started by the AC was about viruses, rootkits and Linux not having them opposed to windows.
It was about how Linux does have rootkits.
You then went on to describe the irrelevant Debian security holes
"Irrelevant"? That was a reply to your post where you assumed that the only way that rootkits get on a machine is when the user installs them as part of other software. I pointed out that most Linux machines get rooted through remote exploitation, and as an example pointed out that the Debian OpenSSL hole made it trivial to do just that.
If you can't follow the thread then what are you doing here?
I'm not sure you're in any position to accuse others of not following the thread.
You're the first person to bring up Windows. What exactly is the relevance?
Because nobody ever broke into a Linux machine over the net. Especially not because Debian left security holes big enough to drive a truck through open for years.
They can search for files by typing in words to search for and pressing enter.
Actually, some people on Slashdot seem to take it as a handy way to refute results they don't like, and also to appear smart.
"Correlation is not causation" is the new "FUD" - it's something people can yell when they dislike something but can't figure out how to refute it, without ever really understanding that the term has an actual, specific meaning.
Hmm, I guess you're right, tunneling would do that in the end. 10^1500 years is a bit of a timescale, though.
Also, would there be any energy over for actual radioactivity, in a reaction like that?
That's quite the claim. You're basically saying an entire field of science is corrupt. Do you have proof to back this up?
I'm not sure why he would think that, as they won't. Stable elements are quite stable. Granted that iron is the most stable of them all, but that doesn't mean everything has the possiblity of reaching that minimum.
The problem is someone who at least presumes to have educated on the subject gives what he believes is a counter agrument. You then go with the "experts say" retort.
Sure, that would be a stupid thing to do.
However, that has not happened here, so I'm not sure why you would bring it up.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's conceivable that the climate will changed "enough" that "ecological collapse" is possible.
"Mistaken"? Perhaps you are under the "mistaken impression" that ecological collapse has never happened before due to changes in climate and living conditions?
And you also seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Earth has never been significantly warmer than it is now.
And where would you get that silly impression? Of course the Earth has been warmer. However, it's the rate of change that is important here. If the change is slow, life has time to adapt. However, in this case, it is nowhere near slow.
What won't happen is massive extinction of all life.
Yeah, because all the plants that rely on specific climates can just pick up and leave.
If you change the climate enough, there will be massive ecological collapse. It won't be the end of the world, but it doesn't need to be in order to suck majorily. We kind of rely pretty heavily on eating, you know.