Truly offensive shirts (ie hate speech) are not protected by the First Amendment.
Is advocating for women's right to choices "truly offensive"? How about burning the American flag? How "truly" an offensive would have to be to lose the protection from the 1st Amendment?
I'm not going to defend the/. bias, because it's there big time, and we know it.
But I'm sorry, I am just not buying this "there are too many configuration combinations to test" argument either. Not when we are talking about the third service pack of an operating system that has been running mainstream for 6 years. Not when it would prevent a computer from booting at all.
Hell, at this point in XP's life cycle, there should not have been any service pack at all. All Microsoft should be doing for XP is pushing out real critical security patches, which should address only individual paths.
And as to the success rate Microsoft should be held to, I don't know if it has to be 100% across the board, but I do know that when I've paid for a piece of software, when the vendor of the software has an automatic upgrading mechanism in place that would do even the most radical upgrades behind my back, and when those upgrades could completely shut me off from accessing my computer, yeah, I would think I have every right to demand a 100% success rate on my computer.
Yay for you. But you could have bought a nice hatchback Prius or Jetta TDI that did the same job with approximately Twice as many MPG.
The same job? I don't think so. First of all, the backseats are exactly two seats wide, not 2.5-2.7 in the larger vehicles. It's less safe to mount a car seat on one of the back seats than in the middle, because if the car is t-boned, on that side there is less room to absorb the impact. Secondly, again, please try and fit 6 paper bags of groceries, or the large packs from Costco, or the often oddly shaped parts (poles, pipes, etc.) from Home Depot, into the back of a Prius, then come back and tell me honestly that it does "the same job".
(IMHO people driving cars below 30 mpg should be required to pay a pollution tax, to cover the extra costs of cleaning the crap out of the air, so I can BREATHE instead of suffer asthma attacks.)
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. Some people choose to drive bigger vehicles, and they do cause more pollution, so it's not unreasonable to ask them (including myself) to pay extra for that - provided the amount of taxes isn't unreasonable to the point of practically forbidding it.
On the other hand, though, I'm vehemently against anybody trying to impose any sort of "universal vehicle standard" on me, from either a legal or a moral high ground. Do you ever choose to do anything in your life that other people don't do, and costs something in the environment or whatever other community resources? How would you like to just stop doing it?
- Get everyone to drive 88 mpg VW Lupo 3L's. There's enough room to carry a family of 3, plus groceries or soccer equipment. (Or a 70mpg Honda Insight; perfect commuter vehicle.) Oh yeah? Why don't you show us how you would put your 3-year old into her baby seat mounted on the back seat of a VW Lupo 3L, a two-door vehicle? And _then_ try and put in all 6-8 paper bags of groceries? Or the large packages from Costco?
If you don't have to deal with at least 6 large paper bags of groceries every week, either you don't have a family of 3, or you don't cook yourself. In the later case please think about how much environmental damage you are causing by eating at restaurants.
Some of us drive Ford Living Room for a reason - and it's certainly not "I have more money than I know what to do with so I'm gonna just burn it on gas."
Not sure why you'd bring your laptop with you while shopping... what use would you have for it while shopping? I think he meant "I bring my laptop with me while shopping with wife".
When are we going to be able to start firefox in a process separated from one already running? I know it can be achieved by starting it under a different profile every time, but that is not convenient, and sometimes doesn't work - I'd lose access to all the bookmarks and cookies in the main profile.
I mean, don't mozilla people also hate having 31 Firefox windows all crash and burn just because one of them tripped over a badly implemented web site? Or do they just browse in one window, one tab, ever?
Conversely, with a 'power user's' distro, you can learn the bare-metal way to configure your wireless. You know it once you've done it once, and can do it again anytime. And since you've reached down deep into how it works, you're able to secure it and understand what you're doing.
Actually it's not that rosy in reality. See, the thing is, for most of the desktop users, many of these "sys config" tasks are not what they have to do very often. Sure, you'll learn "the bare-metal way" to configure your wireless, but the next time when you have to do it again is probably going to be the next time you upgrade to a new laptop, which for most people is like 1 or 2 years later. Do you honestly think most of us would be able to remember "how I did it last time?"
I think, while by now people have learned to distinguish between "users" and "power users", there is one more level of distinction to be made. That is between "power users" and "system admins". I use command line a lot for my daily tasks, I custom and build some of the software I use, and I constantly tweak my ubuntu installation, so I consider myself a power user. OTOH, I don't consider myself a system admin, not when all I have to manage is 3 ubuntu desktops. For a system admin, yeah, learning how to do things in the bare metal way can be really beneficial, because it's cost effective when you have 278 system to amortize your effort with. It's a completely different economy for desktop users.
Whereas if you use the latest 'control panel' busybox to configure wireless, you've got your wireless... until the next shiney-thing distro comes along, and you have to learn a whole new set of buttons to press.
You say that as if "the bare-metal ways" don't change as often, if not more often. 8-)
This exploit did not require compromising the web server, or the database server. It required compromising the programming of the web application.
The above should have been "this exploit did not require compromising the web server, or the database server. It required compromising the programming of the web application by the idiots who wrote the application."
Thus far, there have been a few attacks on aircraft - yet they've thus far been unsuccessful. A jetliner is a huge plane, and it doesn't hang around in the attackable range for very long. The multi-engine nature of jetliners tends to confuse missiles as well.
Remember, the missile systems we're talking about aren't small, or normally cheap in terrorist terms*. This makes them easier to intercept and difficult to deploy in large numbers.
I live nearby a major airport. On the land directly under landing/taking off courses - we are talking about the final final approach courses where the planes would be slowly moving along a straight line at an extremely low altitude. Ideal targets for shoulder-launched SAMs - they usually build rental storages or low-end commercial buildings. As far as I know, those facilities are not periodically inspected (nor should they be from constitutional standpoint). And they seem to be ideal for weapon storage, final assembly, and the launch platform, all rolled into one.
Yes, I'm performing risk analysis - I'm not saying that terrorists won't manage to shoot down a commercial aircraft with a manpad, but is it worth $40 BILLION to try to stop it? A full plane would average what, 300 people? Even if it saves a plane - that's $133 million per life saved. Makes health care look cheap.
I know it's risk analysis, so I won't ride on the highground. But even from the logic standpoint - how do you assume that it's going to be only one plane? What prevents some terrorists from planing a coordinated attack on, say, 5 major airports, and 2 airliners landing/taking off each within a 5 min window? Considering how the 9/11 attacks were coordinated, that's not some wild imagination. And it would lower the "cost of a life" to 1/10 of your figure. 8-)
I think it's rather very sad to see the first several replies (i.e./. readers' knee jerk reaction) so quickly link the low rating to advertisement and, if that's still within stretch, some innuendo on another Microsoft's evil ploy.
I read TFA. Are all the negative points it brought up real or fair? Of course not. For one thing, I don't like how the author criticizes gPC for not preinstalling the flash player. I believe that was due to licensing limitations.
On the other hand, I see very valid criticism. For instance, according to TFA, gPC defaults to 1280x800, and will revert back to it after rebooting even if the user manually sets it to 1280x1024. I think that's something inexcusable - defaulting to an inordinary screen resolution, and somehow mysteriously insisting on it.
My point is - not a novel one at that - if people truly want Linux to be adopted more widely, they should learn not to take criticism the wrong way.
This is really a YMMV thing. Here my vim just hung for about 5-7 seconds to load a 108M log file. And that's with the LargeFile plugin with threshold set to 30M. -R makes it somewhat faster, but not substantially.
Re:the dependcies for vim are out of control
on
Hacking VIM
·
· Score: 1
Ubuntu, as of 7.10, ships with only vim-common, which is the bare minimum, lightweight text model editor. One would have to take extra steps to install the rest of the "bloat". So I don't see how this is something worth complaining about.
Besides, what's to prevent you from rolling your own build?
What the hell are you talking about?! How hard is it to take a look inside of the box to make sure it's actually a harddrive? If the guy found out that there was a harddrive in the box different from what he expected, say an old one or broken one, that might've been a different story (even in that case I would still insist that BestBuy should take the responsibility to refurbish (and that's to say doing way more than just validating the content of the box) the merchandise before putting it back on the shelf).
You can track down all the people that _may_ have involved in this, but how can you be sure it was the last guy who returned it that did it? Could it have been someone working at BestBuy? So you still wouldn't have any hard evidence without actually inspecting the content of the box at the right time. And if BestBuy had a proper inspection process in place and had trained all the staff to follow it, this wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't need RFIDs to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to defend the /. bias, because it's there big time, and we know it.
But I'm sorry, I am just not buying this "there are too many configuration combinations to test" argument either. Not when we are talking about the third service pack of an operating system that has been running mainstream for 6 years. Not when it would prevent a computer from booting at all.
Hell, at this point in XP's life cycle, there should not have been any service pack at all. All Microsoft should be doing for XP is pushing out real critical security patches, which should address only individual paths.
And as to the success rate Microsoft should be held to, I don't know if it has to be 100% across the board, but I do know that when I've paid for a piece of software, when the vendor of the software has an automatic upgrading mechanism in place that would do even the most radical upgrades behind my back, and when those upgrades could completely shut me off from accessing my computer, yeah, I would think I have every right to demand a 100% success rate on my computer.
On the other hand, though, I'm vehemently against anybody trying to impose any sort of "universal vehicle standard" on me, from either a legal or a moral high ground. Do you ever choose to do anything in your life that other people don't do, and costs something in the environment or whatever other community resources? How would you like to just stop doing it?
If you don't have to deal with at least 6 large paper bags of groceries every week, either you don't have a family of 3, or you don't cook yourself. In the later case please think about how much environmental damage you are causing by eating at restaurants.
Some of us drive Ford Living Room for a reason - and it's certainly not "I have more money than I know what to do with so I'm gonna just burn it on gas."
And I totally dig that.
When are we going to be able to start firefox in a process separated from one already running? I know it can be achieved by starting it under a different profile every time, but that is not convenient, and sometimes doesn't work - I'd lose access to all the bookmarks and cookies in the main profile.
I mean, don't mozilla people also hate having 31 Firefox windows all crash and burn just because one of them tripped over a badly implemented web site? Or do they just browse in one window, one tab, ever?
Oh wait, that would mean that they are slashdotters, too...
Yeah, sure.
Too bad it's not my mod points day, but kudos to you sir, well said!
I think, while by now people have learned to distinguish between "users" and "power users", there is one more level of distinction to be made. That is between "power users" and "system admins". I use command line a lot for my daily tasks, I custom and build some of the software I use, and I constantly tweak my ubuntu installation, so I consider myself a power user. OTOH, I don't consider myself a system admin, not when all I have to manage is 3 ubuntu desktops. For a system admin, yeah, learning how to do things in the bare metal way can be really beneficial, because it's cost effective when you have 278 system to amortize your effort with. It's a completely different economy for desktop users.
You say that as if "the bare-metal ways" don't change as often, if not more often. 8-)Just so it's clear. :-)
I know it's risk analysis, so I won't ride on the highground. But even from the logic standpoint - how do you assume that it's going to be only one plane? What prevents some terrorists from planing a coordinated attack on, say, 5 major airports, and 2 airliners landing/taking off each within a 5 min window? Considering how the 9/11 attacks were coordinated, that's not some wild imagination. And it would lower the "cost of a life" to 1/10 of your figure. 8-)
I read TFA. Are all the negative points it brought up real or fair? Of course not. For one thing, I don't like how the author criticizes gPC for not preinstalling the flash player. I believe that was due to licensing limitations.
On the other hand, I see very valid criticism. For instance, according to TFA, gPC defaults to 1280x800, and will revert back to it after rebooting even if the user manually sets it to 1280x1024. I think that's something inexcusable - defaulting to an inordinary screen resolution, and somehow mysteriously insisting on it.
My point is - not a novel one at that - if people truly want Linux to be adopted more widely, they should learn not to take criticism the wrong way.
I long for the days when people come to /. for commenting and reading comments, instead of news. 8-)
This is really a YMMV thing. Here my vim just hung for about 5-7 seconds to load a 108M log file. And that's with the LargeFile plugin with threshold set to 30M. -R makes it somewhat faster, but not substantially.
Besides, what's to prevent you from rolling your own build?
Some of us actually have to use an OS like that every day at work, you insensitive clod!
Are you stupid? The rest of my post clearly shows I meant how hard is it for BestBuy to inspect the content of the box.
You can track down all the people that _may_ have involved in this, but how can you be sure it was the last guy who returned it that did it? Could it have been someone working at BestBuy? So you still wouldn't have any hard evidence without actually inspecting the content of the box at the right time. And if BestBuy had a proper inspection process in place and had trained all the staff to follow it, this wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't need RFIDs to begin with.
Then all this talking, up until the point where they claim they have just found out the exact patents, can be considered slanderous, right?