just for those that don't get it, here's the expanded, collectors edition of my "hmmm":
who does the managing?
as a subset of that: can we trust them? what about potential abuse? etc. how does restriction produce greater freedom? how can you get more free than uncensored?
and now the special features, aka rambles:
one of the things i love about/. is that it doesn't delete the trolls/flames; it's uncensored, but it works. Of course, it only works because of the millions of users willing to forsake their right to speak for the greater good... how this would work with mom 'n' pop's blog site that some viagra spammer is targetting, I don't know. Actually. I do. It wouldn't
I've had the feeling for a while that net communication would work a lot better if *everything* was anonymous. In the truly anon sense; "user24" is not anonymous. My internet footprint is massive.
"Mr. O'Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. "That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make -- believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech," he said."
Crowd Control? People getting annoyed at other people using cellphones? Perhaps historically, but look at page 2:
"However, the airlines know that some kind of plane-to-ground communication is coming, and they want to profit from it... Airlines would prefer that phones be banned while they come up with new ways to charge for communication, such as the coming wave of Wi-Fi access"
Bingo!
however:
"So the ban remains in place because the government can't seem to come up with definitive answers."
you know, I'd rather the government (of whichever country) err on the side of caution, actually: "Well, we can't tell whether cellphones might cause crashes, so we'll just allow them and see what happens"?
Bottom line for me: people are annoying with cellphones. Now imagine sitting next to the guy talking shite for all 12 hours of a long haul flight. I'd hijack the plane just to shut him up. Keep the ban, people can surely live without cellphones for the duration of a flight... surely?
He has a good point. As you all know, IPv6 allows 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 addresses, while IPv4 allows only 4,294,967,296 addresses (tinyurl.com/6gqkc). Nothing like planning ahead, eh?
see, HHGTG isn't (wasn't) trying to be taken seriously, so it's fine. Same with terry pratchet. If we were talking about some TV network stopping work on a true-to-the-books series of HHGTG, I'd expect and applaud this type of thing, but it's not, it's about a business making a business decision.
How dare you! Linux *is* a religion, the heathens shall repent!
I can't really be bothered to carry on with that line, but I'm sure 20 other people will.
You're right. Fanboyism, whether directed at linux, wikipedia, apple, terry pratchet, HHGTG or whatever, really only acheives the following: It attracts more fanboys. The media don't understand it (well done to apple for evading this one). It puts 'normal' people off.
If you're trying to be taken seriously in, none of the above are desirable traits at all. That this happened can only damage Linux's reputation.
simple: to protect their ears, rock musicians often wear earplugs while playing. Evidently Metallica have been playing for so long that it's some time since they actually listened to their own music (as can be evidenced by a quick play of, say, S&M)
Next time on Ask Slashdot: How to password protect Word files. Also: watch out for our podcast on sending email, and a webinar on why you should back up your files.
oh no! the hordes of expert crackers tailing me will be able to find my FTP password.
also: "Furthermore, TrueCrypt cannot prevent the contents of sensitive files that are opened in RAM from being saved unencrypted to a paging file (note that when you open a file stored on a TrueCrypt volume, for example, in a text editor, then the content of the file is stored unencrypted in RAM). " http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/paging-file.php
I just use commandline gpg. sure, anyone can tell there are encrypted files on my USB 'disk', but so what? I'm not a secret agent, nor a corporate informant, I don't actually need plausible deniability.
It doesn't need admin privs, leaves no tracesif set up properly, and is open source. If you want to store multiple files under one encrypted file, slap them in a zip file and encrypt that. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are legitimate purposes for transparent volume encryption, and plausible deniability, but aside from the cool factor, I just don't need them.
no, but someone still has to manage it; p2p offers (afaik) the cheapest, most resilient way of doing something like this. If it's not done via p2p and instead involves a central host, who's going to foot the bill for the host, even it is a small bill? Much better to let the users manage the hosting.
Slashdot Mirror
just for those that don't get it, here's the expanded, collectors edition of my "hmmm":
/. is that it doesn't delete the trolls/flames; it's uncensored, but it works.
who does the managing?
as a subset of that: can we trust them? what about potential abuse? etc.
how does restriction produce greater freedom?
how can you get more free than uncensored?
and now the special features, aka rambles:
one of the things i love about
Of course, it only works because of the millions of users willing to forsake their right to speak for the greater good... how this would work with mom 'n' pop's blog site that some viagra spammer is targetting, I don't know. Actually. I do. It wouldn't
I've had the feeling for a while that net communication would work a lot better if *everything* was anonymous. In the truly anon sense; "user24" is not anonymous. My internet footprint is massive.
"Mr. O'Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. "That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make -- believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech," he said."
really? "managed dialogue", eh? hmmm...
Bingo!
however:
you know, I'd rather the government (of whichever country) err on the side of caution, actually: "Well, we can't tell whether cellphones might cause crashes, so we'll just allow them and see what happens"?
Bottom line for me: people are annoying with cellphones. Now imagine sitting next to the guy talking shite for all 12 hours of a long haul flight. I'd hijack the plane just to shut him up. Keep the ban, people can surely live without cellphones for the duration of a flight... surely?
He has a good point. As you all know, IPv6 allows 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 addresses, while IPv4 allows only 4,294,967,296 addresses (tinyurl.com/6gqkc). Nothing like planning ahead, eh?
yes, the OP should have been modded offtopic, and my reply to him/her.
there should be an ongoing, archived now-and-then "critise slashdot" section. wow, that'd get interesting really quickly.
lmao. that's fantastic. Me and the OP get modded troll, while you, agreeing with my basic point, get +4 interesting. priceless.
Go on, mod me down again someone.
You're wrong about one thing.
I bet you'd shave your balls if google just asked.
You'll get modded troll, but you're right. People have been forgetting the Online part of YRO for quite a while.
see, HHGTG isn't (wasn't) trying to be taken seriously, so it's fine. Same with terry pratchet. If we were talking about some TV network stopping work on a true-to-the-books series of HHGTG, I'd expect and applaud this type of thing, but it's not, it's about a business making a business decision.
How dare you! Linux *is* a religion, the heathens shall repent!
I can't really be bothered to carry on with that line, but I'm sure 20 other people will.
You're right. Fanboyism, whether directed at linux, wikipedia, apple, terry pratchet, HHGTG or whatever, really only acheives the following:
It attracts more fanboys.
The media don't understand it (well done to apple for evading this one).
It puts 'normal' people off.
If you're trying to be taken seriously in, none of the above are desirable traits at all.
That this happened can only damage Linux's reputation.
given this: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/post-katrin a-images-of-new-orleans-on.html
you won't be able to gmail exe files, even inside a zip unless you rename the extension.
slap it on mytempdir.com or rapidshare.de and then anyone can grab it.
simple: to protect their ears, rock musicians often wear earplugs while playing.
Evidently Metallica have been playing for so long that it's some time since they actually listened to their own music (as can be evidenced by a quick play of, say, S&M)
Next time on Ask Slashdot: How to password protect Word files.
Also: watch out for our podcast on sending email, and a webinar on why you should back up your files.
Yeah, I love listening to mercury
oh, no I didn't. ignore that post.
and this one, for that matter.
somehow I failed to click reply on your comment and instead replied to myself:
= 18437183
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227415&cid
oh no! the hordes of expert crackers tailing me will be able to find my FTP password.
also:
"Furthermore, TrueCrypt cannot prevent the contents of sensitive files that are opened in RAM from being saved unencrypted to a paging file (note that when you open a file stored on a TrueCrypt volume, for example, in a text editor, then the content of the file is stored unencrypted in RAM). "
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/paging-file.php
commandline doesn't. use "--homedir ." when you run it, eg:
decrypt:
gpg --homedir . --force-mdc -q -o %output_file% %input_file%
encrypt:
gpg --homedir . -z9 -q -o %output_file% --force-mdc -c %input_file%
then just have a directory with gpg.exe in it and you're away. I also recommend sdel.exe
I just use commandline gpg. sure, anyone can tell there are encrypted files on my USB 'disk', but so what? I'm not a secret agent, nor a corporate informant, I don't actually need plausible deniability.
It doesn't need admin privs, leaves no tracesif set up properly, and is open source. If you want to store multiple files under one encrypted file, slap them in a zip file and encrypt that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are legitimate purposes for transparent volume encryption, and plausible deniability, but aside from the cool factor, I just don't need them.
that may be a great idea, but it's not wikipedia.
not true: check this site out to find out exactly why your box is crashing. saved me a few times.
http://www.aumha.org/win5/kbestop.php
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/143025 6
no, but someone still has to manage it; p2p offers (afaik) the cheapest, most resilient way of doing something like this. If it's not done via p2p and instead involves a central host, who's going to foot the bill for the host, even it is a small bill? Much better to let the users manage the hosting.