Check it now - a search for "linux" on the MSN site turns up exactly zero negative-sounding references, either in the search results or in the sponsored links. In fact, the results look similar to those on Yahoo.
I'm certainly not a Microsoft apologist, but them's the facts.
So by your definition, it's only "hacking" when it's hard? So there was a glitch in permissions, which allowed access to anyone who knew to try for it. Isn't the act of trying to gain access considered "hacking"?
What if all they had to do was run a root-exploit kit? Wouldn't have been much more difficult. What if they sneaked into the office every night with a floppy?
At the end of the day, the Republicans exploited a security flaw to access countless Democrat documents for years. I don't think ease or difficulty of that access changes the fact that this was an illegal intrusion into a computer system. Some would call that "hacking".
And people do (and arguably should) go to jail for stuff like this. You can bet they would if the players had been reversed.
This could be FUD on the part of GM. I remember a few years ago, Mazda Canada tried to claim that your warrently would be void if your car was serviced by anyone other than a Mazda dealer. Needless to say, they lost the court challenge.
Good lord - you know that monitor glass is *loaded* with lead, right? It's enough of an environmental impact when intact, but shatter it into a thousand pieces and dump it in a lanfill?!?
Please, please, please dispose of your monitors properly, if nothing else.
"Misunderstandings"? Are you joking?
Was Cheney confused when he told 'Meet the Press' that Iraq had "reconstituted" nuclear weapons? Was it a misunderstanding (or misunderestimation) when Bush relentlessly linked Hussein to bin Laden, even when his own intelligence told him otherwise?
What you describe as a "conservative misunderstanding" is looking more and more like a campaign of deceptions to scare Americans into supporting a war.
Your "typical liberal misunderstanding" is a semantic game currently being played by the right wing... "Aha! The president never actually used the word imminent!".
To quote Josh Marshall on the "imminent threat" game:
Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: "Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth."
Fleischer's answer? "Yes."
In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: "Is [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home."
Bartlett's answer? "Well, of course he is."
A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, "Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?"
Fleischer's answer? "Absolutely."
Pretty clear. (see the rest of his discussion here.
Honestly, stop parroting White House spin and start thinking for yourself.
Re:That was a great quote to leave unchallenged:
on
CNN Reports on Diebold
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Oh fer chrissake. Is this the latest slashdot trend - AC posts standing up for poor, maligned Fox News? Applying all the well-thought-out arguments of people who cry "Liberal media!"...
What's that smell? Astroturf?
Aw crap... don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls...
Downright spooky to hear Republican spin points show up in discussions like this. This has been a recent spin attempt by the White House.
No, Bush never used the word "imminent". He did, however, very clearly lead the nation to belive that Iraq posed a threat to the US in the short term. Hell Cheney told "Meet the press" that he believed Iraq had "reconstituted" nuclear weapons. What threat could be more imminent than that?
The point is that it's a trick: "Did Bush tell America that Iraq was an 'imminent' threat"... "Yeah, I think so"... "Ha! Gotcha! He never actually used the work imminent!"
Look, a majority of Americans believed Iraq had WMD's, including nuclear weapons. A majority also believed that he was working with (or actually WAS) Osama bin Laden. BUSH deliberately perpetuated this point of view. This is a silly right-wing word game.
Listen to ANY news source with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Sing it sister - America (and the world) would be a very different place if more people followed this advice.
But the idea that CNN/MSNBC/NPR are "rabidly" anti-Bush is ludicrous. It's also (if you watch the source, the RNC) a parroted right-wing talking point since Bush's credibility has started to collapse - paint the criticism as partisan attacks on the president.
The fact is, there's a LOT about the Bush administration to criticize, from its misleading rhetoric in the leadup to war to its close ties to Enron to its vicious (and possibly illegal) outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to its lies about its planned tax cuts. This administration has had a free ride in the press, which is only now beginning to wake up.
You want to see "RABID" partisan attacks? Rewind the tape a few years and watch Clinton impeached over a blowjob. Watch the press relentlessly spread lies about Al Gore.
There are a handful of rabidly anti-Bush sites out there (which form the justification for the RNC's claim that the media is out to get them), but those sites are relatively few and outside the mainstream. Clinton and Gore, however, were savaged by the mainstream press. Show me one partisan lie about Bush parroted by CNN/MSNBC/NYT/NPR etc.
hmm... except the bulk of this article was about OSS in government. Government faces many of the same cost control/performance issues as private enterprise, but government is NOT a business.
Government must consider its responsibility to the people - locking its data in proprietary formats doesn't meet that responsibility. Heck, even if OSS winds up costing more than proprietary solutions, it's the right thing for government to do, since publicly-owned information will be available long after anyone can get their hands on a copy of some long-defunct proprietary software.
The other point the article made was that this trend in government could trigger a trend in business, since there's a huge private sector that serves government.
hmm... I question your 90% number. Proprietary software tends to drive focus where the money is. OSS tends to drive focus where the work is interesting.
So while OSS continues to make great inroads in the OS space, for example (lots of interesting work there), it's hard to picture a loose collection of programmers building a serious contender to SAP or PeopleSoft's product set. They're not interesting enough projects to inspire passion in peoples' free time, at least not the the necessary degree. And there's a LOT of money/effort spent on this dull sort of software.
And I don't necessarily think that's important. Consider that ESR is driven by ideology: the chief benefits of computing should be available to everyone, regardless of thier ability to pay. That means operating systems and desktop applications, the web browser in particular. It means a great web server, a selection of good-to-great databases etc, all via OSS. It means everything important to the operation of the internet, which must never be owned by a corporation.
There will be plenty of niches still best filled by proprietary applications, and I think that's okay.
Jack Valenti isn't human at all. He's a high-performance killing machine sent from the future to wipe out filesharing -- and with it, all hope for humanity's future.
Slashdot Mirror
Cartman: "Towelie, you're the worst character ever."
Towelie: "I know"
IANAL, but my understanding is that the US treats corporations as de facto people, with rights to free speech, etc.
Can anyone provide more detail?
I think it's more like 10% of traffic from legit sharing, by the industry's own estimates.
Yes, I know it's different continent, but I think it's an interesting data point.
Check it now - a search for "linux" on the MSN site turns up exactly zero negative-sounding references, either in the search results or in the sponsored links. In fact, the results look similar to those on Yahoo.
I'm certainly not a Microsoft apologist, but them's the facts.
How did this get modded 'informative'?
So by your definition, it's only "hacking" when it's hard? So there was a glitch in permissions, which allowed access to anyone who knew to try for it. Isn't the act of trying to gain access considered "hacking"?
What if all they had to do was run a root-exploit kit? Wouldn't have been much more difficult. What if they sneaked into the office every night with a floppy?
At the end of the day, the Republicans exploited a security flaw to access countless Democrat documents for years. I don't think ease or difficulty of that access changes the fact that this was an illegal intrusion into a computer system. Some would call that "hacking".
And people do (and arguably should) go to jail for stuff like this. You can bet they would if the players had been reversed.
This could be FUD on the part of GM. I remember a few years ago, Mazda Canada tried to claim that your warrently would be void if your car was serviced by anyone other than a Mazda dealer. Needless to say, they lost the court challenge.
Good lord - you know that monitor glass is *loaded* with lead, right? It's enough of an environmental impact when intact, but shatter it into a thousand pieces and dump it in a lanfill?!?
Please, please, please dispose of your monitors properly, if nothing else.
...that's good!
"But the coke is cursed."
That's bad!
"It comes with a free frogurt"
That's good!
"The frogurt contains monosodium glutamate"
uh....
"That's bad"
What you describe as a "conservative misunderstanding" is looking more and more like a campaign of deceptions to scare Americans into supporting a war.
Your "typical liberal misunderstanding" is a semantic game currently being played by the right wing... "Aha! The president never actually used the word imminent!".
To quote Josh Marshall on the "imminent threat" game:
Pretty clear. (see the rest of his discussion here.Honestly, stop parroting White House spin and start thinking for yourself.
Oh fer chrissake. Is this the latest slashdot trend - AC posts standing up for poor, maligned Fox News? Applying all the well-thought-out arguments of people who cry "Liberal media!"...
What's that smell? Astroturf?
Aw crap... don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls...
Downright spooky to hear Republican spin points show up in discussions like this. This has been a recent spin attempt by the White House.
No, Bush never used the word "imminent". He did, however, very clearly lead the nation to belive that Iraq posed a threat to the US in the short term. Hell Cheney told "Meet the press" that he believed Iraq had "reconstituted" nuclear weapons. What threat could be more imminent than that?
The point is that it's a trick: "Did Bush tell America that Iraq was an 'imminent' threat"... "Yeah, I think so"... "Ha! Gotcha! He never actually used the work imminent!"
Look, a majority of Americans believed Iraq had WMD's, including nuclear weapons. A majority also believed that he was working with (or actually WAS) Osama bin Laden. BUSH deliberately perpetuated this point of view. This is a silly right-wing word game.
Listen to ANY news source with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Sing it sister - America (and the world) would be a very different place if more people followed this advice.
But the idea that CNN/MSNBC/NPR are "rabidly" anti-Bush is ludicrous. It's also (if you watch the source, the RNC) a parroted right-wing talking point since Bush's credibility has started to collapse - paint the criticism as partisan attacks on the president.
The fact is, there's a LOT about the Bush administration to criticize, from its misleading rhetoric in the leadup to war to its close ties to Enron to its vicious (and possibly illegal) outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to its lies about its planned tax cuts. This administration has had a free ride in the press, which is only now beginning to wake up.
You want to see "RABID" partisan attacks? Rewind the tape a few years and watch Clinton impeached over a blowjob. Watch the press relentlessly spread lies about Al Gore.
There are a handful of rabidly anti-Bush sites out there (which form the justification for the RNC's claim that the media is out to get them), but those sites are relatively few and outside the mainstream. Clinton and Gore, however, were savaged by the mainstream press. Show me one partisan lie about Bush parroted by CNN/MSNBC/NYT/NPR etc.
Jesus - how was the electric shock?
Don't whiz on the electric fence!
I'd be happy to take that thing off your hands, if you'd like.
Just doing my thing to control (noise) pollution... I live to give.
Look, look, we have ALREADY apologized for Bryan Adams....
The Canadian military is rolling as we speak. Look out, Australia - as soon as the Americans give us a lift, we'll be landing on your shores!
*pffft. Wimp.
Now a 1/8 scale 747 - THAT is some nice modding, my friend.
hmm... except the bulk of this article was about OSS in government. Government faces many of the same cost control/performance issues as private enterprise, but government is NOT a business.
Government must consider its responsibility to the people - locking its data in proprietary formats doesn't meet that responsibility. Heck, even if OSS winds up costing more than proprietary solutions, it's the right thing for government to do, since publicly-owned information will be available long after anyone can get their hands on a copy of some long-defunct proprietary software.
The other point the article made was that this trend in government could trigger a trend in business, since there's a huge private sector that serves government.
hmm... I question your 90% number. Proprietary software tends to drive focus where the money is. OSS tends to drive focus where the work is interesting.
So while OSS continues to make great inroads in the OS space, for example (lots of interesting work there), it's hard to picture a loose collection of programmers building a serious contender to SAP or PeopleSoft's product set. They're not interesting enough projects to inspire passion in peoples' free time, at least not the the necessary degree. And there's a LOT of money/effort spent on this dull sort of software.
And I don't necessarily think that's important. Consider that ESR is driven by ideology: the chief benefits of computing should be available to everyone, regardless of thier ability to pay. That means operating systems and desktop applications, the web browser in particular. It means a great web server, a selection of good-to-great databases etc, all via OSS. It means everything important to the operation of the internet, which must never be owned by a corporation.
There will be plenty of niches still best filled by proprietary applications, and I think that's okay.
Random musings of the very tired...
Encryption? Hell, come 2005 I'm buyin' my own 5ess from ebay at a bargain. Wanna talk to me? Gotta interface to my private POTS network!
Now I just need a few hundred more amps and 5 tonnes of air conditioning in my basement...
Shhh! Jesus man, you can't say that on the internet! Are you begging for a Cease-and-Desist order? Maybe a nice fat lawsuit? ;)
...and me without any mod points.
Well said, man. Someone please mod the parent up!
HEY - I *need* my Hello Kitty. Upgrade... must upgrade...
Jack Valenti isn't human at all. He's a high-performance killing machine sent from the future to wipe out filesharing -- and with it, all hope for humanity's future.
Jesus, I think I should go to bed.
Holy crap - are we slashdotting Ebay?