You're right, semantics. Does an organization or program have to be completely open source to be called "open source"? Red Hat isn't all open source; their logo, for instance, isn't.
Nobody is saying what this guy did was ok. What they're/I'm saying is that only an idiot would send private info to a stranger (who in this case is apparently also an idiot).
My name? Yeah, you can have that. Address? Sorry. Ten years ago yeah, but we have Google Earth now. Call phone? Are you crazy????
Makes about as much sense as walking up to someone on the street and shooting them in the back, then laughing and pointing at them for not being more careful because, you know, there are crazy people out there who will do bad things to you.
There are places where no sane person would dare walk after dark, especially wearing white skin.
There are also places where no sane person would hand out nudie pics of himself.
You didn't grow up on that side of the tracks. Trust is like respect - it must be earned, or it's worthless. In the case of trust, misguided trust is dangerous, as the grandparent was trying to say.
No, no binding trust; just an assumed level of common decency and honesty
It must be nice to have never met an asshole. I assume you're a murderous, theiving asshole until you show me differently. But I haven't lived in the nicest neighborhoods all my life; in fact, the internet isn't a nice neighborhood. Once I get to know you and see you're NOT Charlie Manson I'll give you a measure of trust.
That's the problem with a purely textual medium; humour can be very hard to spot at times
Even in a spoken medium. A bad joke is a bad joke whether online or off, and funny is funny whether online or off. If your joke sucks you deserve to be taken seriously. When you make a joke you also have to consider your audience. A joke about Schrodinger on slashdot is funny, in People magazine it isn't. Fashion jokes aren't fashionable here though.
You have no evidence that any of these people were married
Except that TFA says "Fortuny seems not to realize or pretends not to realize that his prank may cost people their jobs and possibly, their marriages". No, not proof, but we ARE discussing TFA, after all. It says right there.
And I don't know about yours, but my bible doesn't say "thou shalt not disclose personal information".
What aboiut TFA's author, the guy who made it available on a site that is popular enough it can't be slashdotted? Before Wired posted the story few would have known about it.
How would that be different from policewomen dressing up as hookers, masquerading as hookers, and then arresting guys for soliciting prostitution?
I've been propositioned by femele cops masquerading as hookers. "Want to party?" the "hooker" says. "Sure," I say. They offer a price and I say I'm not looking for a hooker. Then the bitch pulls me over a week later and gives me a speeding ticket!
How could anybody ever be arrested for soliciting a prostitute without entrapment or stupidity on the John's part?
(BTW, the FBI isn't interested in prostitution. There is no federal law against prostitution, and in fact it's legal and regulated in the state of Nevada; the grandparent is obviously smoking something that IS a felony)
Look dude. If I'm selling an SNES game on ebay and then start emailing me pictures of your cock in order to secure your bid, I think I'm going to post that information on the net somewhere.
I agree completely and actually did something similar once. After my marriage ended I signed up for one of those dating sites (waste of money).
I contact one not bad looking, sweet sounding young thing who stated she liked older guys. She responded with attempted humiliation. I posted the whole sordid thing on one of my web sites, one that was fairly popular at the time and sent her the URL.
Should this be against the law, etc., is another matter altogether, but let's not forget there are perfectly innocent people having their privacy violated here, whether you believe the common man has a right to it or not.
Congress doesn't care about your privacy, the President doesn't care about your privacy, neither does AOL or Amazon.com, despite the fact that they have privacy policies.
If they don't care why should I? And lacking a published privacty policy why should you expect privacy? It has, after all, been a few years since the 20th century.
Now, if the guy had a stated privacy policy I'd agree with you, despite AOL and Amazon.
Some used their work accounts, provided their real names and gave out their cellphone numbers. One looks to be a contractor for Microsoft, while another used a.mil address to reply.
What a bunch of stupid jackasses! Work accounts? Cell numbers? And jesus but shouldn't a guy who works for Microsoft, even as a janitor, know better?
Fortuny seems not to realize or pretends not to realize that his prank may cost people their jobs and possibly, their marriages
Realise, or care? I wouldn't have cared; your work account is for work. Your work DOES post and even require you read their policies, don't they? You might as well say that someone's job was threatened because he informed the bosses that the employees were embezzling.
As to the married guys I have even LESS sympathy. They simply should not be cybersexing, period.
These morons got what they deserved. Especially the Microsoft guy.
Perhaps they should try mimick the human eye's optical nerve instead. For those billions of you out there who haven't paid attention during your lives, our optical nerve is also versatile in exposure
That's incorrect. The optic nerve only transmits the images to the brain. The human eye's retina is most likely better than film or CCD about this*, but it's your iris that adjusts the light entering your eye, just like a camera's f-stop.
The difference is that with your eye you only look at what you're focusing on, while a camera captures the entire field of view.
*the retina has "cones" for well lit places, and "rods" for when it's dark. However, the rods only discern light and dark and are completely color blind, monochromatic.
TFA (and another FA I linked earlier) is short on details, but what I suspect they're saying (or rather, not saying; at least not very well) is that essentially there are multiple lenses with each lens set at a different f-stop. Each image could than have parts too dark or light removed, and the resulting multiple pictures combined into one.
Note that this is only how I imagine the thing could work; I'm as ignorant as anybody here about WTF TFA is poorly trying to say. I'm not sure how a fly's eyes actually work, any entimologists (or at least someone who can spell the word correctly) here?
What type of programmer puts such possibilities or leaks in a program?
The same kind of programmer that comes up with "the registry" and such nonsense; the same kind of programmer that respects **AA members but not their own customers; the same kind of programmer that writes DRM; the same kind of programmer that comes up with such stupidity as active X (not to be confused with my former spouse, Evil-X); the same kind of programmer that lets buffers overflow.
...you should be extra careful when handling and altering files not your own.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, they ARE their own!
First, I don't say Linux isn't Open source, I say open source isn't linux. A horse is a four legged animal, but a four legged animal isn't a horse.
Red Hat competes with Microsoft, but Linux itself doesn't. Microsoft is a compamy, Red Hat is a company, Linux is not a company. Linux is an operating system written by volunteers. Linux isn't going away no matter what Microsoft does; it will only go away when people cease to have uses for it.
"Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will Win? Can the open source software movement defeat (or severely cripple) Microsoft in the marketplace?" asks TFA. What is meant by "win" here? Linux and Windows do not in any way compete with each other, except in Microsoft's eyes.
Never mind that either Harvard (unlikely) or TFA's authors don't know that Open Source != Linux.
Linux is what it is, and its many faceted horde of users use it in as many different ways as it has users.
TFA makes it look like Linux's reason for existance is to bankrupt Microsoft and as long as it doesn't, it loses. This is a stupid question asked by dumbass jock types. It doesn't matter to Linux if it is the 100th most used OS in existance, so long as people continue to use it, it wins. And as long as Microsoft stays solvent and sells its OS, it wins too.
I'm a nerd, I don't give a rat's ass how popular a thing is, I care about its price and performance, and suitibility to my intended purpose for it.
So tell me, other than plugging in and re-syncing your iPod, how exactly do you play the same song on iTunes on different PCs without it being "[downloaded] separately for each computer"?
Fools use iTunes. The rest of us buy CDs and rip them. Duh.
Lets see, I can wait three hours for the movie to download and pay ten bucks for it, I can drive to Walmart and buy the physical media for the same price (some movies only $5), or I can rent the DVD for $2.
I just bought some books from Amazon, very reasonably priced. Thuis isn't. I won't be using it, but there are a lot of stupid people with money or iTunes would have tanked immediately.
It seems businesspeople these days count on the stupidity of their customers.
First off, human evolution became stalled the moment we started making our environment adapt to us, instead of adapting to it.
No, we're still evolving the same way all species do - we procreate. We don't affect the environment nearly as much as we fool ourselves into thinking we do.
Our genes don't change to match the environment. Rather, if my gene and Becky's gene make a kid that is well suited to her* environment, she'll thrive. If she procreates before death, it starts agein - the kids who adapt to their environment thrive, the ones who don't die.
Think Cabrini Green in Chicago. There's a damned good reason poor women have lots of kids. See, that's how evolution works. Have kids, you evolve, don't and your line dies. That's independant if by "line" you mean "The Smiths" or "Bald Eagles".
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, semantics. Does an organization or program have to be completely open source to be called "open source"? Red Hat isn't all open source; their logo, for instance, isn't.
You're right, and noy just in Matthew. But that is assuming that the sorry fellow that did this would mind his own info out there.
But again, you are right.
Nobody is saying what this guy did was ok. What they're/I'm saying is that only an idiot would send private info to a stranger (who in this case is apparently also an idiot).
My name? Yeah, you can have that. Address? Sorry. Ten years ago yeah, but we have Google Earth now. Call phone? Are you crazy????
Makes about as much sense as walking up to someone on the street and shooting them in the back, then laughing and pointing at them for not being more careful because, you know, there are crazy people out there who will do bad things to you.
There are places where no sane person would dare walk after dark, especially wearing white skin.
There are also places where no sane person would hand out nudie pics of himself.
Caution: there are jerks on the internet!
I give everyone a default level of trust
You didn't grow up on that side of the tracks. Trust is like respect - it must be earned, or it's worthless. In the case of trust, misguided trust is dangerous, as the grandparent was trying to say.
No, no binding trust; just an assumed level of common decency and honesty
It must be nice to have never met an asshole. I assume you're a murderous, theiving asshole until you show me differently. But I haven't lived in the nicest neighborhoods all my life; in fact, the internet isn't a nice neighborhood. Once I get to know you and see you're NOT Charlie Manson I'll give you a measure of trust.
That's the problem with a purely textual medium; humour can be very hard to spot at times
Even in a spoken medium. A bad joke is a bad joke whether online or off, and funny is funny whether online or off. If your joke sucks you deserve to be taken seriously. When you make a joke you also have to consider your audience. A joke about Schrodinger on slashdot is funny, in People magazine it isn't. Fashion jokes aren't fashionable here though.
two wrongs don't make a right
No, but three lefts do.
You have no evidence that any of these people were married
Except that TFA says "Fortuny seems not to realize or pretends not to realize that his prank may cost people their jobs and possibly, their marriages". No, not proof, but we ARE discussing TFA, after all. It says right there.
And I don't know about yours, but my bible doesn't say "thou shalt not disclose personal information".
that doesn't excuse the guy who did this
What aboiut TFA's author, the guy who made it available on a site that is popular enough it can't be slashdotted? Before Wired posted the story few would have known about it.
Old, old quote from a magazine cartoon: "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog!"
How would that be different from policewomen dressing up as hookers, masquerading as hookers, and then arresting guys for soliciting prostitution?
I've been propositioned by femele cops masquerading as hookers. "Want to party?" the "hooker" says. "Sure," I say. They offer a price and I say I'm not looking for a hooker. Then the bitch pulls me over a week later and gives me a speeding ticket!
How could anybody ever be arrested for soliciting a prostitute without entrapment or stupidity on the John's part?
(BTW, the FBI isn't interested in prostitution. There is no federal law against prostitution, and in fact it's legal and regulated in the state of Nevada; the grandparent is obviously smoking something that IS a felony)
Look dude. If I'm selling an SNES game on ebay and then start emailing me pictures of your cock in order to secure your bid, I think I'm going to post that information on the net somewhere.
I agree completely and actually did something similar once. After my marriage ended I signed up for one of those dating sites (waste of money).
I contact one not bad looking, sweet sounding young thing who stated she liked older guys. She responded with attempted humiliation. I posted the whole sordid thing on one of my web sites, one that was fairly popular at the time and sent her the URL.
Revenge was sweet.
Should this be against the law, etc., is another matter altogether, but let's not forget there are perfectly innocent people having their privacy violated here, whether you believe the common man has a right to it or not.
Congress doesn't care about your privacy, the President doesn't care about your privacy, neither does AOL or Amazon.com, despite the fact that they have privacy policies.
If they don't care why should I? And lacking a published privacty policy why should you expect privacy? It has, after all, been a few years since the 20th century.
Now, if the guy had a stated privacy policy I'd agree with you, despite AOL and Amazon.
What a bunch of stupid jackasses! Work accounts? Cell numbers? And jesus but shouldn't a guy who works for Microsoft, even as a janitor, know better?
Realise, or care? I wouldn't have cared; your work account is for work. Your work DOES post and even require you read their policies, don't they? You might as well say that someone's job was threatened because he informed the bosses that the employees were embezzling.
As to the married guys I have even LESS sympathy. They simply should not be cybersexing, period.
These morons got what they deserved. Especially the Microsoft guy.
Perhaps they should try mimick the human eye's optical nerve instead. For those billions of you out there who haven't paid attention during your lives, our optical nerve is also versatile in exposure
That's incorrect. The optic nerve only transmits the images to the brain. The human eye's retina is most likely better than film or CCD about this*, but it's your iris that adjusts the light entering your eye, just like a camera's f-stop.
The difference is that with your eye you only look at what you're focusing on, while a camera captures the entire field of view.
*the retina has "cones" for well lit places, and "rods" for when it's dark. However, the rods only discern light and dark and are completely color blind, monochromatic.
TFA (and another FA I linked earlier) is short on details, but what I suspect they're saying (or rather, not saying; at least not very well) is that essentially there are multiple lenses with each lens set at a different f-stop. Each image could than have parts too dark or light removed, and the resulting multiple pictures combined into one.
Note that this is only how I imagine the thing could work; I'm as ignorant as anybody here about WTF TFA is poorly trying to say. I'm not sure how a fly's eyes actually work, any entimologists (or at least someone who can spell the word correctly) here?
A better FA can be found here. This article is sort of related, and interseting.
Well, if you're installing Windows patches on Linux or a Mac, you're screwed already...
Linux and OSX are Windows patches!
Like most slashdotters, I recommend RAID.
I prefer Black Flag myself.
The same kind of programmer that comes up with "the registry" and such nonsense; the same kind of programmer that respects **AA members but not their own customers; the same kind of programmer that writes DRM; the same kind of programmer that comes up with such stupidity as active X (not to be confused with my former spouse, Evil-X); the same kind of programmer that lets buffers overflow.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, they ARE their own!
Er, it's still uphill both ways isn't it?
First, I don't say Linux isn't Open source, I say open source isn't linux. A horse is a four legged animal, but a four legged animal isn't a horse.
Red Hat competes with Microsoft, but Linux itself doesn't. Microsoft is a compamy, Red Hat is a company, Linux is not a company. Linux is an operating system written by volunteers. Linux isn't going away no matter what Microsoft does; it will only go away when people cease to have uses for it.
That's a feature, not a bug!
"Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will Win? Can the open source software movement defeat (or severely cripple) Microsoft in the marketplace?" asks TFA. What is meant by "win" here? Linux and Windows do not in any way compete with each other, except in Microsoft's eyes.
Never mind that either Harvard (unlikely) or TFA's authors don't know that Open Source != Linux.
Linux is what it is, and its many faceted horde of users use it in as many different ways as it has users.
TFA makes it look like Linux's reason for existance is to bankrupt Microsoft and as long as it doesn't, it loses. This is a stupid question asked by dumbass jock types. It doesn't matter to Linux if it is the 100th most used OS in existance, so long as people continue to use it, it wins. And as long as Microsoft stays solvent and sells its OS, it wins too.
I'm a nerd, I don't give a rat's ass how popular a thing is, I care about its price and performance, and suitibility to my intended purpose for it.
Apples vs Oranges: who will win?
So tell me, other than plugging in and re-syncing your iPod, how exactly do you play the same song on iTunes on different PCs without it being "[downloaded] separately for each computer"?
Fools use iTunes. The rest of us buy CDs and rip them. Duh.
Lets see, I can wait three hours for the movie to download and pay ten bucks for it, I can drive to Walmart and buy the physical media for the same price (some movies only $5), or I can rent the DVD for $2.
I just bought some books from Amazon, very reasonably priced. Thuis isn't. I won't be using it, but there are a lot of stupid people with money or iTunes would have tanked immediately.
It seems businesspeople these days count on the stupidity of their customers.
First off, human evolution became stalled the moment we started making our environment adapt to us, instead of adapting to it.
No, we're still evolving the same way all species do - we procreate. We don't affect the environment nearly as much as we fool ourselves into thinking we do.
Our genes don't change to match the environment. Rather, if my gene and Becky's gene make a kid that is well suited to her* environment, she'll thrive. If she procreates before death, it starts agein - the kids who adapt to their environment thrive, the ones who don't die.
Think Cabrini Green in Chicago. There's a damned good reason poor women have lots of kids. See, that's how evolution works. Have kids, you evolve, don't and your line dies. That's independant if by "line" you mean "The Smiths" or "Bald Eagles".
* both my kids are girls. I evolved into them.