I think it could help if we actually agreed on some of the topics.:)
There have been many times when, on a lark, I've posted completely contradictory comments, only to have both modded up as "insightful" and both having numerous replies (sometimes from the same people) telling me how much they agree.
For every Microsoft basher, there's a Microsoft fan.
For every "Free Dmitri" user, there's one who thinks that he ought to be in jail.
For every anti-capitalist, there's a capitalist.
I don't know that it's necessary a good idea to start hiring lawyers to represent a mob of people who all disagree with each other.
On the other hand, maybe that's the best thing we could do.
This is something that some postmodernist thinkers saw coming a long time ago. It has to do with the continual separation from reality.
"Reality" in financial terms is a 1:1 trade of value. X number of pigs for Y pounds of grain, for example. Barter.
Barter became unwieldy, so there came to be used "valuable" pieces of metal that represented the value of physical objects.
Then valuable metal became scarce, so we came to use pieces of paper that represented metal stored in a fort somewhere.
After a while, the paper was valuable just for the idea, and there was no longer a need to back it with gold.
Then, because the pieces of paper were unwieldy, we came to create bank accounts where we could write one piece of paper (a check) to represent several of the formerly gold-backed pieces of paper.
Then people got tired of carrying around pieces of paper, so they replaced it with single pieces of plastic that could be used multiple times.
But pieces of plastic had to be used in person, so when people wanted to buy something from Amazon.com, all they needed to use was the number.
Our entire financial lives can be reduced to a meaningless string of numbers. That's a far cry from bringing your pigs or cheese or grains or whatever to the market.
Part of the problem in all of this is that changing to a "subscription" service is a brilliant financial decision, and Microsoft isn't going to give up their tactics without a fight.
People have been complaining about Microsoft for the past fifteen years or so. Unfortunately, Microsoft products have been of a reasonably good quality, and people like them, so pirating their software has gone on for just about that long as well.
Piracy means that not only the original owner gets to use it, but also a few of his friends. Microsoft may think that's a bad thing, but all it has done is secure their place as *the* operating system, the office suite, the web server, etc., because so many people use it, even if they're not all paying customers. MS would not have its current market share if it were not for piracy.
With these new tactics to extract money from citizens, the only thing they're going to accomplish is that Microsoft will no longer be in the hands of Joe Sixpack, who will then contemplate Linux, BSD, AtheOS, BeOS, or other operating systems that cost less than a few limbs.
In addition, the percentage of the workforce with Microsoft experience will decline; It's easy enough to learn ASP or whatever when you can install it at home, but not so easy when you can't touch it.
They're shooting themselves in the foot, and that's probably a good thing.
that the only option is a massive Desert Storm type of invasion? What I hear military people talking about is using special ops people for small targeted operations. At most we would have a division, the 82nd probably, sieze a small easily secured area to use as, in effect, a large firebase. Or possibly use the Northern Alliance areas. Anyone who thinks we are going to try and conquer Afghanistan is an idiot.
A single plane carrying a single bomb could easily accomplish that all the Soviet footsoldiers failed to do. I doubt that we'll use that, since there'd be so much collateral damage, but the difference between this and Kuwait is that in Kuwait we were trying to be polite. Now we're just pissed off.
Having removed them, we would then sponsor a UN-run temporary government in the nation.
Drat. I was hoping we'd just turn it into a state.
Indeed, reports abound that within the administration there is a battle going on. The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice camp wants a full-scale, no holds bar invasion of Afghanistan -AND- Iraq. The Powell camp wants to take a one-bite-at-a-time approach to the whole thing.
I couldn't call that a battle, I'd call it a debate. Every side needs an advocate. If people aren't complaining about the Bush administration being mindless zombies, they're complaining about them all disagreeing.
A report in TIME 2 weeks ago...
A lot has changed since that report came out.
Bush has stacked his cabinet with SCARY FUCKERS, hard-liners who are hell bent on national isolation and missile defense.
Good. Personally I'd rather have guys like that trying to protect me than a bunch of politically correct liberals.
Remember when businesses tried to *please* their customers?
Remember when businesses found out that ripping customers off was more profitable?
The blames lies at least partially with us, for acting like cattle and continuing to support these things. We still buy Nikes, we still use Microsoft, and (some of us, I would imagine) still listen to Michael Jackson.
The latest research has discovered that in addition to being uncopyable, Michael Jackson's new CD is also unlistenable. Purchases report little more than high-pitch squeaks, scratches, murmurs and the occasional "hoo!".
Since when is "Free Speech" defined as "what you can publish with Front Page." Microsoft is not violating anyone's right to free speech; They're simply saying for what purpose their products can be used. Every corporation has the right to limit how useful their product is, if they so desire; Just means less business for them.
When will people get it through their thick skulls that just because they can't do XYZ on AOL, or Microsoft, or whatever, that it doesn't mean that the company is violating their right to freedom of speech. Just because you sent your manifesto to Newsweek and they didn't print it, don't go around acting like a damn martyr.
I heard it stated very concisely on the radio yesterday. Someone said, "We must not only protect American citizens, but the idea of America itself."
The ideal of "freedom and justice for all" is more important than any number of American lives. That's what turned me around on the civil liberties debate; I got tired of hearing all the people whining about invasion of privacy, etc., but when it comes down to it, the ideals of this nation are what made it great, even if it meant a lack of security in some areas, as well as loss of life.
This is a great country. It's worth our blood to keep it that way.
Get some information, moron. "Jihad" only means "Holy War" in the American media.
The word really refers to personal struggles, or an effort put forth toward a valid cause. It has nothing to do with "Let's kill all the white capitalist pigs!"
Re:About time they invented a new kind of war!
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 2
My vote is still for putting world leaders into Thunderdome.
For years, especially since the advent of the internet, we've been proclaiming a world without borders. Now it seems that we're seeing the downside of that notion: An enemy without borders.
Technology has brought us to a point where communication can be relatively clear and simple over great distances. It's no longer necessary for communities to share a physical location (Slashdot is a great example of this.)
This has also allowed the formation of armies without a single physical location. Its troops are scattered around the globe, making it difficult for the United States to simply "invade."
War is a classical pursuit, and its concepts are rooted in histoic notions of borders and terrain. We don't yet know how to attack an army made up of citizens of our own country, living in our own neighborhoods.
This is not to blame the Internet for what happened. The internet had nothing to do with it. However, access to technology gives everyone the freedom to communicate -- everyone
It looks like we may be getting hit in a shotgun approach
The thing is, the shotgun approach *always* works when it comes to Microsoft systems. They're so swisscheesy that skr1pt k1dd13z don't even have to work to write code for them, they just shotgun it and know that they'll get into a good percentage of the ones attacked, then they rinse and repeat.
It appears to be attempting to find rooter servers, for what purpose I can only imagine.
Propagation of the species?
It's interesting how worms, viruses, etc., take after biological tendencies, and almost have to be treated the same way to get rid of them: Quarantine, vaccination, precautionary measures, etc.
Sometime last week, I suggested voluntary biometrics as must one small measure to help facilitate idendification of the average joe. The thought is that as we are routed to more automated inspections, enforcement officers are freed up to perform more thorough human inspections. I've seen facial recognition and other technologies suggested as well.
Oh, I see. Having someone read my e-mail is a violation of my civil liberties, but it's okay to have machines around the world memorize and store my FREAKIN' FACE?
Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties?
They're not. As a matter of fact, the government has been remarkably reserved, all things considered. I applaud them for their efforts to balance protection of civil liberties with an obvious and immediate need to protect a nationful of knee-jerk reactionaries complaining that the government isn't doing enough to protect us.
Whatever the government does, they're going to piss people off. That much is a given. If they protect civil liberties at the expense of physical security, or vice versa, people will slam them for being either ineffectual or tyrannical.
As we all know, a bill has been proposed that would require back doors in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book.
I agree, to a certain extent. How do we know where to draw the line? Is looking through the window of a known terrorist's apartment a violation of that person's civil rights? Probably, but it's part of the dirty work involved in protecting a country's population.
I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, and I'm willing to give up some liberties for security, but the way this whole thing has been blamed on the internet is completely ridiculous.
It hasn't all been blamed on the internet. That's just one particular group of wackos trying to take advantage of the situation to run some legislation through. Ask Pat Robertson: He says it's because of feminists, abortionists, homosexuals and the ACLU. Everyone's got a theory.
I understand the need to be vigilant, but while we're doing it, we could at least give the government a tiny bit of applause for not taking advantage of the situation to get their Stalin on.
On an interesting note, there's an article up at my site called "Remember Qaddafi?" (link in my sig) that shows that the now-forgotten leader of Libya has, despite all the American antagonism in the past, given some remarkable comments. Well worth reading.
I posted this comment before, but I was modded as a troll so I'll try again.
The United States government has so far shown a great deal of restraint, considering the situation. Whenever issues such as airport security, surveillance, search warrants, etc., have come up on the countless interviews with government officials lately, in almost each instance they have willingly brought up the delicate balance between protecting the nation's sense of security and protecting their sense of privacy.
The United States hasn't jumped the gun, and we should be careful not to either. So far all I've seen on sites like Slashdot is rambling about how the tyrannical U.S. government is trying to strip us of our rights. It's good that we're being vigilant (that's one of the requirements of a good citizenry), but we must take care not to make quick judgements based on preconceived notions.
It is absolutely logical that the United States would be looking into increased security measures. We are going to war (which should be so clear by this point that I hope I don't need to justify that statement), and it is necessary for our own well being that some kind of security measures be put in place.
I'm suprised at how well the government has been handling this, and I hope that, somewhere among all our vigilance and criticism, we can secretly give them a hand for actually taking pretty good care of our personal freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been many times when, on a lark, I've posted completely contradictory comments, only to have both modded up as "insightful" and both having numerous replies (sometimes from the same people) telling me how much they agree.
For every Microsoft basher, there's a Microsoft fan.
For every "Free Dmitri" user, there's one who thinks that he ought to be in jail.
For every anti-capitalist, there's a capitalist.
I don't know that it's necessary a good idea to start hiring lawyers to represent a mob of people who all disagree with each other.
On the other hand, maybe that's the best thing we could do.
"Reality" in financial terms is a 1:1 trade of value. X number of pigs for Y pounds of grain, for example. Barter.
Barter became unwieldy, so there came to be used "valuable" pieces of metal that represented the value of physical objects.
Then valuable metal became scarce, so we came to use pieces of paper that represented metal stored in a fort somewhere.
After a while, the paper was valuable just for the idea, and there was no longer a need to back it with gold.
Then, because the pieces of paper were unwieldy, we came to create bank accounts where we could write one piece of paper (a check) to represent several of the formerly gold-backed pieces of paper.
Then people got tired of carrying around pieces of paper, so they replaced it with single pieces of plastic that could be used multiple times.
But pieces of plastic had to be used in person, so when people wanted to buy something from Amazon.com, all they needed to use was the number.
Our entire financial lives can be reduced to a meaningless string of numbers. That's a far cry from bringing your pigs or cheese or grains or whatever to the market.
People have been complaining about Microsoft for the past fifteen years or so. Unfortunately, Microsoft products have been of a reasonably good quality, and people like them, so pirating their software has gone on for just about that long as well.
Piracy means that not only the original owner gets to use it, but also a few of his friends. Microsoft may think that's a bad thing, but all it has done is secure their place as *the* operating system, the office suite, the web server, etc., because so many people use it, even if they're not all paying customers. MS would not have its current market share if it were not for piracy.
With these new tactics to extract money from citizens, the only thing they're going to accomplish is that Microsoft will no longer be in the hands of Joe Sixpack, who will then contemplate Linux, BSD, AtheOS, BeOS, or other operating systems that cost less than a few limbs.
In addition, the percentage of the workforce with Microsoft experience will decline; It's easy enough to learn ASP or whatever when you can install it at home, but not so easy when you can't touch it.
They're shooting themselves in the foot, and that's probably a good thing.
A single plane carrying a single bomb could easily accomplish that all the Soviet footsoldiers failed to do. I doubt that we'll use that, since there'd be so much collateral damage, but the difference between this and Kuwait is that in Kuwait we were trying to be polite. Now we're just pissed off.
Drat. I was hoping we'd just turn it into a state.
Indeed, reports abound that within the administration there is a battle going on. The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice camp wants a full-scale, no holds bar invasion of Afghanistan -AND- Iraq. The Powell camp wants to take a one-bite-at-a-time approach to the whole thing.
I couldn't call that a battle, I'd call it a debate. Every side needs an advocate. If people aren't complaining about the Bush administration being mindless zombies, they're complaining about them all disagreeing.
A report in TIME 2 weeks ago...
A lot has changed since that report came out.
Bush has stacked his cabinet with SCARY FUCKERS, hard-liners who are hell bent on national isolation and missile defense.
Good. Personally I'd rather have guys like that trying to protect me than a bunch of politically correct liberals.
That's funny, I lump NIN into the same "preteen rubbish" category that Michael Jackson goes into.
Listen to some real music someday.
Uh-oh. Someone probably read this and is going to get a raise for bringing it to his boss at the record company this morning.
Remember when businesses found out that ripping customers off was more profitable?
The blames lies at least partially with us, for acting like cattle and continuing to support these things. We still buy Nikes, we still use Microsoft, and (some of us, I would imagine) still listen to Michael Jackson.
The latest research has discovered that in addition to being uncopyable, Michael Jackson's new CD is also unlistenable. Purchases report little more than high-pitch squeaks, scratches, murmurs and the occasional "hoo!".
*tap*
*knee jerk*
*tap*
*knee jerk*
Since when is "Free Speech" defined as "what you can publish with Front Page." Microsoft is not violating anyone's right to free speech; They're simply saying for what purpose their products can be used. Every corporation has the right to limit how useful their product is, if they so desire; Just means less business for them.
When will people get it through their thick skulls that just because they can't do XYZ on AOL, or Microsoft, or whatever, that it doesn't mean that the company is violating their right to freedom of speech. Just because you sent your manifesto to Newsweek and they didn't print it, don't go around acting like a damn martyr.
The ideal of "freedom and justice for all" is more important than any number of American lives. That's what turned me around on the civil liberties debate; I got tired of hearing all the people whining about invasion of privacy, etc., but when it comes down to it, the ideals of this nation are what made it great, even if it meant a lack of security in some areas, as well as loss of life.
This is a great country. It's worth our blood to keep it that way.
Somehow I don't think that "evil capitalists" like us could improve their image with terrorists by throwing money at them.
The word really refers to personal struggles, or an effort put forth toward a valid cause. It has nothing to do with "Let's kill all the white capitalist pigs!"
My vote is still for putting world leaders into Thunderdome.
Technology has brought us to a point where communication can be relatively clear and simple over great distances. It's no longer necessary for communities to share a physical location (Slashdot is a great example of this.)
This has also allowed the formation of armies without a single physical location. Its troops are scattered around the globe, making it difficult for the United States to simply "invade."
War is a classical pursuit, and its concepts are rooted in histoic notions of borders and terrain. We don't yet know how to attack an army made up of citizens of our own country, living in our own neighborhoods.
This is not to blame the Internet for what happened. The internet had nothing to do with it. However, access to technology gives everyone the freedom to communicate -- everyone
The thing is, the shotgun approach *always* works when it comes to Microsoft systems. They're so swisscheesy that skr1pt k1dd13z don't even have to work to write code for them, they just shotgun it and know that they'll get into a good percentage of the ones attacked, then they rinse and repeat.
Propagation of the species?
It's interesting how worms, viruses, etc., take after biological tendencies, and almost have to be treated the same way to get rid of them: Quarantine, vaccination, precautionary measures, etc.
It's a shame there are no drugs for this one yet.
"Horribly affected"? Sounds like Stileproject!
That's just funny.
Trading liberty for safety will get you neither.
Trading saftely for liberty will also get you neither.
Oh, I see. Having someone read my e-mail is a violation of my civil liberties, but it's okay to have machines around the world memorize and store my FREAKIN' FACE?
Never sign a petition that wouldn't make it through a Slashdot lameness filter.
That's the most idiotic thing I've seen on here since this whole incident happened.
Congressman: We need more security. We're vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Someone else: Whatever.
Congressman: We need more security. We're vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Someone else: Whatever.
Congressman: We need more security. We're vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Someone else: Whatever.
[Insert catastrophic terrorist attack that does billions of dollars in damage and kills thousands of innocent people.]
Congressman: We need more security. We're vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Someone else: You'll exploit any tragedy, sacrifice any human life and trample the rights of any citizen to pursue your own political agendas!
Yeesh.
They're not. As a matter of fact, the government has been remarkably reserved, all things considered. I applaud them for their efforts to balance protection of civil liberties with an obvious and immediate need to protect a nationful of knee-jerk reactionaries complaining that the government isn't doing enough to protect us.
Whatever the government does, they're going to piss people off. That much is a given. If they protect civil liberties at the expense of physical security, or vice versa, people will slam them for being either ineffectual or tyrannical. As we all know, a bill has been proposed that would require back doors in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book.
I agree, to a certain extent. How do we know where to draw the line? Is looking through the window of a known terrorist's apartment a violation of that person's civil rights? Probably, but it's part of the dirty work involved in protecting a country's population. I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, and I'm willing to give up some liberties for security, but the way this whole thing has been blamed on the internet is completely ridiculous.
It hasn't all been blamed on the internet. That's just one particular group of wackos trying to take advantage of the situation to run some legislation through. Ask Pat Robertson: He says it's because of feminists, abortionists, homosexuals and the ACLU. Everyone's got a theory.
I understand the need to be vigilant, but while we're doing it, we could at least give the government a tiny bit of applause for not taking advantage of the situation to get their Stalin on.
On an interesting note, there's an article up at my site called "Remember Qaddafi?" (link in my sig) that shows that the now-forgotten leader of Libya has, despite all the American antagonism in the past, given some remarkable comments. Well worth reading.
The United States government has so far shown a great deal of restraint, considering the situation. Whenever issues such as airport security, surveillance, search warrants, etc., have come up on the countless interviews with government officials lately, in almost each instance they have willingly brought up the delicate balance between protecting the nation's sense of security and protecting their sense of privacy.
The United States hasn't jumped the gun, and we should be careful not to either. So far all I've seen on sites like Slashdot is rambling about how the tyrannical U.S. government is trying to strip us of our rights. It's good that we're being vigilant (that's one of the requirements of a good citizenry), but we must take care not to make quick judgements based on preconceived notions.
It is absolutely logical that the United States would be looking into increased security measures. We are going to war (which should be so clear by this point that I hope I don't need to justify that statement), and it is necessary for our own well being that some kind of security measures be put in place.
I'm suprised at how well the government has been handling this, and I hope that, somewhere among all our vigilance and criticism, we can secretly give them a hand for actually taking pretty good care of our personal freedoms.