The current leaks are out. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Syncing around the world will do no good if the centralized source synced against keeps vanishing and eventually stays vanished.

My point is, that the current damage is done. Yanking WikiLeaks offline is about preventing further damage, and when it finally does go for good, people will be left with a stagnant, yesterday's news version. A million mirrors of previously disclosed documents wont help future leaks get distributed, while the people mirroring the current ones are literally just stepping into harms way.

It's not pie you want, it's Cheesecake. Trust me.

LibreOffice still depends on Java, which is also Oracle branded. OpenJDK doesn't release binaries, and Oracle still controls OpenJDK anyway. So Oracle seems pretty unavoidable right now.

I was awesome way before that. KEE KEE!

So many goody two-shoes following up on this... except none have you dimwits have been bright enough to suggest another way of actually getting these people to take threats seriously. Half assed wanna-be good samaritans, with no conviction to follow through. Go Slashdotter, go!

Maybe you should RTFA.

This guy took the non-dick approach. He got into their accounts and sent them messages from themselves saying how he did it and how to protect themselves. He even sent a followup after a while saying "I was serious". They still didn't care. I am saying, the warning should not be private/ignorable, after that.

If you want to call it bullying, so be it. But this is the equivalent of a bully saying "I am going to beat you up behind the school after class." and then you actually show up behind the school for him to do it. He may be the bully, but your still the idiot.

I didn't say they would be thankful. I said they would take personal security seriously. They either aren't bright enough or concerned enough to take a direct and courteous warning seriously. Most people DON'T take warnings seriously, until it bites them in the ass.

The problem being, people who really want to bite them in the ass aren't going to deface them. They are going to harvest information from them and use if for their own malicious ends. At worst, they can use the information to physically stalk, maybe even murder these people in real life.

I am saying pull some reversible mischief before someone does something serious. The only people who might lose their jobs over a hacked Facebook account would be those who work in tech security and should have know better. The odds of that are slim though.

What is it, if not "arrogance" that makes a person fail to take appropriate action for themselves? If someone tells you your shoe is untied, do you say thanks or just ignore them because tying your shoe is too much hassle unless you are tripping on it?

Honestly, the BEST thing you could have done for them would have been to deface their accounts, disclosing that they were warned in advance but "too stupid" to take the threat seriously. Embarrass them to no end, links to goatse content, sign them up for groups like NAMBLA, you name it. Then change their password so they can't just quickly log in and fix it.

Make examples of them, so the next time, and maybe for their friends witnessing it, having what and how spelled out publicly might make them take the threat seriously.

More like, I unfriended someone for their lack of taste in Cinema.

Another way to look at it, and a bigger piece of the picture, is that the person was generally clueless and obnoxious. Someone who tore apart anything intellectual and thoughtful purposely to bring the conversations down to their level. Instead of admitting that didn't understand something, or that they had the attention span of a gnat, they were harshly critical of anything not catering to their limited capacities.

It wasn't just movies, it was anything artistic or requiring thought. Don't dare discuss anything technical, political, or philosophical in their presence. No only were you unarguably wrong for unexplainable reasons, you were also an idiot for not agreeing with them.

Movies were just the one thing constantly being posted to Facebook that emphasized how judgmental, stupid and tasteless she was.

But hey, if you want to tolerate people who constantly insult and belittle your interests, thoughts, and ultimately feelings, feel free to surround yourself with them. I quietly cut this person off from my real life, and Facebook was the last arena in which I had contact with them.

I personally don't need "friends" like that.

I defriended someone for movie reviews. Not because they were filled with spoilers. Because they were awful. I take movies and film making very seriously (even the low/no budget films). I used to work around low budget films, I have friends that still do.

She would say stuff about how indy or arthouse films were hard to follow so she turned them off 10 minutes into them (or just avoided them), but in the next post would praise whatever summer blockbuster she saw that day. She actually said several of my favorite acclaimed films were stupid but then posted a raving review of how Transformers 2 was the best movie she ever saw.

I thought she wasn't serious at first, but after several of months of seeing it, I realized she was the reason Micheal Bay keeps getting to make more movies. I didn't want to be a witness to that.

I was there when iPod launched, listening to my MP3 player. The fact that I already had the technology rather nulls the "innovation" of creating it. The iPod made it easier and had more capacity you say? This would be "Shinola". They put a polish on a pre-existing idea. Same goes for the iPhone. Same goes for iPad. These are refinements of an idea, not the creation of a new one.

As for Napster... from a user perspective, it was just an app that allowed them to find the music they wanted. Underlying technology didn't matter. Legality did not matter. The methods are not central to the idea, which is delivering the content directly to the user. Apple made it legal, mainstream, and profitable. But it, again, did not create the idea.

I'm sorry, but this is garbage.

Summary: "Apple is awesome. Everyone else sucks."

What could have been a valid point gets derailed by blatant fanboi blinders. Apple is NOT an innovative company either. It's an innovative spin doctor. They are good at convincing people they must have a trimmed down, stylized, and monetized versions of established technologies. iPod? MP3 players. iPhone? Smartphones. iPad? Tablets. iTunes? Napster.

Further, Apple is just as into buying up established tech and upstarts to inject life into its glossy image as everyone else (SoundJam MP). It even buys open source projects when parts it requires are at risk of being GPLv3'ed (CUPS). Hell, if it were not for FreeBSD's license terms, there probably wouldn't even be a OS X or iOS at all.

Putting Shinola on things is a far cry from being innovative.

I think you missed where he said you BS is BS. This is just more of your BS.

MrNaz's points have yet to be refuted here. Ink is cheaper than CPUS to make, period. I've worked in injection molding, I know the overhead is in getting it set up. Once it is set up, it's cheap to maintain. Pennies per item. But overall, hundreds of thousands to a couple of million dollars depending on scale.

Wafers cost pennies too? Per chip, sure. No surprise there. But the setup is even more expensive, and far more R&D went into them. They also sell less volume than printer ink, and the raw materials are more expensive too. But yeah, when you look at the chip alone, it's mere pennies. The setup alone runs into the hundreds of millions, and the R&D into the billions.

The fact that you would even make this comparison is one of the most amusing arguments I have seen in a while.

How about while MrNaz is making his printer, you can make a CPU and tell everyone how well that went. (Hint: He will finish his decades before you do) Deal?

We really must take action now. Lets go ahead and take a vote to suspend democracy.

You know, THAT issue has been solved for a long time. Base 10 is lowercase, base 2 is uppercase. Likewise, little b means bit while big B means Byte (8-bits). All Ubuntu is doing is turning the mud in the water into raw sewage.

It is far easier to teach that there is a difference in base 2 and base 10 numbers and that computers are using base 2 in size calculations because they can only count to 1. The underbelly of the computer beast isn't counting any different, only Ubuntu's presentation to the user is being affected. This is superfluous math for the application at the least, and just adding more confusion for the user at most.

A byte is still 8 bits. This means that an Ubuntu kilobyte is really 8000 bits, not 10000! It will still take up 8192 bits on the disk at minimum though. Now, when people see their files are 1kB, they will still be loosing 1KiB of disk space. And their 80GB disk will still only have have about 74.5GiB available to them...

Who thinks there will be a japanophile edition that renames kibibyte to chibibyte?

The problem with ZFS root is that you need ZFS support in the boot loader, which cannot be hooked in by default for license reasons (loader is BSD, ZFS code is CDDL, all non-BSD stuff must be enabled by the user after 1st boot), but a few months back FreeBSD implemented a separate ZFS enabled boot loader for -CURRENT. All they lacked at last check was sysinstall hooks for doing it all. Maybe you should file a PR asking for zfsboot to be backported to 8-STABLE in FreeBSD so that PC-BSD can have it in 8.1 as well.