Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: marking category cannot be used properly (Score 2) 278

The word troll is a pointless word which is misused by people who mainly want to villify those who disagree with them, and excuse for people who do not want anyone else to be able to express opinions except for the ones they approve, to censor anyone elses opinions they do not like. Thus, the marking in almost all cases is abused and has no real purpose except for censorship. Obviously, since a message board should be a place for discussion and expressing of differing views and opinions, such is contrary to the purpose of message boards to begin with, to express ones views and to debate subjects.

The fact is, expressing a view someone else disagree with is not something we should censor, and the tr*** accusation is just an excuse for censorship. As long as the poster honestly believes in what they are posting, its not a tro**, their are posting their view to express their position for the sake of the issue itself, rather than to annoy anyone. Maybe, a tr*** might be someone who posts things they do not agree with for the sole purpose to annoy. However, since it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not someone posting a message honestly believes in what they say, it is impossible to determine if a message is a tr***, or not. it is also impossible to know if someone is posting a view just because they are interested in a subject and have a view on it, rather than trying to annoy anyone.

The fact is, if someone is annoyed by something, the person responsible for being annoyed is the person who is annoyed, its all in the eye of the beholder, some people will agree with something and others will disagree, you have to allow for a difference of opinions and views. It is always the case that someone will disagree with someone else says, it does not mean that the message was posted with the sole intent to annoy, but the reader of a message may still misconstrue or assume that even though it is impossible for them to truly know that. It is okay and important for people to be able to post messages they know will annoy others, because, anything can annoy anyone, its impossible to post a view or position on anything if one has to fear annoying someone.

The tr*** thing could only apply to messages written with the sole intent to annoy, But as I said, its impossible for anyone to know if that was the sole intent, to be the sole intent, the person would have to not honestly believe in what they say, otherwise they are posting because they believe in what they say and think that its important.

That is why the marking on a message cannot be used legitimately and fairly, there is impossible for anyone to know if a message is a tr8**. Thats why, we should remove the marking from messaging and bullitin board systems. As I said before, in 100% of cases the marking is abused, it cannot be used in any proper, fair way, because it is a fundamentally flawed feature.

It would be best policy on these matters is that bullitin boards should have a rule against computer generated and mass posted advertising, but thats about it.

Comment: Mono practically useless (Score 4, Interesting) 223

by Eravnrekaree (#49409629) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

After looking at Mono I failed to see the point in the whole thing. Thats because it does not support the WPF. Since a large number of .NET applications are GUI, not having WPF pretty much destroys the value of Mono in allowing Windows .NET programs to run on Linux. Otherwise, there is no point in using Mono. If you have a .NET program written using WPF its not going to run on Mono. If you are writing a new program there is no reason to use Mono instead of another application language such as Ruby. Using a development environment designed by the Evil Empire does not hold special appeal over the FOSS plartforms such as Ruby. If one has to write a program that can run on both Windows and Linux i would probably be better to use Ruby or Python or such.

Why didnt Microsoft Open source the WPF. Instead, they open sourced the parts of .NET that Mono already had implementations of.

Comment: Wrong. (Score 1) 397

by Eravnrekaree (#49380041) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous

He's wrong. Its not that people shouldnt take an interest in humanities, they should. But the engineering student does not need to take thousands of dollars on expensive college courses to do it. You dont need to go to a college to read some books, watch some videos and so on that would give you every bit of information as a college course.

With the rising cost of college, we have to reduce the cost of it and make sure every dollar we are REQUIRED to spend on college is on the job critical information. There are other ways for people to get access to humanities as I mentioned, college is not the only source of this and it does not revolve around colleges.

Comment: Re:Was SCO really that bad? (Score -1, Troll) 170

by Eravnrekaree (#49283255) Attached to: Not Quite Dead: SCO Linux Suit Against IBM Stirs In Utah

That is an outrageous comment. Most everyday users who would be the type that would need to move to Linux for it to actually gain real growth against Windows don't even know what systemd is. Most of the squabbling over it comes from Linux insiders, who if they wanted to could simply tailor Debian to use their own init system, so if they dont like systemd, why dont they just put in their own init program after they install debian?. As far as I know, there is no reason why the distribution should not allow the user to select another init system, other than the default systemd. You could also configure systemd to start up your own init scripts and programs and start your programs from those scripts.

Furthermore most of the squabbling over systemd seems to be about the fact that some people do not like that systemd gives you more control and flexibility over the startup process. It seems as this group is opposed to anything that would extend or improve upon Linux's mechanisms that would allow for more options and control. They are opposed to being able to start a program on the NIC coming online, if that is what you need to do. systemd does not take away any functionality, it fully supports the full SysV init system, so its not as if systemd is taking away your ability to set up your init system like you always have. All of the functionality it adds is in addition to the existing functionality of previous init systems. What this means is that those who oppose systemd are only about taking away choice, control and flexibility from other users, they do not want other users to be able to utilize certain features. So these people basically want to keep Linux difficult to use, unconfigurable and inflexible. In fact, those who suffer and lose the most from the attacks on systemd are techie types who can most benefit from the kinds of control and customizability that systemd can provide in initialization and system control. I believe that many of those who oppose systemd are in fact agents of Microsoft trying to undermine Linux and attack anything that could actually make it better.

Comment: Re:Slashdot Overrun by Luddite Barbarians (Score 3, Interesting) 163

by Eravnrekaree (#49271853) Attached to: "Hello Barbie" Listens To Children Via Cloud

One of the concerns is that what the child says will be recorded and mined for nefarious purposes, such as using it to profile them. Another concerning thing is the concern that it could be used to manipulate them psychologically in various ways. Parents have no way of knowing what this damn thing could blurt out to their children next. Its not impossible that this thing could allow the cloud to get inside the childs head and use responses to cause psychological responses. Unlike the interaction with the child with one of their real, living peers, what is behind this doll is a massive corporation with huge analytical capabilities and the potential for an ulterior motive to try to get inside and and manipulate the users of this doll. Children are more vulnerable than adults due to the fact they are still in a period of rapid development and learning.

Comment: Re:I have two problems with this article. (Score 1) 287

by Eravnrekaree (#49247511) Attached to: NTP's Fate Hinges On "Father Time"

The purpose of NTP is to accurately set the clock. There can be many reasons for this, not just network protocols that may depend on it. It may be that some people just like having the computer clock set with close to atomic clock accuracy. It is true that network protocols should be more resiliant to unsynchoronized clocks at either end, but this does NOT negate the need for NTP, since many use it to keep the computer clock accurate to have an accurate clock and not have to constantly readjust it, for their own personal use for timekeeping, setting their watch, accuracy in timed events and so on.

Comment: Re:Have we handed the government control over it? (Score 2) 347

by Eravnrekaree (#49244157) Attached to: FCC Posts Its 400-Page Net Neutrality Order

Actually, not quite. Most areas at best have 2 options for high speed internet. Usually, both are bad. Its almost impossible for other companies to enter the market to provide a real competitive atmosphere by doing it better than the existing providers. So you have no real competition. This is mainly why broadband services are a natural multiopoly, the huge capital investments needed pretty much lock it up for 1 to 2 companies, any more than that and it becomes unprofitable due to the huge cost of running lines. This means that the market basically does not function effectively in this market and regulation is well justified to provide protection for the consumer. Its very similar to your water service, it wouldnt be feasible or practical for 20 different water companies to run their own pipes up and down their streets.

Comment: Re:People are correctly annoyed by this (Score 1) 338

by Eravnrekaree (#49211059) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

Removng TSYNC support would be incredibly stupid. You have no idea what your talking about. The feature is there to sandbox the browser. Given the history of security problems in nearly all C software programs, this is of critical importance. TSYNC can also be used by all other network programs in the system as well, so this is not chrome specific. Firefox needs to use this feature badly. Just backport the feature to older kernels. This is what Debian is refusing to do because they are a bunch of stubborn fools. Debian basically wants to keep their users unnecessarily in a less secure state because they dont like Google.

Comment: Re:People are correctly annoyed by this (Score 1) 338

by Eravnrekaree (#49210961) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

The feature added on the kernel side is not particularly for Chrome, it can be used by other networked applications, in fact, such use would be highly advisable. Firefox needs to use this itself, and can. Its a sandbox feature for protecting the system from a compromised process. Its debian that refused to apply the patch for older kernels. The feature should be considered a security patch as the situation with browsers, not just the browser but some plugins some users use such as Flash, has become serious enough that having a sandbox nowadays is a critical extra layer of security. You basically shouldnt be running a browser without the sandbox anyway. So backport the sandbox to older kernels and be done with it.

Comment: Re: People are correctly annoyed by this (Score 2) 338

by Eravnrekaree (#49210933) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

Its not bloatware. The feature is something that can be widely used by any networked program, it provides a security layer. Given the problems browsers have faced with security issues, its a badly needed extra layer of security. You are basically saying that protecting the system from an compromised process is bloatware. Thats nonsense. If anything, Firefox needs to play catch up to implement the sandbox.

Comment: Re:People are correctly annoyed by this (Score 2) 338

by Eravnrekaree (#49210909) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

The feature added is something that is generally useful for a large number of network applications, not just Chrome. Its a sandbox feature that other programs and servers could benefit from, not just Chrome. Given the dangers of the web browser today, you basically shouldnt be running a browser without a sandbox, the security imperative is certainly justified enough for a backporting of the feature to older kernels to add the additional security.

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten