I'm not saying it's useless, or even that it's not sufficient for most ordinary users. Just pointing out that the parent to my post was incorrect in assuming all routers and gateways act as a hardware firewall out of the box.
mapquest can give me directions to a drug dealers house. Sure, mapquest doesn't necessarily know that it's a drug dealers house, but neither does TBP necessarily know (or want to know) which torrents house copyrighted materials and which don't. It's the user's responsibility to know if what they're doing is legal or not according to their laws.
He did say "at the time" and if you look at that first link, it's in 6-7th place in the 2002-2003 era. Top 5 for a few months stint during that range isn't out of the realm of possibilities.
It's hilarious that they insist on screening the pilots. They might be carrying a knife that they could use to hijack the plane from themselves and force themselves to fly... recursion error....
It was (somewhat) a joke, but honestly your friends already have access to the conversations on your wall. They're effectively public for your anyone on your friends list. All this does is compile them by participants.
This is just fear mongering. It's the equivalent to an article like, "People you trust to let into your house may be able to compile a list of your valuables to use maliciously!!!" If you have any meth addict/kleptomaniac friends, you don't let them into your house. If you have any creepy/gossipy friends you don't want to see your facebook stuff, don't add them on facebook.
Maybe I'm missing something here. What is this for? Nano-machines? Nano listening devices? Nano-trackers? Now that seems like the really interesting question....
That's the thing. These are the proverbial horse that's going to pull the cart. We're not sure what these are going to power, but the power source has to be available before those things can be developed. Sure you can design devices without a known power source, but you can't hook a prototype nano-medical bot up to a 12V with jumper cables for proof of concept purposes.
I agree. If Linux ever makes a serious push into the desktop market I believe it will be on the back of a company that's pushing it there, and I imagine it won't be exactly what we think of as "Linux" today.
When you look at things like netbooks, who's to say the desktop of tomorrow is going to resemble the desktop of today at all? Linux may never be right for today's desktops, but tomorrow's desktops may be right for Linux.
The tech industry changes too much and too fast for there to be a fat lady singing for Linux (or anything else) on the desktop.
10 years ago before the iPod was released if someone had told me that Apple would have a wildly popular music device, a huge share of the smart phone market, a respectable piece of the desktop market and unbelievable sway over industry direction I'd have been hard pressed to say I thought it would happen. At the time they were fairly niche to graphic work for the most part, similar to how Linux is currently doing it's best in the server niche.
"2010 is the year of the Linux desktop!!" isn't realistic, but neither is "Linux on the desktop is dead!!"
Exactly. You don't convince them. The software should convince them. Go through the pros and cons of each (features, cost, support, interoperability, scalability) and let them decide.
After that, IF the OSS product is superior and they're scared of the OSS boogieman enough to go with an inferior product after you've clearly outlined everything, you probably aren't going to be able to change their mind.
All of the things you've described have 2 things that make them very different from using unsecured wireless:
All of those things you've described require someone to trespass on your properly to get access to. Wireless could be available from as far away as across the street or in a completely different building.
It's very easy to secure a wireless network, whereas securing those physical things would be rather awkward.
There's no easy way to know if the network is public, or someone's private unsecured network. Sometimes it's obvious, but often it isn't.
Last year when I went to Myrtle Beach for a vacation, the beach had public wifi set up for anyone to use. There were also some private wifi from the nearby condos that were unsecured. If I hadn't been told about the public wifi on the beach by the condo company I rented from, I wouldn't have known which was which. The SIDs weren't named to be obviously private or public.)
Slashdot Mirror
So we can push button, receive bacon?
I'm not saying it's useless, or even that it's not sufficient for most ordinary users. Just pointing out that the parent to my post was incorrect in assuming all routers and gateways act as a hardware firewall out of the box.
NAT != firewall. Most routers I've set up don't have the firewall running properly out of the box.
mapquest can give me directions to a drug dealers house. Sure, mapquest doesn't necessarily know that it's a drug dealers house, but neither does TBP necessarily know (or want to know) which torrents house copyrighted materials and which don't. It's the user's responsibility to know if what they're doing is legal or not according to their laws.
He did say "at the time" and if you look at that first link, it's in 6-7th place in the 2002-2003 era. Top 5 for a few months stint during that range isn't out of the realm of possibilities.
It's hilarious that they insist on screening the pilots. They might be carrying a knife that they could use to hijack the plane from themselves and force themselves to fly... recursion error....
Do not use for the other use!
More like:
"Lieutenant and password = '*'; please report to the bridge."
It was (somewhat) a joke, but honestly your friends already have access to the conversations on your wall. They're effectively public for your anyone on your friends list. All this does is compile them by participants.
This is just fear mongering. It's the equivalent to an article like, "People you trust to let into your house may be able to compile a list of your valuables to use maliciously!!!" If you have any meth addict/kleptomaniac friends, you don't let them into your house. If you have any creepy/gossipy friends you don't want to see your facebook stuff, don't add them on facebook.
Here's a helpful Venn diagram for people who still aren't sure:
http://graphjam.memebase.com/2010/10/25/funny-graphs-never-forget/
bad idea - like growing nothing but potatoes.
I'm having trouble with your analogy:
boiled
mashed
stuck in a stew
baked
french fries
stuffed
potato skins
chips
vodka!
Maybe if you'd used a car analogy instead...
You're much less likely to get wife aggro.
What, was ME just too below the belt?
Maybe I'm missing something here. What is this for? Nano-machines? Nano listening devices? Nano-trackers? Now that seems like the really interesting question....
That's the thing. These are the proverbial horse that's going to pull the cart. We're not sure what these are going to power, but the power source has to be available before those things can be developed. Sure you can design devices without a known power source, but you can't hook a prototype nano-medical bot up to a 12V with jumper cables for proof of concept purposes.
UN bans Persian arrows!!
I agree. If Linux ever makes a serious push into the desktop market I believe it will be on the back of a company that's pushing it there, and I imagine it won't be exactly what we think of as "Linux" today.
When you look at things like netbooks, who's to say the desktop of tomorrow is going to resemble the desktop of today at all? Linux may never be right for today's desktops, but tomorrow's desktops may be right for Linux.
The tech industry changes too much and too fast for there to be a fat lady singing for Linux (or anything else) on the desktop.
10 years ago before the iPod was released if someone had told me that Apple would have a wildly popular music device, a huge share of the smart phone market, a respectable piece of the desktop market and unbelievable sway over industry direction I'd have been hard pressed to say I thought it would happen. At the time they were fairly niche to graphic work for the most part, similar to how Linux is currently doing it's best in the server niche.
"2010 is the year of the Linux desktop!!" isn't realistic, but neither is "Linux on the desktop is dead!!"
None of them want to pay taxes again. Ever.
Exactly. You don't convince them. The software should convince them. Go through the pros and cons of each (features, cost, support, interoperability, scalability) and let them decide.
After that, IF the OSS product is superior and they're scared of the OSS boogieman enough to go with an inferior product after you've clearly outlined everything, you probably aren't going to be able to change their mind.
Not sure if you're serious, but my comment was just a reference to http://bash.org/?5273
...literally _lost_. The servers respond to ping, work completely. I just can't figure out where in the country it is.
Haha, whoops. Thought of another while I was writing and forgot to num++ in my first paragraph.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=arrested+stealing+unsecured+wifi First page has articles about people in Michigan, Florida and over in England. The Singapore example was just the first one I found.
References to the situation I described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6960304.stm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070116/115327.shtml