Actually I think the toys are regulated: they may not contain dangerous substances. But I might be wrong, I do not know the law in USA that well.
I am not claiming the investigators/regulators did not do their job (although it is very possible) as it is as likely the importers did their best to hide the fact (that they are likely dangerous).
Just for fun, can you point out the "subtle" difference as I have never ever seen it.
AFAIK libertarian free market is all about letting businesses do whatever they think they can get away with, which is identical to "whatever they want to".
Why? The user has no clue about ssh privilege separation and still it works extremely well.
user go through various hassles because of the sandbox
I agree Microsoft nor Linux can do it well, but just perhaps Apple might be able to do it seamless.
A flash game has to be a Turing-complete program.
Turing complete does not mean "must have access to whole system". Actually it means nothing in this context (there exist exactly zero Turing complete systems in the "real world"). AFAIK a PDF can take "long enough" to print that it makes no difference whether it is ever going to halt or not.
By cleaning the aisles very well before next passangers piss on it?
I am absolutely certain I will rather pee on the aisle than on my pants. Sure, that would be the last time on USA bound flight on my life, but that would be a good thing.
I sincerely hope most children don't (have to) "experiment with bootloaders, OS's, drivers, etc."
Computers are far beyond that today. I really hope OLPC is not even remotely trying to make children "computer wizards". With that I do not mean that it should hinder it, but there are a bit other stuff in the world beyond tuning operating systems.
In that area (searching and learning) teachers can be a huge help. Google or Wikipedia is not usually the best option.
Well... knowing a list contains SomeObject is not even nearly enough: you need to know what subset of those it contains and quite often "why". Only documentation can do that, so you need it anyway - especially on interfaces.
Then you would never think getting generics to Groovy, Python (or any other higher level language), because it would be insane.
The generics was put into the language because it "mathematically" makes language "better" (i.e. computer language theorist got their micro-orgasms). In practice it is a solution trying desperately to find a problem.
At the restaurant I have my lunch the card payment takes about three to five times longer than cash. If it did not ask for the PIN it might be almost as fast as cash, but...
Note: I am not claiming Windows, or any other OS is "good" or even "better". Quite contrary, I have claimed last upteen years that they all suck. I am not trying to raise an OS war.
One of the biggest problems of Linux is incompatibility (which, actually, increase security as viruses are harder to make spread), that is why I do not much like those "experimental" features. They also increase instability.
I do think "usability" should be above "security", secure unusable OS is hardly, er... usable:-)
I get annoyed by people who constantly point out "vanilla (or distro X) does not have that problem". Double standards. Some compare to Windows ("it is worse") as if I did care about Windows at all.
Same with Debian, or actually pretty much any distro, people say "it has huge number of programs" as a good thing. Well, deal with it! Windows does not. Don't whine!
I am really sick'n'tired of cherry picking the view - either Linux is a single kernel or it is a huge number of incompatible distros, please do not try to have it both ways picking the definition which suits the argument best, changing it between the problems I lay out.
I am not trying to "win" a conversation or argument, I'm far too old for that. Remember, I do think "Microsoft security" is an oxymoron.
I am just pointing out that even Microsoft has done some nice ideas and that Linux is lacking sorely in some areas. I do not know Vista or W7 much, I got fed up at W2000. It was just a pile of shit in every meaning of the word. XP is better but only marginally.
Now I am slowly getting fed up on Linux - unfortunately there is nothing better out there *now* (for me). You see, I use Linux and that is why I am keen on pointing its problems, perhaps it gets fixed?
The worst in Linux is lack of testing, this is emphasised by the ever changing kernel (and to a degree other stuff too), it would require more testing than more "conservative" kernels. But I think gets less.
CIA's #1 priority before 9/11 was industrial espionage to help american companies (this was admitted by either white house or CIA themselves). What do you think, is now #1 or #2?
So you agree "vanilla" kernel sucks as no one uses it?
Does "This medium contains software intended to be automatically started. Would you like to run it?" ring any bells? Or "A volume with software packages has been detected. Would you like to open it with the package manager?" (OpenSolaris does the former too, not sure about the latter)
Antiviruses don't work. I think sometimes they are worse than the disease.
I tried to say that no OS has security as top priority. All of them have "usability" etc. as higher priority than security. Even OpenBSD.
I am not certain Linux can be made more secure than Windows today. This was trivially true some years ago, but with Windows 7 and IE8 I am no longer so sure. BTW, I follow Debian security mailing list: the sheer volume of that list is quite telling.
"Custom made" viruses/trojans are on the rise, so viruses do not need to spread anymore (although it does help).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I think the toys are regulated: they may not contain dangerous substances. But I might be wrong, I do not know the law in USA that well.
I am not claiming the investigators/regulators did not do their job (although it is very possible) as it is as likely the importers did their best to hide the fact (that they are likely dangerous).
No need to go to the "alternative".
Excuse, me, but there is no "law" in the libertarian free market. Bloody hell, there is nobody to make the inspection.
Just for fun, can you point out the "subtle" difference as I have never ever seen it.
AFAIK libertarian free market is all about letting businesses do whatever they think they can get away with, which is identical to "whatever they want to".
I see no difference. Why cannot a "normal" application be limited in the same way as a Java Web Start application?
How the limit is imposed, by Java runtime or by virtual machine, capabilities, SELinux or whatnot is irrelevant in principle.
applications running in sanboxes have to be able to write files, read files, load and install plugins, execute helper applications,
No, they don't.
They can be made so that only way to access file system is by File Dialog (see Java Web Start / JNLP).
We have tried the "validating" approach for 20 years and it is still failing at a tremendous rate.
Maybe it is time to try something else?
But the game you play does have. Or "ls" (dir in Windows), although it needs only read access to directories.
user understand something about the sandbox
Why? The user has no clue about ssh privilege separation and still it works extremely well.
user go through various hassles because of the sandbox
I agree Microsoft nor Linux can do it well, but just perhaps Apple might be able to do it seamless.
A flash game has to be a Turing-complete program.
Turing complete does not mean "must have access to whole system".
Actually it means nothing in this context (there exist exactly zero Turing complete systems in the "real world"). AFAIK a PDF can take "long enough" to print that it makes no difference whether it is ever going to halt or not.
Odd requirements are odd, no matter how you defend them.
Tubes and "billiard balls" ... weren't 'em trucks?
P.S. I think "series of tubes" to be one of the best simplification of the 'net ever.
The only truth is the source code.
Up to the point where the program is run first time ... and a defect is found.
By cleaning the aisles very well before next passangers piss on it?
I am absolutely certain I will rather pee on the aisle than on my pants. Sure, that would be the last time on USA bound flight on my life, but that would be a good thing.
I did not say safe, I said safer. On purpose.
Besides, you forgot education, that is to address your problem.
I do not believe it is impossible to change the "human nature to kill each other".
AFAIK Franklin never flew in a plane. So I'd rather listen someone else. Besides, listening a long since decomposed body would not be fun anyway.
We can make flight safer - and I bet the cheapest way is to educate people and try to decrease unequality and unfairness in the world.
There's nothing particularly wrong with plain C as a first language.
Yes, there is. Several. The worst is that it is compiled.
I'd start from a language which has a shell, i.e. you can try out commands one by one. and see what each of them do.
I sincerely hope most children don't (have to) "experiment with bootloaders, OS's, drivers, etc."
Computers are far beyond that today. I really hope OLPC is not even remotely trying to make children "computer wizards". With that I do not mean that it should hinder it, but there are a bit other stuff in the world beyond tuning operating systems.
In that area (searching and learning) teachers can be a huge help. Google or Wikipedia is not usually the best option.
Yeah, it really should be rewritten in Python (or what is the cool language today).
Seriously, I much rather pay the memory penalty of Java than fight against the numerous security bugs C/C++ program would give.
I use it entirely for interactive use. It is not very good for testing "does it compile in Unix" as it is not that compatible with modern distros.
The default setting does require a bit tinkering and it does have some issues[1], but other than that it is pretty good command line.
[1] Usually with Windows commands - they insist not to work with paths (take them as command switches), symbolic links, etc.
Pick a Windows and stick with it? No thanks.
Ad what you do when the machine/motherboard dies?
I'd much rather have my backup on something which can be read by as many different systems as possible. You see, when I'm "64" ...
Well ... knowing a list contains SomeObject is not even nearly enough: you need to know what subset of those it contains and quite often "why". Only documentation can do that, so you need it anyway - especially on interfaces.
Then you would never think getting generics to Groovy, Python (or any other higher level language), because it would be insane.
The generics was put into the language because it "mathematically" makes language "better" (i.e. computer language theorist got their micro-orgasms). In practice it is a solution trying desperately to find a problem.
And I think completely opposite: generics killed Java.
It gives nothing but huge verbosity and very-hard-to-understand rules which eventually solve nothing a simple unit test wouldn't.
Now lambdas, closures, etc. are taking once so simple language to be worse than union of Lisp and Perl.
At the restaurant I have my lunch the card payment takes about three to five times longer than cash. If it did not ask for the PIN it might be almost as fast as cash, but ...
Note: I am not claiming Windows, or any other OS is "good" or even "better". Quite contrary, I have claimed last upteen years that they all suck. I am not trying to raise an OS war.
One of the biggest problems of Linux is incompatibility (which, actually, increase security as viruses are harder to make spread), that is why I do not much like those "experimental" features. They also increase instability.
I do think "usability" should be above "security", secure unusable OS is hardly, er ... usable :-)
I get annoyed by people who constantly point out "vanilla (or distro X) does not have that problem". Double standards. Some compare to Windows ("it is worse") as if I did care about Windows at all.
Same with Debian, or actually pretty much any distro, people say "it has huge number of programs" as a good thing. Well, deal with it! Windows does not. Don't whine!
I am really sick'n'tired of cherry picking the view - either Linux is a single kernel or it is a huge number of incompatible distros, please do not try to have it both ways picking the definition which suits the argument best, changing it between the problems I lay out.
I am not trying to "win" a conversation or argument, I'm far too old for that. Remember, I do think "Microsoft security" is an oxymoron.
I am just pointing out that even Microsoft has done some nice ideas and that Linux is lacking sorely in some areas. I do not know Vista or W7 much, I got fed up at W2000. It was just a pile of shit in every meaning of the word. XP is better but only marginally.
Now I am slowly getting fed up on Linux - unfortunately there is nothing better out there *now* (for me). You see, I use Linux and that is why I am keen on pointing its problems, perhaps it gets fixed?
The worst in Linux is lack of testing, this is emphasised by the ever changing kernel (and to a degree other stuff too), it would require more testing than more "conservative" kernels. But I think gets less.
Terrorist? LOL!
CIA's #1 priority before 9/11 was industrial espionage to help american companies (this was admitted by either white house or CIA themselves). What do you think, is now #1 or #2?
So you agree "vanilla" kernel sucks as no one uses it?
Does "This medium contains software intended to be automatically started. Would you like to run it?" ring any bells? Or "A volume with software packages has been detected. Would you like to open it with the package manager?" (OpenSolaris does the former too, not sure about the latter)
Antiviruses don't work. I think sometimes they are worse than the disease.
I tried to say that no OS has security as top priority. All of them have "usability" etc. as higher priority than security. Even OpenBSD.
I am not certain Linux can be made more secure than Windows today. This was trivially true some years ago, but with Windows 7 and IE8 I am no longer so sure. BTW, I follow Debian security mailing list: the sheer volume of that list is quite telling.
"Custom made" viruses/trojans are on the rise, so viruses do not need to spread anymore (although it does help).