How about ADSL routers? A lot of ISP's advice to use automatic settings which means the router will behave as a DNS query router as well.
They are not fixed and most never will be.
So your machines in your LAN (behind NAT/firewall) should not rely on the DHCP information they get from the router, instead they should use ISP's DNS servers directly.
You are inconsistent. If the administrator can get a signing key so can the malware creator. The CA's cannot do such a diligence which would ensure only nice people, no fronts, in practice.
You do not need to hack digital signatures, you need to find a security hole in a signed program. As we know, those are plentiful and none of the measures you give have stopped exploits.
Those two flaws make the whole system completely useless.
Repositories can be hacked in theory, but in practice it has happened extremely rarely. I'll change my view if they start to be broken constantly. Sure, they should have moved away from MD5 long ago, but there is no reason why they could not do it now.
If the administrator can sign then the whole "needs to be signed" is nothing more than an "ok to press" and therefore will not help a thing.
There's a difference between malware and insecure software. Sure. The point is that the malware does not need be signed and it still can get the rights of the signed program. Tracing the originator of the malware therefore becomes impossibile. BTW, I am quite confident that even if the malware creator could be traced it would help nothing, it would just lead to a "front" or faked information or "China".
This far there have been extremely few hacked repositories, several orders of magnitude less than insecure programs (signed or not).
The administrator is not the one who has to do the signing If the administrator cannot sign (or install an unsigned stuff) then we have a "trusted" platform. I heavily doubt anyone wants that.
A traceable vendor helps nothing as proved by ActiveX (for example there existed a Microsoft signed ActiveX program with security holes and Microsoft did not revocate their key).
A better approach is having software repositories (like e.g. in Ubuntu).
Well, yes, it is the same game, but there is a solution.
In DRM case the user wants to see the contents without breaking his computer, the content distributor tries to "break" the computer.
The random-nice-program-in-the-net case is basically same.
So a solution which allows the user to see content/program output and which disallows the program from doing anything (else) would solve both cases. The solution is also called a "sandbox".
Wiping the user directory is not a bad thing. Slowly corrupting random files is.
Then your backups will contain either outdated or erroneous information, or both.
Users really should have a way to run programs with extremely little permissions ("no overwriting of files, no reading of 'sensitive area', no sockets to net, chroot, runas(nobody),...").
Unfortunately there is no desktop OS doing that (at the moment).
Linux [...] supporting [...] the previous "deprecated" interface [for] few years. Since when?
By far the biggest problem in Linux is the abysmal backward compatibility, especially for binary components.
For example, try to compile any recent version of a software in an "aged" (two year) distro.
Or try to survive with a couple of (proprietary or F/OSS) non-mainstream device drivers (I have three or four). The constant failures and recompiles are not fun.
Note that I am comparing against Windows and Solaris. Many/most of the W2k sw/devices work OK on XP (I have no experience with Vista), at least same time span (over 5 years) with Solaris.
I can define your "wants" in terms of simple stimulus/response, hormonal/chemical reactions, and so on. So that kind of free will could very well be deterministic, scientifically explained, and not supernatural at all. That is not the "free will" as understood by philosophy. You should learn more.
Why should I define "free will"? It is up to you to make your own religious search.
My point is that a lot of people bash religion and still they themselves either refuse to answer the same questions themselves ("I don't know") or run into the shadows of fighting about semantics ("define...").
Of course I can define free will the way in your last paragraph and it does not break down. If I do have a free will then my consciousness cannot be predetermined.
I cannot prove that (nor do I want to attempt it), but it does not break the definition.
personal experience So show them. Show them why horoscopes work (people want to believe in them), show them how Ponzi schemes work, how and why brainwashing (cults) work, etc.
Try to avoid fights (over religions) as it does not help at all, quite contrary.
There are things you really cannot teach to teenagers (e.g. "you won't, most likely, get filthy rich by 30"), but you can teach them a fair share of cynicism... er... scepticism:-)
Having never directly experienced anything supernatural myself I think you have: free will. Of course there is a small chance you do not believe in free will. In which case your logical conclusion should be that criminals may not be put into prisons are they clearly are not responsible for their actions.
I don't get tired sitting for hours at a time When my back is "in the bad mood" I can sit for hours in almost any chair.
But then I cannot get up. The pain is intolerable. It can take several minutes of considerable pain and miniature manoeuvres before I am up - with pain.
The chair is not the problem, the problem is the back - it needs muscle movements (to circulate blood).
During those days I use a kneeling chair which in practice "forces" me to get up often. This is extremely good thing (for me).
I cannot use any chair which is "comfortable" to sit four hours. Obviously I use a comfortable chair, but the point is that the chairs I use are easy to get of. And I do walk around often as otherwise...
I used to sit in it for 8 to 10 hours a day working. Just don't.
My doctor (yes, I have back problems) have told me to get up at least every hour, preferably more often.
When my back is "in the bad mood" I use one of those "knee chairs" which essentially forces me to get up often. This is very, very, very good thing (for me).
The answer to the original author: there is no "best" chair. It is a very personal thing. I like extremely simple chairs. They just work better than those with huge amount of adjustment or high seat or...
The law does not state the e-mail servers must be in Finland. The law is stricter than EU wide privacy law.
Telia-Sonera decided the easiest way to do accomplish that was to move the servers to Finland. They could have done it by other means, e.g. with encryption.
The free market law is not some magical silver bullet which overrides every other law. Same with crops - if they do not pass Finnish sanitary laws they cannot be sold in Finland. It does not matter if the free trade is hindered. It does not even matter if they pass laws of e.g. UK (remember the mad cow disease "incident").
Slashdot Mirror
... gently persuade ...
I didn't.
How about ADSL routers? A lot of ISP's advice to use automatic settings which means the router will behave as a DNS query router as well.
They are not fixed and most never will be.
So your machines in your LAN (behind NAT/firewall) should not rely on the DHCP information they get from the router, instead they should use ISP's DNS servers directly.
This is the advice CERT gives, anyway.
I know trolls which have been going on for years even being 99.9% ignored.
You are inconsistent. If the administrator can get a signing key so can the malware creator. The CA's cannot do such a diligence which would ensure only nice people, no fronts, in practice.
You do not need to hack digital signatures, you need to find a security hole in a signed program. As we know, those are plentiful and none of the measures you give have stopped exploits.
Those two flaws make the whole system completely useless.
Repositories can be hacked in theory, but in practice it has happened extremely rarely. I'll change my view if they start to be broken constantly. Sure, they should have moved away from MD5 long ago, but there is no reason why they could not do it now.
If the administrator can sign then the whole "needs to be signed" is nothing more than an "ok to press" and therefore will not help a thing.
There's a difference between malware and insecure software. Sure. The point is that the malware does not need be signed and it still can get the rights of the signed program. Tracing the originator of the malware therefore becomes impossibile. BTW, I am quite confident that even if the malware creator could be traced it would help nothing, it would just lead to a "front" or faked information or "China".This far there have been extremely few hacked repositories, several orders of magnitude less than insecure programs (signed or not).
A traceable vendor helps nothing as proved by ActiveX (for example there existed a Microsoft signed ActiveX program with security holes and Microsoft did not revocate their key).
A better approach is having software repositories (like e.g. in Ubuntu).
Unfortunately signing does not help. At all.
Or at least not as long as any of the signed modules contain a single security hole.
Besides only administrator should be able to install modules, making him to sign them will not stop anything, just makes things harder.
I disagree.
Well, yes, it is the same game, but there is a solution.
In DRM case the user wants to see the contents without breaking his computer, the content distributor tries to "break" the computer.
The random-nice-program-in-the-net case is basically same.
So a solution which allows the user to see content/program output and which disallows the program from doing anything (else) would solve both cases. The solution is also called a "sandbox".
Wiping the user directory is not a bad thing. Slowly corrupting random files is.
Then your backups will contain either outdated or erroneous information, or both.
Users really should have a way to run programs with extremely little permissions ("no overwriting of files, no reading of 'sensitive area', no sockets to net, chroot, runas(nobody), ...").
Unfortunately there is no desktop OS doing that (at the moment).
Quantum theory (nor any other theory I know) does not allow non-determinism.
Which is essentially whole point of my argument.
This means that the theories do not allow fee will (as it is understood in philosophy).
I have nothing against believing in "non-determinism" or whatever you want to call it, but it essentially is kinda-religion.
By far the biggest problem in Linux is the abysmal backward compatibility, especially for binary components.
For example, try to compile any recent version of a software in an "aged" (two year) distro.
Or try to survive with a couple of (proprietary or F/OSS) non-mainstream device drivers (I have three or four). The constant failures and recompiles are not fun.
Note that I am comparing against Windows and Solaris. Many/most of the W2k sw/devices work OK on XP (I have no experience with Vista), at least same time span (over 5 years) with Solaris.
Why should I define "free will"? It is up to you to make your own religious search.
...").
My point is that a lot of people bash religion and still they themselves either refuse to answer the same questions themselves ("I don't know") or run into the shadows of fighting about semantics ("define
Of course I can define free will the way in your last paragraph and it does not break down. If I do have a free will then my consciousness cannot be predetermined.
I cannot prove that (nor do I want to attempt it), but it does not break the definition.
Try to avoid fights (over religions) as it does not help at all, quite contrary.
There are things you really cannot teach to teenagers (e.g. "you won't, most likely, get filthy rich by 30"), but you can teach them a fair share of cynicism
Well, to "balance" that they did give peace Nobel for the guys he fought with. Or against, depending how you think about it ...
No, I cannot understand why any of them got it.
Where does it come from, what is the mass and where does it go to when you die?
Yes.
Especially if if somehow would kill Microsoft monopoly.
But then I cannot get up. The pain is intolerable. It can take several minutes of considerable pain and miniature manoeuvres before I am up - with pain.
The chair is not the problem, the problem is the back - it needs muscle movements (to circulate blood).
During those days I use a kneeling chair which in practice "forces" me to get up often. This is extremely good thing (for me).
I cannot use any chair which is "comfortable" to sit four hours. Obviously I use a comfortable chair, but the point is that the chairs I use are easy to get of. And I do walk around often as otherwise
My doctor (yes, I have back problems) have told me to get up at least every hour, preferably more often.
When my back is "in the bad mood" I use one of those "knee chairs" which essentially forces me to get up often. This is very, very, very good thing (for me).
The answer to the original author: there is no "best" chair. It is a very personal thing. I like extremely simple chairs. They just work better than those with huge amount of adjustment or high seat or
The same applies to the drugs too, I guess.
People may use drugs as long as they don't do it too strongly.
Finland? :-)
You can get 3G modem (384kbit/s) for 10 eur per month, 24 month contract.
I do not know if you want to have your Internet over that (you won't get 384k on busy times).
The law does not state the e-mail servers must be in Finland. The law is stricter than EU wide privacy law.
Telia-Sonera decided the easiest way to do accomplish that was to move the servers to Finland. They could have done it by other means, e.g. with encryption.
The free market law is not some magical silver bullet which overrides every other law. Same with crops - if they do not pass Finnish sanitary laws they cannot be sold in Finland. It does not matter if the free trade is hindered. It does not even matter if they pass laws of e.g. UK (remember the mad cow disease "incident").
I'm sorry you are wrong, privacy really is required by Finnish law.
You can compete as long as you obey the laws.