I'd love to see a welcome screen for the first time you open up your desktop, with little videos explaining a few key concepts to how Linux and Ubuntu work. Maybe it could ask "What do you want to do?" and then explain how they could do this.
He didn't just suggest that Linux adds Clipit, did he?
Yes, some introductory tutorials can be useful, but if you add too many "what do you want to do" helpers then people just curse it for interfering. If you ask people "what is your level? beginner, normal, power user" then they'll debate it and either go too low and get too much help or go too high and feel abandonned.
IMO a better alternative (where it wasn't something minor like "computer was set up strangely with a Windows partition that didn't have a decent name and so she couldn't find MP3s") would be something more obvious as a source of tutorials so people can read it if they want it.
How likely is that anyway? 1) It's TFA and this is Slashdot and 2) it's about Windows and not Linux/Unix/other geeky stuff. That leaves a tiny proportion of/.ers as potential link clickers;)
Fedora were planning to include Presto for Yum to allow Fedora 9 to take advantage of 'delta RPMs' that just download the changes. Unfortunately it seems they haven't made it yet. The delta RPMs in SuSe did always seem like a great idea that I thought more distros should take up.
I'm not sure. A guy at work uses it but I've never tried it much. From what I've picked up it might not ship with them but it's a bit closer to Ubuntu's "Restricted Packages" than Fedora's "they're out there, but because of potential legal issues and lack of freedom then we can't tell you where".
I'm a bit confused about the "final release" thing at the moment. I was going to wait for the RC ("22 April 2008 - Release Candidate 1" according to the schedule) and possibly install that, but now they're saying
This is the last major public release before the final GOLD Fedora 9 release on May 13th
which implies the Release Candidate might not be a 'release' as such, just a specially tagged nightly build.
Oh well, I guess at least it'll get the spit-and-polish it deserves. I just need to wait until May to install it now.
I wish they'd do something better for the window titles. Yes, I know it's different to the other distros, but it just doesn't look good. It may just be the compression on those images, but the new version looks even stranger.
On the plus side, at least they ditched some of the original 'Sulphur' desktops. Those would have just made the default desktop look terrible.
The only problem with that is that it leaves Fedora in basically the same situation as shipping them. They ship as a "completely free" distro (i.e. no non-free software, including stuff they can't ship because they're US based and there may be patent restrictions) to keep clean and legal. If they started saying "press this button to get free codecs that may breach patents" then they've lost that position.
At the end of the day there are two choices: 1) pick another distro (probably European based like SuSe) that doesn't have such a strict "free software only" ethos or 2) do the simple thing and add the Livna repos like I did. A couple of minutes adding the repo and picking packages and you gain MP3, MPEG, WMV, QuickTime and everything else, plus drivers (if you want them and don't build them yourself) VLC and a number of other apps.
OMGWTFNooooooooo! YouTube won't work with one of the alternatives for playing SWFs that isn't even going to be shipped in F9 by default. What a tragic loss that will be
If your life revolves around YouTube then what's wrong with going to Adobe and getting their Flash/Shockwave plugin? It works perfectly, it has the same version number as the Windows one, and it's basically the same process as Windows for newbies (download, install, use).
As for half-baked - a quick skim of the thread seemed to imply that it's partly the fault of upstream (the original authors) and not necessarily Fedora (although its "completely free" ethos wouldn't have helped with the Livna repo requirements).
But is that lying to the court or is that impeachment for deceiving the court? To some it may be a minor difference, but when you're talking about defining terms and making sure they're not misused then it is everything.
Does that mean that the recently proposed UK law to ban file-sharers from having Internet access (which I thought mentioned three strikes, although I can't find the article) won't be going through? Does that mean that for once the EU may have made a sensible legal decision that will override our UK laws?
So despite saying "yes", your answer is actually "no"? You specifically said you deceived them and spoke with the intent to deceive, not that you lied to them. When you're getting to the definition of words then it's an important distinction.
People may feel they've been "lied to", but that's just because people treat "lied to" and "been spoken to and deceived" as close enough alternatives as to use them interchangeably. Get in to a technical or legal situation and you can't be so casual.
And if you're on your own, so you're supposed to be escorted but you're not?
Where I work we have coloured passes to make that identification earlier (white holders for employees, green for trusted temporary, yellow for low clearance and red for constant escort/uncleared) but I've walked out of buildings carrying computers and with my pass in my pocket so it doesn't get snagged. No identity, no uniform (we don't have them), nothing.
As for typing, people may ask you if you're in a large office and they don't recognise you, but if you jump in to an empty corner office, or if you look like you're doing some repairs, people are a lot less likely to bother because they've been trained not to ask engineers/repair men "are you repairing it or are you some kind of thief?".
Also, walking out with a USB drive shouldn't raise any eyebrows at all as you can't even tell the person is doing it.
Yes, dropping flash drives is easy, but it's not the only social engineering attack.
Still, lying or omissions are just an (optional) part of a social engineering "attack", so social engineering cannot be covered by just "scamming" and "lying" - it's a more complex act of sociology and human behaviour.
Besides, are you actually lying when you only tell truths and never say a false word? It is deceit by omission because you're giving a wrong impression by missing out information, but is that lying or is it just deceit as no untruth has been spoken?
It's the only well known one I can think of, but "check out our vacation photos" is more social engineering than scamming. You're not exactly lying (you can argue you are because you're not actually giving them the photos, or they're not really John, but that's not necessarily the case - they could put the photos up anyway to make it look more legit) and you're not scamming by offering something of value and taking something away from the victim, you're relying on 'normal' human behaviour to go "I don't know who this is, but I'll check out the link anyway in case I can tell from the photos".
Similarly, wearing a fluorescent jacket and working on an exchange box or other equipment isn't lying or scamming anyone, but through social engineering and societal training you'll get away with what you're doing because people go "oh, he's a contractor, he must be doing some contract work".
Ditto for walking in to buildings - we've got guards at the main gates, but once you're in then you can get in to a lot of buildings without question just by looking like you belong and having something pass-like hung around your neck. You're using people's social expectations of "he is on site, has a pass and knows what he is doing so must be allowed here" to get you in to places where your swipe card won't work.
"Social Engineering" is using normal behaviour and expectations to get people to do what you want when they're not supposed to, without them noticing.
Lying is telling a falsehood as truth.
Scamming is offering something but never following up, or following up with less than was promised (e.g. bait and switch or fake companies that run off with money).
There's big differences in those definitions.
The most obvious example I know of is social engineering with USB pen drives. A penetration testing company was asked to test corporate security. They did it by leaving a number of USB pen drives around the office. With no lying or scamming, people took the drives, wondered whose it was, plugged it into the computer, and the drive automatically grabbed some data. At the end of the exercise the pen. testers listed the names of people who had connected the drives, even when its origin was unknown. No lying or scamming was involved, but there was a social norm that they exploited as social engineering, which is that people will look to see what is on it to see if they know whose it is. If it had been a virus/trojan then that simple social engineering could have taken down the network, been pumping out spam, or allowed someone access via a back door.
Either that or once they get as close to their "unhackable" pipe dream as possible we'll all be forced to pay hundreds of GB£ to ensure that it's protected properly specifically so that our identity isn't sold for $15 or less.
It depends which account. I'm 18 months out of University, have finally got on to the housing ladder (which isn't easy in the UK with stupidly inflated house prices), and am supporting myself, my wife, and soon a baby as well. We've got more than that in one of our bank accounts. Granted, it isn't our Current Account (which I assume is what the Americans call their Checking Account because they write their cheques from it), but it's still an account with more money than that in.
But as someone else mentioned, they probably want them for laundering rather than emptying.
Not overly surprising for an agency. I'd like to see how any legal dispute over it went. If they're told "solid waste" and then extend that definition, then surely they don't legally have a basis for including liquid and gas?
Either that or Congress meant "solid, liquid and gas (and possibly plasma)", at which point they're paid enough to say what they mean and not make mistakes.
No, not to the corporations, but they should (at least in theory, with some judges) apply in a courtroom.
Have you used your "unlimited" broadband, recently?
No, because I've not got unlimited and wouldn't go for it anyway.
Have you ever seen close to your "up to xMb" speed achieved?
Yes, every time I download a file that's big enough I see something like 180KBps or more (I think) on my 2Mbps line, more if it's a Saturday morning and the Americans aren't online yet. Given the various overheads, that's close enough.
It's a bit of a dubious definition for a collection of 1s and 0s:
1 capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial. 2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine. 3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion. 4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.
Music files aren't tangible in the sense of the bold sections, but they are tangible in the sense of the italic section. However, the italic section is preceded by "therefore" and so it is an implied feature rather than a stand alone definition. It wouldn't surprise me if he was bending that last bit, though.
As well as going near it with a magnet (since someone could argue that you go near a bookshelf with a flame and you won't have it any more) the other difference is copying. You can't make a perfect copy of a car/CD/book without physical materials, and it's never perfect. Music files, being binary, are perfectly cloned and don't need any raw materials. I think that should be an obvious enough distinction between the two in terms of "tangible property" even if you do ignore "well I can't touch the file on my disk".
How come the so-called stiff-lip society values human freedoms so much, when the so-called Beacon of Democracy incarcerates its own citizens without trial.
That'd probably be because money talks in the "land of the free". Everyone is free to make their fortune, it's the "American dream", and so corporations have power. Add to that the fact that we've had centuries to do it wrong (e.g. previous feudal systems, which would have had a leaning towards supporting the nobility) and somewhere like America is bound to place a value on life that isn't equal to that of a corporation.
And that too many EU nations don't even have constitutions that embody something like our First Amendment, etc.
It's probably because we don't need one because we have a history instead. As above, we've had time to do it wrong and so we can now do it right without needing a document that tells us how to do it right. We do still have some EU-wide things similar to a constitution (like the Human Rights Bill) but they're all targetted and sensible and seemingly more relevant to the modern world.
Which is the point at which Google gets in to a huge legal battle because they're then operating out of a country without following the local laws.
The office may say "well sue us", but just because they're an American corporation saying that and they think they're above the law doesn't mean they actually are.
Chances are they'll say something about needing to know IP addresses or have a copy of your Google.com cookie and then take 40 days over it. BT (British Telecom, my phone provider) are currently saying it'll take 40 days and £10 to get a printed copy of an engineers report that they can read out to us from the screen.
Panasonic Viera P905i (Think of it as the world's smallest "big-screen" TV) Raon Everun UMPC (Ultra-mobile PC - a micro laptop) Samsung 'Soul' SGH U900 NEC ValueStar W (Vista Media Centre that's extra quiet) Toshiba ApriPoko Robot (This 11-inch-tall robot--which looks like the love child of a bird Pokemon and the Pillsbury Doughboy--is actually a voice-activated remote control) Sony VAIO G2 (super-light laptop with all the normal features) Fujitsu F705i Aigo USB Dongle (HD receiver) NEC LUI (LUI stands for "Life with Ubiquitous Integrated Solutions - basically a combination of media server and PDA or laptop) Face Bank (Wave a coin in front of the bank's eyes (actually light sensors), and it opens wide to swallow your loose change. Afterward, it looks so pleased that you half expect it to emit a contented belch)
So, how many of those are actually things we're really missing, as opposed to just not having?
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't just suggest that Linux adds Clipit, did he?
Yes, some introductory tutorials can be useful, but if you add too many "what do you want to do" helpers then people just curse it for interfering. If you ask people "what is your level? beginner, normal, power user" then they'll debate it and either go too low and get too much help or go too high and feel abandonned.
IMO a better alternative (where it wasn't something minor like "computer was set up strangely with a Windows partition that didn't have a decent name and so she couldn't find MP3s") would be something more obvious as a source of tutorials so people can read it if they want it.
How likely is that anyway? 1) It's TFA and this is Slashdot and 2) it's about Windows and not Linux/Unix/other geeky stuff. That leaves a tiny proportion of /.ers as potential link clickers ;)
It'll be interesting to see how they are integrated and how big a change some of those items become at the other end of SoC.
Fedora were planning to include Presto for Yum to allow Fedora 9 to take advantage of 'delta RPMs' that just download the changes. Unfortunately it seems they haven't made it yet. The delta RPMs in SuSe did always seem like a great idea that I thought more distros should take up.
I'm not sure. A guy at work uses it but I've never tried it much. From what I've picked up it might not ship with them but it's a bit closer to Ubuntu's "Restricted Packages" than Fedora's "they're out there, but because of potential legal issues and lack of freedom then we can't tell you where".
which implies the Release Candidate might not be a 'release' as such, just a specially tagged nightly build.
Oh well, I guess at least it'll get the spit-and-polish it deserves. I just need to wait until May to install it now.
I wish they'd do something better for the window titles. Yes, I know it's different to the other distros, but it just doesn't look good. It may just be the compression on those images, but the new version looks even stranger.
On the plus side, at least they ditched some of the original 'Sulphur' desktops. Those would have just made the default desktop look terrible.
The only problem with that is that it leaves Fedora in basically the same situation as shipping them. They ship as a "completely free" distro (i.e. no non-free software, including stuff they can't ship because they're US based and there may be patent restrictions) to keep clean and legal. If they started saying "press this button to get free codecs that may breach patents" then they've lost that position.
At the end of the day there are two choices: 1) pick another distro (probably European based like SuSe) that doesn't have such a strict "free software only" ethos or 2) do the simple thing and add the Livna repos like I did. A couple of minutes adding the repo and picking packages and you gain MP3, MPEG, WMV, QuickTime and everything else, plus drivers (if you want them and don't build them yourself) VLC and a number of other apps.
OMGWTFNooooooooo! YouTube won't work with one of the alternatives for playing SWFs that isn't even going to be shipped in F9 by default. What a tragic loss that will be
If your life revolves around YouTube then what's wrong with going to Adobe and getting their Flash/Shockwave plugin? It works perfectly, it has the same version number as the Windows one, and it's basically the same process as Windows for newbies (download, install, use).
As for half-baked - a quick skim of the thread seemed to imply that it's partly the fault of upstream (the original authors) and not necessarily Fedora (although its "completely free" ethos wouldn't have helped with the Livna repo requirements).
But is that lying to the court or is that impeachment for deceiving the court? To some it may be a minor difference, but when you're talking about defining terms and making sure they're not misused then it is everything.
Does that mean that the recently proposed UK law to ban file-sharers from having Internet access (which I thought mentioned three strikes, although I can't find the article) won't be going through? Does that mean that for once the EU may have made a sensible legal decision that will override our UK laws?
I'm shocked...
So despite saying "yes", your answer is actually "no"? You specifically said you deceived them and spoke with the intent to deceive, not that you lied to them. When you're getting to the definition of words then it's an important distinction.
People may feel they've been "lied to", but that's just because people treat "lied to" and "been spoken to and deceived" as close enough alternatives as to use them interchangeably. Get in to a technical or legal situation and you can't be so casual.
And if you're on your own, so you're supposed to be escorted but you're not?
Where I work we have coloured passes to make that identification earlier (white holders for employees, green for trusted temporary, yellow for low clearance and red for constant escort/uncleared) but I've walked out of buildings carrying computers and with my pass in my pocket so it doesn't get snagged. No identity, no uniform (we don't have them), nothing.
As for typing, people may ask you if you're in a large office and they don't recognise you, but if you jump in to an empty corner office, or if you look like you're doing some repairs, people are a lot less likely to bother because they've been trained not to ask engineers/repair men "are you repairing it or are you some kind of thief?".
Also, walking out with a USB drive shouldn't raise any eyebrows at all as you can't even tell the person is doing it.
Yes, dropping flash drives is easy, but it's not the only social engineering attack.
Still, lying or omissions are just an (optional) part of a social engineering "attack", so social engineering cannot be covered by just "scamming" and "lying" - it's a more complex act of sociology and human behaviour.
Besides, are you actually lying when you only tell truths and never say a false word? It is deceit by omission because you're giving a wrong impression by missing out information, but is that lying or is it just deceit as no untruth has been spoken?
It's the only well known one I can think of, but "check out our vacation photos" is more social engineering than scamming. You're not exactly lying (you can argue you are because you're not actually giving them the photos, or they're not really John, but that's not necessarily the case - they could put the photos up anyway to make it look more legit) and you're not scamming by offering something of value and taking something away from the victim, you're relying on 'normal' human behaviour to go "I don't know who this is, but I'll check out the link anyway in case I can tell from the photos".
Similarly, wearing a fluorescent jacket and working on an exchange box or other equipment isn't lying or scamming anyone, but through social engineering and societal training you'll get away with what you're doing because people go "oh, he's a contractor, he must be doing some contract work".
Ditto for walking in to buildings - we've got guards at the main gates, but once you're in then you can get in to a lot of buildings without question just by looking like you belong and having something pass-like hung around your neck. You're using people's social expectations of "he is on site, has a pass and knows what he is doing so must be allowed here" to get you in to places where your swipe card won't work.
"Social Engineering" is using normal behaviour and expectations to get people to do what you want when they're not supposed to, without them noticing.
Lying is telling a falsehood as truth.
Scamming is offering something but never following up, or following up with less than was promised (e.g. bait and switch or fake companies that run off with money).
There's big differences in those definitions.
The most obvious example I know of is social engineering with USB pen drives. A penetration testing company was asked to test corporate security. They did it by leaving a number of USB pen drives around the office. With no lying or scamming, people took the drives, wondered whose it was, plugged it into the computer, and the drive automatically grabbed some data. At the end of the exercise the pen. testers listed the names of people who had connected the drives, even when its origin was unknown. No lying or scamming was involved, but there was a social norm that they exploited as social engineering, which is that people will look to see what is on it to see if they know whose it is. If it had been a virus/trojan then that simple social engineering could have taken down the network, been pumping out spam, or allowed someone access via a back door.
Either that or once they get as close to their "unhackable" pipe dream as possible we'll all be forced to pay hundreds of GB£ to ensure that it's protected properly specifically so that our identity isn't sold for $15 or less.
It depends which account. I'm 18 months out of University, have finally got on to the housing ladder (which isn't easy in the UK with stupidly inflated house prices), and am supporting myself, my wife, and soon a baby as well. We've got more than that in one of our bank accounts. Granted, it isn't our Current Account (which I assume is what the Americans call their Checking Account because they write their cheques from it), but it's still an account with more money than that in.
But as someone else mentioned, they probably want them for laundering rather than emptying.
Not overly surprising for an agency. I'd like to see how any legal dispute over it went. If they're told "solid waste" and then extend that definition, then surely they don't legally have a basis for including liquid and gas?
Either that or Congress meant "solid, liquid and gas (and possibly plasma)", at which point they're paid enough to say what they mean and not make mistakes.
If we've got to explain it for you, someone should explain it correctly:
;)
Gray is an alien (the stereotyped one with grey skin and big eyes), grey is a colour
No, because I've not got unlimited and wouldn't go for it anyway.
Yes, every time I download a file that's big enough I see something like 180KBps or more (I think) on my 2Mbps line, more if it's a Saturday morning and the Americans aren't online yet. Given the various overheads, that's close enough.
Music files aren't tangible in the sense of the bold sections, but they are tangible in the sense of the italic section. However, the italic section is preceded by "therefore" and so it is an implied feature rather than a stand alone definition. It wouldn't surprise me if he was bending that last bit, though.
As well as going near it with a magnet (since someone could argue that you go near a bookshelf with a flame and you won't have it any more) the other difference is copying. You can't make a perfect copy of a car/CD/book without physical materials, and it's never perfect. Music files, being binary, are perfectly cloned and don't need any raw materials. I think that should be an obvious enough distinction between the two in terms of "tangible property" even if you do ignore "well I can't touch the file on my disk".
That'd probably be because money talks in the "land of the free". Everyone is free to make their fortune, it's the "American dream", and so corporations have power. Add to that the fact that we've had centuries to do it wrong (e.g. previous feudal systems, which would have had a leaning towards supporting the nobility) and somewhere like America is bound to place a value on life that isn't equal to that of a corporation.
It's probably because we don't need one because we have a history instead. As above, we've had time to do it wrong and so we can now do it right without needing a document that tells us how to do it right. We do still have some EU-wide things similar to a constitution (like the Human Rights Bill) but they're all targetted and sensible and seemingly more relevant to the modern world.
Which is the point at which Google gets in to a huge legal battle because they're then operating out of a country without following the local laws.
The office may say "well sue us", but just because they're an American corporation saying that and they think they're above the law doesn't mean they actually are.
Chances are they'll say something about needing to know IP addresses or have a copy of your Google.com cookie and then take 40 days over it. BT (British Telecom, my phone provider) are currently saying it'll take 40 days and £10 to get a printed copy of an engineers report that they can read out to us from the screen.
Or, with product names:
Panasonic Viera P905i (Think of it as the world's smallest "big-screen" TV)
Raon Everun UMPC (Ultra-mobile PC - a micro laptop)
Samsung 'Soul' SGH U900
NEC ValueStar W (Vista Media Centre that's extra quiet)
Toshiba ApriPoko Robot (This 11-inch-tall robot--which looks like the love child of a bird Pokemon and the Pillsbury Doughboy--is actually a voice-activated remote control)
Sony VAIO G2 (super-light laptop with all the normal features)
Fujitsu F705i
Aigo USB Dongle (HD receiver)
NEC LUI (LUI stands for "Life with Ubiquitous Integrated Solutions - basically a combination of media server and PDA or laptop)
Face Bank (Wave a coin in front of the bank's eyes (actually light sensors), and it opens wide to swallow your loose change. Afterward, it looks so pleased that you half expect it to emit a contented belch)
So, how many of those are actually things we're really missing, as opposed to just not having?