Yes, but they do lock their doors with the best method that the lock gives them.
I'm going to pick this line out, though the response is applicable to wireless security.
Household front door locks are probably the easiest locks to pick that people commonly use. Really, buy a cheap set of lockpicks, like 10 bucks or less, which have only two or three tools: torque wrench (bent, flat piece of metal), rake (jagged flat piece of metal), and pick (like rake but with a single point). With a few hours of practice that's enough to get you past a typical front door in about 15 seconds. There are more expensive electrical picks that don't even take practice.
The reason this isn't a problem is because it's way easier to smash through a window (and people willing to learn effective lockpicking probably know breaking into houses is going to be less profitable than simply working at a convenience store). If people needed better locks on their front doors, front door locks would be more like car locks (or vending machine locks), which are much harder to pick: two sided, with a more complex mechanism, and often with a chip that has to complete an electrical circuit in some way (I think the chip is only used when starting the vehicle, though). It's hard enough that breaking the window (car windows are generally harder to break than building windows) or bending the door frame back or some other method, is easier. There are other locking methods that would make normal locking and unlocking take more time, but are only a pointless hassle as long as there are smashable windows.
Security isn't binary, being either on/off. It's a measure of effort an attacker has to make to intrude. And generally the more effort on the attacker's part means more effort on the user's part just using the system (security vs. convenience, with diminishing returns). Cracking WEP takes enough effort and knowledge, and willingness to potentially break the law, that 99.9% of people won't do it. To be a problem, you'd need a neighbor willing to do it, capable of doing it, and with malicious intent.
This may not be completely surefire, because spammers might strip out the +stuff at the end of the address.
I thought of that too, but was assuming spammers didn't need to spend time doing that yet. I bet only a tiny fraction of gmail users use plus-addressing so far.
you could set your account up so that "address+real@gmail.com" goes to your inbox and anything addressed to just address@gmail.com is assumed to be spam.
Ah, that's a great idea. Then it's like a shared password. name+password@gmail.com
I guess technically I have responded to spam, as I sometimes respond to 419 scams to mess with the scammer. I respond pretending to be interested in whatever they said, then delay as much as possible in order to waste time. Maybe even reply with obviously fake documents (if they look too real, they could be used again against an innocent person in another scam). The idea is to waste as much of their time as possible, but without wasting much of your own time.
Some people are really, really good at this, called scam baiting or 419 baiting, and they'll turn the scam around and get the scammer to do elaborate, expensive activities for everyone's amusement. Things like record an ebook, or paint a painting, then mail it in to the baiter, carve a replica of the baiter's head from a block of wood. It's really great stuff.
Ditto for me. I've been using that gmail plus-addressing feature for awhile now. At least a year. Since then, every site I have gone to either got a custom address, or a separate throwaway or fake address if their address validator was awful enough to reject addresses with +'s in them (probably half of them). Some occasional spot checking on my spam filter has shown no e-mail arriving to any plus addresses.
I also wrote a tool to wrap files in PNGs two years ago. It's a command line that would be operated in a similar way to a compressor, like gzip. As for file sizes, it should only limited by the PNG format itself.
All data is stored in visible pixels, not hidden away in metadata. It also has some simple parity checks to make sure the image wasn't damaged somewhere along the way (some kind of lossy transformation), and keeps track of the original filename by storing that in the image as well.
(Retrospectively, I think it could probably be a lot better than the state I left it in.)
Dwarf Fortress isn't really an ASCII or text-based interface. It's a graphical tile interface that runs on SDL, and happens to use tiles that look like text.
Visit that normally, then with a googlebot UA string (or visit Google's cached version) and watch the "you must log in" disappear. Like Expert Sexchange I whish there was a way to auto-remove Linux Magazine from my search results.
North Korea didn't, but we are meant to think they did. These packets are side by side. Koreans always ping single file to hide their numbers. And these SYN attacks, too accurate for North Koreans. Only British hackers are so precise.
For VHDL itself, I learned that with GHDL (VHDL front-end to gcc, though it hasn't been updated in a year now) and GTKWave for viewing the waves. Throw in make for a build system, and it was all I needed to design and implement (VHDL only, that is) a simple microprocessor.
No, it reinforces your non-sequitur argument that only people who use computers like you do are doing "real work".
I would bet that most interactive computer use is done solely for entertainment, which isn't real work, and the operating system doesn't matter much. I never said people using computers differently than me weren't doing real work. You are putting words in my mouth.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's disorganised.
In my experience, most of the time configuration files in the/etc directory for a particular program are named/etc/name (now bring phased out) or/etc/name.conf or if it is more complicated/etc/name/ with/etc/name/name.conf probably being the "main" one. If not this, then very close to it (".cfg", ".ini"). The man page will also list the configuration file, and the configuration file has its own man page. These are all text files that I can manipulate with a powerful text editor, or other powerful text manipulation tools.
Which must be manipulated using a program with an extremely poor interface. I think it's impossible to pretend that this is organized. Ridiculous to pretend.
I'm also very sure that versioning it will be nowhere as nice as it is versioning/etc.
If you've never seen bad drivers take down a Linux machine, you can't have been using it for very long.
I've had problems with drivers, yes, but none that needed me to reboot the machine. This probably has to do with not using proprietary drivers, generally the most buggy ones, with Linux.
End users are happy to open password protected zip files to get at the malware goodness inside when they're being promised free stuff. Do you seriously think need to set +x would make a meaningful difference ?
That extra step would probably cut down that attack vector by at least 90%, and couldn't be done completely by accident.
At certain tasks. For, say, designing a 100-storey skyscraper or adding digital effects to a film, they're useless.
I'm pretty sure that data is saved to files, and files are generally most quickly managed with a shell.
That's because creating filenames that can't be manipulated by the majority of existing software would be extrememely dumb.
Which is due to stupid design decisions by Microsoft. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
So the real problem is actually a poorly designed third party software package.
I have almost never had a need for anything outside the repositories. When I did, I would install it in my home directory, where the package manager and it won't fight.
Shows IE about 10 times slower than FF3.5, Safari, and Chrome. I got my 100x factor from running this: http://nullprogram.com/download/mersenne/ When I ran it with IE7 it took about 100x longer than the above browsers. IE8 can't run it, so I don't know how it does.
Rubbish. It's got all the major features most people give a damn about.
In several of your responses you cite that "typical users" don't need it, which only reinforces my comment about Windows being a toy operating system. Typical users use their computers as a browser/e-mail appliance, and maybe some word processing or games. It's a toy. To be clear, I am not saying there is something wrong with that, and it doesn't make typical users "stupid" or anything.
But for serious computing, like research, simulation, large data processing, etc., a unix-like system is going to be incredibly more useful. I work in a laboratory and I see first-hand all the time how Windows continually gets in the way of productivity. Management and overhead prefers Windows because they like Office and Outlook and that whole thing, but the technical people, needing flexible computing systems, generally prefer some kind of unix-like system when they have a choice.
The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename (ie ".exe").
False.
Upon further examination I now see this is entirely true, but that's how it effectively works. If someone emails me a file with a.exe suffix Windows will automatically execute it if I click on it wrong. In unix, I would need to manually set the execute permission. In Windows, the sender is effectively setting this. Combined with hiding file extensions by default probably makes this one of the biggest mistakes in computing history. The solution right now in the case of email is to block filenames with "bad" suffixes.
The shell sucks.
How so ?
The unix shells are some of the most powerful computer interfaces. The traditional Windows shell doesn't even come close. I read a bit about PowerShell when it came out, but I am still not convinced it even comes close either.
The filesystem has all kinds of stupid, arbitrary limitations (like no ?, , ", *,:, | characters allowed).
These are limitations within the shell, not the filesystem.
I am corrected again. A test with ntfs-3g allowed me to use these characters. From Windows though, the this is still effectively a limit on the filesystem. Is there an API that gives enough access to do it? I've never seen a program use it.
On several occasions I have had filenames with some of these characters in them, threw them in a tarball, brought them into the Windows world, and found mangled filenames upon extraction.
For example, I would make a static wget recursive mirror of a website, which includes the CGI arguments in the filenames, like "index.php?q=hello". On Windows, the static version becomes unnavigatable because of the mangled names. It's really frustrating.
Case insensitive filenames.
This is most definitely a feature, not a problem.
Case of newbie hand-holding. See top of post.
No package manager (at all!).
That's because it doesn't have the dependency hell that requires such a thing in Linux.
I guess you don't have much experience with a good package manager? Dependencies are an issue that these solve, but they are really fantastic for maintaing and entire system. With a single command I can update all the software on my system. With one command I can install a number of desired packages. On Windows, each package has to do this itself, each with its own interfaces and deamons, which is a stupid way to do it.
I can't imagine maintaining a system without it.
Still use archaic "drives" for the filesystems.
Windows has supported (easily) mounting drives underneath directories for nearly a decade. People prefer drives because they are a more sensible organisation tool.
People prefer them because it's what they are used to, and its what all that legacy software needs to see. I think the unix root-style (/) way is much more sensible. To each his own.
It does a port scan of your IP, to check or you being an open proxy or something. If you want to see it for yourself throw up a webserver, post a comment here, then check your logs. Slashdot will have taken a peak at it.
Windows really is a poorly designed OS, and as such I view it as an expensive toy. To name some things from the perspective from a fairly fresh install:
It intentionally hides lots of information from the user for the sake of hand-holding. The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename (ie ".exe"). The shell sucks. The filesystem has all kinds of stupid, arbitrary limitations (like no ?, <, >, ", *,:, | characters allowed). Case insensitive filenames. No package manager (at all!). Still use archaic "drives" for the filesystems. Spaces in system path names. Severe limitations on the size of environmental variables. A seriously piss poor excuse for a browser. Lots of GUI-only configuration. The registry. No SSH. No X. No basic commands (find, grep, ln, df, du, etc.; part of shell sucking really). Extremely shitty text editor. Regular BSODs (yes, even Vista; I have yet to personally see a linux kernel panic, or any other crash that required a reboot). No decent interpreters (even the barest unix installs always have an awk, and almost always have perl).
Luckily, some of this can be fixed by installing tools ported from unixland (cygwin can help for a bit until it quickly falls into a broken state). However, because of the lack of package manager this can be time consuming.
So not only is it expensive and proprietary, it's technically inferior in almost every way.
Here are the relevant parts of the gospels you asked for,
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John 1:9-11
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 2 Corinthians 6:14-17
Discrimination, right from the zombie horse's mouth. Looks like you need to "actually read the words of Christ".
These images are public domain in the US, where he and Wikipedia reside. It is ridiculous to say they need to ask permission from some control freak in another part of the world in order to exercise their rights. NPG has no right to control the images. Wikipedia kept the Muhammad images up when a bunch of whiny muslims came to complain, and they'll keep these images up even when a bunch of whiny brits complain.
The NPG has needlessly brought conflict to itself and damaged its own reputation by being a bunch of hypocrite weenies.
NPG is a very inconsistent, two-faced organization.
NPG locks up culture by prohibiting cameras, then claiming copyright and demanding licensing on any photographs that were taken (since they were the only ones taking them), while doing all this under public funding. These paintings are part of the culture and belong in the public domain for anyone to use.
If you were paying attention, Wikipedia did nothing illegal as these images are public domain in the US. Even NPG acknowledges this.
Dcoetzee didn't have to get into any negotiations, and it's insulting to say he does. Living in the US, he committed no copyright infringement. It's his right to use these images as he pleases. The images of these paintings belong to everyone.
As for reputation, we now see how hypocritical NPG is. They claim to "promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible" then turn around and demand that images of the paintings can't be distributed, which is the opposite of their supposed mission. NPG is a backwards organization.
There are images on Wikipedia that are illegal in some other countries too, like the depictions of Muhammad. If it concerned itself with all these countries Wikipedia would be pretty empty. Since they are in the US, they only worry about US laws. Outside of our corrupt mess of a copyright system, the US probably has one of the best track records on free speech, putting Wikipedia in a good position.
For someone concerned about using Wikipedia outside the US, images with questionable legal status in their home country are marked as such (as are these images on Wikipedia).
And Wikipedia doesn't have to ask anyone for permission to use public domain works (which, in the US these images are). It's an insult that someone would think otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
The NPG doesn't allow photography, thus restricting access to the paintings to anyone who can't physically travel there.
Yes, but they do lock their doors with the best method that the lock gives them.
I'm going to pick this line out, though the response is applicable to wireless security.
Household front door locks are probably the easiest locks to pick that people commonly use. Really, buy a cheap set of lockpicks, like 10 bucks or less, which have only two or three tools: torque wrench (bent, flat piece of metal), rake (jagged flat piece of metal), and pick (like rake but with a single point). With a few hours of practice that's enough to get you past a typical front door in about 15 seconds. There are more expensive electrical picks that don't even take practice.
The reason this isn't a problem is because it's way easier to smash through a window (and people willing to learn effective lockpicking probably know breaking into houses is going to be less profitable than simply working at a convenience store). If people needed better locks on their front doors, front door locks would be more like car locks (or vending machine locks), which are much harder to pick: two sided, with a more complex mechanism, and often with a chip that has to complete an electrical circuit in some way (I think the chip is only used when starting the vehicle, though). It's hard enough that breaking the window (car windows are generally harder to break than building windows) or bending the door frame back or some other method, is easier. There are other locking methods that would make normal locking and unlocking take more time, but are only a pointless hassle as long as there are smashable windows.
Security isn't binary, being either on/off. It's a measure of effort an attacker has to make to intrude. And generally the more effort on the attacker's part means more effort on the user's part just using the system (security vs. convenience, with diminishing returns). Cracking WEP takes enough effort and knowledge, and willingness to potentially break the law, that 99.9% of people won't do it. To be a problem, you'd need a neighbor willing to do it, capable of doing it, and with malicious intent.
So the remaining life of BSD is in units of years squared?
This may not be completely surefire, because spammers might strip out the +stuff at the end of the address.
I thought of that too, but was assuming spammers didn't need to spend time doing that yet. I bet only a tiny fraction of gmail users use plus-addressing so far.
you could set your account up so that "address+real@gmail.com" goes to your inbox and anything addressed to just address@gmail.com is assumed to be spam.
Ah, that's a great idea. Then it's like a shared password. name+password@gmail.com
I guess technically I have responded to spam, as I sometimes respond to 419 scams to mess with the scammer. I respond pretending to be interested in whatever they said, then delay as much as possible in order to waste time. Maybe even reply with obviously fake documents (if they look too real, they could be used again against an innocent person in another scam). The idea is to waste as much of their time as possible, but without wasting much of your own time.
Some people are really, really good at this, called scam baiting or 419 baiting, and they'll turn the scam around and get the scammer to do elaborate, expensive activities for everyone's amusement. Things like record an ebook, or paint a painting, then mail it in to the baiter, carve a replica of the baiter's head from a block of wood. It's really great stuff.
Ditto for me. I've been using that gmail plus-addressing feature for awhile now. At least a year. Since then, every site I have gone to either got a custom address, or a separate throwaway or fake address if their address validator was awful enough to reject addresses with +'s in them (probably half of them). Some occasional spot checking on my spam filter has shown no e-mail arriving to any plus addresses.
I also wrote a tool to wrap files in PNGs two years ago. It's a command line that would be operated in a similar way to a compressor, like gzip. As for file sizes, it should only limited by the PNG format itself.
http://nullprogram.com/projects/pngarch/
Or just grab the repository,
All data is stored in visible pixels, not hidden away in metadata. It also has some simple parity checks to make sure the image wasn't damaged somewhere along the way (some kind of lossy transformation), and keeps track of the original filename by storing that in the image as well.
(Retrospectively, I think it could probably be a lot better than the state I left it in.)
Dwarf Fortress isn't really an ASCII or text-based interface. It's a graphical tile interface that runs on SDL, and happens to use tiles that look like text.
To reply to myself: if you want to fight this, fill out a spam report to punish them. I just did. Select "cloaked page".
http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html
Here's the search page that gets you to a bad Linux Magazine page,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=linux%20journaling%20filesystem&aq=f&oq=
Linux Magazine cloaks their articles, and Google hasn't penalized them yet. Here's an example,
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/1180
Visit that normally, then with a googlebot UA string (or visit Google's cached version) and watch the "you must log in" disappear. Like Expert Sexchange I whish there was a way to auto-remove Linux Magazine from my search results.
And it's probably the cause of cave adaption.
North Korea didn't, but we are meant to think they did. These packets are side by side. Koreans always ping single file to hide their numbers. And these SYN attacks, too accurate for North Koreans. Only British hackers are so precise.
For VHDL itself, I learned that with GHDL (VHDL front-end to gcc, though it hasn't been updated in a year now) and GTKWave for viewing the waves. Throw in make for a build system, and it was all I needed to design and implement (VHDL only, that is) a simple microprocessor.
That's a start anyway.
As long as the hero yells "Gotcha, Suckas!" at the end, I will be happy.
With SSH you also know you are talking to the right server, not a man-in-the-middle or a DNS hijack.
No, it reinforces your non-sequitur argument that only people who use computers like you do are doing "real work".
I would bet that most interactive computer use is done solely for entertainment, which isn't real work, and the operating system doesn't matter much. I never said people using computers differently than me weren't doing real work. You are putting words in my mouth.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's disorganised.
In my experience, most of the time configuration files in the /etc directory for a particular program are named /etc/name (now bring phased out) or /etc/name.conf or if it is more complicated /etc/name/ with /etc/name/name.conf probably being the "main" one. If not this, then very close to it (".cfg", ".ini"). The man page will also list the configuration file, and the configuration file has its own man page. These are all text files that I can manipulate with a powerful text editor, or other powerful text manipulation tools.
Here are some typical Windows registry paths,
Which must be manipulated using a program with an extremely poor interface. I think it's impossible to pretend that this is organized. Ridiculous to pretend.
I'm also very sure that versioning it will be nowhere as nice as it is versioning /etc.
If you've never seen bad drivers take down a Linux machine, you can't have been using it for very long.
I've had problems with drivers, yes, but none that needed me to reboot the machine. This probably has to do with not using proprietary drivers, generally the most buggy ones, with Linux.
End users are happy to open password protected zip files to get at the malware goodness inside when they're being promised free stuff. Do you seriously think need to set +x would make a meaningful difference ?
That extra step would probably cut down that attack vector by at least 90%, and couldn't be done completely by accident.
At certain tasks. For, say, designing a 100-storey skyscraper or adding digital effects to a film, they're useless.
I'm pretty sure that data is saved to files, and files are generally most quickly managed with a shell.
That's because creating filenames that can't be manipulated by the majority of existing software would be extrememely dumb.
Which is due to stupid design decisions by Microsoft. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
So the real problem is actually a poorly designed third party software package.
I have almost never had a need for anything outside the repositories. When I did, I would install it in my home directory, where the package manager and it won't fight.
Not according to any benchmarks I've ever seen.
First search results for benchmarks: http://www.tmsnetwork.org/blog/comparison-web-browsers-javascript-benchmark-scores
Shows IE about 10 times slower than FF3.5, Safari, and Chrome. I got my 100x factor from running this: http://nullprogram.com/download/mersenne/ When I ran it with IE7 it took about 100x longer than the above browsers. IE8 can't run it, so I don't know how it does.
Rubbish. It's got all the major features most people give a damn about.
Cal
In several of your responses you cite that "typical users" don't need it, which only reinforces my comment about Windows being a toy operating system. Typical users use their computers as a browser/e-mail appliance, and maybe some word processing or games. It's a toy. To be clear, I am not saying there is something wrong with that, and it doesn't make typical users "stupid" or anything.
But for serious computing, like research, simulation, large data processing, etc., a unix-like system is going to be incredibly more useful. I work in a laboratory and I see first-hand all the time how Windows continually gets in the way of productivity. Management and overhead prefers Windows because they like Office and Outlook and that whole thing, but the technical people, needing flexible computing systems, generally prefer some kind of unix-like system when they have a choice.
The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename (ie ".exe").
False.
Upon further examination I now see this is entirely true, but that's how it effectively works. If someone emails me a file with a .exe suffix Windows will automatically execute it if I click on it wrong. In unix, I would need to manually set the execute permission. In Windows, the sender is effectively setting this. Combined with hiding file extensions by default probably makes this one of the biggest mistakes in computing history. The solution right now in the case of email is to block filenames with "bad" suffixes.
The shell sucks.
How so ?
The unix shells are some of the most powerful computer interfaces. The traditional Windows shell doesn't even come close. I read a bit about PowerShell when it came out, but I am still not convinced it even comes close either.
The filesystem has all kinds of stupid, arbitrary limitations (like no ?, , ", *, :, | characters allowed).
These are limitations within the shell, not the filesystem.
I am corrected again. A test with ntfs-3g allowed me to use these characters. From Windows though, the this is still effectively a limit on the filesystem. Is there an API that gives enough access to do it? I've never seen a program use it.
On several occasions I have had filenames with some of these characters in them, threw them in a tarball, brought them into the Windows world, and found mangled filenames upon extraction.
For example, I would make a static wget recursive mirror of a website, which includes the CGI arguments in the filenames, like "index.php?q=hello". On Windows, the static version becomes unnavigatable because of the mangled names. It's really frustrating.
Case insensitive filenames.
This is most definitely a feature, not a problem.
Case of newbie hand-holding. See top of post.
No package manager (at all!).
That's because it doesn't have the dependency hell that requires such a thing in Linux.
I guess you don't have much experience with a good package manager? Dependencies are an issue that these solve, but they are really fantastic for maintaing and entire system. With a single command I can update all the software on my system. With one command I can install a number of desired packages. On Windows, each package has to do this itself, each with its own interfaces and deamons, which is a stupid way to do it.
I can't imagine maintaining a system without it.
Still use archaic "drives" for the filesystems.
Windows has supported (easily) mounting drives underneath directories for nearly a decade. People prefer drives because they are a more sensible organisation tool.
People prefer them because it's what they are used to, and its what all that legacy software needs to see. I think the unix root-style (/) way is much more sensible. To each his own.
Spaces in system path n
I see some microsoft fanboy couldn't think of a response and modded me down instead.
It does a port scan of your IP, to check or you being an open proxy or something. If you want to see it for yourself throw up a webserver, post a comment here, then check your logs. Slashdot will have taken a peak at it.
Windows really is a poorly designed OS, and as such I view it as an expensive toy. To name some things from the perspective from a fairly fresh install:
It intentionally hides lots of information from the user for the sake of hand-holding. The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename (ie ".exe"). The shell sucks. The filesystem has all kinds of stupid, arbitrary limitations (like no ?, <, >, ", *, :, | characters allowed). Case insensitive filenames. No package manager (at all!). Still use archaic "drives" for the filesystems. Spaces in system path names. Severe limitations on the size of environmental variables. A seriously piss poor excuse for a browser. Lots of GUI-only configuration. The registry. No SSH. No X. No basic commands (find, grep, ln, df, du, etc.; part of shell sucking really). Extremely shitty text editor. Regular BSODs (yes, even Vista; I have yet to personally see a linux kernel panic, or any other crash that required a reboot). No decent interpreters (even the barest unix installs always have an awk, and almost always have perl).
Luckily, some of this can be fixed by installing tools ported from unixland (cygwin can help for a bit until it quickly falls into a broken state). However, because of the lack of package manager this can be time consuming.
So not only is it expensive and proprietary, it's technically inferior in almost every way.
Windows doesn't even come with a decent shell, so it's already decades behind unix-like systems on file management.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John 1:9-11
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 2 Corinthians 6:14-17
Discrimination, right from the zombie horse's mouth. Looks like you need to "actually read the words of Christ".
These images are public domain in the US, where he and Wikipedia reside. It is ridiculous to say they need to ask permission from some control freak in another part of the world in order to exercise their rights. NPG has no right to control the images. Wikipedia kept the Muhammad images up when a bunch of whiny muslims came to complain, and they'll keep these images up even when a bunch of whiny brits complain.
The NPG has needlessly brought conflict to itself and damaged its own reputation by being a bunch of hypocrite weenies.
NPG is a very inconsistent, two-faced organization.
NPG locks up culture by prohibiting cameras, then claiming copyright and demanding licensing on any photographs that were taken (since they were the only ones taking them), while doing all this under public funding. These paintings are part of the culture and belong in the public domain for anyone to use.
If you were paying attention, Wikipedia did nothing illegal as these images are public domain in the US. Even NPG acknowledges this.
Dcoetzee didn't have to get into any negotiations, and it's insulting to say he does. Living in the US, he committed no copyright infringement. It's his right to use these images as he pleases. The images of these paintings belong to everyone.
As for reputation, we now see how hypocritical NPG is. They claim to "promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible" then turn around and demand that images of the paintings can't be distributed, which is the opposite of their supposed mission. NPG is a backwards organization.
There are images on Wikipedia that are illegal in some other countries too, like the depictions of Muhammad. If it concerned itself with all these countries Wikipedia would be pretty empty. Since they are in the US, they only worry about US laws. Outside of our corrupt mess of a copyright system, the US probably has one of the best track records on free speech, putting Wikipedia in a good position.
For someone concerned about using Wikipedia outside the US, images with questionable legal status in their home country are marked as such (as are these images on Wikipedia).
And Wikipedia doesn't have to ask anyone for permission to use public domain works (which, in the US these images are). It's an insult that someone would think otherwise.