It is not as often done these days, but in days past, if a child's genitalia were ambiguous, the doctors tended to take a hand in things.
From what we understand now, they often acted a bit too quickly and more in the interest of social acceptability than in the ultimate health of the child. (Don't understand social acceptability? Think "politically correct" and translate it back on the time axis about sixty or so years.)
Other kinds of non-elective surgery, there are some physical ambiguities can be a threat to health. There is more information about the possible reasons that could fall into the class of non-elective at sources such as wikipedia and your local health clinic.
The problem is all the people who, because they managed to get on the bus first, want to keep everybody else off.
Nobody invents anything in a vacuum. Sure, you may have put in long hours developing your branch of the tree, but without the source code tree, your branch is just a meaningless jumble of text. And without the library and the compiler, the whole tree is just a work of art. Literature, I mean. Maybe.
And the forest growing on the library/compiler combinatition,...
It's an open ended metaphor, but all "development" depends almost entirely on the environment in which it occurs for its very existence.
If you don't believe me try an experiment. Try to invent a new technology, one that departs significantly from existing technologies. Then try to develop that technology to compete with existing technologies that can produce similar results. Your technology may have its superior points, but if you can't find some way to either raise a community to help you with it (requiring lots of help from others), you have to try to find some way to get your new tech to work with existing tech (which has been developed by others). Or you simply have to give it all up.
Ex-nihilo is a lie, and so are the claims to big rewards.
(I've done this, many times. I want to develop a sane alternative to Unicode. And I want to develop a good information encoding scheme that allows seamlessly combining binary tagging and formatting with human readable tagging and formatting. I want to develop a sane OS that has good libraries like *nix, but also guarantees a parameter stack separate from the return-address stack and a process-local heap separate from the parent process and global heaps, complete with a sane object format. And I want to develop a programming language that allows multiple return parameters instead of forcing the work-around of a return record. I haven't exactly given up, but I know the value of community resources. If I ever do succeed, I know how little my efforts will count to the whole thing.)
It is sheer arrogance to try to hold an entire industry hostage, just because you (and your company) put in n-hundred man-years. Remember, any useful tech has n-billion man years supporting it already.
If you make a killing, how do you reward the people on whose work you depend? Or do you really like the lottery economy?
If you like the lottery economy, you're welcome to go back to the feudalism of the middle of the last millenium. Just don't drag me back there with you. I won't like that.
I look at a lot of drugs that have been invented, and I look at the effect that many of them have on me and others like me who are physically out in the rim of the bell curve, and I don't really believe that we are necessarily better off with all these drugs being developed and aimed at the boom-bust market cycle.
(Just think about boom-bust markets and epidemiology at the same time for a few moments.)
We have a long history of indigenous treatments of a variety of diseases and disfunction, but the guys developing for the big market mostly ignore those treatments. Funny thing is, those treatments, disruptive of modern pop-a-pill, swill-a-cup-of-stimulant lifestyle as they are, generally are more effective than all the fancy drugs at restoring quality of life.
(Look at longevity in Japan, for example. That's not due to expensive drugs and treatments. It seems, rather, in spite of them.)
Biochemical research is not really all that evil. But basic hygiene and nutrition (and exercise, and general moral behavior) has done a lot more to extend the average life-span than all the expensive drugs put together.
IP may be good motivation in the current upside-down economy, but IP itself has turned society and the economy upside down. IP has just become yet another excuse in the long trail of excuses in human history to try to control things from the top down (and to try to be the dog on the top of the heap fooling himself into believing he is actually controlling things).
IP is a trap. Someone else has said it here, but IP is the legal equivalent of nuclear armament. With nuclear arms, the only thing that keeps the world from self destruction is the awareness of the guys at the front of the social trends of the concept of mutually assured destruction. You eventually get guys like Bin Ladin or whatever his name is who simply refuse to consider the end of the road when using weapons of mass destruction. (Can't put that genie back in the bottle, but war on terrorism is still pursuing the mutually assured destruction, and that by those who should be aware of the concept.)
Legalizing IP is kind of like putting weapons grade uranium out on the general market.
The concept of property of the intellect has always been there, and has historically been used to ill effect for all of recorded history. (It's a perversion of the same concept of which property itself is a partial perversion, but I'll leave that thought sitting on the ground for now. Hopefully it'll make good fertilizer if we leave it for a while.) The concept of property of the intellect has been the basis of the ideological excuse of most, if not all, repressive and abusive regimes. But when we make it a legal construct, it allows people to drag each other into court for what ultimately ends up as a game of my-lawyer-is-bigger-than-your-lawyer. King of the mountain. Who blinks first. Chicken. Mumble peg.
In the end, there's always somebody bigger, until finally two or three evenly matched opponents throw each other off the mountain and everyone ends up in a heap at the bottom. (Sometimes natural processes, or God, if you prefer a more concrete name, interfere in the game, but the result is the same. Everyone in a heap at the bottom again.)
Sometimes the mountain itself ends up in a heap at the bottom, as well, when the players have shovels or explosives. And that is the worry, now. Giving the principle of IP the teeth of law will provide ordinary lawyers with the legal firepower to destroy the whole legal system.
We would be better off to not promote the king-of-the-mountain games.
Uhm, no, in the present system, presence of a patent does not imply that someone can use the patented invention.
It only implies that somebody is using the patent.
(And maybe the use they are making of the patent is to hide the invention.)
there are still privacy concerns that come up
on
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually, I'm sitting here thinking how copyright has been part of the tide that helped turn the US Constitution upside down.
Matters of individual and family welfare were supposed to be handled at the bottom level as much as possible. Somehow, the need to monitor the Kluless Klutz Klan and its ikl from above has been an inroad to stretching the normal lines of control. But people who see chances for personal "advantage" in those long lines of control are naturally going to push to extend them further, so it's only natural that matters of personal privacy end up getting handled under "federal" law now.
So maybe there aren't any privacy concerns that will come up in state court, and this will be a good place to keep the guy where he can't do further damage.
Somehow, I'm not optimistic.
(Yes, I am of the opinion that the primary evil in giving IP a legal existence is that it finishes off the erosion of privacy. RMS's essays on the relationship seemed extreme when he wrote them, but the reality of the threat is becoming quite obvious now.)
There's nothing wrong with occasionally providing a helping hand, especially if you know what you're doing and it therefore costs you less than the next guy (or me, in this case) who has only half a clue and might take a half hour to figure out how to do it.
Besides, for all we know, maybe he was waiting for his girlfriend to get off work, or maybe he was waiting for some pieces to come out of the kiln, or something.
(I'm not so critical of betaboy. It kind of looks to me like he just has a little trouble communicating, lacks some experience with the law and with understanding what is still, to him, technical legalese, something which is not all that uncommon among geeks, especially young geeks.
Admitted, some geeks follow the siren call down the marketing path, like the Bill & Steve Show, but this does not seem to be the case here.)
(Oh, and for those of us still puzzled by the spelling challenge, I think that "counsel's advice" seems to be what he was trying to say, whether he was talking about pro se or getting advice from his law student roommate or just trying to appear like he could afford more legal help than he can or whatever.)
I've gotten apparent backscatter containing malware since more than five years back. Some of those might be actual backscatter from mail servers that bounce full messages+attachments.
But many of those have claimed to come from my provider. I know the peculiarities of my provider's headers. Those are definitely spoofed.
I have been seeing more of these apparent spoofs of backscatters from other ISPs (check them headers!) lately.
Yeah, the spammers' bots ignore the robots.txt and the indexing control headers. But the spammers don't have near the capacity of Google. It's easier for the spammers to search the forums through google, and more productive of e-mail addresses that can be sold.
The hierarchical structure is just one. It was primarily meant to be used by, erm, DNSes and the like.
Credit chains were supposed to be separate and structured differently.
Internal operations (inside your own company or department) chains and lateral operations (outside your company or department) chains get complicated, and the single hierarchy doesn't work very well. Actually, none of the structures that were originally suggested work very well. But they are supposed to be separate from the external operations chains.
(Lateral -- buying and selling are the operation you probably think of first, but, of course, there are plenty of others.)
Surfing chains were not really considered properly, which is part of the reason that even the hierarchy chains for domain names and IP numbers are not yet implemented.
Consider this -- were are trying to perform "trust" functions on the surfing chains.
Six guesses as to whom we should blame for this mess. Make sure you include a very large purveyor of OS and application software, a couple of "root" certificate providers, the market, the guys who invented PKI, and yourself in the list. (Shoot. If you want, include me for failing to invent technology for this that would work on several occasions in the past thirty years.)
Other than getting rid of annoying and mostly meaningless warning messages, CACert is the best of the options you list.
Unless you trust your community less than you trust someone whom you have never met, whose job is to grab hundreds of e-mails like the one you sent, and turn as many of them into opportunities to cash the check as possible.
The best solution is to be your own root, but that currently only works for your own organization. You could also kludge together a mutual assurance scheme with organizations that you work with a lot, but that doesn't buy you much the way certificates are currently used, and CACert has solved, fairly correctly, a number of the problems you will face if you do so.
It's the only solution that has any real meaning at this point, unless you merely want to "safely" clear all the warning messages that 3rd-party tools throw at you.
You must understand this to understand the meaning of TLS:
You are the party of the first part.
The party with whom you are conversing is the party of the second part, which, pretty much means your ISP, more specifically, the owner of your connection point.
Anyone else is third party, and that includes the current crops of CAs.
The current crops of CAs don't want you to believe this. Microsoft doesn't want you to believe this. There are many in the government who don't want you to believe this. Big corporations don't want you to believe this. Many schools and hospitals, churches, etc. don't want you to believe this. They want you to believe they are somehow more dependable than even the party of the first part.
You know what that makes them?
If you believe in God, God is the party of the zero-eth part.
If you don't believe in God (and often even if you claim to believe in God), the entity you place most trust in, usually the entity you subconsciously ascribe to being ultimately "in-charge" of whatever piece of the cosmos directly effects you, would be the party of the zero-eth part.
So, yeah, verisign and microsoft and others want to be your God.
I don't think that is the way it was originally intended to work, but that's pretty much the way that TLS currently works.
There are only two: 0 and "internally certified, not yet invalidated".
So, security issues aside, I think the grandparent's assertion that the product is pretty much the same has meaning.
Now, as to whether it allows you to make ssl (tls)-enabled web pages that don't pop warnings up, that's a different matter, and a different kind of "assurance".
It didn't have to be such a racket, but it definitely looks, smells, tastes, and dances like one at this point in time.
Yeah, remember when we talked about the benchmarks being only marginally meaningful, back when there were lots of CPU architecture options for the desktop? 6809 vs. 8088, 68K vs. x86 (>286), and then all the various reductions (optimizations) to specific classes of operations (sparc, arm, etc.)?
All the stupid half-baked arguments about which was better overall when you are more interested in specific functions, all the production of half-useful benchmarks taken completely out of context to support the sales crew's arguments to buy their processor.
Apple to oranges.
So, what has apparently won for the desktop is the company that had the money and ambition to invest in emulating their old architecture at the highest speed. (And the chutzpah to steal engineers and tech to get there.)
"Hurray for us!!! We can run the old race course at 1.2 times as fast as brand X!!!!"
(And brand X is being tuned for a different race for some reason. Is it any wonder the industry seems to be going in circles?)
No. Seriously. Look at a dual G4 and a Core 2 duo at the same processor and cache speeds running similar code. For all the hype, there isn't nearly as much difference as you'd expect, considering the difference in expenditure in the development cycle. In fact, you^H^H^H I have to wonder whether iNTEL's ambitions haven't led it to doing the hare vs. tortoise game again, running fast in the wrong places and failing to run the race in the important places.
So, we all suckered in for it. Just like we suckered in for Microsoft's sales pitch in the early '90s.
And now we can't even intelligently compare apples to apples any more. (It would be oranges to oranges except that Jobs has bought into it, too.)
Well, can you explain to me (quoting the man pages) why su would be more appropriate in this case than sudo?
Remember, the problem is not just in su or sudo to run a trojan or other malware. The problem includes things like that your web browser can leave keyloggers running just from visiting an infected site. How often do you check your.profile after a websurfing session?
You really don't want to run any admin tasks as the user that you surf the web as, and you really should prefer not to allow root to log in, period. (sudo helps quite a bit when you ban root logins entirely.)
Slashdot Mirror
No Linux.
You want a Linux distro, you pay for your copy of XP anyway.
Asustek says selling the Linux version in Japan is "under consideration"
If the proof were a snake, you'd be swelling up and turning odd colors and rolling on the ground by now, because you've obviously been bit.
Linux is defunct.
Uh huh. Sure.
You ever heard of something called raising the bar to doing good?
Any more than Bill Gates or Microsoft (or Jobs/Apple or even Linus/x) is God.
The computer is just a tool.
Unless it's running MSwhatever, in which case, the user is just a tool, and the computer+MSwhatever is what they used to call idolatry.
It is not as often done these days, but in days past, if a child's genitalia were ambiguous, the doctors tended to take a hand in things.
From what we understand now, they often acted a bit too quickly and more in the interest of social acceptability than in the ultimate health of the child. (Don't understand social acceptability? Think "politically correct" and translate it back on the time axis about sixty or so years.)
Other kinds of non-elective surgery, there are some physical ambiguities can be a threat to health. There is more information about the possible reasons that could fall into the class of non-elective at sources such as wikipedia and your local health clinic.
You always have a free-rider problem.
...
The problem is all the people who, because they managed to get on the bus first, want to keep everybody else off.
Nobody invents anything in a vacuum. Sure, you may have put in long hours developing your branch of the tree, but without the source code tree, your branch is just a meaningless jumble of text. And without the library and the compiler, the whole tree is just a work of art. Literature, I mean. Maybe.
And the forest growing on the library/compiler combinatition,
It's an open ended metaphor, but all "development" depends almost entirely on the environment in which it occurs for its very existence.
If you don't believe me try an experiment. Try to invent a new technology, one that departs significantly from existing technologies. Then try to develop that technology to compete with existing technologies that can produce similar results. Your technology may have its superior points, but if you can't find some way to either raise a community to help you with it (requiring lots of help from others), you have to try to find some way to get your new tech to work with existing tech (which has been developed by others). Or you simply have to give it all up.
Ex-nihilo is a lie, and so are the claims to big rewards.
(I've done this, many times. I want to develop a sane alternative to Unicode. And I want to develop a good information encoding scheme that allows seamlessly combining binary tagging and formatting with human readable tagging and formatting. I want to develop a sane OS that has good libraries like *nix, but also guarantees a parameter stack separate from the return-address stack and a process-local heap separate from the parent process and global heaps, complete with a sane object format. And I want to develop a programming language that allows multiple return parameters instead of forcing the work-around of a return record. I haven't exactly given up, but I know the value of community resources. If I ever do succeed, I know how little my efforts will count to the whole thing.)
It is sheer arrogance to try to hold an entire industry hostage, just because you (and your company) put in n-hundred man-years. Remember, any useful tech has n-billion man years supporting it already.
If you make a killing, how do you reward the people on whose work you depend? Or do you really like the lottery economy?
If you like the lottery economy, you're welcome to go back to the feudalism of the middle of the last millenium. Just don't drag me back there with you. I won't like that.
I look at a lot of drugs that have been invented, and I look at the effect that many of them have on me and others like me who are physically out in the rim of the bell curve, and I don't really believe that we are necessarily better off with all these drugs being developed and aimed at the boom-bust market cycle.
(Just think about boom-bust markets and epidemiology at the same time for a few moments.)
We have a long history of indigenous treatments of a variety of diseases and disfunction, but the guys developing for the big market mostly ignore those treatments. Funny thing is, those treatments, disruptive of modern pop-a-pill, swill-a-cup-of-stimulant lifestyle as they are, generally are more effective than all the fancy drugs at restoring quality of life.
(Look at longevity in Japan, for example. That's not due to expensive drugs and treatments. It seems, rather, in spite of them.)
Biochemical research is not really all that evil. But basic hygiene and nutrition (and exercise, and general moral behavior) has done a lot more to extend the average life-span than all the expensive drugs put together.
IP may be good motivation in the current upside-down economy, but IP itself has turned society and the economy upside down. IP has just become yet another excuse in the long trail of excuses in human history to try to control things from the top down (and to try to be the dog on the top of the heap fooling himself into believing he is actually controlling things).
IP is a trap. Someone else has said it here, but IP is the legal equivalent of nuclear armament. With nuclear arms, the only thing that keeps the world from self destruction is the awareness of the guys at the front of the social trends of the concept of mutually assured destruction. You eventually get guys like Bin Ladin or whatever his name is who simply refuse to consider the end of the road when using weapons of mass destruction. (Can't put that genie back in the bottle, but war on terrorism is still pursuing the mutually assured destruction, and that by those who should be aware of the concept.)
Legalizing IP is kind of like putting weapons grade uranium out on the general market.
The concept of property of the intellect has always been there, and has historically been used to ill effect for all of recorded history. (It's a perversion of the same concept of which property itself is a partial perversion, but I'll leave that thought sitting on the ground for now. Hopefully it'll make good fertilizer if we leave it for a while.) The concept of property of the intellect has been the basis of the ideological excuse of most, if not all, repressive and abusive regimes. But when we make it a legal construct, it allows people to drag each other into court for what ultimately ends up as a game of my-lawyer-is-bigger-than-your-lawyer. King of the mountain. Who blinks first. Chicken. Mumble peg.
In the end, there's always somebody bigger, until finally two or three evenly matched opponents throw each other off the mountain and everyone ends up in a heap at the bottom. (Sometimes natural processes, or God, if you prefer a more concrete name, interfere in the game, but the result is the same. Everyone in a heap at the bottom again.)
Sometimes the mountain itself ends up in a heap at the bottom, as well, when the players have shovels or explosives. And that is the worry, now. Giving the principle of IP the teeth of law will provide ordinary lawyers with the legal firepower to destroy the whole legal system.
We would be better off to not promote the king-of-the-mountain games.
Uhm, no, in the present system, presence of a patent does not imply that someone can use the patented invention.
It only implies that somebody is using the patent.
(And maybe the use they are making of the patent is to hide the invention.)
Actually, I'm sitting here thinking how copyright has been part of the tide that helped turn the US Constitution upside down.
Matters of individual and family welfare were supposed to be handled at the bottom level as much as possible. Somehow, the need to monitor the Kluless Klutz Klan and its ikl from above has been an inroad to stretching the normal lines of control. But people who see chances for personal "advantage" in those long lines of control are naturally going to push to extend them further, so it's only natural that matters of personal privacy end up getting handled under "federal" law now.
So maybe there aren't any privacy concerns that will come up in state court, and this will be a good place to keep the guy where he can't do further damage.
Somehow, I'm not optimistic.
(Yes, I am of the opinion that the primary evil in giving IP a legal existence is that it finishes off the erosion of privacy. RMS's essays on the relationship seemed extreme when he wrote them, but the reality of the threat is becoming quite obvious now.)
Actually, I'm thinking I may have just undone a perfectly good disk swap recently when the problem might have been at Apple's end.
I guess I need to test that disk.
The security implications of that have always bothered me.
I wonder, does the current diskutilities app phone home to check the hash? Not that that provides more than a speed-bump for the middleman.
Of course, it is somewhat useful for checking file integrity for issues other than crafted corruption.
There's nothing wrong with occasionally providing a helping hand, especially if you know what you're doing and it therefore costs you less than the next guy (or me, in this case) who has only half a clue and might take a half hour to figure out how to do it.
Besides, for all we know, maybe he was waiting for his girlfriend to get off work, or maybe he was waiting for some pieces to come out of the kiln, or something.
Unfortunately, all too often, the applicant sends both keys. A good CA will send them back, since the private key has already been compromised.
Some CAs are willing to generate the key pair for the customer, apparently not caring that the private key thus generated is already compromised.
Thanks, Mr/s. AC, for the link to the thread on their forums.
(I'm not so critical of betaboy. It kind of looks to me like he just has a little trouble communicating, lacks some experience with the law and with understanding what is still, to him, technical legalese, something which is not all that uncommon among geeks, especially young geeks.
Admitted, some geeks follow the siren call down the marketing path, like the Bill & Steve Show, but this does not seem to be the case here.)
(Oh, and for those of us still puzzled by the spelling challenge, I think that "counsel's advice" seems to be what he was trying to say, whether he was talking about pro se or getting advice from his law student roommate or just trying to appear like he could afford more legal help than he can or whatever.)
I've gotten apparent backscatter containing malware since more than five years back. Some of those might be actual backscatter from mail servers that bounce full messages+attachments.
But many of those have claimed to come from my provider. I know the peculiarities of my provider's headers. Those are definitely spoofed.
I have been seeing more of these apparent spoofs of backscatters from other ISPs (check them headers!) lately.
Yeah, the spammers' bots ignore the robots.txt and the indexing control headers. But the spammers don't have near the capacity of Google. It's easier for the spammers to search the forums through google, and more productive of e-mail addresses that can be sold.
Can you trust yourself?
The hierarchical structure is just one. It was primarily meant to be used by, erm, DNSes and the like.
Credit chains were supposed to be separate and structured differently.
Internal operations (inside your own company or department) chains and lateral operations (outside your company or department) chains get complicated, and the single hierarchy doesn't work very well. Actually, none of the structures that were originally suggested work very well. But they are supposed to be separate from the external operations chains.
(Lateral -- buying and selling are the operation you probably think of first, but, of course, there are plenty of others.)
Surfing chains were not really considered properly, which is part of the reason that even the hierarchy chains for domain names and IP numbers are not yet implemented.
Consider this -- were are trying to perform "trust" functions on the surfing chains.
Six guesses as to whom we should blame for this mess. Make sure you include a very large purveyor of OS and application software, a couple of "root" certificate providers, the market, the guys who invented PKI, and yourself in the list. (Shoot. If you want, include me for failing to invent technology for this that would work on several occasions in the past thirty years.)
Have you patched out the hard-wired certificate(s)?
Compiling your own java might solve the problem of the built-in certificate providers. I'll have to look at that.
Other than getting rid of annoying and mostly meaningless warning messages, CACert is the best of the options you list.
Unless you trust your community less than you trust someone whom you have never met, whose job is to grab hundreds of e-mails like the one you sent, and turn as many of them into opportunities to cash the check as possible.
The best solution is to be your own root, but that currently only works for your own organization. You could also kludge together a mutual assurance scheme with organizations that you work with a lot, but that doesn't buy you much the way certificates are currently used, and CACert has solved, fairly correctly, a number of the problems you will face if you do so.
the one that allows you to be your own root.
Then be your own root.
It's the only solution that has any real meaning at this point, unless you merely want to "safely" clear all the warning messages that 3rd-party tools throw at you.
You must understand this to understand the meaning of TLS:
You are the party of the first part.
The party with whom you are conversing is the party of the second part, which, pretty much means your ISP, more specifically, the owner of your connection point.
Anyone else is third party, and that includes the current crops of CAs.
The current crops of CAs don't want you to believe this. Microsoft doesn't want you to believe this. There are many in the government who don't want you to believe this. Big corporations don't want you to believe this. Many schools and hospitals, churches, etc. don't want you to believe this. They want you to believe they are somehow more dependable than even the party of the first part.
You know what that makes them?
If you believe in God, God is the party of the zero-eth part.
If you don't believe in God (and often even if you claim to believe in God), the entity you place most trust in, usually the entity you subconsciously ascribe to being ultimately "in-charge" of whatever piece of the cosmos directly effects you, would be the party of the zero-eth part.
So, yeah, verisign and microsoft and others want to be your God.
I don't think that is the way it was originally intended to work, but that's pretty much the way that TLS currently works.
There are only two: 0 and "internally certified, not yet invalidated".
So, security issues aside, I think the grandparent's assertion that the product is pretty much the same has meaning.
Now, as to whether it allows you to make ssl (tls)-enabled web pages that don't pop warnings up, that's a different matter, and a different kind of "assurance".
It didn't have to be such a racket, but it definitely looks, smells, tastes, and dances like one at this point in time.
Yeah, remember when we talked about the benchmarks being only marginally meaningful, back when there were lots of CPU architecture options for the desktop? 6809 vs. 8088, 68K vs. x86 (>286), and then all the various reductions (optimizations) to specific classes of operations (sparc, arm, etc.)?
All the stupid half-baked arguments about which was better overall when you are more interested in specific functions, all the production of half-useful benchmarks taken completely out of context to support the sales crew's arguments to buy their processor.
Apple to oranges.
So, what has apparently won for the desktop is the company that had the money and ambition to invest in emulating their old architecture at the highest speed. (And the chutzpah to steal engineers and tech to get there.)
"Hurray for us!!! We can run the old race course at 1.2 times as fast as brand X!!!!"
(And brand X is being tuned for a different race for some reason. Is it any wonder the industry seems to be going in circles?)
No. Seriously. Look at a dual G4 and a Core 2 duo at the same processor and cache speeds running similar code. For all the hype, there isn't nearly as much difference as you'd expect, considering the difference in expenditure in the development cycle. In fact, you^H^H^H I have to wonder whether iNTEL's ambitions haven't led it to doing the hare vs. tortoise game again, running fast in the wrong places and failing to run the race in the important places.
So, we all suckered in for it. Just like we suckered in for Microsoft's sales pitch in the early '90s.
And now we can't even intelligently compare apples to apples any more. (It would be oranges to oranges except that Jobs has bought into it, too.)
Well, can you explain to me (quoting the man pages) why su would be more appropriate in this case than sudo?
.profile after a websurfing session?
Remember, the problem is not just in su or sudo to run a trojan or other malware. The problem includes things like that your web browser can leave keyloggers running just from visiting an infected site. How often do you check your
You really don't want to run any admin tasks as the user that you surf the web as, and you really should prefer not to allow root to log in, period. (sudo helps quite a bit when you ban root logins entirely.)