Your hired. You'll be paid $100k a year, and you'll write a new iPhone app for me every six weeks. An idea could be as complex as I like, and I still can't see it taking you more than six weeks to implement, unless you're a shitty developer or wasting time, in which case, you're fired.
ClamAV is included with Mac OS X Server, but not the desktop Mac OS X.
Also, it doesn't appear that Apple is recommending that a user stack more than one AntiVirus package on a given system, rather, they are refraining from picking a single package so that the market is heterogeneous. This affords better protection to the herd as a whole. I agree the technical bulletin is a bit ambiguous on this point.
A poem, created by a fictional worm on Brian's notebook, when you worked with him...
worm wating, watching
webcam
reporters all about
silently
patiently
Brian offers share to you
lays potato chips
you cannot eat just one
worm author waiting, watching
hoping instead for interoffice tryst with hot young intern
hoping one day to invade hustler.com or playboy.com
worm has failed its master
You keep using that phrase, "copied the files to his computer". I don't think it means what you think it means.
In discussions like this, it might merely mean that the kid accessed a protected area by accident, and his web browser "copied the file to his computer". Law Enforcement sometimes misuses the mere presence of data on the suspect's computer as the standard for proof of guilt, which is sometimes only the browser cache or even the cache for a filesharing program, when the user may not even know what the heck was in it.
The file name undoubtedly was not "click here to get 3 felony charges file against you and seriously fuck up the rest of your life". The kid appears to have been doing the right thing. Now, if he tried to sell any of the data that he saw, sure, charges might be appropriate. Based on what little public information is available, this appears to be a case of shooting the messenger.
I find it curious that in discussions like this one, the United States is criticized both for acting in Kosovo, and for not acting in Rawanda, when in both cases the primary argument for intervention is the same human rights issue -- genocide. Unfortunately, you chose to childishly assert that I'm unaware of recent history, rather than make a specific claim which you might then need to defend. Are you in favor of allowing genocide to continue so long as it's practiced outside of your country? Which country is that, by the way?
Your only specific claim makes you appear to be under prepared for this discussion. Ask the Afghan and the Czech and the Cuban and a whole bunch of others about how peace loving the USSR was. The technical methods of the time didn't include precision bombing, but violent overthrow of governments, and violent oppression of people of other nations was a chief component to their foreign policy, and armed aggression in a variety of forms was a definite part of the history of the USSR. Most Russians don't even deny that part of their history, although in some cases they defend the various actions as just from their perspective.
Although the current administration under President Bush is frequently guilty of this cynical and spotty support for human rights, the USA has a long and honorable track record of supporting human rights. Yes, we could do better, but at great expense and inconvenience, we have worked to create and foster a variety of international treaties and organizations which promote human rights. The past several years have damaged our reputation gravely, but please do consider the depth of our support for human rights and give us some credit. Frankly, even though we have mismanaged our intervention in Afghanistan, and even though Iraq is almost universally agreed to have been the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, it is still quite possible that the people of both of those nations will be better off with respect to human rights after intervention by the USA than before it.
Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein were universally acknowledged to be amongst the most dismal places to have the misfortune to be born. In both countries, the chief threat to peace, and basic human rights, is not the USA, but rather militant fundamentalist monotheistic religion.
The greatest weakness of the USA in these current interventions is undoubtedly our unwillingness, as a nation, to admit that fundamentalist religion may be a threat to democracy. If we admit that, we would be forced to look in the mirror, and see that much of the damage to our own democracy in the past few years is rooted in fundamentalist Christian movements, here.
There exist international agreements with respect to human rights, none of which provide for the death penalty or extended prison terms for passing out leaflets (or whatever) and some of which may explicitly prohibit such treatment.
Your view of this issue is pure cultural relativism, which is a view that best serves totalitarian governments which seek to brutally oppress people within their domain of violent control. Cultural relativism may not be too harmful in the general case (questions such as "is it 'best' to eat with a fork, or with chop sticks?" may not have a single correct answer), but it breaks down pretty quickly when brutal oppression is concerned.
For example, if you were a victim of an absurd practice, such as castration of all people born with your color of hair (after puberty, without anesthetic, using a ceremonial knife made from the sharpest limestone that your local drunken shaman has available, and to show your appreciation for your elders, you get to give him a blow job, after you've just been castrated) you might take a better interest in the notion of universal human rights, which transcend local government rights to oppress you.
Sound like an extreme example? Well, it differs in particulars, but really, in terms of suffering, it's not much different than female circumcision, practiced in many African and Muslim nations. It's easy to find real world examples of actions taken by or protected by governments which are so brutal, so extreme, that no sensible person clings to cultural relativism when faced with them. In the face of genocide somewhere else, you may still cling to isolationism, but that's a different matter.
Oddly, you seem on the other hand to be perfectly OK telling my country what we can and cannot do. Please consider defending your double standard for cultural relativism, I'm curious to see where that leads.
Regarding your critique of the United States of America employing a dual standard (particularly with respect to torture, although you do not mention that) I am a citizen of the guilty country. Many people here are deeply troubled by actions that the Bush administration has undertaken in our name and which contravene international treaties which the United States helped to formulate. We are hoping, on November 2nd, to begin to fix this problem, and return this country to being a standard bearer, in practice, not just in name, for human rights.
With respect to Afghanistan, It is not clear that democracy is compatible with fundamentalist religion. American history shows that democracy can be compatible with a multicultural society, with many religions agreeing that governance and religion are separate domains.
You suggest that we, the western nations, have no right to tell Afghanistan that it cannot kill or imprison someone for raising political issues. I suggest you flip the coin and look at the other side. If Afghanistan wants the help of the west, then it must accept commonly accepted human rights as part of the package.
Your attitude, that people in Afghanistan don't deserve human rights because they live in a nation which isn't "developed", is paternalistic. That's a fancy social science term which means you think you are superior to people around the world because you happen to have been born in a place where indoor plumbing is commonplace. You are not superior, and in fact, you are also wrong, although those two factoids might not be related.
Before you go around demanding that other people define terms for you, consider reading more.
I hear that. I turned on a new land line to get DSL less than two weeks ago. I do not even *know* the number. The next day I started getting telespam, mostly recordings. I get a couple every day. The worst part is that all but one of them had no idea who they were calling. They were clearly dialing random numbers or sequential numbers.
No, I'm not confusing them. I'm suggesting that the GPL, which is the license for much of the software on the typical Linux distribution, has effects which reach beyond the project (whatever it may be). Those effects, I suggest, result in massive amounts of wasted effort, and hold back progress of open source software. Let's take Linux out of the discussion for a bit, since it seems to be such an emotional issue for so many.
Let's talk about compilers. Only real nerds get emotional about compilers. Here's my prediction: LLVM will take over the world of free compilers, almost entirely displacing gcc, and most geeks are going to love it. GNU/gcc enthusiasts will make all kinds of excuses, but one of the biggest reasons why this is going to happen is that LLVM projects use a free license, not a copyleft license. It will be years before I'm proven correct, but this will happen. The world of free compilers will be liberated from the tyranny of gcc (credit to jcr for first uttering that phrase on the phone to me a few months ago).
I'm really going to be impressed with myself if I get a Troll mod for talking about free software licenses on compilers. It might go to my head.
Oh, by the way, I was being serious, if a little sarcastic. Although I admire your thinking and generally clear expression, it appears that we differ on the point of licensing for open source projects. For a long time I was license agnostic. I figured people would experiment and find the right license for the right project. Instead, what I see is a camp of folks most of whom are quite religious (dogmatic) in their thinking about the topic. The BSD/MIT license people tend not to engage in the debate at all, largely because they don't perceive it as a religious issue, but rather a practical issue. The net result seems to be that Linux, after many years, remains an experimental kernel for hackers, rather than an operating system, promoted by zealots who care more about GPL purity than they do about getting things done. (I am not directing this comment at you, nor at Linus, nor at RMS, but rather at the legion followers).
Linux is already being marginalized in the market, and the reasons have nothing to do with Microsoft. Linux vendors are following, not leading. They are so busy forking distros so they can slap their logo on the desktop that they have entirely failed to make Linux usable. Honestly, I wish Linux didn't suck. It does. Religious adherence to GPL, I'm becoming convinced, is one of the reasons why it continues to suck, and will continue to suck, forever, in a niche ghetto.
RE: Spring... is anybody still taking the "many eyes == security" claim seriously? The evidence supporting this claim is scant, and by now there ought to be piles of irrefutable stats. There are not, and it's not because people haven't tried. How can you seriously try to extend that essentially refuted claim to differentiating between open source projects with different types of licenses or enterprise contributors? Good grief. You cannot possibly be Bruce Perens. ATTENTION Real Bruce: did you go off and leave yourself logged in again?
The room isn't spinning, it's Linux spinning, pulling from a roll of saran wrap for years. There's more oxygen in the tech marketplace today than there has been for twenty five years. Too bad Linux looks like a middle aged couch potato, instead of a 22 year old hottie chock full of nature's goodness.
How long will it take before people realize that the GPL is holding Linux back? It's the greatest single strategic weakness of the beloved-by-socialist-wanna-be-programmers. The BSD style licensed projects get more momentum and make forward progress. Meanwhile, GPL-style projects fork and fork and fork and fork endlessly. How many Linux distros does it take to beat a clue into the head of a GPL zealot? The world may never know.
My Karma is gonna get a major dent from this, I know it. But there it is, folks. Apache isn't in danger from Microsoft because Apache is still free. Like totally free. Like not encumbered by any strings, free. Like get over yourself copyleft freaks, free.
Whew... OK... I caught my breath. Damn, that article summary was funny. OK, so I guess I could see maybe the very first decision to fund Safari development at Apple to be in part due to the fact that FireFox on the Mac sucked so horribly that people actually went back and forth between FireFox and MSIE. Other than that, the claim that Safari tries to catch up with FireFox is truly entertaining. That was the best laugh I had all day! Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Your hired. You'll be paid $100k a year, and you'll write a new iPhone app for me every six weeks. An idea could be as complex as I like, and I still can't see it taking you more than six weeks to implement, unless you're a shitty developer or wasting time, in which case, you're fired.
I did years ago. Lost it somewhere.
ClamAV is included with Mac OS X Server, but not the desktop Mac OS X.
Also, it doesn't appear that Apple is recommending that a user stack more than one AntiVirus package on a given system, rather, they are refraining from picking a single package so that the market is heterogeneous. This affords better protection to the herd as a whole. I agree the technical bulletin is a bit ambiguous on this point.
A random text generator could construct a better argument.
A poem, created by a fictional worm on Brian's notebook, when you worked with him...
worm wating, watching
webcam
reporters all about
silently
patiently
Brian offers share to you
lays potato chips
you cannot eat just one
worm author waiting, watching
hoping instead for interoffice tryst with hot young intern
hoping one day to invade hustler.com or playboy.com
worm has failed its master
You keep using that phrase, "copied the files to his computer". I don't think it means what you think it means.
In discussions like this, it might merely mean that the kid accessed a protected area by accident, and his web browser "copied the file to his computer". Law Enforcement sometimes misuses the mere presence of data on the suspect's computer as the standard for proof of guilt, which is sometimes only the browser cache or even the cache for a filesharing program, when the user may not even know what the heck was in it.
The file name undoubtedly was not "click here to get 3 felony charges file against you and seriously fuck up the rest of your life" . The kid appears to have been doing the right thing. Now, if he tried to sell any of the data that he saw, sure, charges might be appropriate. Based on what little public information is available, this appears to be a case of shooting the messenger.
I find it curious that in discussions like this one, the United States is criticized both for acting in Kosovo, and for not acting in Rawanda, when in both cases the primary argument for intervention is the same human rights issue -- genocide. Unfortunately, you chose to childishly assert that I'm unaware of recent history, rather than make a specific claim which you might then need to defend. Are you in favor of allowing genocide to continue so long as it's practiced outside of your country? Which country is that, by the way?
Your only specific claim makes you appear to be under prepared for this discussion. Ask the Afghan and the Czech and the Cuban and a whole bunch of others about how peace loving the USSR was. The technical methods of the time didn't include precision bombing, but violent overthrow of governments, and violent oppression of people of other nations was a chief component to their foreign policy, and armed aggression in a variety of forms was a definite part of the history of the USSR. Most Russians don't even deny that part of their history, although in some cases they defend the various actions as just from their perspective.
Although the current administration under President Bush is frequently guilty of this cynical and spotty support for human rights, the USA has a long and honorable track record of supporting human rights. Yes, we could do better, but at great expense and inconvenience, we have worked to create and foster a variety of international treaties and organizations which promote human rights. The past several years have damaged our reputation gravely, but please do consider the depth of our support for human rights and give us some credit. Frankly, even though we have mismanaged our intervention in Afghanistan, and even though Iraq is almost universally agreed to have been the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, it is still quite possible that the people of both of those nations will be better off with respect to human rights after intervention by the USA than before it.
Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein were universally acknowledged to be amongst the most dismal places to have the misfortune to be born. In both countries, the chief threat to peace, and basic human rights, is not the USA, but rather militant fundamentalist monotheistic religion.
The greatest weakness of the USA in these current interventions is undoubtedly our unwillingness, as a nation, to admit that fundamentalist religion may be a threat to democracy. If we admit that, we would be forced to look in the mirror, and see that much of the damage to our own democracy in the past few years is rooted in fundamentalist Christian movements, here.
There exist international agreements with respect to human rights, none of which provide for the death penalty or extended prison terms for passing out leaflets (or whatever) and some of which may explicitly prohibit such treatment.
Your view of this issue is pure cultural relativism, which is a view that best serves totalitarian governments which seek to brutally oppress people within their domain of violent control. Cultural relativism may not be too harmful in the general case (questions such as "is it 'best' to eat with a fork, or with chop sticks?" may not have a single correct answer), but it breaks down pretty quickly when brutal oppression is concerned.
For example, if you were a victim of an absurd practice, such as castration of all people born with your color of hair (after puberty, without anesthetic, using a ceremonial knife made from the sharpest limestone that your local drunken shaman has available, and to show your appreciation for your elders, you get to give him a blow job, after you've just been castrated) you might take a better interest in the notion of universal human rights, which transcend local government rights to oppress you.
Sound like an extreme example? Well, it differs in particulars, but really, in terms of suffering, it's not much different than female circumcision, practiced in many African and Muslim nations. It's easy to find real world examples of actions taken by or protected by governments which are so brutal, so extreme, that no sensible person clings to cultural relativism when faced with them. In the face of genocide somewhere else, you may still cling to isolationism, but that's a different matter.
Oddly, you seem on the other hand to be perfectly OK telling my country what we can and cannot do. Please consider defending your double standard for cultural relativism, I'm curious to see where that leads.
Regarding your critique of the United States of America employing a dual standard (particularly with respect to torture, although you do not mention that) I am a citizen of the guilty country. Many people here are deeply troubled by actions that the Bush administration has undertaken in our name and which contravene international treaties which the United States helped to formulate. We are hoping, on November 2nd, to begin to fix this problem, and return this country to being a standard bearer, in practice, not just in name, for human rights.
With respect to Afghanistan, It is not clear that democracy is compatible with fundamentalist religion. American history shows that democracy can be compatible with a multicultural society, with many religions agreeing that governance and religion are separate domains.
This place is chock full of morons like that, and it seems that many of them have unlimited mod points. Thanks for fighting the good fight.
You suggest that we, the western nations, have no right to tell Afghanistan that it cannot kill or imprison someone for raising political issues. I suggest you flip the coin and look at the other side. If Afghanistan wants the help of the west, then it must accept commonly accepted human rights as part of the package.
Your attitude, that people in Afghanistan don't deserve human rights because they live in a nation which isn't "developed", is paternalistic. That's a fancy social science term which means you think you are superior to people around the world because you happen to have been born in a place where indoor plumbing is commonplace. You are not superior, and in fact, you are also wrong, although those two factoids might not be related.
Before you go around demanding that other people define terms for you, consider reading more.
I hear that. I turned on a new land line to get DSL less than two weeks ago. I do not even *know* the number. The next day I started getting telespam, mostly recordings. I get a couple every day. The worst part is that all but one of them had no idea who they were calling. They were clearly dialing random numbers or sequential numbers.
I have a better idea. You and all the other poor souls with a "bricked" iPhone, just send them to me. I'll pay the postage.
You keep using that word, "bricked". I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, I'm not confusing them. I'm suggesting that the GPL, which is the license for much of the software on the typical Linux distribution, has effects which reach beyond the project (whatever it may be). Those effects, I suggest, result in massive amounts of wasted effort, and hold back progress of open source software. Let's take Linux out of the discussion for a bit, since it seems to be such an emotional issue for so many.
Let's talk about compilers. Only real nerds get emotional about compilers. Here's my prediction: LLVM will take over the world of free compilers, almost entirely displacing gcc, and most geeks are going to love it. GNU/gcc enthusiasts will make all kinds of excuses, but one of the biggest reasons why this is going to happen is that LLVM projects use a free license, not a copyleft license. It will be years before I'm proven correct, but this will happen. The world of free compilers will be liberated from the tyranny of gcc (credit to jcr for first uttering that phrase on the phone to me a few months ago).
I'm really going to be impressed with myself if I get a Troll mod for talking about free software licenses on compilers. It might go to my head.
Oh, by the way, I was being serious, if a little sarcastic. Although I admire your thinking and generally clear expression, it appears that we differ on the point of licensing for open source projects. For a long time I was license agnostic. I figured people would experiment and find the right license for the right project. Instead, what I see is a camp of folks most of whom are quite religious (dogmatic) in their thinking about the topic. The BSD/MIT license people tend not to engage in the debate at all, largely because they don't perceive it as a religious issue, but rather a practical issue. The net result seems to be that Linux, after many years, remains an experimental kernel for hackers, rather than an operating system, promoted by zealots who care more about GPL purity than they do about getting things done. (I am not directing this comment at you, nor at Linus, nor at RMS, but rather at the legion followers).
Linux is already being marginalized in the market, and the reasons have nothing to do with Microsoft. Linux vendors are following, not leading. They are so busy forking distros so they can slap their logo on the desktop that they have entirely failed to make Linux usable. Honestly, I wish Linux didn't suck. It does. Religious adherence to GPL, I'm becoming convinced, is one of the reasons why it continues to suck, and will continue to suck, forever, in a niche ghetto.
RE: Spring... is anybody still taking the "many eyes == security" claim seriously? The evidence supporting this claim is scant, and by now there ought to be piles of irrefutable stats. There are not, and it's not because people haven't tried. How can you seriously try to extend that essentially refuted claim to differentiating between open source projects with different types of licenses or enterprise contributors? Good grief. You cannot possibly be Bruce Perens. ATTENTION Real Bruce: did you go off and leave yourself logged in again?
The more you tighten your grip, Ballmer, the more handhelds will slip through your fingers.
Bruce Perens is the Chuck Norris of the geek world. He doesn't age. He recompiles time.
The room isn't spinning, it's Linux spinning, pulling from a roll of saran wrap for years. There's more oxygen in the tech marketplace today than there has been for twenty five years. Too bad Linux looks like a middle aged couch potato, instead of a 22 year old hottie chock full of nature's goodness.
How long will it take before people realize that the GPL is holding Linux back? It's the greatest single strategic weakness of the beloved-by-socialist-wanna-be-programmers. The BSD style licensed projects get more momentum and make forward progress. Meanwhile, GPL-style projects fork and fork and fork and fork endlessly. How many Linux distros does it take to beat a clue into the head of a GPL zealot? The world may never know.
My Karma is gonna get a major dent from this, I know it. But there it is, folks. Apache isn't in danger from Microsoft because Apache is still free. Like totally free. Like not encumbered by any strings, free. Like get over yourself copyleft freaks, free.
And this is different from the security situation with Windows today in what way?
You can't win, Mods. If you Troll me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Whew... OK... I caught my breath. Damn, that article summary was funny. OK, so I guess I could see maybe the very first decision to fund Safari development at Apple to be in part due to the fact that FireFox on the Mac sucked so horribly that people actually went back and forth between FireFox and MSIE. Other than that, the claim that Safari tries to catch up with FireFox is truly entertaining. That was the best laugh I had all day! Thanks.