The GPL would be unnecessary, and would most definitely not be common had the copyright system been much more lax during the last few decades.
Completely disagree with that. The purpose of the GPL is to allow me to release my project out to the world for people to play with/change/learn from however they see fit while preventing people from changing it then releasing an improved version without the same freedoms I originally gave.
It was originally created by RMS after he released a version of emacs to a company who modified it, then released their own version but refused to give out the source code, and absolutely requires copyright laws in place to be able to do that.
If people could distribute derivatives non-commercially without the source code, I suspect this would still be an issue for many FOSS advocates.
Maybe a few years of a fascist government supporting global total war and orchestrated genocide would give the US people a renewed taste for personal liberties.
There isn't really any real a whole lot of information about the study to dismiss it and say a better study is needed. Unless you're going to dismiss meta-analyses out of hand for politically sensitive issues?
In any case, a meta-analysis covering 130 separate studies and 130,000 subjects sounds pretty big. I'd expect it to get allot of attention and be torn apart if it has not been well conducted.
If it's possible to donate a kidney, and possible to remove a kidney intact, and possible to keep someone going with dialysis for a while, can they not develop a procedure to temporarily remove kidneys if the patient is going to have treatment that would damage them?
Prohibitive code? Difficulty keeping the organ alive outside of the body? Risks of surgery whilst infected?
"If the user is stupid enough to run malicious code with elevated privileges then their computer is going to turn into mush like you describe, regardless of the operating system."
By saying:
"You don't need to run code with elevated privileges to allow malware to completely permeate into every aspect of the software you use or gain access to the data you deal with in Linux."
What the guy said is literally correct (though you can dispute the relevance in Linux systems where it is not trivial to elevate your privileges glibly), but doesn't realise that running *any* malicious code is enough to seriously undermine all the data you keep readable in your home directory, and liable to cause malicious software to start unnoticed whenever that user account is logged into (doesn't matter if it's run with elevated privileges or not). In any discussion around the relative security of desktop OS's for non-technical users, the fact that the users themselves are the biggest security issue should always be at the forefront of everyone's minds.
That's really the start and end of it. The original question doesn't even mention the relative security merits of one OS over another, so why even bring it up in a section of the conversation it spawned which does?
I spend one sentence asserting that users accidentally running malicious code are liable to severe security lapses regardless of the security context the code is run in - in response to someone who implied that you must run code with elevated privileges to experience security issues - and you jump back questioning it's relevance (I assume to the original post, as questioning it's relevance to *the comment I replied to* would be insane), assuming I'm talking about an obscure exploit rather than overly-trusting users, and a cheap shot about my name. Would you have been happier if I didn't mention Linux? Sorry, it was at the forefront of my mind given the context here.
Seriously, I have to go on the assumption you don't understand the importance of context (difficulty understanding that a comment must be relevant to what it is replying to, not necessarily the original/. post) and are a prick (ref. ad hominem). As always when judging someone harshly, happy to be proved wrong.
Sorry, I don't think I spelled that out in simple enough terms for you.
a> Knowledgeable computer guy like yourself suggests Linux because it's more secure b> User mistakenly believes he is immunised against mal-ware c> Lack of mal-ware infestations reinforce this belief in the user d> In reality lack of mal-ware infestations are caused by lack of mal-ware targeted at Linux e> Knowledgeable computer guys like yourself don't see this, so continue suggesting Linux use for security benefits f> Mal-ware attacks of the type I describe above targetted at Linux increase proportionally to the number of Linux desktop users g> Large swathes of non-technical Linux users, who neither have any form of Virus Protection or concerns about good security hygeine are ripe for the picking.
If a user is willing to run untrusted code, then it's trivial for it to read any data in the home directory (which is where most users keep confidential stuffI reckon) and report it back to a central location. Also trivial to have an application quietly start in the background whenever the user logs on. Also trivial to add a replacement for sudo and similar commands in the users path so the next time the user elevates his permissions, the malware can piggy-back off the back of it and install itself system wide. The relevance is that however effective the security model for Linux (or any OS is) if the user runs untrusted code with impunity, their data will be compromised and their machine is liable to become part of a botnet.
You don't have to dig deep at all to understand this, it's a pretty simple and self-evident that users are the weak-link in any and all computer security. Would be happy to demonstrate it if you're a moron though, where should I send the malware to?
You don't need to run code with elevated privileges to allow malware to completely permeate into every aspect of the software you use or gain access to the data you deal with in Linux.
Will Ubuntu continue to periodically suck my focus away from whatever task I'm doing with sociopathic notifications that refuse to leave until they're good and ready, however politely I ask.
Will Ubuntu avoid unnecessarily fiddling with applications as part of the default install [OK Pidgin/Empathy is the only case I can think of]
How much influence over Debian's future direction does Canonical have?
[Disclaimer: Big fan of Ubuntu, use it for most server installations and al personal desktops.]
Read the legal opinion (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1195336269698056315) your basing your ideas on. It explains how facts are not copyrightable, how compilations of facts can be, and how Rural's isn't. Very readable, but that's the thing about law - you do have to read allot to understand it. Otherwise how will you know if you've misunderstood it (like you did).
In your case, they explain "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts [like that original selection of funny names that you think you can copy], but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."
You can't copyright a name, no matter how creative it is (typically this is about brand names though).
Seriously, reading just a little is better than talking-out-your ass.
(Just in case you've really got muddled, this whole business about facts not being copyrightable doesn't mean that you can publish a document saying "it is a fact that the text of text of work X was....." without violating the copyright on work X)
Londonner, which I suppose is close enough. I was being tongue-in-cheek, but eye-contact is something of a taboo on the Tube. I think it stems partly from the frequent aggressive solicitations for cash from vagrants, down-and-outs, beggers and the like. Or maybe vestiges of British reservedness. Perhaps just an unhealthy fear of brief acknowledgement turning into a 40 minutes stare-down.
Anyway, if you're ever in London, on the Tube, at around 6ish, and try bucking this trend - just remember we're usually quite nice people (ie when we know we're able to leg-it if you turn out to be a nutter).
Stop nattering at 7am on the train when I should be in bed. Put your cellphone on vibrate and don't take calls. No loud music either, closed cup headphones or earphones are fine - but so help you if I can hear that the slightest tinny drivel.
Once you've learnt the art of not yelling at me when I'm forced into proximity with you, keep your arms on your side of the arm rest. Don't lean your elbow out and jab me. Sure as hell don't lean over and actually touch my upper arm with yours. This goes double for your legs. If you must use a laptop, don't keep poking me every few seconds when you try to hit the keys. If your size makes it impossible to sit on one seat: write to the train company and complain, do not force your disgusting fat body on other people. Get your damn luggage off the seat next to you and put it on the floor. If you must eat while sitting next to me (you really don't by the way) make sure it doesn't stink. Fish? No. Eggs? No. Samosa? No. No. No. Food aside, make sure YOU don't stink: showering and deodorant are not optional if you use public transport. It is absolutely not OK force people to smell you. Keep yourself to yourself, do not acknowledge anyone and DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT.
Slashdot Mirror
There's one on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems
Really though, this probably won't be a whole lot of help in deciding if you need to switch to any DB listed in my experience.
Who let all this riff raff into the room?
What? No minesweeper?
The GPL would be unnecessary, and would most definitely not be common had the copyright system been much more lax during the last few decades.
Completely disagree with that. The purpose of the GPL is to allow me to release my project out to the world for people to play with/change/learn from however they see fit while preventing people from changing it then releasing an improved version without the same freedoms I originally gave.
It was originally created by RMS after he released a version of emacs to a company who modified it, then released their own version but refused to give out the source code, and absolutely requires copyright laws in place to be able to do that.
If people could distribute derivatives non-commercially without the source code, I suspect this would still be an issue for many FOSS advocates.
Can Paypal earn interest on it in the interim?
Maybe a few years of a fascist government supporting global total war and orchestrated genocide would give the US people a renewed taste for personal liberties.
Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readibility bookmarklet, this is it.
Just skimmed over this: looks pretty awesome.
There isn't really any real a whole lot of information about the study to dismiss it and say a better study is needed. Unless you're going to dismiss meta-analyses out of hand for politically sensitive issues?
In any case, a meta-analysis covering 130 separate studies and 130,000 subjects sounds pretty big. I'd expect it to get allot of attention and be torn apart if it has not been well conducted.
If it's possible to donate a kidney, and possible to remove a kidney intact, and possible to keep someone going with dialysis for a while, can they not develop a procedure to temporarily remove kidneys if the patient is going to have treatment that would damage them?
Prohibitive code? Difficulty keeping the organ alive outside of the body? Risks of surgery whilst infected?
Whoah, you know I replied to a guy saying:
"If the user is stupid enough to run malicious code with elevated privileges then their computer is going to turn into mush like you describe, regardless of the operating system."
By saying:
"You don't need to run code with elevated privileges to allow malware to completely permeate into every aspect of the software you use or gain access to the data you deal with in Linux."
What the guy said is literally correct (though you can dispute the relevance in Linux systems where it is not trivial to elevate your privileges glibly), but doesn't realise that running *any* malicious code is enough to seriously undermine all the data you keep readable in your home directory, and liable to cause malicious software to start unnoticed whenever that user account is logged into (doesn't matter if it's run with elevated privileges or not). In any discussion around the relative security of desktop OS's for non-technical users, the fact that the users themselves are the biggest security issue should always be at the forefront of everyone's minds.
That's really the start and end of it. The original question doesn't even mention the relative security merits of one OS over another, so why even bring it up in a section of the conversation it spawned which does?
I spend one sentence asserting that users accidentally running malicious code are liable to severe security lapses regardless of the security context the code is run in - in response to someone who implied that you must run code with elevated privileges to experience security issues - and you jump back questioning it's relevance (I assume to the original post, as questioning it's relevance to *the comment I replied to* would be insane), assuming I'm talking about an obscure exploit rather than overly-trusting users, and a cheap shot about my name. Would you have been happier if I didn't mention Linux? Sorry, it was at the forefront of my mind given the context here.
Seriously, I have to go on the assumption you don't understand the importance of context (difficulty understanding that a comment must be relevant to what it is replying to, not necessarily the original /. post) and are a prick (ref. ad hominem). As always when judging someone harshly, happy to be proved wrong.
Sorry, I don't think I spelled that out in simple enough terms for you.
a> Knowledgeable computer guy like yourself suggests Linux because it's more secure
b> User mistakenly believes he is immunised against mal-ware
c> Lack of mal-ware infestations reinforce this belief in the user
d> In reality lack of mal-ware infestations are caused by lack of mal-ware targeted at Linux
e> Knowledgeable computer guys like yourself don't see this, so continue suggesting Linux use for security benefits
f> Mal-ware attacks of the type I describe above targetted at Linux increase proportionally to the number of Linux desktop users
g> Large swathes of non-technical Linux users, who neither have any form of Virus Protection or concerns about good security hygeine are ripe for the picking.
If a user is willing to run untrusted code, then it's trivial for it to read any data in the home directory (which is where most users keep confidential stuffI reckon) and report it back to a central location. Also trivial to have an application quietly start in the background whenever the user logs on. Also trivial to add a replacement for sudo and similar commands in the users path so the next time the user elevates his permissions, the malware can piggy-back off the back of it and install itself system wide. The relevance is that however effective the security model for Linux (or any OS is) if the user runs untrusted code with impunity, their data will be compromised and their machine is liable to become part of a botnet.
You don't have to dig deep at all to understand this, it's a pretty simple and self-evident that users are the weak-link in any and all computer security. Would be happy to demonstrate it if you're a moron though, where should I send the malware to?
With the password, whatever you type in has to have a hash which matches the hash associated with your account.
Whatever you type in + a salt should match the hash associated with your account.
My car is metal. I drive my car. Therefore I can drive....
Waaiit, I think we might be missing something.
You don't need to run code with elevated privileges to allow malware to completely permeate into every aspect of the software you use or gain access to the data you deal with in Linux.
none of that stops guys from setting off bombs in their pants.
Guy at work does this all the time, it's disgusting. Oh, wait...
Probably best not to pay attention to a guy who can't count to three.
Will Ubuntu continue to periodically suck my focus away from whatever task I'm doing with sociopathic notifications that refuse to leave until they're good and ready, however politely I ask.
Will Ubuntu avoid unnecessarily fiddling with applications as part of the default install [OK Pidgin/Empathy is the only case I can think of]
How much influence over Debian's future direction does Canonical have?
[Disclaimer: Big fan of Ubuntu, use it for most server installations and al personal desktops.]
Step 1. Rebuild the Berlin wall.
Read the legal opinion (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1195336269698056315) your basing your ideas on. It explains how facts are not copyrightable, how compilations of facts can be, and how Rural's isn't. Very readable, but that's the thing about law - you do have to read allot to understand it. Otherwise how will you know if you've misunderstood it (like you did).
In your case, they explain "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts [like that original selection of funny names that you think you can copy], but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."
You can't copyright a name, no matter how creative it is (typically this is about brand names though).
Seriously, reading just a little is better than talking-out-your ass.
(Just in case you've really got muddled, this whole business about facts not being copyrightable doesn't mean that you can publish a document saying "it is a fact that the text of text of work X was ....." without violating the copyright on work X)
The chip and pin cards still have the card data in a magnetic strip
Ha. Ha. You're killing me.
Have you met my wife?
Londonner, which I suppose is close enough. I was being tongue-in-cheek, but eye-contact is something of a taboo on the Tube. I think it stems partly from the frequent aggressive solicitations for cash from vagrants, down-and-outs, beggers and the like. Or maybe vestiges of British reservedness. Perhaps just an unhealthy fear of brief acknowledgement turning into a 40 minutes stare-down.
Anyway, if you're ever in London, on the Tube, at around 6ish, and try bucking this trend - just remember we're usually quite nice people (ie when we know we're able to leg-it if you turn out to be a nutter).
Hey loud-mouth, damn right.
Stop nattering at 7am on the train when I should be in bed. Put your cellphone on vibrate and don't take calls. No loud music either, closed cup headphones or earphones are fine - but so help you if I can hear that the slightest tinny drivel.
Once you've learnt the art of not yelling at me when I'm forced into proximity with you, keep your arms on your side of the arm rest. Don't lean your elbow out and jab me. Sure as hell don't lean over and actually touch my upper arm with yours. This goes double for your legs. If you must use a laptop, don't keep poking me every few seconds when you try to hit the keys. If your size makes it impossible to sit on one seat: write to the train company and complain, do not force your disgusting fat body on other people. Get your damn luggage off the seat next to you and put it on the floor. If you must eat while sitting next to me (you really don't by the way) make sure it doesn't stink. Fish? No. Eggs? No. Samosa? No. No. No. Food aside, make sure YOU don't stink: showering and deodorant are not optional if you use public transport. It is absolutely not OK force people to smell you. Keep yourself to yourself, do not acknowledge anyone and DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT.
Unless you're a girl? Then you're all good.