When I got my most resent job, our entire IT department ran Ubuntu Linux.
I also see it a lot in my favorite cafe. Maybe 20% adoption there. The best story I have about Linux there is the time I said to a guy "hey, nice netbook..." and he answered "I programed my own linux disro, want to see..." We talked for a few hours, I can't verify he programed his own distro, but I can verify he was running Linux.
Show it to distro developers and repository maintainers, people who do security work, etc. Let them look at it and see if they can defend against it. Don't release it on unsuspecting users, publish the directions to remove it, and defend against it so no one else can do it either. Putting malware in the wild is not the way to get white-hats attention, but it is the way to get black hat's attention. The white hats are usually well behind the black hats with malware that's been released in the wild. Give this to white hats and not black hats.
Post it as security bug against all the distros you've confirmed it works against. That'll attract the attention you want and not the attention you don't.
At my last job I had a choice, I could be on call almost all the time, but work from home and/or have flexible hours. Or I could work a standard shift from the office 9-5. Being on call and work flexible hours wasn't a hard choice. I used the same tools when I was working from home as when I working from the office, an internet connection, a phone, and my laptop. Most of the work I did was remote support anyway (client was far from our office anyway). I'd much rather be on call than tied to desk in the office.
Who said this is only going to be used after repeated auditory warnings? Who said it will only be used responsibly? Foreign governments don't trust commercial ships to uses lethal weapons responsibly. Other governments may see an armed foreign ship in their waters as a threat, and take a shot at it, or at least refuse to trade with it or allow it to dock.
Well, the problem with real guns is that you have to wait until they are shooting at you first. With the air cannon, that won't kill them, you can't shoot without being sure.
The trick is telling the difference between pirates and fishermen, or other innocent people. With this, big deal if it's used against the wrong person. With bullets it's another story. Leave the killing to the pros.
Netbooks are cheap small computers. Why pay for computing power you don't need, when 300$ netbook will work better than your old piece of junk desktop? If you only want to pay for what you're going to use, and you aren't doing anything resource intensive, netbooks are very cost efficient.
Netbooks would even make great command line servers, with a built in UPS.
The idea is not that it will keep your passwords safe indefinitely, but that you can call the bank and have them changed before they are compromised. If someone steals media with your encrypted passwords they won't be able to brute force it before you have them changed, encryption just buys time.
VNC is not secure. You will need a VPN to secure it. Any remote desktop would have the same security issues as any other service, but would compromise the remote computer as well as the site you're connecting to from it.
If Microsoft did that, you'd see a rise in Linux and Mac faster than you could turn your head, and Microsoft would be embroiled in a huge court battle for years. No one would trust Microsoft again, including the government, who would increasingly regulate Microsoft, or break them up, to prevent something like that from happening in again. It's Mutually Assured Destruction, they would both lose in the end.
Unethical and illegal are different things. Just because the license permits certain behavior does not make that behavior ethical. Google can follow the license, follow the law, and still be immoral, or evil, if they are not treating developers and other users of the software decently. Ethical behavior is about treating others well, not just following the law.
Economic production is not energy in the physical sense, nor does it require as much physical energy than the author of this study assumes. Economic production does not equal heat energy. The connection between economic production and heat energy is based on human behavior, in ways that can be influenced by choices we make, by politics, and other factors. His equation doesn't include the human factor at all, it assumes human behavior is physical constant, and it is not.
Human's are not machines. We make choices, and those choices affect the things around us. We don't yet have the understanding of physics necessary to use it predict human behavior. In fact our current understanding of physics precludes the idea that physics can predict the human brain (assuming the brain operates on a quantum level), so this whole study is bullshit. Physics can't be used to predict the choices humans will make. Politics is complicated game played as part of human behavior. Some people study human behavior in an effort to predict or manipulate it, and economics is one science that studies human behavior. The one thing I know about this life is that you cannot apply the laws of physics to human behavior and expect humans to cooperate. Humans are irrational. Physics is rational. Attempting to apply the rationality of physics to irrational humans leads to nothing but massive, massive, FAIL.
Make a VM of each system and see what you like. The other question is what do you want to do with your system? Run it on your laptop? Use it as a web server? A directory server? Or something else?
This is question is like being asked by a computer illiterate user "What kind of computer should I get?" I always ask "Well what do you want to do? If you want to surf the web, maybe type a paper or two, get a netbook, if you want to play games, get a desktop, if you need to carry it to school or work..." It all depends on what will best preform the functions you're looking for.
If they insist on running windows put a decent anti-virus on the machine, and limit their user privileges.
If they won't let you limit their user privileges, and they won't let you install another OS, and they won't buy a Mac (which is designed to be idiot proof), quit, or make them pay you every time they break the machine until they quit breaking it.
Slashdot Mirror
When I got my most resent job, our entire IT department ran Ubuntu Linux.
I also see it a lot in my favorite cafe. Maybe 20% adoption there. The best story I have about Linux there is the time I said to a guy "hey, nice netbook..." and he answered "I programed my own linux disro, want to see..." We talked for a few hours, I can't verify he programed his own distro, but I can verify he was running Linux.
Show it to distro developers and repository maintainers, people who do security work, etc. Let them look at it and see if they can defend against it. Don't release it on unsuspecting users, publish the directions to remove it, and defend against it so no one else can do it either. Putting malware in the wild is not the way to get white-hats attention, but it is the way to get black hat's attention. The white hats are usually well behind the black hats with malware that's been released in the wild. Give this to white hats and not black hats.
Post it as security bug against all the distros you've confirmed it works against. That'll attract the attention you want and not the attention you don't.
At my last job I had a choice, I could be on call almost all the time, but work from home and/or have flexible hours. Or I could work a standard shift from the office 9-5. Being on call and work flexible hours wasn't a hard choice. I used the same tools when I was working from home as when I working from the office, an internet connection, a phone, and my laptop. Most of the work I did was remote support anyway (client was far from our office anyway). I'd much rather be on call than tied to desk in the office.
Who said this is only going to be used after repeated auditory warnings? Who said it will only be used responsibly? Foreign governments don't trust commercial ships to uses lethal weapons responsibly. Other governments may see an armed foreign ship in their waters as a threat, and take a shot at it, or at least refuse to trade with it or allow it to dock.
Well, the problem with real guns is that you have to wait until they are shooting at you first. With the air cannon, that won't kill them, you can't shoot without being sure.
The trick is telling the difference between pirates and fishermen, or other innocent people. With this, big deal if it's used against the wrong person. With bullets it's another story. Leave the killing to the pros.
And if you shot fishermen or other innocent people by accident?
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Why the hell weren't they using PGP?
Secure data you don't want on the web. How stupid can people be?
Maybe google will provide a service for that. It'll even save all your ssh keys and passwords! :)
Netbooks are cheap small computers. Why pay for computing power you don't need, when 300$ netbook will work better than your old piece of junk desktop? If you only want to pay for what you're going to use, and you aren't doing anything resource intensive, netbooks are very cost efficient.
Netbooks would even make great command line servers, with a built in UPS.
The idea is not that it will keep your passwords safe indefinitely, but that you can call the bank and have them changed before they are compromised. If someone steals media with your encrypted passwords they won't be able to brute force it before you have them changed, encryption just buys time.
VNC is not secure. You will need a VPN to secure it. Any remote desktop would have the same security issues as any other service, but would compromise the remote computer as well as the site you're connecting to from it.
If Microsoft did that, you'd see a rise in Linux and Mac faster than you could turn your head, and Microsoft would be embroiled in a huge court battle for years. No one would trust Microsoft again, including the government, who would increasingly regulate Microsoft, or break them up, to prevent something like that from happening in again. It's Mutually Assured Destruction, they would both lose in the end.
The heat energy per unit of economic production doesn't have to remain constant. That's where human behavior comes into the equation.
Unethical and illegal are different things. Just because the license permits certain behavior does not make that behavior ethical. Google can follow the license, follow the law, and still be immoral, or evil, if they are not treating developers and other users of the software decently. Ethical behavior is about treating others well, not just following the law.
Economic production is not energy in the physical sense, nor does it require as much physical energy than the author of this study assumes. Economic production does not equal heat energy. The connection between economic production and heat energy is based on human behavior, in ways that can be influenced by choices we make, by politics, and other factors. His equation doesn't include the human factor at all, it assumes human behavior is physical constant, and it is not.
Human's are not machines. We make choices, and those choices affect the things around us. We don't yet have the understanding of physics necessary to use it predict human behavior. In fact our current understanding of physics precludes the idea that physics can predict the human brain (assuming the brain operates on a quantum level), so this whole study is bullshit. Physics can't be used to predict the choices humans will make. Politics is complicated game played as part of human behavior. Some people study human behavior in an effort to predict or manipulate it, and economics is one science that studies human behavior. The one thing I know about this life is that you cannot apply the laws of physics to human behavior and expect humans to cooperate. Humans are irrational. Physics is rational. Attempting to apply the rationality of physics to irrational humans leads to nothing but massive, massive, FAIL.
Make a VM of each system and see what you like. The other question is what do you want to do with your system? Run it on your laptop? Use it as a web server? A directory server? Or something else?
This is question is like being asked by a computer illiterate user "What kind of computer should I get?" I always ask "Well what do you want to do? If you want to surf the web, maybe type a paper or two, get a netbook, if you want to play games, get a desktop, if you need to carry it to school or work..." It all depends on what will best preform the functions you're looking for.
If your goal is to learn, try both.
And it was worth reading through all comments on the bug report for this...
How perfectly eloquent.
If they insist on running windows put a decent anti-virus on the machine, and limit their user privileges.
If they won't let you limit their user privileges, and they won't let you install another OS, and they won't buy a Mac (which is designed to be idiot proof), quit, or make them pay you every time they break the machine until they quit breaking it.
Him and his propaganda machine.
If you think news corpse is a good journalism, then I have a bridge to sell...
I have a solution to that - disconnect the ethernet cable to the server! Then no one will read what is his.
I will shed no tears if Murdock locks himself up with his propaganda, somewhere where there is no internet, and no communication out.
Circumcision Clinic, operations performed according to Jewish Tradition ?
If a non-Jewish family wanted to have their child circumcised there, they wouldn't be refused.