It's very rare to run a Mac under an account with superuser rights (it's disabled by default), so installing anything system related requires a sudo.
Since Vista Windows has largely been the same. It should be very rare to run a Windows 7 machine under an account with super user rights.
I'm under the impression that trojans generally do not ask for passwords on Windows.
On both Windows and Mac you can do a lot from a user account. e.g. DDOS, scan the users email, etc. If the trojan wants admin rights it will have to do a sudo on either platform.
Considering I believe no normal person, with normal levels of intellect would believe it's a good idea to do such a thing
This is your mistake. Normal people don't actually think through their opinions. If it sounds good, run with it. That's how normal people think. Actually exercising logic is too much work.
And the funny part is, when you start asking difficult questions about their "common sense" solutions, they think that you're the idiot.
Fundamentally, Nuclear is a great idea! Unfortunately, Nuclear Power in the hands of a capitalist society which values immediate profit over the chance of blowing themselves up is actually really freaking dangerous.
All the more reason to move past capitalism, which appears to be as unsustainable as fossil fuels.
I'm easily in the upper to mid 40% area.....I should not have to pay nearly half my wages for fucking city, state and federal services.
You must make a fair bit of money to have to pay all those taxes. Obviously our society is worth a lot to you, if you can make that kind of money in it. Quit being cheap.
In the absence of actual income information, 40% isn't that terrible. FDR had the top bracket at over 90%. As well it should be. The super rich are super indebted to the society that made them super rich.
And make it easy...get rid of ALL deductions, and quit trying to steer behavior through taxation...and everyone gets a simple form to fill out, no one works to get through the loopholes (I mean, if they're there, you're a fool not to use them)....and life is simpler and you can rest assured that everyone is paying their fair share.
This part I agree with. A progressive tax scheme with no deductions and all income treated equally (no special rates for capital returns) would be far more fair than what we have today.
Eventually there will be a huge FB breach of privacy story where FB starts selling all your info to the highest bidder. People will be outraged
How will it be different from all the other times that FB has commited a huge breach of privacy, and people kept using it? If this were likely to happen, wouldn't it already have happened?
The amount of compute time rises dramatically each year (Moore's law), it is not good enough to simply 'tread water' and just upping the key length are sufficient.
There's a limited amount of energy in the universe, and a lower limit on how little energy you can use to do a calculation. Even the most optimistic estimate will show that brute forcing AES-256 will consume all the energy in the visible universe.
I'm saying that cryptanalysis and raw compute has not stopped chipping away at the corners and weak spots.
Which is good, there's a lot fewer corners and weak spots now than there was in 1995 because of all that work.
What if at 51200 bit security, we find an aweful and damnin patter appears in the math?
That's no more likely to happen now than it has been in the past.
Very true. We all judge books by their covers and it takes conscious, deliberate effort not to do so. If you think you're above such tendencies, then you don't know yourself very well.
That doesn't mean it's OK to do so. It just means you have to exert that conscious deliberate effort.
The other aspect that people seem to miss is that clothing is a choice, and people consciously use clothing to signal who they are.
Which is all the more reason not to judge people based on their clothes. You will be manipulated if you do. Particularly by sociopaths wearing suits.
So if you want to signal respectability, you wear nicer clothes.
If one was to judge someone based on their clothes, this would be exactly the wrong conclusion. Suits are the outfits of politicians, lawyers, bankers, CEOs, salespeople... the dregs of humanity.
Now I don't judge people who wear suits negatively, as they might be decent people who have made a simple tradeoff and are fighting the good fight in other ways. But I don't see any way to justify any sort of positive assocation with so called "nice" clothes, which are generally less functional and less comfortable (and therefore less nice) than casual wear.
I think you missed the point that anyone else would have picked up on....I'd not be afraid of the kids in suits causing me immediate, physical harm.
And I'd bet you'd be even more afraid if the kids in question were black. Judging people based on the clothes they wear is not significantly different than judging them based on the color of their skin. In neither case are you judging them based on the content of their character.
.....I incorporated myself for contract and other work, and it is the ONLY way to keep your hard earned dollars from the tax man.
Civilization would be better served if instead of trying to avoid paying your share, you demanded that you got a fair return on your investment in society.
Sorry, but that is innate human behavior...we're visual beings, and one of the first things you use to judge any situation...is what you see, and you use your life experience, etc...to evaluate the situation.
And then decent human beings remember not to act like animals and adjust their thoughts appropriately.
Kinda like...if you're walking down a street...you are coming upon a bunch of kids dressed as thugs, backwards hats, lots of tatoos, pants hanging down to their asses....do you get a bit nervous for your saftely?
Same street....same number of kids, but this time, all with short hair, nice suits and ties.....are you nervous like before or do you even give these kids a second glance?
Chances are the kids in suits who work for powerful corporations have victimized far more people than some hoods on a street corner. This is exactly why it's so harmful to judge people based on appearances.
If it were objective, based solely on P/E ratios and such, Apple would already be trading at over $1,000.
If people bought and sold objectively, Apple wouldn't be worth anywhere near $1000. But tech purchases, like stock purchases, are based more on emotion than reason.
If those people are such sorry excuses for human beings as to judge someone based on the clothes they wear, they can fuck right off. There is nothing inherently respectable about wearing slacks, and quite a lot inherently disrespectable about judging people based on appearances. It's just another manifestation of the base tribal instincts that are responsible for racism, and it's not a bit nicer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's very rare to run a Mac under an account with superuser rights (it's disabled by default), so installing anything system related requires a sudo.
Since Vista Windows has largely been the same. It should be very rare to run a Windows 7 machine under an account with super user rights.
I'm under the impression that trojans generally do not ask for passwords on Windows.
On both Windows and Mac you can do a lot from a user account. e.g. DDOS, scan the users email, etc. If the trojan wants admin rights it will have to do a sudo on either platform.
Just as long as he's not a god damned toaster.
It's worth pointing out that USENET never goes down. Your USENET server might go down, but you can use another one.
People owe "free" services nothing in return.
Probably quite a bit like the robber baron era at the turn of the 20th century.
Jitsi's still up.
Considering I believe no normal person, with normal levels of intellect would believe it's a good idea to do such a thing
This is your mistake. Normal people don't actually think through their opinions. If it sounds good, run with it. That's how normal people think. Actually exercising logic is too much work.
And the funny part is, when you start asking difficult questions about their "common sense" solutions, they think that you're the idiot.
Why can't we have all three?
Fundamentally, Nuclear is a great idea! Unfortunately, Nuclear Power in the hands of a capitalist society which values immediate profit over the chance of blowing themselves up is actually really freaking dangerous.
All the more reason to move past capitalism, which appears to be as unsustainable as fossil fuels.
Isn't this what the Alt attribute to the IMG tag is for?
Keep reading. The basic idea is here:
It's like a resistor but the resistance varies based on the current applied to it in the past.
Easy solution. Sell buckyballs as ammo.
I'm easily in the upper to mid 40% area.....I should not have to pay nearly half my wages for fucking city, state and federal services.
You must make a fair bit of money to have to pay all those taxes. Obviously our society is worth a lot to you, if you can make that kind of money in it. Quit being cheap.
In the absence of actual income information, 40% isn't that terrible. FDR had the top bracket at over 90%. As well it should be. The super rich are super indebted to the society that made them super rich.
And make it easy...get rid of ALL deductions, and quit trying to steer behavior through taxation...and everyone gets a simple form to fill out, no one works to get through the loopholes (I mean, if they're there, you're a fool not to use them)....and life is simpler and you can rest assured that everyone is paying their fair share.
This part I agree with. A progressive tax scheme with no deductions and all income treated equally (no special rates for capital returns) would be far more fair than what we have today.
Eventually there will be a huge FB breach of privacy story where FB starts selling all your info to the highest bidder. People will be outraged
How will it be different from all the other times that FB has commited a huge breach of privacy, and people kept using it? If this were likely to happen, wouldn't it already have happened?
The amount of compute time rises dramatically each year (Moore's law), it is not good enough to simply 'tread water' and just upping the key length are sufficient.
There's a limited amount of energy in the universe, and a lower limit on how little energy you can use to do a calculation. Even the most optimistic estimate will show that brute forcing AES-256 will consume all the energy in the visible universe.
I'm saying that cryptanalysis and raw compute has not stopped chipping away at the corners and weak spots.
Which is good, there's a lot fewer corners and weak spots now than there was in 1995 because of all that work.
What if at 51200 bit security, we find an aweful and damnin patter appears in the math?
That's no more likely to happen now than it has been in the past.
Until you want to use it as an output on something that requires a protected path.
Which will be never.
What about the time when everything requires it?
Then I'll spend my time agitating instead of consuming entertainment. I think TPTB know better than to withhold circuses.
Very true. We all judge books by their covers and it takes conscious, deliberate effort not to do so. If you think you're above such tendencies, then you don't know yourself very well.
That doesn't mean it's OK to do so. It just means you have to exert that conscious deliberate effort.
The other aspect that people seem to miss is that clothing is a choice, and people consciously use clothing to signal who they are.
Which is all the more reason not to judge people based on their clothes. You will be manipulated if you do. Particularly by sociopaths wearing suits.
So if you want to signal respectability, you wear nicer clothes.
If one was to judge someone based on their clothes, this would be exactly the wrong conclusion. Suits are the outfits of politicians, lawyers, bankers, CEOs, salespeople... the dregs of humanity.
Now I don't judge people who wear suits negatively, as they might be decent people who have made a simple tradeoff and are fighting the good fight in other ways. But I don't see any way to justify any sort of positive assocation with so called "nice" clothes, which are generally less functional and less comfortable (and therefore less nice) than casual wear.
And I'd bet you'd be even more afraid if the kids in question were black. Judging people based on the clothes they wear is not significantly different than judging them based on the color of their skin. In neither case are you judging them based on the content of their character.
Civilization would be better served if instead of trying to avoid paying your share, you demanded that you got a fair return on your investment in society.
If the people who use your work don't value it enough to fund it voluntarily, then no it probably shouldn't be produced. Why should it?
Sorry, but that is innate human behavior...we're visual beings, and one of the first things you use to judge any situation...is what you see, and you use your life experience, etc...to evaluate the situation.
And then decent human beings remember not to act like animals and adjust their thoughts appropriately.
Kinda like...if you're walking down a street...you are coming upon a bunch of kids dressed as thugs, backwards hats, lots of tatoos, pants hanging down to their asses....do you get a bit nervous for your saftely?
Same street....same number of kids, but this time, all with short hair, nice suits and ties.....are you nervous like before or do you even give these kids a second glance?
Chances are the kids in suits who work for powerful corporations have victimized far more people than some hoods on a street corner. This is exactly why it's so harmful to judge people based on appearances.
If it were objective, based solely on P/E ratios and such, Apple would already be trading at over $1,000.
If people bought and sold objectively, Apple wouldn't be worth anywhere near $1000. But tech purchases, like stock purchases, are based more on emotion than reason.
Free market economies only work when something is scarce
The correct thing to do when we have a non-scarce good is not to artificially destroy the scarcity, but to abandon the free market model.
All I want is a flat rate, one stop shop for streaming anything ever made. Completely possible techwise, utterly undoable from an IP standpoint.
There's a technical work around for that.
Do you want to turn people off needlessly
If those people are such sorry excuses for human beings as to judge someone based on the clothes they wear, they can fuck right off. There is nothing inherently respectable about wearing slacks, and quite a lot inherently disrespectable about judging people based on appearances. It's just another manifestation of the base tribal instincts that are responsible for racism, and it's not a bit nicer.
would it kill you to put on the veneer of respectability?
Would it kill you to judge people based on their acts and not their appearances?