... While the substances are an easy way to experience something a little different, it's also possible to achieve "altered states of consciousness" entirely without the chemicals.
I don't have a copy of Stoned Free, but I like the premise:
Now you can just say "No!" to drugs... and get high anyway! This book enumerates many drugless consciousness altering techniques, both timeless and recent in origin, that anyone can make use of. Meditation, breathing techniques, high-tech highs, sleep and dream manipulation, and numerous other methods are examined in detail. Avoid incarceration, save money, and skip the wear and tear on your body, while getting higher than a kite.
I had to figure out how to relax my body (it was dysfunctional following a head injury), but even so I've had some neat experiences along the way: hypnagogic imagery, 360-degree vision, etc. If you've previously used substances (marijuana, LSD, etc) one can re-vivify those experiences with self-suggestion (self-hypnosis), or use descriptions of others to design your own trip.
Tripping without substances generally begins with relaxing the physical body, relaxing the mind, then making suggestions to yourself.
Binaural beats can help - Gnaural is the open source tone generator. I had to do some other things to fully recover from said concussion, and I'm finally dreaming up a storm.:)
And some people need drugs to find reality.... you sound like you trip out just fine without any assistance at all. I prefer more control of my altered states.
P. J. Barnum wishes you luck with your new business venture.
As a website that revolves around science, I find the headline offensive. The labeling of a person, or animal as a "junkie" is both unprofessional and crude. "Addictive tendencies found in non-human animals" would have been more appropriate.
Agreed - in this instance it does sounds derogatory. I've always associated "junky" with "addict". I hold sex, eating, or cannabis aren't addictive either. Obviously I'm just picky 'cause I don't hold that "addiction" is a "disease" either.
On a trip to Holland I was surprised at how commonly people who smoked more than a few cigarettes, regularly drank 6 beers, or had more than 6 coffees a day, as "junkies". But then even left-wing in Holland is fairly right-wing to me - it's an educated, but conservative, religious place.
"Addictive tendencies
You probably should have held off on the gold-tops before you wrote that - and, no, the dragons you saw aren't real either.
"ivory tower intellectuals", yet another anti-intellectualist nonsense in American culture.
If I had a nickel for every time I got well-intentioned but utterly unworkable advice from someone with an ivory tower wedged well up their arse, I'd have a shitload of nickels. Ivory tower intellectuals are real. Most of them live in this category. Most of the people with the luxury to cat about the university for their entire life have never known real adversity. There are notable examples; they are irrelevant to the existence of the ivory tower intellectual.
Their are two type of "intellectuals" - those that think, and those that "believe" they think. The latter are the ivory-tower type - can't change a tire, socialize, aren't toilet trained (piss in public), and have all the mental flexibility of brick. Having devoted all their waking hours to memorizing the output of authorities (of their youth) they so fervently wish to be - they become "authoritarian". They have a little trouble getting along with the anyone who does more in less time. They also try and limit their exposure to anything that challenges their extremely narrow capabilities - their narrow minds and shallow intellects ensure their limited experience of the real world. As a group they do not use recreational drugs (self-insight is an anathema to them) - though they do suffer greatly from imaginary ailments, and often feel they are discriminated against (especially by women) "due to their threatening intellect". (sigh). Bitterness and hatred are there most common sentiments - at best they are barely-functioning-sociopaths.
The Tale of Wise Master Sun and the Production Network
Master Sun was visiting with his friend Willow Blossom, who ran a mission critical network for a large E-commerce site. Blossom complained, "I hate software these days; I cannot trust that my system will work from one day to the next because code is so buggy. I am losing sleep, and my hair is falling out." Master Sun opined that this was tragic because Willow Blossom's hair was a gorgeous cascade of deep black - as black and shiny and deep as a null device on a spring morning. He bowed and excused himself, and asked for an audience with Prince Ciao (pronounced "Cee Eye Oh") who was lord of Willow Blossom's castle. He took a brush, and on the floor of the audience chamber wrote in ink:
1) Set up the production systems
2) Make them work
3) Test them
4) While true; do
If they are working; Continue; Endif
If they are not working; GOTO 2; Endif
5) Done
Prince Ciao studied Master Sun's writing for weeks even to the point of missing his golf games, and was finally enlightened. He summoned Willow Blossom and explained Tzu's wisdom, then had her head and its beautiful hair mounted on a stick in the NOC as an example to the others, even though it was his own policy that Willow install patches as fast as they came from the vendors. The next time Master Sun was invited to the castle, he politely declined.
During the 90's we were assaulted with a welter of products, the majority of which were half-assed and largely useless. And during that time, because Prince Ciao read all the marketing literature and WIRED magazine, network and system administrators were forced or "encouraged" to field beta-test code at an absolutely insane rate. The mainframe programmers of the 70's and 80's used to write of a practice called "Change Control" - in which production systems were managed with care and forethought. During the late 90's the last of the Change Control believers were taken out and shot, and their cubicles were given to the consultants who were there to mark everything up in XML in order to make everything better in some manner nobody understands yet. During that time, security practitioners were forced to repeatedly bend over and grip their ankles by business units that had already spent good money on bad products so by golly they were going to field them because otherwise Prince Ciao would have their heads. Of course nobody wanted to admit that. In 2000 I was Prince Ciao for a small start-up. Our sales VP went over my head to the CEO and bought the company Seibel's sales/customer management tool at the incredibly low price of only $500,000. Of course, it required 3 consultants working for 9 months to learn that it actually needed 5 consultants working for 12 months to make it work. I began to sharpen my stake. The icing on the cake was the discovery that Seibel required the use of Internet Explorer in order to function properly. Guess what happened? Explorer went in, of course. Where was Master Sun when I needed him?
Until such time as salespeople are refused the title of "IT experts" the problem will continue.
My experience (SOE engineering) in corporate environments - is that whenever we argue that the applications that the SOE have to support should be brought into the modern day are over-ruled by the client. The client prefers to listen to their developers (read AB**E/B*S) who, apparently have the "bigger picture".
Which, at the very least, should make the shareholders question the value of ITIL training and Security models.
In several instances I can trace the verbatim refutations of management to "word for word" requoting of "supportive" emails sent to the clients developers.
The developers are not actual employees of the client (read government departments) but rather, coders for hire employed by Sph*r**n (formerly Computer Training *nst*tute, formerly etc etc).
When we (the support, administrators, and engineers) argue that the SLAs are unsupportable (I used the words "nailing snot to the wall" in one memo) we are told that "the experts don't agree", "that's what the client wants", "if we don't do it we'll lose the contract"
If the leaked document is real, then democracy is dead. That the ACTA talks are secret to begin with should have been proof enough - that the document (sic) contradicts (three-strike and carrier/vendor responsibility) the claims of the British and my government (Australia) is just proof-beyond-proof.
I'll let others decide the appropriate response/preparedness. Though I suggest you do it very quietly.
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.
Perhaps you could invent a name for this? PEBCAK??
Would be happy to demonstrate it if you're a moron though, where should I send the malware to?
Sorry, I don't think I spelled that out in simple enough terms for you.
Clearly you misunderstand the processes involved in "thinking" - though you appear (having read all your previous posts) to have fully embraced "simple". Moving along - did you read the original posters question? Or did you just jump in so that you could threaten to "demonstrate" how Linux is insecure - if you can just find someone dumber than yourself and get them to run malware. Perhaps you think that is original.
a> Knowledgeable computer guy like yourself suggests Linux because it's more secure
I'll ignore the 4chan speak - I did not suggest Linux (for any reason). RTF original question - hint: it's at the top of the page.
b> User mistakenly believes he is immunised against mal-ware
Oh - a "scenario"... plucked from where?? In this case an "ass-umption".
c> Lack of mal-ware infestations reinforce this belief in the user
blah blah
d> In reality lack of mal-ware infestations are caused by lack of mal-ware targeted at Linux
apropos of... what?
e> Knowledgeable computer guys like yourself don't see this, so continue suggesting Linux use for security benefits
Don't let reality get in the way of your righteous diatribe. Please show me where I suggested anything of the sort.
In response to the original question (have your read it yet? or did your lips get sore?) I "answered" Xandros.
f> Mal-ware attacks of the type I describe above targetted at Linux increase proportionally to the number of Linux desktop users
Specious, at best.
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.
And - wrong again. Unless you are referring to UAC.
Hiding root inside a cryptic shell is a good security practice to rely on, and brag about over Windows' user-friendly elevation prompts?
Oh really? Windows approved drivers??
There's even such a thing as Linux approved drivers??
You forgot to preface your post with the "Emotional Rant" tag...
What. A lot of hardware like video cards and peripherals are supported only in Windows, and if Linux users want it they have to deal with second-best vendor drivers or reverse engineered drivers.
Please direct me (us) to this new research that supports this claim.
See my comment about X crashes
Does that somehow equate to a "crash"??
Yes, when X becomes unresponsive and I have to kill it with zap or alt-sysrq-k then that's a crash.
Spend a lot of time supporting Vista do you? Is Aero your dancing bear of choice?
OK then, share your experience, if you managed to upgrade enough machines in your Windows ME environment to have any.
Windows has many significant flaws, but these aren't any of them.
See the button marked "Quote Parent" - use it. That way your posts are less unintelligible.
Once more for the tired and emotional...
My post (where I quoted your response), with more detailed responses (for the overly sensitive). What - you're outraged at the description 'overly sensitive'? Well you can always add me to your "foes" list - again. Yawn.
Malware isn't just a part of Windows. 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.
Wrong - read the original story - hint: it's about basic Windows users. Basic users tend to run Windows as Administrator... most Linux distribution actively prohibit that. What you "meant" is correct. What you wrote is - hyperbole, rhetoric, and a sophism.
Hiding root inside a cryptic shell doesn't really count.
And - wrong again. WTF are you 'trying' to say?? Unless you are referring to UAC.
Also, bluescreens haven't been a real complaint against Windows since XP pre-SP1. Any lingering problems are due to drivers,
Oh really? Windows approved drivers?? First sentence is the equivalent of saying "yes, no". Intentional or not - it is "weasel speak". The original article (did you even read it before you went off on a tangent?) is about moving people away from XP. A crash under Windows XP that generates an error report is not substantially different from a blue-screen - mere cosmetics. "lingering problems due to drivers" are something that I have seen a lot of - all due to Windows "certified" drivers. In a corporate environment we only use certified drivers in our SOEs.
and Linux has much nastier drivers than Windows.
You forgot to preface your post with the "Emotional Rant" tag... Did you mean - some Open Source drivers for hardware which the manufacturers have not released either the code or a Linux driver? "Nastier" is a poor choice of a description.... Relevance?? How many, how often? Given that Linuxs support a much wider range and history of hardware of than Windows (386dx+).
Crashes are rare and Windows handles dying programs better than Linux.
Please direct me (us) to this new research that supports this claim. Two hyperbolic statements for the price of one!
Badly written X applications occasionally cause my X to freeze up
(Was) an interesting read - though a little, um, simplistic. From memory he only covered celestial navigation - which is used to determine which songs/chants are required to go to a certain destination by a path largely determined by the prevailing winds and currents.
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.
Uh, relevance?? Let me guess - if I dig deep enough I'll find some specious support for your claim.
Perhaps a theoretical exploit? Or, maybe one that has only happened a couple of times?? Neither of which would be relevant.
viruses and bluescreens aren't just "part of computers", but part of windows
Malware isn't just a part of Windows. 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.
Wrong
Hiding root inside a cryptic shell doesn't really count.
And - wrong again. Unless you are referring to UAC.
Also, bluescreens haven't been a real complaint against Windows since XP pre-SP1. Any lingering problems are due to drivers,
Oh really? Windows approved drivers??
and Linux has much nastier drivers than Windows.
You forgot to preface your post with the "Emotional Rant" tag...
Crashes are rare and Windows handles dying programs better than Linux.
Please direct me (us) to this new research that supports this claim.
Badly written X applications occasionally cause my X to freeze up
Does that somehow equate to a "crash"??
but I've never heard of such a thing on Windows.
Spend a lot of time supporting Vista do you? Is Aero your dancing bear of choice?
An imformative if somewhat stupid post - please don't be offended by my opinion. I am sure other Slashdotter readers are also keen to read your next post - "Week #2 - Learning Micro-computers".
I could post a bunch of reasons why Ubuntu is not the answer (try looking on the Ubuntu forums, read complaints on Slashdot, constant updates etc) - but the easiest way to answer the original question is to say:
Xandros.
Same layout as Windows, imports Windows settings, includes the non-free software that Windows users usually want - installs similar to Windows (except the user can play Solitaire while installing).
Point and click installs, solid single source support etc.
Forums are not useful to basic Windows users, and tend to create more problems than they solve.
I've tried Ubuntu (and Kubuntu), Mephis, Mint, PCLinux and others, as an OS for basic Windows users - and, unless I totally locked-down the machines... they broke them just as quick as they broke Windows.
Caveats: any *nix is ideal for Windows users - if you:- lock it down; and, are there by your phone 24x7 to help them before they, um, start learning (by their mistakes).
You get what you pay for. Generally, the more it costs the more value you get. With GNU you pay by learning (and contributing). So the paid version of Xandros will give Windows users a similar level of support to Windows. Paid support from SUSE and Red Hat is more business oriented than Xandros.
I'll leave it someone less lazy than I to check if there was an ice age around the time they think the tools were made.
If we assume for the moment that there wasn't, and further assume that there are no islands in between Crete and Greece, I still could be convinced that ancient humans might have made such a voyage. After all, Pacific islanders have been known to make long sea journeys in outrigger canoes without navigational tools. Plus, as TFA states, the human migration to Australia started about 60K years ago,
and you can bet nobody walked there.
I'll take that bet - on not being able to walk into Gondwanna land >40000 years ago.
I'm not so sure the find is suggestive of "maritime capabilities". To prove such a statement, you would have to prove evidence of navigation. Even if it were only celestial navigation, stronger evidence would be to find more than one such remote site with similar styles of survival technology.
From the article: More than 2,000 stone artifacts, including the hand axes, were collected on the southwestern shore of Crete, near the town of Plakias.
The question, at least for now, should be whether or not they went back.
Try looking up Kon Tiki, and Maori chants as navigation.
See those repeated scallops that define the edge? That is not a naturally occuring stone.
I always take issue with statements like this. Given enough time and situations there is a probability of 1 of stones with that shape occurring and human brains (and cognitive bias) are fantastic at reading into things that aren't there. I grant you it may well just be shorthand by specialists in the field when talking in general public though.
Which is not to say these aren't the real deal.
Gee thanks for the meta-dialetic FUD. So enlightening. Follow that logic and the (impossible) infinite number of monkeys will, eventually, produce the entire works of Shakespeare...
I'd say it's time for the US to stop relying on Shock and Awe Terrorism and be a good neighbour for a change, but that wouldn't be true.
That's right, it wouldn't be true. The US has been a good neighbor since it formed.
If you don't think so, the taxpayers here would surely appreciate you all returning the billions of dollars in foreign aid that we've been handing out for generations. It seems a mite hypocritical to complain about the lack of "neighborliness" of the US while holding your hands out for the money and other aid we dish out.
I should have just modded you flamebait or troll, but I couldn't let your nonsense stand uncontested.
Can't speak for the US - but Australia uses "foreign aid" to dump unwanted (and often substandard) products. We supply "military advice" to our near neighbours (read PNG and Indonesia) so that Australian companies can continue activities (read mining and Panguna).
I don't support Barnaby Joyces' call to cut Foreign Aid spending - but I will continue to view all foreign aid cynically - and support public scrutiny and transparent accounting.
FWIW, the bikers did indeed barbecue and eat a cat. This is no surprise -- cats are a common BBQ treat among bikies down under,
I call bullshit. He made the cat claims in Parliament - where he is protected against charges of slander and libel. In fact he can pretty much say what he likes except call a politician a liar. He withdrew his claim when it was demonstrated that the incident "did not take place". Not because he couldn't prove it. It was proven that no "bikies" were a the local park that day. The alleged "cat cooking" took place at another park - and "did not" involve bikers.
Try "Hansard" for the actual record
As to - cats being a common treat among bikies down under - I can only presume you are suffering from some sort of brain fart - of course I can't prove that what you say is untrue... which hardly "proves" your junk statement either. I haven't attended every barby hosted by bikers - but pig on a spit is pretty popular.
Politicians are the same the world over - different dogs but the same leg action, so are idiots.
No - to be fair you'd have to consider the guys history (and ask why he didn't report the alleged incident to police).
And it's not just little lies about "bikers roasting cats".
He has also brought in a law (since revoked) that required that people blogging about elections to publish their name and address, and to support that law claimed that a certain blogger was "not a real person" - an invention of the Liberal Party.
Prejudiced the trial of people by claiming they were "pure evil - have no hope of rehabilitation".
So he has a history of "discovering evidence" to support his extreme views
He has a law degree - and spent a couple of years working for a newspaper (until he was "removed" for fabricating stories)
So he should know about checking your facts, and, the existence of police.
I believe the appropriate comment is "sucked in!".
Wasn't the windows source code leaked or something and when people tried to compile it, it turned out endless compiler errors just on the kernel? What do you mean get my facts out of here? This is a marketing only zone? I protest! I got my freedoms... oh, I don't have any freedoms, all my freedoms are belong to MS? Shoot, knew I should have paid more attention to that Stallman guy. Sure sure, I will bend over for the next windows update license agreement, will there be lube this time?
It was leaked? Please point me at the story/rumour (seriously). I had heard that a copy of the RSA key was stolen...
As to the rest of your post... what an, um, interesting relationship you have with Microsoft. Do they ever buy you dinner first?;-p
The author is right that the "many eyeballs" scheme needs skilled eyeballs to work, but assumes that the only way to get good people on a project is by paying them. It seems odd that an article that tries so hard to provide a compelling argument makes such a poorly backed assumption. It's certainly true that good people need to be payed, but they can be paid to work on free software or write free software in their spare time; both cases have many examples.
Agreed.
I've often heard people complain because they say their work is under appreciated - but when they get a pay rise they still complain. When asked what the problem is they tell me they don't feel they get the recognition they deserve. Ego is an underrated motivation for excellence. Open Source code contribution can scratch the ego itch. As someone else has pointed out - many crap programmers don't know they're crap programmers. In Open Source projects other people are pretty quick to tell you if they think your code is crap - and, unlike traditional paid development there is less need to be polite instead of right.
So, given that Microsoft gave the source code to the Chinese government, and that there are a lot of Chinese... perhaps Microsoft products are also subject to the "more eyes" rule....
Just saying....;-p
Troll? What are you trying to prove? That Slashdot is a true democracy where even morons with an axe to grind can moderate? Or did you simply fail to read the moderating guidelines?
Slashdot Mirror
... While the substances are an easy way to experience something a little different, it's also possible to achieve "altered states of consciousness" entirely without the chemicals.
I don't have a copy of Stoned Free, but I like the premise:
I had to figure out how to relax my body (it was dysfunctional following a head injury), but even so I've had some neat experiences along the way: hypnagogic imagery, 360-degree vision, etc. If you've previously used substances (marijuana, LSD, etc) one can re-vivify those experiences with self-suggestion (self-hypnosis), or use descriptions of others to design your own trip.
Tripping without substances generally begins with relaxing the physical body, relaxing the mind, then making suggestions to yourself.
Binaural beats can help - Gnaural is the open source tone generator. I had to do some other things to fully recover from said concussion, and I'm finally dreaming up a storm. :)
And some people need drugs to find reality.... you sound like you trip out just fine without any assistance at all. I prefer more control of my altered states.
P. J. Barnum wishes you luck with your new business venture.
As a website that revolves around science, I find the headline offensive. The labeling of a person, or animal as a "junkie" is both unprofessional and crude. "Addictive tendencies found in non-human animals" would have been more appropriate.
Agreed - in this instance it does sounds derogatory. I've always associated "junky" with "addict". I hold sex, eating, or cannabis aren't addictive either. Obviously I'm just picky 'cause I don't hold that "addiction" is a "disease" either.
On a trip to Holland I was surprised at how commonly people who smoked more than a few cigarettes, regularly drank 6 beers, or had more than 6 coffees a day, as "junkies". But then even left-wing in Holland is fairly right-wing to me - it's an educated, but conservative, religious place.
"Addictive tendencies
You probably should have held off on the gold-tops before you wrote that - and, no, the dragons you saw aren't real either.
"ivory tower intellectuals", yet another anti-intellectualist nonsense in American culture.
If I had a nickel for every time I got well-intentioned but utterly unworkable advice from someone with an ivory tower wedged well up their arse, I'd have a shitload of nickels. Ivory tower intellectuals are real. Most of them live in this category. Most of the people with the luxury to cat about the university for their entire life have never known real adversity. There are notable examples; they are irrelevant to the existence of the ivory tower intellectual.
Their are two type of "intellectuals" - those that think, and those that "believe" they think. The latter are the ivory-tower type - can't change a tire, socialize, aren't toilet trained (piss in public), and have all the mental flexibility of brick. Having devoted all their waking hours to memorizing the output of authorities (of their youth) they so fervently wish to be - they become "authoritarian". They have a little trouble getting along with the anyone who does more in less time. They also try and limit their exposure to anything that challenges their extremely narrow capabilities - their narrow minds and shallow intellects ensure their limited experience of the real world. As a group they do not use recreational drugs (self-insight is an anathema to them) - though they do suffer greatly from imaginary ailments, and often feel they are discriminated against (especially by women) "due to their threatening intellect". (sigh). Bitterness and hatred are there most common sentiments - at best they are barely-functioning-sociopaths.
Just sayin'...
The Tale of Wise Master Sun and the Production Network
Master Sun was visiting with his friend Willow Blossom, who ran a mission critical network for a large E-commerce site. Blossom complained, "I hate software these days; I cannot trust that my system will work from one day to the next because code is so buggy. I am losing sleep, and my hair is falling out." Master Sun opined that this was tragic because Willow Blossom's hair was a gorgeous cascade of deep black - as black and shiny and deep as a null device on a spring morning. He bowed and excused himself, and asked for an audience with Prince Ciao (pronounced "Cee Eye Oh") who was lord of Willow Blossom's castle. He took a brush, and on the floor of the audience chamber wrote in ink:
1) Set up the production systems
2) Make them work
3) Test them
4) While true; do
If they are working; Continue; Endif
If they are not working; GOTO 2; Endif
5) Done
Prince Ciao studied Master Sun's writing for weeks even to the point of missing his golf games, and was finally enlightened. He summoned Willow Blossom and explained Tzu's wisdom, then had her head and its beautiful hair mounted on a stick in the NOC as an example to the others, even though it was his own policy that Willow install patches as fast as they came from the vendors. The next time Master Sun was invited to the castle, he politely declined.
During the 90's we were assaulted with a welter of products, the majority of which were half-assed and largely useless. And during that time, because Prince Ciao read all the marketing literature and WIRED magazine, network and system administrators were forced or "encouraged" to field beta-test code at an absolutely insane rate. The mainframe programmers of the 70's and 80's used to write of a practice called "Change Control" - in which production systems were managed with care and forethought. During the late 90's the last of the Change Control believers were taken out and shot, and their cubicles were given to the consultants who were there to mark everything up in XML in order to make everything better in some manner nobody understands yet. During that time, security practitioners were forced to repeatedly bend over and grip their ankles by business units that had already spent good money on bad products so by golly they were going to field them because otherwise Prince Ciao would have their heads. Of course nobody wanted to admit that. In 2000 I was Prince Ciao for a small start-up. Our sales VP went over my head to the CEO and bought the company Seibel's sales/customer management tool at the incredibly low price of only $500,000. Of course, it required 3 consultants working for 9 months to learn that it actually needed 5 consultants working for 12 months to make it work. I began to sharpen my stake. The icing on the cake was the discovery that Seibel required the use of Internet Explorer in order to function properly. Guess what happened? Explorer went in, of course. Where was Master Sun when I needed him?
My experience (SOE engineering) in corporate environments - is that whenever we argue that the applications that the SOE have to support should be brought into the modern day are over-ruled by the client. The client prefers to listen to their developers (read AB**E/B*S) who, apparently have the "bigger picture".
Which, at the very least, should make the shareholders question the value of ITIL training and Security models.
In several instances I can trace the verbatim refutations of management to "word for word" requoting of "supportive" emails sent to the clients developers.
The developers are not actual employees of the client (read government departments) but rather, coders for hire employed by Sph*r**n (formerly Computer Training *nst*tute, formerly etc etc).
When we (the support, administrators, and engineers) argue that the SLAs are unsupportable (I used the words "nailing snot to the wall" in one memo) we are told that "the experts don't agree", "that's what the client wants", "if we don't do it we'll lose the contract"
Damn Moens Law of Bicycles.
I'll let others decide the appropriate response/preparedness. Though I suggest you do it very quietly.
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.
Perhaps you could invent a name for this? PEBCAK??
Would be happy to demonstrate it if you're a moron though, where should I send the malware to?
Why certainly - try my homepage.
Sorry, I don't think I spelled that out in simple enough terms for you.
Clearly you misunderstand the processes involved in "thinking" - though you appear (having read all your previous posts) to have fully embraced "simple". Moving along - did you read the original posters question? Or did you just jump in so that you could threaten to "demonstrate" how Linux is insecure - if you can just find someone dumber than yourself and get them to run malware. Perhaps you think that is original.
a> Knowledgeable computer guy like yourself suggests Linux because it's more secure
I'll ignore the 4chan speak - I did not suggest Linux (for any reason). RTF original question - hint: it's at the top of the page.
b> User mistakenly believes he is immunised against mal-ware
Oh - a "scenario"... plucked from where?? In this case an "ass-umption".
c> Lack of mal-ware infestations reinforce this belief in the user
blah blah
d> In reality lack of mal-ware infestations are caused by lack of mal-ware targeted at Linux
apropos of... what?
e> Knowledgeable computer guys like yourself don't see this, so continue suggesting Linux use for security benefits
Don't let reality get in the way of your righteous diatribe. Please show me where I suggested anything of the sort.
In response to the original question (have your read it yet? or did your lips get sore?) I "answered" Xandros.
f> Mal-ware attacks of the type I describe above targetted at Linux increase proportionally to the number of Linux desktop users
Specious, at best.
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, if, if. if. Are you a professional pedant?
Wrong.
Hiding root inside a cryptic shell is a good security practice to rely on, and brag about over Windows' user-friendly elevation prompts?
There's even such a thing as Linux approved drivers??
What. A lot of hardware like video cards and peripherals are supported only in Windows, and if Linux users want it they have to deal with second-best vendor drivers or reverse engineered drivers.
See my comment about X crashes
Yes, when X becomes unresponsive and I have to kill it with zap or alt-sysrq-k then that's a crash.
OK then, share your experience, if you managed to upgrade enough machines in your Windows ME environment to have any.
Windows has many significant flaws, but these aren't any of them.
See the button marked "Quote Parent" - use it. That way your posts are less unintelligible.
Once more for the tired and emotional...
My post (where I quoted your response), with more detailed responses (for the overly sensitive). What - you're outraged at the description 'overly sensitive'? Well you can always add me to your "foes" list - again. Yawn.
Malware isn't just a part of Windows. 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.
Wrong - read the original story - hint: it's about basic Windows users. Basic users tend to run Windows as Administrator... most Linux distribution actively prohibit that. What you "meant" is correct. What you wrote is - hyperbole, rhetoric, and a sophism.
Hiding root inside a cryptic shell doesn't really count.
And - wrong again. WTF are you 'trying' to say?? Unless you are referring to UAC.
Also, bluescreens haven't been a real complaint against Windows since XP pre-SP1. Any lingering problems are due to drivers,
Oh really? Windows approved drivers?? First sentence is the equivalent of saying "yes, no". Intentional or not - it is "weasel speak". The original article (did you even read it before you went off on a tangent?) is about moving people away from XP. A crash under Windows XP that generates an error report is not substantially different from a blue-screen - mere cosmetics. "lingering problems due to drivers" are something that I have seen a lot of - all due to Windows "certified" drivers. In a corporate environment we only use certified drivers in our SOEs.
and Linux has much nastier drivers than Windows.
You forgot to preface your post with the "Emotional Rant" tag... Did you mean - some Open Source drivers for hardware which the manufacturers have not released either the code or a Linux driver? "Nastier" is a poor choice of a description.... Relevance?? How many, how often? Given that Linuxs support a much wider range and history of hardware of than Windows (386dx+).
Crashes are rare and Windows handles dying programs better than Linux.
Please direct me (us) to this new research that supports this claim. Two hyperbolic statements for the price of one!
Badly written X applications occasionally cause my X to freeze up
Does tha
Thanks for the suggestions.
No problem - Kon-Tiki was a journey of more than 4000km on a raft, the journey has been duplicated since.
I haven't bumped into the Maori chants yet,
Try for a start...
but I love the movie Whale Rider!
Haven't seen it, or Lord of the Rings ;-p
They are both fantasy movies
Anyway, here's a book I read last year when I was putting around in Bristol Bay with a lunatic for a skipper. http://www.stevethomashome.com/navigator.html Enjoy!
(Was) an interesting read - though a little, um, simplistic. From memory he only covered celestial navigation - which is used to determine which songs/chants are required to go to a certain destination by a path largely determined by the prevailing winds and currents.
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.
Uh, relevance?? Let me guess - if I dig deep enough I'll find some specious support for your claim.
Perhaps a theoretical exploit? Or, maybe one that has only happened a couple of times?? Neither of which would be relevant.
Cheers Dick.
Malware isn't just a part of Windows. 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.
Wrong
Hiding root inside a cryptic shell doesn't really count.
And - wrong again. Unless you are referring to UAC.
Also, bluescreens haven't been a real complaint against Windows since XP pre-SP1. Any lingering problems are due to drivers,
Oh really? Windows approved drivers??
and Linux has much nastier drivers than Windows.
You forgot to preface your post with the "Emotional Rant" tag...
Crashes are rare and Windows handles dying programs better than Linux.
Please direct me (us) to this new research that supports this claim.
Badly written X applications occasionally cause my X to freeze up
Does that somehow equate to a "crash"??
but I've never heard of such a thing on Windows.
Spend a lot of time supporting Vista do you? Is Aero your dancing bear of choice?
An imformative if somewhat stupid post - please don't be offended by my opinion. I am sure other Slashdotter readers are also keen to read your next post - "Week #2 - Learning Micro-computers".
Cheers, and "thanks for playing"
Same layout as Windows, imports Windows settings, includes the non-free software that Windows users usually want - installs similar to Windows (except the user can play Solitaire while installing).
Point and click installs, solid single source support etc.
Forums are not useful to basic Windows users, and tend to create more problems than they solve.
I've tried Ubuntu (and Kubuntu), Mephis, Mint, PCLinux and others, as an OS for basic Windows users - and, unless I totally locked-down the machines... they broke them just as quick as they broke Windows.
Caveats: any *nix is ideal for Windows users - if you:- lock it down; and, are there by your phone 24x7 to help them before they, um, start learning (by their mistakes).
You get what you pay for. Generally, the more it costs the more value you get. With GNU you pay by learning (and contributing). So the paid version of Xandros will give Windows users a similar level of support to Windows. Paid support from SUSE and Red Hat is more business oriented than Xandros.
I'll leave it someone less lazy than I to check if there was an ice age around the time they think the tools were made.
If we assume for the moment that there wasn't, and further assume that there are no islands in between Crete and Greece, I still could be convinced that ancient humans might have made such a voyage. After all, Pacific islanders have been known to make long sea journeys in outrigger canoes without navigational tools. Plus, as TFA states, the human migration to Australia started about 60K years ago,
and you can bet nobody walked there.
I'll take that bet - on not being able to walk into Gondwanna land >40000 years ago.
I'm not so sure the find is suggestive of "maritime capabilities". To prove such a statement, you would have to prove evidence of navigation. Even if it were only celestial navigation, stronger evidence would be to find more than one such remote site with similar styles of survival technology. From the article: More than 2,000 stone artifacts, including the hand axes, were collected on the southwestern shore of Crete, near the town of Plakias. The question, at least for now, should be whether or not they went back.
Try looking up Kon Tiki, and Maori chants as navigation.
See those repeated scallops that define the edge? That is not a naturally occuring stone.
I always take issue with statements like this. Given enough time and situations there is a probability of 1 of stones with that shape occurring and human brains (and cognitive bias) are fantastic at reading into things that aren't there. I grant you it may well just be shorthand by specialists in the field when talking in general public though.
Which is not to say these aren't the real deal.
Gee thanks for the meta-dialetic FUD. So enlightening. Follow that logic and the (impossible) infinite number of monkeys will, eventually, produce the entire works of Shakespeare...
Now I need another beer ;-p
Sorry - that link should be http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/157.html
I'd say it's time for the US to stop relying on Shock and Awe Terrorism and be a good neighbour for a change, but that wouldn't be true.
That's right, it wouldn't be true. The US has been a good neighbor since it formed.
If you don't think so, the taxpayers here would surely appreciate you all returning the billions of dollars in foreign aid that we've been handing out for generations. It seems a mite hypocritical to complain about the lack of "neighborliness" of the US while holding your hands out for the money and other aid we dish out.
I should have just modded you flamebait or troll, but I couldn't let your nonsense stand uncontested.
Can't speak for the US - but Australia uses "foreign aid" to dump unwanted (and often substandard) products. We supply "military advice" to our near neighbours (read PNG and Indonesia) so that Australian companies can continue activities (read mining and Panguna).
I don't support Barnaby Joyces' call to cut Foreign Aid spending - but I will continue to view all foreign aid cynically - and support public scrutiny and transparent accounting.
I suggest you do the same.
FWIW, the bikers did indeed barbecue and eat a cat. This is no surprise -- cats are a common BBQ treat among bikies down under,
I call bullshit. He made the cat claims in Parliament - where he is protected against charges of slander and libel. In fact he can pretty much say what he likes except call a politician a liar. He withdrew his claim when it was demonstrated that the incident "did not take place". Not because he couldn't prove it. It was proven that no "bikies" were a the local park that day. The alleged "cat cooking" took place at another park - and "did not" involve bikers.
Try "Hansard" for the actual record
As to - cats being a common treat among bikies down under - I can only presume you are suffering from some sort of brain fart - of course I can't prove that what you say is untrue... which hardly "proves" your junk statement either. I haven't attended every barby hosted by bikers - but pig on a spit is pretty popular.
Politicians are the same the world over - different dogs but the same leg action, so are idiots.
And it's not just little lies about "bikers roasting cats".
He has also brought in a law (since revoked) that required that people blogging about elections to publish their name and address, and to support that law claimed that a certain blogger was "not a real person" - an invention of the Liberal Party.
Prejudiced the trial of people by claiming they were "pure evil - have no hope of rehabilitation".
So he has a history of "discovering evidence" to support his extreme views
He has a law degree - and spent a couple of years working for a newspaper (until he was "removed" for fabricating stories)
So he should know about checking your facts, and, the existence of police.
I believe the appropriate comment is "sucked in!".
Thanks for the tip - found the story you referred to
Wasn't the windows source code leaked or something and when people tried to compile it, it turned out endless compiler errors just on the kernel? What do you mean get my facts out of here? This is a marketing only zone? I protest! I got my freedoms... oh, I don't have any freedoms, all my freedoms are belong to MS? Shoot, knew I should have paid more attention to that Stallman guy. Sure sure, I will bend over for the next windows update license agreement, will there be lube this time?
It was leaked? Please point me at the story/rumour (seriously). I had heard that a copy of the RSA key was stolen...
As to the rest of your post... what an, um, interesting relationship you have with Microsoft. Do they ever buy you dinner first? ;-p
The author is right that the "many eyeballs" scheme needs skilled eyeballs to work, but assumes that the only way to get good people on a project is by paying them. It seems odd that an article that tries so hard to provide a compelling argument makes such a poorly backed assumption. It's certainly true that good people need to be payed, but they can be paid to work on free software or write free software in their spare time; both cases have many examples.
Agreed.
I've often heard people complain because they say their work is under appreciated - but when they get a pay rise they still complain. When asked what the problem is they tell me they don't feel they get the recognition they deserve. Ego is an underrated motivation for excellence. Open Source code contribution can scratch the ego itch. As someone else has pointed out - many crap programmers don't know they're crap programmers. In Open Source projects other people are pretty quick to tell you if they think your code is crap - and, unlike traditional paid development there is less need to be polite instead of right.
and then attempts to refute. Fair enough. Except - the link leads to The Cathedral And The Bazaar - where I cannot find the quote... Hmmm
It's on this page: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html Right after point #8, about halfway down.
Thanks - admittedly I stopped reading after about page 6 and just used search...
So, given that Microsoft gave the source code to the Chinese government, and that there are a lot of Chinese... perhaps Microsoft products are also subject to the "more eyes" rule.... Just saying.... ;-p
Troll? What are you trying to prove? That Slashdot is a true democracy where even morons with an axe to grind can moderate? Or did you simply fail to read the moderating guidelines?