Hey, asshole. Plenty of us liberals, on/. and otherwise, are anti-Bush and yet still smart enough to know that Michael Moore is an idiot. Anti-Bush does not entail Pro-Moore.
So no, I think you're wrong. Y'all want to attack his ideals, we'll argue back, because we probably agree with many of his ideals. That doesn't make his propaganda valid, nor his movies good. But when that's not what you focus on, attacking Michael Moore will raise some liberal hackles.
And I think that "Here on Slashdot" is the only place that some of you conservative Americans are exposed to 1) The rest of America and 2) The rest of the world. So you may think it's "Here on Slashdot" but it's really "Anywhere but my little plot in suburbia."
As nice as it is, the iPod is pretty much a one-trick pony. Do you really think Apple could sustain itself on the (relatively small) profit margins of the iPod alone? Additionally, iTunes and the iTMS are presumeably staying in the Mac division.
Dunno why you'd presume that.
Also, the new division may be responsible for other one-trick-pony devices, should Apple decide to market them.
The thing that I find the most notable about this is that Jon Rubinstein (not going to check the spelling, sorry) is the guy that everyone lauds for the iMac, the tiBook & the alBook, the cheesegrater, and the iPod's excellent design. You'll note how four out of those five items are Macintoshes and not tiny consumer electronic devices.
Was Jon a figurehead, will he still be involved in Mac hardware design, or does this mean that we'll be seeing lamer (maybe just different) design for the next generation of Mac enclosures?
Your point is now slightly weakened, I feel, due to the desktop nature of browser buttons.
Browser buttons are Javascript. Writing Javascript to work with all the different browsers does not impress me. It did not significantly increase their coding, documentation, or QA time to support Macs in addition to PCs.
I will be completely shocked if Google releases executables for Linux or Mac OS.
1. Microsoft doesn't understand that people LOVE Google. Nobody particularly LOVES Microsoft anymore.
People loved Netscape.
2. Google is more innovative. What has Microsoft innovated in the past few years?
Netscape was more innovative at first.
3. Google is clean. If I see that damn dog show up one more time I'll kill myself.
One of my officemates near to started crying after I used her computer for a minute and disabled Clippy without thinking.
4. The technology Microsoft seeks doesn't exist. Nobody can create a search engine based on current technology that takes plain speech user input and magically transforms it into accurate search results.
Didn't. Didn't exist. My college had an excellent linguistics department. Microsoft interviewed every decent computational linguistics student that sent them a resume, and hired several. Yes, all natural language search products that I've seen have sucked. Not all such research projects that I've seen have sucked. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Microsoft innovates a little in this regard. Shocker, I know.
So... hate Microsoft all you want. I've used and loved Google since 1998 (ie forever), and I'm not betting on this race.
They made the oldest mistake in the book. The menus will not work if you use them like in System 7. You cannot click and hold on the menu, then drag to the item and release. You must instead click on the menu, then click and release on the item.
Windows let you do it either way, and Mac OS followed suit, but... System 7 didn't work like this flash thingy.
This concept scares away potential conservative allies - I know that people like the FSF probably don't care since they have a "with-us-or-against-us" sort of attitude that denies the middle ground.
Oh, be fair. This scares away potential conservative allies, but how valuable are the allies that they scare away? The problem isn't the FSF's unwavering ideology. It only scares away allies that are not actually in support of their ideology, which is fine.
The FSF's biggest problems arise from when their ideology does waver. Because then, their base of zealot allies get nervous. For example, they had a non-free documentation license that was protested publicly by an employee of the FSF. He got fired over it, which put everyone aghast. Perhaps RMS would describe the whole thing differently, but that sort of thing is much more damaging than RMS's unwillingness to coddle OSS types.
To prove myself as an FSF fanboy, lemme paste one of my favorite parables from Our Lord RMS:
At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.
He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)
People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?
He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.
The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.
from inside vim. The right answer is the one that oneiros27 pointed out: semi-trusted users should only get access to a very select few executables via the sudoers file.
The logging answer is close to what you say: log keystrokes, and don't do it on a machine that they have access to. Like o1d5ch001 pointed out. Both of their posts get at the issue with simply firing someone for evading logs: Firing them isn't your only goal. It's also figuring out how they buggered your system and how to get it back.
sudo wget http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/bash-2.05b.tar.gz sud o tar zxf bash-2.05b.tar.gz cd bash-2.05b sudo configure;make;./bash
Here's a hint: If you are a trusted user, then you can create a process that will do all the things you desire without logging. You could patch the OS and log system calls, but they could patch the OS and fix your logs.
If you do not trust a user, then do not make them a trusted user. Leastaways don't make them a trusted user on the machine that is supposedly logging their actions.
The reason I did this is so that someone couldn't do a sudo su -, and then do whatever they want as root, unlogged. There are still workarounds, as sudo is not a be-all-end-all of security. You still need standard procedures, and you have to make sure people follow them.
ANYONE who was caught in the act of downloading kiddie porn would claim their PC was "hi-jacked" so I don't think this is a defense of any kind, in and of itself.
Yes, yes it is. If ANYONE could claim it, and it cannot be disproven, then it is a valid defense for ANYONE. Innocent until proven guilty. Please, repeat to yourself.
It is unnacceptable to convict someone of a crime when we cannot prove that they are guilty. If someone commits a crime, and there is no evidence proving their guilt, then they do not go to jail in the USA. What part of that is complicated? What part of that do you disagree with?
That said,
I certainly cannot defend him without reading the court transcripts.
Me neither. Keep in mind, though, the Feds are not in the business of proving people innocent. They do not care if "the perp" is innocent. They care what their conviction rate is. Cop mentality.
There are certain security scanning tools that will DOS your servers in order to determine whether they are vulnerable to a specific DOS attack.
It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Of course, running virus scans and the Baseline Security Analyzer can happen during the day. That's not the only issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, asshole. Plenty of us liberals, on /. and otherwise, are anti-Bush and yet still smart enough to know that Michael Moore is an idiot. Anti-Bush does not entail Pro-Moore.
So no, I think you're wrong. Y'all want to attack his ideals, we'll argue back, because we probably agree with many of his ideals. That doesn't make his propaganda valid, nor his movies good. But when that's not what you focus on, attacking Michael Moore will raise some liberal hackles.
And I think that "Here on Slashdot" is the only place that some of you conservative Americans are exposed to 1) The rest of America and 2) The rest of the world. So you may think it's "Here on Slashdot" but it's really "Anywhere but my little plot in suburbia."
The news item here isn't "Moore's anti-Bush crusade makes the best movie EVAR!"
It's "Anti-American sentiment reaches such height that Moore's crap won the fucking Palme d'Or."
And that's news. Any way you slice it.
And pudge is a conservative.
I'm a liberal, and I'll tell you the same thing: watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer & Meet the Press.
It's state sponsored news, sure, but I honestly think Jim Lehrer would spontaneously combust before he allowed himself to be spun.
I think you're thinking of Christopher Guest.
This news item is getting published a million different places that normally wouldn't mention the cannes film festival.
And it's not a fucking partisan news item either way. It's news because this films has been news already. Now it is more news.
Don't blame me, I voted for Krang.
Dunno why you'd presume that iTunes and iTMS is in their hardware division and not in some software or web content division.
As nice as it is, the iPod is pretty much a one-trick pony. Do you really think Apple could sustain itself on the (relatively small) profit margins of the iPod alone? Additionally, iTunes and the iTMS are presumeably staying in the Mac division.
Dunno why you'd presume that.
Also, the new division may be responsible for other one-trick-pony devices, should Apple decide to market them.
The thing that I find the most notable about this is that Jon Rubinstein (not going to check the spelling, sorry) is the guy that everyone lauds for the iMac, the tiBook & the alBook, the cheesegrater, and the iPod's excellent design. You'll note how four out of those five items are Macintoshes and not tiny consumer electronic devices.
Was Jon a figurehead, will he still be involved in Mac hardware design, or does this mean that we'll be seeing lamer (maybe just different) design for the next generation of Mac enclosures?
Your point is now slightly weakened, I feel, due to the desktop nature of browser buttons.
Browser buttons are Javascript. Writing Javascript to work with all the different browsers does not impress me. It did not significantly increase their coding, documentation, or QA time to support Macs in addition to PCs.
I will be completely shocked if Google releases executables for Linux or Mac OS.
Right... like their toolbar and their deskbar? And Google Compute?
Has Google distributed something that you can install on your Linux or Mac OS computer? Ever?
So... hate Microsoft all you want. I've used and loved Google since 1998 (ie forever), and I'm not betting on this race.
TAR files work exactly like that, afaik. That is why you spray them into tapes.
They made the oldest mistake in the book. The menus will not work if you use them like in System 7. You cannot click and hold on the menu, then drag to the item and release. You must instead click on the menu, then click and release on the item.
Windows let you do it either way, and Mac OS followed suit, but... System 7 didn't work like this flash thingy.
The FSF's biggest problems arise from when their ideology does waver. Because then, their base of zealot allies get nervous. For example, they had a non-free documentation license that was protested publicly by an employee of the FSF. He got fired over it, which put everyone aghast. Perhaps RMS would describe the whole thing differently, but that sort of thing is much more damaging than RMS's unwillingness to coddle OSS types.
To prove myself as an FSF fanboy, lemme paste one of my favorite parables from Our Lord RMS:
The logging answer is close to what you say: log keystrokes, and don't do it on a machine that they have access to. Like o1d5ch001 pointed out. Both of their posts get at the issue with simply firing someone for evading logs: Firing them isn't your only goal. It's also figuring out how they buggered your system and how to get it back.
If you do not trust a user, then do not make them a trusted user. Leastaways don't make them a trusted user on the machine that is supposedly logging their actions.
Isn't it hard as hell to emmigrate to Canada?
Doesn't matter anyway. Language changes for no good reason. That's ok. The way people say it is the way it's to be said.
Does it give them an advantage?
It probably gives them an advantage in applying to federal jobs that require a college degree for no good reason. Dumbass.
It is unnacceptable to convict someone of a crime when we cannot prove that they are guilty. If someone commits a crime, and there is no evidence proving their guilt, then they do not go to jail in the USA. What part of that is complicated? What part of that do you disagree with?
That said,Me neither. Keep in mind, though, the Feds are not in the business of proving people innocent. They do not care if "the perp" is innocent. They care what their conviction rate is. Cop mentality.
Everyone I know says giga with a hard G. The only exception I know of is Christopher Lloyd's character in Back To The Future.
There are certain security scanning tools that will DOS your servers in order to determine whether they are vulnerable to a specific DOS attack.
It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Of course, running virus scans and the Baseline Security Analyzer can happen during the day. That's not the only issue.