Root privileges are merely a means to an end. An end such as installing a keylogger, re-building the password manager to silently forward you any future stored passwords, etc...
It's no different than Windows
I think that's his point.
(other than the fact that its harder to actually root a linux box, rooting windows is pretty trivial)
In the old days yes, now not so much. It's a lot of social engineering these days.
What good is having GPU acceleration that only works on one platform?
Because it makes browsing on that platform faster therefore attracting more people to that platform...is it really that hard to understand?
The -entire- point of the trend of doing things in-browser is to make cross-platform compatibility a reality.
And this changes that how? IE only runs on Windows, what do you expect them to do? Other browsers will likely implement GPU-accelerated rendering using OpenGL in their respective browsers.
If I wanted a game to work just on Windows, why wouldn't I just make an application that did that?
That's not what's happening here, the content won't be platform-specific, it will just run faster on IE because IE is offloading some of the rendering work to the GPU.
Wait, "solid Flash support"? From all I have read, it is anything but solid. "Spotty, buggy, resource-hog" seems to be what is being said, even by people that aren't fans of Apple.
Gees, people who believe that shit are only an intellectual stone's throw from the moron's who write it. It's not the platform that has the issue but the fact that these douchers are using it to view content specifically designed for desktop computing devices with desktop computing power, Captain Obvious will tell you that experience won't be ideal on a mobile device.
The department will argue that any filtering on it's own network is an operational issue well outside of the purvey of the house and completely under the responsibility of the department and minister.
What 'department'? Wtf are you on about? If you're referring to the NBN Co. as 'the department' then you really do have no idea what you're talking about.
They will simply say "you don't have a right to download illegal material over the public network" if you complain.
Who is 'they'? You seem to be under the impression there are some people in some department that have ultimate influence over the NBN Co.
I really wish people understood how the public service / executive and government work under our system, it really is very important.
It's also very important to realise the difference between NBN Co. and a government department, a difference that is obviously too difficult for you to comprehend.
If you don't understand this, the only thing I can assume is that you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're an idiot.
No i think if that truly is the definition they are going for then they assume all their customers are idiots. It would make it a redundant, idiotic and pointless statement, which you've fallen for.
Now, that's a bold statement. Telling your customers 'our device is so user friendly that you don't need a manual, it just works and you'll understand completely how it works without any help needed at all'.
The fact that hacks keep coming out and left reasonably open for local user leads me to believe that Apple in reality don't care so much, but have an obligation to the big content producers to give "best effort" to keep the device secure.
Yeah and the exploits in Windows are only there to keep the anti-virus people in business. Apple - like everyone else - aren't capable of producing a 100% secure device or platform.
But... I'm confused... Mac OSX *doesn't* get PC viruses (and yes, any idiot on the street will know what they mean by "PC", given that distinction has been outlined in Apple ad campaigns for *years*). And that's a perfectly valid marketing tool, given that the vast majority of viruses out their target Windows on the PC.
So, what's the problem here, again?
The problem is that there is no such thing as a 'PC virus', and they don't specify what they term to be a 'PC virus'. So, based on the standard definitions it would be a 'virus that affects a personal computer'.
But if you a shopkeeper, want to sell megaphones to everyone but mormons, for example, that's something different.
Of course that's something different. If you buy a car you can do whatever the hell you want with it, if you rent a car that most certainly comes with limitations on what you can do. Your analogy refers to buying, this situation is regarding renting (servers from Rackspace).
Rackspace, as an American company, should endorse the principle of free speech.
Freedom of speech is as much the freedom to NOT speak as it is to speak, and the freedom to ignore anyone else's speech. So they are, in fact endorsing the principle of free speech by their actions.
Rackspace shutting them down is actively stopping them from speaking, the freedom to not speak is not the same as actively stopping someone else from speaking. Though if they do have the 'hate speech' clause in their contract it is certainly legal for them to do so.
That isn't true. If the packets cross though American controlled territory any where they are violating American laws. And America makes sure as much traffic as possible crosses their territory in order to be able to tap it.
Do you have a source for that? Wouldn't that mean that if you were to do something illegal then you would be charged in every country that your traffic was routed through?
not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country (where what he is doing isn't illegal), unless you can somehow show the pirates he attacked are on American soil, even then I doubt it would hold up.
IANAL but surely the american companies hiring his company would be somewhat accountable wouldn't they?
1. Someone else getting automated speeding camera tickets in your car = you get fined
No you don't. You aren't guilty of anything, you can nominate who was driving and the only reason it defaults to you on your car is because your license is tied to your car's registration.
2. Someone else driving aggressively / causing accidents in your car = you get fined, and your insurance premiums go up
What do you get fined for? Thats just your car rego which happens to be tied to your driver's license, it's nothing to do with you, you're just the person they go to first because they can easily identify that you actually own the car.
3. Getting stopped/caught driving without a license = fine, why not?
What? How is this even relevant with regard to licensing in the sense of the internet. This analogy makes absolutely no sense.
In effect you've actually posted reasons why 'internet licenses' are an idiotic idea because, as your analogies point out, you were never the one at fault, you're just the person they go to first, which they can already do since you're the account-holder. Again, wtf would be the point of this license?
Slashdot Mirror
64bit architecture is 20 years old on the desktop but right now nobody is using it anyway.
Ignorance is no excuse for making such blatantly false statements when the reality, as of June 2010, we see that 46 percent of all PCs worldwide running Windows 7 are running a 64-bit edition of Windows 7, is just a google search away.
If Microsoft wants to protect NGO non-profit's from nefarious actions they should not be so hypocritical as to do it abroad only.
How is that hypocritical?
It's no different than Windows
I think that's his point.
(other than the fact that its harder to actually root a linux box, rooting windows is pretty trivial)
In the old days yes, now not so much. It's a lot of social engineering these days.
What good is having GPU acceleration that only works on one platform?
Because it makes browsing on that platform faster therefore attracting more people to that platform...is it really that hard to understand?
The -entire- point of the trend of doing things in-browser is to make cross-platform compatibility a reality.
And this changes that how? IE only runs on Windows, what do you expect them to do? Other browsers will likely implement GPU-accelerated rendering using OpenGL in their respective browsers.
If I wanted a game to work just on Windows, why wouldn't I just make an application that did that?
That's not what's happening here, the content won't be platform-specific, it will just run faster on IE because IE is offloading some of the rendering work to the GPU.
Seeing that Chrome still doesn't support basic features like saving tab state after a restart
How is that different from:
Options->Basics->On Startup: Reopen the pages that were open last
Or are you making these claims without having actually used Chrome?
You can write programs for OS X for free too. That would be the correct comparison.
Why should it be any different? You're only suggesting the idea of it being the 'correct comparison' because it supports your argument.
Wait, "solid Flash support"? From all I have read, it is anything but solid. "Spotty, buggy, resource-hog" seems to be what is being said, even by people that aren't fans of Apple.
Gees, people who believe that shit are only an intellectual stone's throw from the moron's who write it. It's not the platform that has the issue but the fact that these douchers are using it to view content specifically designed for desktop computing devices with desktop computing power, Captain Obvious will tell you that experience won't be ideal on a mobile device.
Malcolm Gladwell pointed this out in his book Outliers
The clue is in the title, i guess you missed that.
Rackspace is exersizing their own freedom of speech.
By what idiotic definition are rackspace's actions 'freedom of speech'?
The department will argue that any filtering on it's own network is an operational issue well outside of the purvey of the house and completely under the responsibility of the department and minister.
What 'department'? Wtf are you on about? If you're referring to the NBN Co. as 'the department' then you really do have no idea what you're talking about.
They will simply say "you don't have a right to download illegal material over the public network" if you complain.
Who is 'they'? You seem to be under the impression there are some people in some department that have ultimate influence over the NBN Co.
I really wish people understood how the public service / executive and government work under our system, it really is very important.
It's also very important to realise the difference between NBN Co. and a government department, a difference that is obviously too difficult for you to comprehend.
If you don't understand this, the only thing I can assume is that you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're an idiot.
No i think if that truly is the definition they are going for then they assume all their customers are idiots. It would make it a redundant, idiotic and pointless statement, which you've fallen for.
Now, that's a bold statement. Telling your customers 'our device is so user friendly that you don't need a manual, it just works and you'll understand completely how it works without any help needed at all'.
Except that's absolute bullshit
The fact that hacks keep coming out and left reasonably open for local user leads me to believe that Apple in reality don't care so much, but have an obligation to the big content producers to give "best effort" to keep the device secure.
Yeah and the exploits in Windows are only there to keep the anti-virus people in business. Apple - like everyone else - aren't capable of producing a 100% secure device or platform.
For far greater numbers of people:
How so?
But... I'm confused... Mac OSX *doesn't* get PC viruses (and yes, any idiot on the street will know what they mean by "PC", given that distinction has been outlined in Apple ad campaigns for *years*). And that's a perfectly valid marketing tool, given that the vast majority of viruses out their target Windows on the PC.
So, what's the problem here, again?
The problem is that there is no such thing as a 'PC virus', and they don't specify what they term to be a 'PC virus'. So, based on the standard definitions it would be a 'virus that affects a personal computer'.
If one little piss ant church in America can cause so many Muslims unglued.
Those muslims are just feeding the trolls.
But if you a shopkeeper, want to sell megaphones to everyone but mormons, for example, that's something different.
Of course that's something different. If you buy a car you can do whatever the hell you want with it, if you rent a car that most certainly comes with limitations on what you can do. Your analogy refers to buying, this situation is regarding renting (servers from Rackspace).
Rackspace, as an American company, should endorse the principle of free speech.
Freedom of speech is as much the freedom to NOT speak as it is to speak, and the freedom to ignore anyone else's speech. So they are, in fact endorsing the principle of free speech by their actions.
Rackspace shutting them down is actively stopping them from speaking, the freedom to not speak is not the same as actively stopping someone else from speaking. Though if they do have the 'hate speech' clause in their contract it is certainly legal for them to do so.
Witless?
We're just looking out for y'all. Making sure you don't go and sin or do anything un-Christian. It's for your own good. Trust us.
On behalf of the rest of the world, thank you.
Do you have any evidence that any US companies have actually hired him to do DOS attacks?
FTFA:
As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.
"We are tied up with Fox STAR Studios - Star TV and 20th Century Fox - who are a joint venture company in India."
Fox Star is of course owned by News Corp. But by all means take my above comment as a hypothetical if you prefer.
That isn't true. If the packets cross though American controlled territory any where they are violating American laws. And America makes sure as much traffic as possible crosses their territory in order to be able to tap it.
Do you have a source for that? Wouldn't that mean that if you were to do something illegal then you would be charged in every country that your traffic was routed through?
not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country (where what he is doing isn't illegal), unless you can somehow show the pirates he attacked are on American soil, even then I doubt it would hold up.
IANAL but surely the american companies hiring his company would be somewhat accountable wouldn't they?
1. Someone else getting automated speeding camera tickets in your car = you get fined
No you don't. You aren't guilty of anything, you can nominate who was driving and the only reason it defaults to you on your car is because your license is tied to your car's registration.
2. Someone else driving aggressively / causing accidents in your car = you get fined, and your insurance premiums go up
What do you get fined for? Thats just your car rego which happens to be tied to your driver's license, it's nothing to do with you, you're just the person they go to first because they can easily identify that you actually own the car.
3. Getting stopped/caught driving without a license = fine, why not?
What? How is this even relevant with regard to licensing in the sense of the internet. This analogy makes absolutely no sense.
In effect you've actually posted reasons why 'internet licenses' are an idiotic idea because, as your analogies point out, you were never the one at fault, you're just the person they go to first, which they can already do since you're the account-holder. Again, wtf would be the point of this license?
The internet's hiding WMDs and harboring terrorists! Quick, get it!
It really is 1 dorked route from some mom and pop ISP can take out the entire internet. It has happened a few times.
Like when? When did one bad routing entry from an ISP take down the entire internet?!