But I'll say, if you do demand source you should be able to find and fix any security flaws yourself and report them for the benefit of those who can't and/or don't.
Given an unlimited amount of time and an unlimited number of monkeys.
Fixing flaws will always be faster for open source users because users can be doing it for themselves, and they'll be found faster too since you'll have more users proactively looking for and fixing flaws than a closed source company will (waste of manpower better tasked to adding new features and enhancements (i.e. future profits)).
Enough faster that it matters? There's still bugs being found in open source programs long after they are "obsolete".
Why'd you choose to stop quoting where you did? What the poster actually wrote was, "I'm just dumbfounded that this made it through whatever QA is in place(and, again, Apple bashing and first revision products aside, keep in mind that Apple has the BEST QA and least need for service across the entire industry, consistently, and has for years, according to consumer reporting and tracking organizations like Consumer Reports)."
Looks a little bit less objective when you put it in context, eh?
I am located at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin. I work in the University's Division of Information Technology (DoIT) since 1995 in the Systems Engineering group as the senior Apple systems engineer, supporting Apple products in primarily research and enterprise environments at the University. In 2001, I was honored to be selected as an Apple Distinguished Educator.
From Apple's website:
Role of ADEs
Members of the ADE community fulfill three primary roles in their interaction with Apple:
Advocate: ADEs are passionate advocates of the potential of Apple technologies and provide expert assistance and best practices to educators and policymakers.
Of course you haven't pointed out the differences between the US and the UK, but rather the difference between vendor certifications and college degrees.
Actually, members of Bush's unit did see combat. Bush tried to volunteer for the program that would have taken him into combat, but by the time he had enough flight hours, the jet that he was trained to fly was being phased out.
So it was a liberal who changed from 'We invaded Iraq because they had WMD that was a threat to the U.S.'
Provably true.
and 'Iraq has ties with Al Qaeda'
Also provably true.
to 'We invaded Iraq to bring them the blessings of Democracy' and 'Human Rights',
These were also given as reasons before the war. The reason why we're focusing on them now is because these are the reasons why we are still in Iraq.
and then to 'It was an intellegence failure'?
There were intelligence failures, but not of the scope that you are implying.
It was a liberal who moved the goal post from 'Mission Accomplished 5/2/03' to "it will require decades of patient effort"?
No possiblity of multiple overlapping missions, eh? How many decades did we spend in Germany after VE-Day? In Japan after VJ-Day? Are you going to try and tell us that we didn't accomplish the mission of defeating the Nazis on May 8, 1945, because we were still in Germany after that date? Uh huh.
Typical liberal tactic of moving the goal post. "Bush lied and people died!" There were WMDs in Iraq at the start of OIF, and we did find them. The fact that they were diluted, expired, or only semi-functional is interesting trivia, but doesn't change the fact that they were there and we found them.
Someone would argue that a half-erect penis is not in a "discernably erect state". They would say that by using the words "ercet state" they meant to exclude penises in any state other than erect.
You're certainly right about biology, since 50 years ago DNA had just been discovered! Even when I was in elementary school a few decades ago, the texts wondered if we would ever be able to fully map the human genome.
So, every decade or so, we need new biolgy texts.
Every fifty years or so, we stick a new periodic table in the chemistry books.
Should we update the physics books to reflect what we've learned in the last 50 years, too? I mean, what was known about nuclear physics 50 years ago? Anything?
You still haven't answered the all important question of who is going to write, proofread, factcheck, edit, publish, print, bind, and distribute all of these books without expectation of remuneration.
Free software only works (when it does) because the people who use it are willing to accept it "as is". That's not a good standard to apply to school text books.
Free means something other than, "Someone else should pay for it."
Basic textbooks for K-12 courses should be electronic and free.
Cars should be free, too. Too bad no one is going to build free cars. If you want your kids to learn from textbooks written by volunteers a decade ago, then maybe free books will do. If you want current textbooks written recently by someone motivated to actually get their shit straight, then someone is going to pay for it. Around here, the public schools provide the textbooks for the kids, but that doesn't mean they are free.
If that was speculation, then you're missing a couple of conditions. Try throwing in some more "ifs" and "maybes" next time, instead of stating your fantasies as facts:
"If the applicant is a minority, I think a pretty good case could be made that the manager pushed a secret button to make it malfunction."
The only conditional in this sentence is whether the applicant is a minority. Does the applicant being a minority influence whether or not the manager pushed a button? Maybe in your world.
"You know, he's the kind of guy that is a bit tech-savvy, maybe even does a little programming at home."
Oh, he is, is he?
"This is aggravated by the fact that, when asked to fix the flaw that makes it impossible to take applications, he refused."
The manager now has control over flaws in the kiosk software?
"Obviously, tomorrow some white guy would have no problem with the machine."
You're damn skippy I would. After all, you're the guy who wrote:
If the applicant is a minority, I think a pretty good case could be made that the manager pushed a secret button to make it malfunction.
You know, he's the kind of guy that is a bit tech-savvy, maybe even does a little programming at home. Maybe he accidentally discovered he could induce the bug that prevents it from working, with a certain procedure.
This is aggravated by the fact that, when asked to fix the flaw that makes it impossible to take applications, he refused. Obviously, tomorrow some white guy would have no problem with the machine.
You wrote that right? So, where's your evidence for any of the above?
If the applicant is a minority, I think a pretty good case could be made that the manager pushed a secret button to make it malfunction.
You think a pretty good case could be made? You know what the first thing you need to make a good case is? Evidence. The fact that the machine was broken one time isn't evidence that someone pushed a button.
Why don't you call your local bar association and ask for a referral to an employement lawyer? You aren't going to get a satisfactory answer to your question here.
The RFID contains nothing other than a random number. How will the criminals distinguish an American random number from a Libyan one? What makes you think that criminals can't pick their targets without the use of technology?
Yes, those multiple 9 foot antennas will be quite easy to conceal in an IED. Let's say they're concealed in a building somewhere. How does the attacker know that the random number reported by my RFID tag identifies me as an American without access to the database?
There is off the shelf hardware that will allow you to read [license plates] (with varying levels of reliability) from ranges in excess of thirty feet.OMG!!!! License plates are the mark of the beast!!!
Subscribe to Directv. You can get a dual-tuner Tivo for essentially nothing, and the DVR fee is like $5 a month for as many as you have. You'll have to agree to maintain service for 2 years, but the cost to get out is something like $150 prorated.
Since MS has no control over what names other vendors use for their update servers it would be counter-productive for those names to be treated specially in the DNS client. Should MS create a patch (including full regression testing and everything else) every time Trend|Mcafee|Symantec|FSecure changes the name of their update server?
Because other companies did have AV and anti-spyware tools. No point in disinfecting your computer if it is just going to get infected all over again. That's why we use anti-spyware AND anti-virus AND regular patching.
The fact that MS didn't have their own anti-spyware tool at the time is only relevant if you want to believe that everything MS does is part of a vast monopolistic conspiracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you enter the house through an unlocked door, "looking for a TV," you have commited burglary .
But I'll say, if you do demand source you should be able to find and fix any security flaws yourself and report them for the benefit of those who can't and/or don't.
Given an unlimited amount of time and an unlimited number of monkeys.
Fixing flaws will always be faster for open source users because users can be doing it for themselves, and they'll be found faster too since you'll have more users proactively looking for and fixing flaws than a closed source company will (waste of manpower better tasked to adding new features and enhancements (i.e. future profits)).
Enough faster that it matters? There's still bugs being found in open source programs long after they are "obsolete".
Why'd you choose to stop quoting where you did? What the poster actually wrote was, "I'm just dumbfounded that this made it through whatever QA is in place(and, again, Apple bashing and first revision products aside, keep in mind that Apple has the BEST QA and least need for service across the entire industry, consistently, and has for years, according to consumer reporting and tracking organizations like Consumer Reports)."
Looks a little bit less objective when you put it in context, eh?
Astroturf much?
Of course you haven't pointed out the differences between the US and the UK, but rather the difference between vendor certifications and college degrees.
Actually, members of Bush's unit did see combat. Bush tried to volunteer for the program that would have taken him into combat, but by the time he had enough flight hours, the jet that he was trained to fly was being phased out.
So it was a liberal who changed from 'We invaded Iraq because they had WMD that was a threat to the U.S.'
Provably true.
and 'Iraq has ties with Al Qaeda'
Also provably true.
to 'We invaded Iraq to bring them the blessings of Democracy' and 'Human Rights',
These were also given as reasons before the war. The reason why we're focusing on them now is because these are the reasons why we are still in Iraq.
and then to 'It was an intellegence failure'?
There were intelligence failures, but not of the scope that you are implying.
It was a liberal who moved the goal post from 'Mission Accomplished 5/2/03' to "it will require decades of patient effort"?
No possiblity of multiple overlapping missions, eh? How many decades did we spend in Germany after VE-Day? In Japan after VJ-Day? Are you going to try and tell us that we didn't accomplish the mission of defeating the Nazis on May 8, 1945, because we were still in Germany after that date? Uh huh.
Typical liberal tactic of moving the goal post. "Bush lied and people died!" There were WMDs in Iraq at the start of OIF, and we did find them. The fact that they were diluted, expired, or only semi-functional is interesting trivia, but doesn't change the fact that they were there and we found them.
Someone would argue that a half-erect penis is not in a "discernably erect state". They would say that by using the words "ercet state" they meant to exclude penises in any state other than erect.
No, "homosexuality" does not mean "sex", but "acts of homosexuality" does.
You're certainly right about biology, since 50 years ago DNA had just been discovered! Even when I was in elementary school a few decades ago, the texts wondered if we would ever be able to fully map the human genome.
So, every decade or so, we need new biolgy texts.
Every fifty years or so, we stick a new periodic table in the chemistry books.
Should we update the physics books to reflect what we've learned in the last 50 years, too? I mean, what was known about nuclear physics 50 years ago? Anything?
You still haven't answered the all important question of who is going to write, proofread, factcheck, edit, publish, print, bind, and distribute all of these books without expectation of remuneration.
Free software only works (when it does) because the people who use it are willing to accept it "as is". That's not a good standard to apply to school text books.
Free means something other than, "Someone else should pay for it."
Basic textbooks for K-12 courses should be electronic and free.
Cars should be free, too. Too bad no one is going to build free cars. If you want your kids to learn from textbooks written by volunteers a decade ago, then maybe free books will do. If you want current textbooks written recently by someone motivated to actually get their shit straight, then someone is going to pay for it. Around here, the public schools provide the textbooks for the kids, but that doesn't mean they are free.
If that was speculation, then you're missing a couple of conditions. Try throwing in some more "ifs" and "maybes" next time, instead of stating your fantasies as facts:
"If the applicant is a minority, I think a pretty good case could be made that the manager pushed a secret button to make it malfunction."
The only conditional in this sentence is whether the applicant is a minority. Does the applicant being a minority influence whether or not the manager pushed a button? Maybe in your world.
"You know, he's the kind of guy that is a bit tech-savvy, maybe even does a little programming at home."
Oh, he is, is he?
"This is aggravated by the fact that, when asked to fix the flaw that makes it impossible to take applications, he refused."
The manager now has control over flaws in the kiosk software?
"Obviously, tomorrow some white guy would have no problem with the machine."
Obviously!
You're damn skippy I would. After all, you're the guy who wrote:
You wrote that right? So, where's your evidence for any of the above?
Civil, not criminal. Burden of evidence is quite a bit lighter.
And still, you have none.
If the applicant is a minority, I think a pretty good case could be made that the manager pushed a secret button to make it malfunction.
You think a pretty good case could be made? You know what the first thing you need to make a good case is? Evidence. The fact that the machine was broken one time isn't evidence that someone pushed a button.
You didn't actually read the post you replied to, did you?
Why don't you call your local bar association and ask for a referral to an employement lawyer? You aren't going to get a satisfactory answer to your question here.
The RFID contains nothing other than a random number. How will the criminals distinguish an American random number from a Libyan one? What makes you think that criminals can't pick their targets without the use of technology?
Yes, those multiple 9 foot antennas will be quite easy to conceal in an IED. Let's say they're concealed in a building somewhere. How does the attacker know that the random number reported by my RFID tag identifies me as an American without access to the database?
There is off the shelf hardware that will allow you to read [license plates] (with varying levels of reliability) from ranges in excess of thirty feet.OMG!!!! License plates are the mark of the beast!!!
That doesn't work too well in a passive setting, like along side of a road, or unmanned building entrances, etc...
That's OK, because that isn't how this is going to be used. Please move along.
Subscribe to Directv. You can get a dual-tuner Tivo for essentially nothing, and the DVR fee is like $5 a month for as many as you have. You'll have to agree to maintain service for 2 years, but the cost to get out is something like $150 prorated.
Since MS has no control over what names other vendors use for their update servers it would be counter-productive for those names to be treated specially in the DNS client. Should MS create a patch (including full regression testing and everything else) every time Trend|Mcafee|Symantec|FSecure changes the name of their update server?
Because other companies did have AV and anti-spyware tools. No point in disinfecting your computer if it is just going to get infected all over again. That's why we use anti-spyware AND anti-virus AND regular patching.
The fact that MS didn't have their own anti-spyware tool at the time is only relevant if you want to believe that everything MS does is part of a vast monopolistic conspiracy.