It's the concept, not the implementation. Sudo let's a regular user re-enter their password to gain privledges in the OS. This way you aren't running all your apps as a superuser, without the hassle of having to use su or "run as" all the time. Nothing prevents you from doing this in a GUI; some X11 apps can do this, and of course Mac OS X is easy to use and has been doing it since day 1.
Then how can it be possible to run a problem-free Windows installation simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers ?
If you have any common sense, it should be telling you that it's not your job to fix catastrophic flaws in other people's products. Problems that had no business being there in the first place, in products YOU paid for.
Perhaps they are successful because they didn't build a "secure" OS.
Nope, sorry.
Seriously, who among us hasn't been frustrated when trying to do something on a "locked down" machine and being prevented by security. Who among us doesn't insist on having the admin or root password on our boxes so we can get stuff done?
Um, you do know the solution to your problem has been around for over 25 years.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that most malware infections come from software vulnerabilities, when they in fact come from user error.
Merely using the Internet and getting your browser hijacked by visiting the "wrong" page is not user error.
Their systems haven't been compromised because no-one is bothering to write viruses that only have a best-case scenario of infecting 1 in every 100 machines.
Hogwash. If you were a 1337 script kiddie looking to get famous, would you rather write the 10,000th Windows virus that brings millions of PC's to a screeching hault, or be the first person in history to write a virus that brings millions of Macs to a hault?
Windows has far more security in its design than OS X (and traditional unix). For a start, it doesn't have a superuser.
Sure it does, only it's called Administrator, which most Windows users run as since Windows has piss poor priveldge escalation/separation. You should thing about checking into rehab for that cheap crack you've been smoking.
In the U.S., at least, shrink-wrap EULA's have been tested, and are largely enforceable.
Um, no they aren't, and that's from looking at your own link. Federal courts have gone both ways on the issue, and it has yet to be settled before the SCOTUS.
EULA's aren't worth the paper they are printed on, and the judges that ruled otherwise were idiots. This is because EULA's try to enforce terms after the sale, which is complete bs. Besides, not even software comanies are bound by their own EULA's - see Windows Refund Day for an example.
Oh, the point has been made clearly, logically, repeatedly and insightfully. You just keep ignoring it.
spewing the leftist kool-aid people might get it.
So was it "lefist kool-aid" when the GOP was assailing Clinton for having avoided the draft when he was running against George H. W. Bush?
Don't forget that a lot of prominent Democrats voted for the use of force as well, so they're hands are not clean in all of this.
Democrats did not demand an invasion. Democrats did not have full access to the intelligence, nor did they lie about it. Democrats have not spent the last five years demonizing skeptics of the war, much less opponents of it. Democrats did not plan the war, execute the war, torture prisoners in Abu Garib, or start spying on American citizens in blatant violation of the law and the U.S. Constitution. The majority of Democrats in Congress are spineless cowards, and yes they have dirty hands. However, at least their hands aren't covered in innocent blood.
Quit griping about the past and think about the future
Oh? You do realize "the future" consists of at least two more years of the same people in charge of the White House, and the war, that made this galactic sized clusterfuck in the first place. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney should have all resigned after the first sweep of Iraq proved that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, much less massive stockpiles and a nuke program that required immediate intervention.
Rather than making regulations that force companies to release a patch X months after an exploit is found, software companies should instead be held liable for actions of gross negligence or incompetence. For example, not employing whitelists, poor priveledge separation, running a ton of uneeded services by default, etc.
Why don't you back up to the point you were at before you started shooting your mouth off and putting words in mine, reread what I actually wrote and then try again.
Did you major in missing the point? Nowhere did I say these people should be forced to serve, just that war is an abstract concept for them as the PNAC neocons have zero personal experience in war (none have served in the military), have zero personal risk (no family members serving) and so far, have zero accountability (GOP Congress stonewalls any investigation). If any of these three factors were different, we might not be pushing 3,000 dead Americans for a false cause.
I wonder if Bush will even feel a twinge from his conscience on the day that the number of Americans that have died for his collasal failures have surpassed the number killed by Osama Bin Laden.
Just take a look at the architects of the Iraqi invasion and it's biggest backers - all people that did not serve in the military (many took multiple deferments such as Cheney) and do not have family members serving in Iraq.
If Bush, Cheney, Rummsfield and GOP leaders in Congress all had sons or daughters in the service who would have been on the front lines, maybe they really would have treated war as a last resort rather than planning on invading Iraq from day 1. Maybe they would have made plans to secure the country after ousting Saddam instead of ignoring historians who predicted violent resistance to any occupation. Maybe they would have been a little less eager to legalize tourture if they knew their family members could be patrolling the streets of Baghdad and the information leaked out. Invading Iran might not even be on the table of discussion if it meant sending Jr. out on his 4th tour of duty. But no, they've only risked other peoples lives, other peoples sons and daughters.
Far from being a "tired argument", you could hardly find one more relevant.
Because not only is that not a cure for the disease, but it will make the disease much *worse*. If you think politicians are corrupt now, wait until term limits are in place. Rather than looking forward to spending decades in politics as a governor, senator or member of Congress, your young politico will spend his 8 years (or however long your proposed limit is) looking for his next job. And what is going to get him a better job after office - working for the electorate and someday working at a nice university or non-proffit, or selling out said electorate for big moneyed special interests that will make him a partner, board member, or lobbyist?
And corruption will be far harder to find, and less meaningful to punish, with term limits. Randall Cunningham would have been out of the house in 1999, assuming an 8 year limit. Tom Delay would have been out way back in 1991, although what he's ben indited for has occured longer after that. These two men could have done all their shenanigans while in office, and after their term was up, they'd take up a nice position on K Street or at a big defense contrator or engergy company. Oh, and they'd take all their records with them, "losing" and incriminiating documents in the process.
Term limits are a terrible idea. Not to mention limiting who *you* can vote for.
What part of:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Do you not understand? All of the above is a longer way of staying you have a right to privacy from government intrusion.
No, but you DID say "right now Google is doing what Microsoft was sued for", which is a big fat lie.
If you think no company has wielded MS' influence
Not within the rhelm of computers there hasn't been, with the exception of IBM. And what stopped IBM? A little lawsuit from the government that hobbled them long enough for the market to grow around Big Blue. Microsoft hasn't gone through anything like that.
Yes. Fact is that if a child is doing something illegal, it's still illegal wherever it happens to be.
Pfft. The article says "illegal or inappropriate behavior". What do *you* think the ratio punishments will be for actuall illegal actions vs "my math teacher is a bitch" will be?
And if that activity is further endangering the lives of others (drunk driving, selling drugs, violence, etc) it's absolutely their responsibility to curb it.
No, it's not. If it's not on school property, the best they can, and should, do is pick up the phone and call the police. Taking any other action, once again, is none of their damn business.
Fuck YOU, fatty foopah. Laziness is expecting other people to prove your points for you, not the other way around.
He has the video hosted there.
Oooooo! So now it's a random site with a video! Boy, that changes everything! If it's in a video it must be true, as evidenced by the Clinton Chronicles, SBVFT, and of course Fox News.
Evan Coyne Maloney details a case where a student on a liberal campus was theatened with expulsion for "hate speech" because they didn't like the "Ellen" series finale.
Your link is long on snipets but very short on details and context. And thus, worthless.
He's not going to have a criminal record because he didn't do anything wrong. Failing to report the "threats" to the PD proves that the school isn't doing this because they think he's dangerous, but that they didn't like what he said. The school is going down, hard.
Interesting, but one link from a random site does not a debunking make. There are a lot of ways to spread disinformation; see the anti-global warming people or just about any talking head from the White House.
I know personally of someone who *refuses* to believe that the glass ceiling exists
Sorry, but the "glass ceiling", much like the "1 in 4 women will be raped" chestnut, is nothing more than a feminist urban legend with no basis in reality. Any female executive can rise just as high as any male executive...if she works as hard. CEO's typically have to deal with insane amounts of stress and insane amounts of hours...things most women do not want to do. I was listening to an inverview with a Xerox CEO (who happened to be a woman) who did not take a weekend off for two years.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the concept, not the implementation. Sudo let's a regular user re-enter their password to gain privledges in the OS. This way you aren't running all your apps as a superuser, without the hassle of having to use su or "run as" all the time. Nothing prevents you from doing this in a GUI; some X11 apps can do this, and of course Mac OS X is easy to use and has been doing it since day 1.
Then how can it be possible to run a problem-free Windows installation simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers ?
If you have any common sense, it should be telling you that it's not your job to fix catastrophic flaws in other people's products. Problems that had no business being there in the first place, in products YOU paid for.
Perhaps they are successful because they didn't build a "secure" OS.
Nope, sorry.
Seriously, who among us hasn't been frustrated when trying to do something on a "locked down" machine and being prevented by security. Who among us doesn't insist on having the admin or root password on our boxes so we can get stuff done?
Um, you do know the solution to your problem has been around for over 25 years .
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that most malware infections come from software vulnerabilities, when they in fact come from user error.
Merely using the Internet and getting your browser hijacked by visiting the "wrong" page is not user error.
Their systems haven't been compromised because no-one is bothering to write viruses that only have a best-case scenario of infecting 1 in every 100 machines.
Hogwash. If you were a 1337 script kiddie looking to get famous, would you rather write the 10,000th Windows virus that brings millions of PC's to a screeching hault, or be the first person in history to write a virus that brings millions of Macs to a hault?
Windows has far more security in its design than OS X (and traditional unix). For a start, it doesn't have a superuser.
Sure it does, only it's called Administrator, which most Windows users run as since Windows has piss poor priveldge escalation/separation. You should thing about checking into rehab for that cheap crack you've been smoking.
Unfortunately, users can't be patched.
Windows is a clusterfuck because of Microsoft's poor coding and design choices, not because of users.
In the U.S., at least, shrink-wrap EULA's have been tested, and are largely enforceable.
Um, no they aren't, and that's from looking at your own link. Federal courts have gone both ways on the issue, and it has yet to be settled before the SCOTUS.
EULA's aren't worth the paper they are printed on, and the judges that ruled otherwise were idiots. This is because EULA's try to enforce terms after the sale, which is complete bs. Besides, not even software comanies are bound by their own EULA's - see Windows Refund Day for an example.
Sure. Look at all the people who bought X-Boxes so they could play Halo.
Perhaps if you attempted to make a point
Oh, the point has been made clearly, logically, repeatedly and insightfully. You just keep ignoring it.
spewing the leftist kool-aid people might get it.
So was it "lefist kool-aid" when the GOP was assailing Clinton for having avoided the draft when he was running against George H. W. Bush?
Don't forget that a lot of prominent Democrats voted for the use of force as well, so they're hands are not clean in all of this.
Democrats did not demand an invasion. Democrats did not have full access to the intelligence, nor did they lie about it. Democrats have not spent the last five years demonizing skeptics of the war, much less opponents of it. Democrats did not plan the war, execute the war, torture prisoners in Abu Garib, or start spying on American citizens in blatant violation of the law and the U.S. Constitution. The majority of Democrats in Congress are spineless cowards, and yes they have dirty hands. However, at least their hands aren't covered in innocent blood.
Quit griping about the past and think about the future
Oh? You do realize "the future" consists of at least two more years of the same people in charge of the White House, and the war, that made this galactic sized clusterfuck in the first place. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney should have all resigned after the first sweep of Iraq proved that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, much less massive stockpiles and a nuke program that required immediate intervention.
Rather than making regulations that force companies to release a patch X months after an exploit is found, software companies should instead be held liable for actions of gross negligence or incompetence. For example, not employing whitelists, poor priveledge separation, running a ton of uneeded services by default, etc.
Why don't you back up to the point you were at before you started shooting your mouth off and putting words in mine, reread what I actually wrote and then try again.
Or maybe Bush should have just listened to his pappy.
:) One side effect of Jr's term in office is that he keeps making his old man look better all the time.
That too.
Did you major in missing the point? Nowhere did I say these people should be forced to serve, just that war is an abstract concept for them as the PNAC neocons have zero personal experience in war (none have served in the military), have zero personal risk (no family members serving) and so far, have zero accountability (GOP Congress stonewalls any investigation). If any of these three factors were different, we might not be pushing 3,000 dead Americans for a false cause.
I wonder if Bush will even feel a twinge from his conscience on the day that the number of Americans that have died for his collasal failures have surpassed the number killed by Osama Bin Laden.
This is hairsplitting.
Not in the slightest. He's calling a cat a cat and a dog a dog while you people are insisting they are the exact same animal.
Software piracy causes software manufacturers very real losses of revenue.
Failure to gain is not a loss.
Just take a look at the architects of the Iraqi invasion and it's biggest backers - all people that did not serve in the military (many took multiple deferments such as Cheney) and do not have family members serving in Iraq.
If Bush, Cheney, Rummsfield and GOP leaders in Congress all had sons or daughters in the service who would have been on the front lines, maybe they really would have treated war as a last resort rather than planning on invading Iraq from day 1. Maybe they would have made plans to secure the country after ousting Saddam instead of ignoring historians who predicted violent resistance to any occupation. Maybe they would have been a little less eager to legalize tourture if they knew their family members could be patrolling the streets of Baghdad and the information leaked out. Invading Iran might not even be on the table of discussion if it meant sending Jr. out on his 4th tour of duty. But no, they've only risked other peoples lives, other peoples sons and daughters.
Far from being a "tired argument", you could hardly find one more relevant.
So how come we can't get term limits....??
Because not only is that not a cure for the disease, but it will make the disease much *worse*. If you think politicians are corrupt now, wait until term limits are in place. Rather than looking forward to spending decades in politics as a governor, senator or member of Congress, your young politico will spend his 8 years (or however long your proposed limit is) looking for his next job. And what is going to get him a better job after office - working for the electorate and someday working at a nice university or non-proffit, or selling out said electorate for big moneyed special interests that will make him a partner, board member, or lobbyist?
And corruption will be far harder to find, and less meaningful to punish, with term limits. Randall Cunningham would have been out of the house in 1999, assuming an 8 year limit. Tom Delay would have been out way back in 1991, although what he's ben indited for has occured longer after that. These two men could have done all their shenanigans while in office, and after their term was up, they'd take up a nice position on K Street or at a big defense contrator or engergy company. Oh, and they'd take all their records with them, "losing" and incriminiating documents in the process.
Term limits are a terrible idea. Not to mention limiting who *you* can vote for.
What part of:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Do you not understand? All of the above is a longer way of staying you have a right to privacy from government intrusion.
My comments show no sympathy for MS.
No, but you DID say "right now Google is doing what Microsoft was sued for", which is a big fat lie.
If you think no company has wielded MS' influence
Not within the rhelm of computers there hasn't been, with the exception of IBM. And what stopped IBM? A little lawsuit from the government that hobbled them long enough for the market to grow around Big Blue. Microsoft hasn't gone through anything like that.
Actually, they run Sun Solaris.
Yeah, which is a *nix. Just like the parent said.
Yes. Fact is that if a child is doing something illegal, it's still illegal wherever it happens to be.
Pfft. The article says "illegal or inappropriate behavior". What do *you* think the ratio punishments will be for actuall illegal actions vs "my math teacher is a bitch" will be?
And if that activity is further endangering the lives of others (drunk driving, selling drugs, violence, etc) it's absolutely their responsibility to curb it.
No, it's not. If it's not on school property, the best they can, and should, do is pick up the phone and call the police. Taking any other action, once again, is none of their damn business.
How is this bad?
Because it's off school property, off school ours, and isn't their damn business? Did any of that occur to you?
Look you lazy bastard.
Fuck YOU, fatty foopah. Laziness is expecting other people to prove your points for you, not the other way around.
He has the video hosted there.
Oooooo! So now it's a random site with a video! Boy, that changes everything! If it's in a video it must be true, as evidenced by the Clinton Chronicles, SBVFT, and of course Fox News.
I think you meant ESPECIALLY in areas that are highly "liberal".
Wingnut hogwash.
Evan Coyne Maloney details a case where a student on a liberal campus was theatened with expulsion for "hate speech" because they didn't like the "Ellen" series finale.
Your link is long on snipets but very short on details and context. And thus, worthless.
He's not going to have a criminal record because he didn't do anything wrong. Failing to report the "threats" to the PD proves that the school isn't doing this because they think he's dangerous, but that they didn't like what he said. The school is going down, hard.
Interesting, but one link from a random site does not a debunking make. There are a lot of ways to spread disinformation; see the anti-global warming people or just about any talking head from the White House.
I know personally of someone who *refuses* to believe that the glass ceiling exists
Sorry, but the "glass ceiling", much like the "1 in 4 women will be raped" chestnut, is nothing more than a feminist urban legend with no basis in reality. Any female executive can rise just as high as any male executive...if she works as hard. CEO's typically have to deal with insane amounts of stress and insane amounts of hours...things most women do not want to do. I was listening to an inverview with a Xerox CEO (who happened to be a woman) who did not take a weekend off for two years.