I completely agree with where you are coming from...but the article that you link to in your post quotes the scientists specifically paying regard to your concern. Depending on their review process, I don't think that they're necessarily jumping into anything.
However, the scientists, including Dr Andrea Crisanti at Imperial College London, UK, say there would need to be a full political, ethical and scientific review before any such genetically-modified animals were released into the environment.
This point was emphasised by Chris Curtis, professor of medical entomology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
"I think one should have concern for the remote possibility that the modifications could make the mosquitoes able to carry a virus that they cannot carry at present," he told the BBC.
Heh. I was gonna trash the old 6100/60 in my closet...but in hopes that Apple offers a deal like this in the US -- maybe I'll continue to sacrifice the small amount of closet space.
The new macs are looking cool -- and with their new OS, and a trade-in for a computer I don't use. It might just be worth it.
If the human population keeps growing and searching for ways to fight diseases, they'll get back at us. Think of MRSA for example; all we need is time and enough administered vancomycin (our last resort against several multiple resistant bacteria) to induce complete resistance of pathogens against current antibiotics.
I hear what you're that we should be cautious with science and intraducing populations of organisms (ie Gypsy Moth) -- but to stop searching for cures to diesase is far from the right answer.
What do you suggest we do? Just bend over and let disease flatten populations? Is it OK that we not fight a disease it its not in our backyard, or if most of the people afflicted are not the right color or relegion? What disease is worth fighting? AIDS? Cancer? Malaria has killed more than both put together. More reasearch has been performed on malaria than most diseases -- agian, you might be right that care should be taken, but this is one that is definitely worth fighting.
What is comes down to is quality of life. If it weren't for medical science, we would still be dying in our early 40's. Medical science is not our enemy.
This is indicitave of a classic problem between Devs and Sys Admins -- SysAdmins thinking that they know something that the Devs don't, (all the while owning responsibility for the systems in question) and the Devs, who think that they don't necessarily need an overpaid SysAdmin to do fulltime stuff that they can do in a heartbeat (and maintain rights to their development and production systems and networks).
(Disclaimer: I do not necessarily believe either of the two above statements, it is just a simplfication of my understanding of this canonical problem)
I think that the first thing that you should do is to make nice with your admin. I know that you might not like her, and its clear that you see her as a know-nothing Microsoft Certified with no real-world expertise...and this may be the case. But its important that you put these feelings aside and first try a little harder to work with her on this.
Its also important to take a CYA approach and document everything that you suggest to her...especially the stuff that she is not receptive to. This is much easier to do in a mid to larger sized company than a really small one (really small
Show where the vulnerabilities are in writing, using well-known and respected tools and methodologies. Recommend a course of action (again, in writing). You can keep this informal be doing the "in-writing" stuff over email -- this way its not overtly official, but you have a paper-trail just the same. Also, ask your SA to document her changes.
Now if she is not receptive to your suggestions, then it will be time to report this stuff to higher-ups. Be careful about trying too hard to point this stuff out, because you'll start looking like you're spending too much time doing someone else's job.
After all this is said and done, and your butt is covered. The last thing that I'd suggest you do is to recommend an external security audit. If you are being discredited due to your recommendations, you should have a third party come in and do a full write-up on your network's security. This is something that every manager will see, and if the auditors are from the right place, your MCSE will be hard-pressed to discredit them -- and will be forced to make the changes.
Now that Turkey's internet restrictions are official, might I suggest that they contact Cisco to firewall off their entire nation in order to further guarantee the prohibition of free expression. Maybe something like China's firewall.
While they're at it, maybe they should contact Yahoo to help monitor every discussion group in Turkey so those not thinking (expressing) happy thoughts can be re-educated.
This isn't an auction site -- but you may find what you're looking for (in limited quantities) at the MIT Flea Market in Cambridge, MA.
They're on the third Sunday of each month, April through October...there's a little bit of info here (it's the best site I could find on short notice -- but still sucky).
I haven't been in over a year, but there is usually some useful stuff there...and even some not-so-useful stuff that's juts damn cool (like IPC's, Sparc 5's, old SGI's, and Alphas).
Lastly, when I read about Solaris being free-as-in-beer -- that's only for educational users. (This may have changed, I only read about when they started offering it for free) The corprate user (Solaris' primary audience) still has to pay.
  Well, now we know you're talking out of your ass. Solaris 7 and 8 (and soon, 9)
  have been free for all hosts with eight or fewer processors, except for media cost
 (which is admittedly rather inflated). For everyone.
Did you read what I said? I pretty clearly stated that that this may have changed. Check your history.
Normally, I'd try to have it out with you about this, I'm pretty open-minded about this kind of stuff -- but you're way out of line. Would you talk like that to my face? I'd probably punch you in the nose.
Really though -- I've used a number of Unixes and Unix-like OS'es in the enterprise on an SA level, we might have had a pretty cool discussion, hashed out some good points...but hey, you're a prick -- you lose.
If civilians can't conduct a search under warrant, and having law enforcement officers present places too much of a burden on ISP's -- I guess that search warrants shouldn't apply to ISP's:)
But seriously, its an interesting quandry. Technically, having law enforcement officers in ISP offices around the clock just to serve warrants could violate the 4th amenement in and of itself (remember, corporations are granted individual's rights). I don't think that either extreme is the right thing to do, so what is?
Honestly, I can't think of a single reason to use Linux over Solaris other than to save money on hardware.
Here's one: Ease of use
If you're going to be using open source software (ie Apache), its simply better supported under Linux. Fact is, a majority of the OSS packages out there were either written specifically for Linux, or with Linux in mind -- and Solaris has always been a secondary concern.
This is the entire reason that Sun is trying to support API comatibility -- those OSS apps (ie GNU tools) are what make Linux so great (at least for me).
Maybe from a performance and scalability standpoint, Solaris will nose away from Linux...but from a usability standpoint, Linux kicks Solaris' ass.
Lastly, when I read about Solaris being free-as-in-beer -- that's only for educational users. (This may have changed, I only read about when they started offering it for free) The corprate user (Solaris' primary audience) still has to pay.
I've been wondering when I'd start to see noise about this. I recently received a number fax(!) solicitations to renew my company's domain through a registrar that we've never used. (BTW, aren't there laws against unsolicited faxing)?
The domain registrars have become shady businesses, and its high time that they be accountable for their actions...maybe instead of these companies suing each other, the FTC can start reviewing their processes.
Its about time that these tools be phased out -- the services have been shut off (by default) in just about every *nix distribution on the market over the last decade. Someone needs to pioneer killing them -- and a strip-down default install like OpenBSD seems to be the appropriate place to do that.
There's a number of "what about me" folks out there -- who have some mitigating circumstance to need those tools (see here). It seems that these folks are just speaking out to hear themselves speak. Its not like these services are being excluded from the ports tree. Even if they were, you can still grab the source and build it yourself -- hell, there are still binary packages out there that you can just build.
Lastly, as stated in the thread here, its just the servers that are getting the axe, the clients stay...so all of the valuable tools (telnet, rlogin, etc) aren't going away.
Too bad its dead. I'd be willing to revive it with some slashdotters if anyone's interested...(is there still a good Linux Paradise client out there?).
Nice Firestone example...The difference is -- RedHat is free, and you aren't going to kill yourself trying to use it (unless you're really really dumb). If you haven't tried it because you hold it against RedHat that alot of developers like RPM -- then you are just dumb. Do you not realize that its the developers that insist on RPM for their packages and not RedHat who holds a gun to their head and commands their use of RPM-only?
As far as security focus goes -- I do read it. I have no problems with applying a few patches. As far as RedHat being like MS for their security issues -- If RedHat were MS, they'd wait for an exploit to be written, and for every script kiddie around to launch attacks and then write a patch...rather that have a patch released a day after a vulnerability (read: not exploit) is realeased. The number of vulnerabilities-per-year is a stupid gauge that's really only used by FUD chuckers anyway. Tell me how many outstanding security holes there are?
Like I said -- if you want secure, go OpenBSD...othersise, stop whining.
As for slackware's amazing tarballs...whatever -- you can download a tarball for any package (even slack's tarballs) and install it. And building source tarballs is not that time-consuming. It doesn't sound like you've ever used the BSD ports tree. Check it out sometime...its pretty cool, and not as tempermental as you suggest. Also -- check out SRPMS. They're quite cool as well, and both of these support automake (or some variant), so you don't have to go futzing with makefiles and the like. Please point out to me a few packages that are RPM-only? -- cause I've never encountered them...but then again, I've never really looked. If I'm using RedHat, I just use RPM, or build my own RPMs...if BSD, I either use the ports tree, or make my own packages so I can install them in whatever machine in my environment.
RedHat's configuration tools do kind of suck -- youre right. They always have (although they're getting a little better). Linuxconf isn't that bad, but not that great -- but they didn't write it anyway. If you want good configuration tools, use mandrake. If you're the elite hacker super-Unix man that you imply you are, use vi to edit the damn config files yourself like you have to with every other *nix on the market -- you're not required to use anything (see RPM).
How many more CPU cycles does it take to read service startup scripts from individual files rather than 1 file? Just a few. BTW -- in case you don't know -- that's how SysV inits work, dummy!. They did it to make their Linux feel more like a SysV Unix. If you don't like it -- use BSD, or a distro with BSD-style inits.
I knew that you were going to bring up the GCC 2.96 example...and I'll answer that with the same answer I have for compiling their kernels with nonstable modules. RedHat needs to remain competitive in the enterprise (ie to compete with Microsoft & Sun), and that means that they have to be on the bleeding edge...supporting the latest whiz-bang hardware and what-not. That's their market. If you don't want bleeding-edge -- use an older version and update it with what you want. I try to stay away from anything even close to a.0 RedHat system for a production box...but for a desktop -- fine -- gimme the bleeding-edge shit.0 release, 7.3, whatever. Have you ever read RedHat's responses to the criticism over GCC 2.96? It might not excuse what they did, but it seems good enough for me, and along the lines of what I just said...and what's so damn hard about downloading the new gcc rpm and doing an rpm -Fvh gcc? Oh, right -- you don't like RPM.
Hey -- its cool if you want to hack around with Slackware in your mom's basement. If you've ever used Linux in a large environment, you'd understand how valuable good package management, support, and tracking is -- as well as support for the latest hardware right out of the box (remember, nobody is making you use RPM, apt-get, or whatever). If you don't like that some binaries are only released as RPM's -- why don't you write the developers (instead of bitching to me) -- or moreover, get off your lazy ass, make tarballs, and send them to the developers?
Now, remember, I didn't start this. You did by perpetuating the idea that there's an implicit Slashdot consensus that RedHat sucks (or in your case, is a security nightmare). Well, I do not follow the Slashdot sheep. I have my own opinions, and refuse to hate a product because its the most commercially viable. All I did was ask you to substantiate your opinion -- and you sort of skirted around the subject and (IMHO -- and in case you miss this, it's a paraphrase) said 'Well, it just sucks!'. All I said is that's not good enough to convince me -- you didn't cite any real examples, and I thought that you were trolling...which I still do, but I gave you the benifit of the doubt here. I don't care if you use RedHat or not -- I have nothing to gain or lose...but in the future, you may want to substantiate your opinions before throwing them out and expecting the whole world to say -- oh yeah, I totally agree.
What bothers me the most, is that Federal Law Enforcement agencies have been going after individuals who crack corprate machines for years -- and hitting them with hard criminal charges (or in some cases, just throwing them in jail without clear or formal criminal charges).
Its clear that the federal government is zealous in its crusade to protect corporate America from "hackers". But who protects individuals from shady companies?
Its also clear that the company behind the trojan popups has engaged in criminal activity...but where the hell is the criminal investigation -- anyone being brought up on charges? At most -- we might see some fiducary damages awarded to someone (but not anyone here -- and not to anybody we know)...but if the feds can throw Kevin in jail -- I want the fuckers responsible for this kind of malicous marketing in jail too...(don't forget spammers either).
Slashdot Mirror
...legitimate email being eaten up by anti-spam filters.
-Turkey
Many college students now get drastic discounts on Microsoft Office
;)
Microsoft offered the same deal that Sun did when I was a college student -- no wait, I stole it.
-Turkey
Skilef,
I completely agree with where you are coming from...but the article that you link to in your post quotes the scientists specifically paying regard to your concern. Depending on their review process, I don't think that they're necessarily jumping into anything.
However, the scientists, including Dr Andrea Crisanti at Imperial College London, UK, say there would need to be a full political, ethical and scientific review before any such genetically-modified animals were released into the environment.
This point was emphasised by Chris Curtis, professor of medical entomology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
"I think one should have concern for the remote possibility that the modifications could make the mosquitoes able to carry a virus that they cannot carry at present," he told the BBC.
See what I mean?
-Turkey
Heh. I was gonna trash the old 6100/60 in my closet...but in hopes that Apple offers a deal like this in the US -- maybe I'll continue to sacrifice the small amount of closet space.
The new macs are looking cool -- and with their new OS, and a trade-in for a computer I don't use. It might just be worth it.
-Turkey
Making mosquitoes that don't bite humans is in the cards...maybe not the way you suggest...but its there.
...modifying the insects' sense of smell so that they seek out and bite animals rather than humans;
Have a look at this article at BBC.
Specifically, this part:
This could be done by:...
-Turkey
If the human population keeps growing and searching for ways to fight diseases, they'll get back at us. Think of MRSA for example; all we need is time and enough administered vancomycin (our last resort against several multiple resistant bacteria) to induce complete resistance of pathogens against current antibiotics.
I hear what you're that we should be cautious with science and intraducing populations of organisms (ie Gypsy Moth) -- but to stop searching for cures to diesase is far from the right answer.
What do you suggest we do? Just bend over and let disease flatten populations? Is it OK that we not fight a disease it its not in our backyard, or if most of the people afflicted are not the right color or relegion? What disease is worth fighting? AIDS? Cancer? Malaria has killed more than both put together. More reasearch has been performed on malaria than most diseases -- agian, you might be right that care should be taken, but this is one that is definitely worth fighting.
What is comes down to is quality of life. If it weren't for medical science, we would still be dying in our early 40's. Medical science is not our enemy.
-Turkey
Strike out SysAdmin everywhere in that post, and replace with NetAdmin     -- :)
-Turkey
This is indicitave of a classic problem between Devs and Sys Admins -- SysAdmins thinking that they know something that the Devs don't, (all the while owning responsibility for the systems in question) and the Devs, who think that they don't necessarily need an overpaid SysAdmin to do fulltime stuff that they can do in a heartbeat (and maintain rights to their development and production systems and networks).
(Disclaimer: I do not necessarily believe either of the two above statements, it is just a simplfication of my understanding of this canonical problem)
I think that the first thing that you should do is to make nice with your admin. I know that you might not like her, and its clear that you see her as a know-nothing Microsoft Certified with no real-world expertise...and this may be the case. But its important that you put these feelings aside and first try a little harder to work with her on this.
Its also important to take a CYA approach and document everything that you suggest to her...especially the stuff that she is not receptive to. This is much easier to do in a mid to larger sized company than a really small one (really small
Show where the vulnerabilities are in writing, using well-known and respected tools and methodologies. Recommend a course of action (again, in writing). You can keep this informal be doing the "in-writing" stuff over email -- this way its not overtly official, but you have a paper-trail just the same. Also, ask your SA to document her changes.
Now if she is not receptive to your suggestions, then it will be time to report this stuff to higher-ups. Be careful about trying too hard to point this stuff out, because you'll start looking like you're spending too much time doing someone else's job.
After all this is said and done, and your butt is covered. The last thing that I'd suggest you do is to recommend an external security audit. If you are being discredited due to your recommendations, you should have a third party come in and do a full write-up on your network's security. This is something that every manager will see, and if the auditors are from the right place, your MCSE will be hard-pressed to discredit them -- and will be forced to make the changes.
Hope this helps.
-Turkey
Hey -- you're right. I stand corrected.
However, I am 100% sure that (at the very least) there will be a binary tarball floating around with the clients.
-Ethan
Wow -- that's outrageous! Whatever happened to seperation of church and state, or was that bill of rights thing just bullshit?
As far as my relegion goes -- if it feels good, do it! Would that make me exempt from the sin tax?
Does a case of beer cost an extra $24? How is a keg priced?
In any case, Minnesota, I dig your governer, but your state senate's gotta go.
-Turkey
Now that Turkey's internet restrictions are official, might I suggest that they contact Cisco to firewall off their entire nation in order to further guarantee the prohibition of free expression. Maybe something like China's firewall.
While they're at it, maybe they should contact Yahoo to help monitor every discussion group in Turkey so those not thinking (expressing) happy thoughts can be re-educated.
-Turkey
This isn't an auction site -- but you may find what you're looking for (in limited quantities) at the MIT Flea Market in Cambridge, MA.
They're on the third Sunday of each month, April through October...there's a little bit of info here (it's the best site I could find on short notice -- but still sucky).
I haven't been in over a year, but there is usually some useful stuff there...and even some not-so-useful stuff that's juts damn cool (like IPC's, Sparc 5's, old SGI's, and Alphas).
-Turkey
I especially dig the @'s for Leia's hair (buns)!
-Turkey
Truce? Sure man -- sorry I flipped out. :)
-Turkey
Found this great host a while ago:
telnet to towel.blinkenlights.nl
It streams the original Star Wars (Episode IV, New Hope, blah blah) over ASCII. Its pretty cool -- have a look.
-Turkey
Lastly, when I read about Solaris being free-as-in-beer -- that's only for educational users. (This may have changed, I only read about when they started offering it for free) The corprate user (Solaris' primary audience) still has to pay.
  Well, now we know you're talking out of your ass. Solaris 7 and 8 (and soon, 9)
  have been free for all hosts with eight or fewer processors, except for media cost
 (which is admittedly rather inflated). For everyone.
Did you read what I said? I pretty clearly stated that that this may have changed. Check your history.
Normally, I'd try to have it out with you about this, I'm pretty open-minded about this kind of stuff -- but you're way out of line. Would you talk like that to my face? I'd probably punch you in the nose.
Really though -- I've used a number of Unixes and Unix-like OS'es in the enterprise on an SA level, we might have had a pretty cool discussion, hashed out some good points...but hey, you're a prick -- you lose.
Grow up -- play nice.
-Turkey
If civilians can't conduct a search under warrant, and having law enforcement officers present places too much of a burden on ISP's -- I guess that search warrants shouldn't apply to ISP's :)
But seriously, its an interesting quandry. Technically, having law enforcement officers in ISP offices around the clock just to serve warrants could violate the 4th amenement in and of itself (remember, corporations are granted individual's rights). I don't think that either extreme is the right thing to do, so what is?
BTW, IANAL
-Turkey
Honestly, I can't think of a single reason to use Linux over Solaris other than to save money on hardware.
Here's one: Ease of use
If you're going to be using open source software (ie Apache), its simply better supported under Linux. Fact is, a majority of the OSS packages out there were either written specifically for Linux, or with Linux in mind -- and Solaris has always been a secondary concern.
This is the entire reason that Sun is trying to support API comatibility -- those OSS apps (ie GNU tools) are what make Linux so great (at least for me).
Maybe from a performance and scalability standpoint, Solaris will nose away from Linux...but from a usability standpoint, Linux kicks Solaris' ass.
Lastly, when I read about Solaris being free-as-in-beer -- that's only for educational users. (This may have changed, I only read about when they started offering it for free) The corprate user (Solaris' primary audience) still has to pay.
-Turkey
I've been wondering when I'd start to see noise about this. I recently received a number fax(!) solicitations to renew my company's domain through a registrar that we've never used. (BTW, aren't there laws against unsolicited faxing)?
The domain registrars have become shady businesses, and its high time that they be accountable for their actions...maybe instead of these companies suing each other, the FTC can start reviewing their processes.
-Turkey
Its about time that these tools be phased out -- the services have been shut off (by default) in just about every *nix distribution on the market over the last decade. Someone needs to pioneer killing them -- and a strip-down default install like OpenBSD seems to be the appropriate place to do that.
There's a number of "what about me" folks out there -- who have some mitigating circumstance to need those tools (see here). It seems that these folks are just speaking out to hear themselves speak. Its not like these services are being excluded from the ports tree. Even if they were, you can still grab the source and build it yourself -- hell, there are still binary packages out there that you can just build.
Lastly, as stated in the thread here, its just the servers that are getting the axe, the clients stay...so all of the valuable tools (telnet, rlogin, etc) aren't going away.
-Turkey
Too bad its dead. I'd be willing to revive it with some slashdotters if anyone's interested...(is there still a good Linux Paradise client out there?).
-Turkey
Heh -- will SUSE 8 include 6 or 8 CD's?
Although a minor detail, having to shuffle that many CD's just to install the kitchen sink can further complicate an install.
-Turkey
Nice Firestone example...The difference is -- RedHat is free, and you aren't going to kill yourself trying to use it (unless you're really really dumb). If you haven't tried it because you hold it against RedHat that alot of developers like RPM -- then you are just dumb. Do you not realize that its the developers that insist on RPM for their packages and not RedHat who holds a gun to their head and commands their use of RPM-only?
.0 RedHat system for a production box...but for a desktop -- fine -- gimme the bleeding-edge shit .0 release, 7.3, whatever. Have you ever read RedHat's responses to the criticism over GCC 2.96? It might not excuse what they did, but it seems good enough for me, and along the lines of what I just said...and what's so damn hard about downloading the new gcc rpm and doing an rpm -Fvh gcc? Oh, right -- you don't like RPM.
As far as security focus goes -- I do read it. I have no problems with applying a few patches. As far as RedHat being like MS for their security issues -- If RedHat were MS, they'd wait for an exploit to be written, and for every script kiddie around to launch attacks and then write a patch...rather that have a patch released a day after a vulnerability (read: not exploit) is realeased. The number of vulnerabilities-per-year is a stupid gauge that's really only used by FUD chuckers anyway. Tell me how many outstanding security holes there are?
Like I said -- if you want secure, go OpenBSD...othersise, stop whining.
As for slackware's amazing tarballs...whatever -- you can download a tarball for any package (even slack's tarballs) and install it. And building source tarballs is not that time-consuming. It doesn't sound like you've ever used the BSD ports tree. Check it out sometime...its pretty cool, and not as tempermental as you suggest. Also -- check out SRPMS. They're quite cool as well, and both of these support automake (or some variant), so you don't have to go futzing with makefiles and the like. Please point out to me a few packages that are RPM-only? -- cause I've never encountered them...but then again, I've never really looked. If I'm using RedHat, I just use RPM, or build my own RPMs...if BSD, I either use the ports tree, or make my own packages so I can install them in whatever machine in my environment.
RedHat's configuration tools do kind of suck -- youre right. They always have (although they're getting a little better). Linuxconf isn't that bad, but not that great -- but they didn't write it anyway. If you want good configuration tools, use mandrake. If you're the elite hacker super-Unix man that you imply you are, use vi to edit the damn config files yourself like you have to with every other *nix on the market -- you're not required to use anything (see RPM).
How many more CPU cycles does it take to read service startup scripts from individual files rather than 1 file? Just a few. BTW -- in case you don't know -- that's how SysV inits work, dummy!. They did it to make their Linux feel more like a SysV Unix. If you don't like it -- use BSD, or a distro with BSD-style inits.
I knew that you were going to bring up the GCC 2.96 example...and I'll answer that with the same answer I have for compiling their kernels with nonstable modules. RedHat needs to remain competitive in the enterprise (ie to compete with Microsoft & Sun), and that means that they have to be on the bleeding edge...supporting the latest whiz-bang hardware and what-not. That's their market. If you don't want bleeding-edge -- use an older version and update it with what you want. I try to stay away from anything even close to a
Hey -- its cool if you want to hack around with Slackware in your mom's basement. If you've ever used Linux in a large environment, you'd understand how valuable good package management, support, and tracking is -- as well as support for the latest hardware right out of the box (remember, nobody is making you use RPM, apt-get, or whatever). If you don't like that some binaries are only released as RPM's -- why don't you write the developers (instead of bitching to me) -- or moreover, get off your lazy ass, make tarballs, and send them to the developers?
Now, remember, I didn't start this. You did by perpetuating the idea that there's an implicit Slashdot consensus that RedHat sucks (or in your case, is a security nightmare). Well, I do not follow the Slashdot sheep. I have my own opinions, and refuse to hate a product because its the most commercially viable. All I did was ask you to substantiate your opinion -- and you sort of skirted around the subject and (IMHO -- and in case you miss this, it's a paraphrase) said 'Well, it just sucks!'. All I said is that's not good enough to convince me -- you didn't cite any real examples, and I thought that you were trolling...which I still do, but I gave you the benifit of the doubt here. I don't care if you use RedHat or not -- I have nothing to gain or lose...but in the future, you may want to substantiate your opinions before throwing them out and expecting the whole world to say -- oh yeah, I totally agree.
-Turkey
What bothers me the most, is that Federal Law Enforcement agencies have been going after individuals who crack corprate machines for years -- and hitting them with hard criminal charges (or in some cases, just throwing them in jail without clear or formal criminal charges).
Its clear that the federal government is zealous in its crusade to protect corporate America from "hackers". But who protects individuals from shady companies?
Its also clear that the company behind the trojan popups has engaged in criminal activity...but where the hell is the criminal investigation -- anyone being brought up on charges? At most -- we might see some fiducary damages awarded to someone (but not anyone here -- and not to anybody we know)...but if the feds can throw Kevin in jail -- I want the fuckers responsible for this kind of malicous marketing in jail too...(don't forget spammers either).
-Turkey
Why get excited about the RH 7.3 release if its not called Linux XP?
-Turkey