The First Amendment becomes meaningless as limits to speech come more and more from the corporate sector. In a world where everything you do and say is recorded and databased, and where industries (like insurance) are increasingly dominated by just a few players, stepping out of line even once can have dire consequences. The blacklist is back.
Ironically, many of the vulnerabilities that Windows has always had - e.g., autorun on CDROMs, running emailed executables, etc. - were only done to keep things simple for naive users. Ultimately, these minor conveniences have encouraged a malware ecosystem that is far more complicated and stressful to these same users than the lack of them would ever have been.
But now there's good money to be made from frightened and confused users, both illegitimately and semi-legitimately. So the unintended consequence of ease-of-use turns out to be convenient for some, but not the novice users for whom it was originally designed.
That's a well-used line of FUD, but it really doesn't matter very much. Distributions differ in many respects - installation programs, package managers, whether they use Gnome or KDE - but they're all using the same Linux kernel and will all run the same software. E.g., you don't need to download different versions of Firefox depending on which distribution you run, unless you want to handle the installation through your particular package manager. I install a fair amount of software the old-fashioned way from tarballs, and I don't think I've ever seen a package that requires (or won't work with) a particular distribution.
Because it costs nothing to keep a Linux box up-to-the-minute, I'd even bet that the Linux ecosystem is much more uniform than the Windows universe, where many (most?) people are still running XP (or even earlier) due to the cost and difficulty of upgrading.
Re:Good way to get your laptop attacked
on
USB 'Dead Drops'
·
· Score: 2, Funny
What kind of crappy machine is vulnerable to files on an external medium?
The kind of machine that would run an attached executable when you open an e-mail might be expected to do such a thing.
You have to wonder where Linux would be today if Torvalds had tried to commercialize it instead of releasing it into the wild at such an early stage of development....
Well, I know everybody's just joking around here, but...
One of the more exciting papers I've read in this area appeared in Nature a little while back (14 May 2009). It shows not only that activated ribonucleotides could have been formed directly from simple molecules that were plausibly present on the early earth, but that the necessary reactions are of high yield, are catalyzed by inorganic phosphates, and take place under mild conditions. Because the ribonucleotides are formed as the phosphates ("activated"), they're suitable for polymerization to RNA under similarly mild conditions.
To me, this seals the deal for RNA the same way that Miller-Urey did for amino acids, and maybe even more so (because the reactions take place under ambient conditions, no lightning bolts needed). It's widely thought that early forms of life were based on RNA rather than DNA, so there you go. Now we just need to figure out how to make a ribosome.
See Powner et.al., "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions," Nature 459, 239-242 (2009).
Sorry for the geekiness here, but of you know a little organic chemistry you'll find this really cool...
I just had my main sewer line rooted a couple of weeks ago. If I had known I could use one of my spare rocket thrusters for that, I might have saved a bundle of money...
it probably won't include a Linux driver on a disc either. Now what?
Well, there is the internet.
Actually, though, more often I find the opposite scenario to be true. Most hardware "just works" with Linux, but for Windows you need to install stuff from the included CD. You may be loading just a driver, or you might be installing whatever additional spyware/adware/nagware/crapware the hardware vendor (or some 3rd party) wants on your machine. But as long as it "works", you won't know or care.
I have nothing (well, a few things maybe) against Windows itself as an OS, but the ecosystem surrounding it is an unmitigated cesspool. The people who swim there see the big chunks of poop floating around, but they think that's just the price you have to pay for a day at the beach (and, of course, you get what you pay for). You'll never convince them to try the clean, cool pond just over the hill, because, well, they'd have to climb that damned hill to get there.
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Because no one is "forcing" me to use a service, it is therefore somehow unethical or unreasonable to voice an opinion on it?
If no one is allowed to criticize the practices of a company unless they are being held captive, how will others be able to make the informed choice of whether to leave or stay?
With a Windows system you can go to Wal-mart and buy a copy of most current software titles.
Well, you've got me there. As a Linux user I haven't had to go to WalMart (or anywhere else) to buy a copy of a current software title in about 15 years now. Sure do miss those good old days...
It's pretty hard for do-gooders to tell other people what to do if they're living in a self-contained habitat light years away in deep space.
Except... that habitat will have its own go-gooders and enforcers, and the rules will be vastly more restrictive than anything you see here. That's just a consequence of living with others in a closed space, and the absolutely vital requirement for extreme resource conservation. Someone's going to be on your case if you so much as whack off anywhere but in the water reclaimation port.
You may get away from where you were, but how are you going to get away from where you are when that turns out to be 100 times worse?
Yes, that's how it works. The end result is that only parties with very, very deep pockets will be able to bear the risk of initiating an action, since you can never be 100% sure of the outcome.
And no, living like a science fiction movie isn't a benefit either. Not all SciFi is Utopian.
No, it isn't. Yet many people here imagine how unrelentingly cool and exciting their lives would be, if only they were living in The Future. Well, we are living in the future, from the reference point of a century ago, but that doesn't protect us from being depressed and miserable.
Guess what: The girls on the voyage to Proxima Centauri in 2300 aren't going to like you any more than the ones here and now, and you'll be hating them just as much for it. The stuff you'll do there every day will seem just as routine and mundane as your current boring life, and probably even more so. Everybody's favorite fantasy - the thing they'll yearn for every day of their lives - will be the legends they hear of life on our lush, gentle Earth, just as we're living it today.
So, let's just realize that we're already on a more utopian planet than we're ever going to find in the nearby galaxy, and spend our efforts on preserving it for our descendants...
By all means, let us keep all our eggs in one basket and just wait patiently for some extinction event.
Well, that does have the advantage of being practical, at the very least. If we choose, we can deal with most terrestrial "extinction event" threats a good deal more cheaply - by multiple orders of magnitude, probably - than by sending a substantial number of our population to a distant and hostile "habitat". There aren't many (any?) such events you can think of that would result in a less survivable environment than we'd encounter on any reachable extraterrestrial planet.
Of course, in that case our infants won't be arriving at distant worlds with super powers (absent kryptonite), but you only get what you pay for after all...
Well, no one is suggesting that TI doesn't have the right to cripple their products if they so choose. People here are merely pointing out that they are doing so, and criticizing them for it. That way we can all be informed consumers, and refuse to purchase the product if we so choose. So isn't that a good thing under your free market principles? Or are you upset because you think TI has some right to operate under the cover of darkness, and customers who are fooled have no right to complain publicly?
If you want to understand religion (and the religious), you have to think of it as having more to do with authority than belief in the supernatural. We humans are pack animals at heart. We - or at least the more conservative among us - yearn to follow the Alpha Dog unquestioningly. That AD might be a Hitler or Stalin, or it could be a priesthood, backed by supernatural forces that only they control. Either way, life becomes more predictable, and we don't have to trouble ourselves with decisions about how to live it.
I've never bought the argument that religious folks are motivated by any need to explain the origin of the world and universe or anything like that. Most of them don't know - and don't care - how their toaster knows when their toast is done, or how the voices come out of their radios. What they want is to be told what to do, to belong to a group where everyone behave predictably, and to despise those who don't belong.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL... You manage to work the gun issue into every topic, don't you? Is this on your own behalf, or do you work in PR?
The First Amendment becomes meaningless as limits to speech come more and more from the corporate sector. In a world where everything you do and say is recorded and databased, and where industries (like insurance) are increasingly dominated by just a few players, stepping out of line even once can have dire consequences. The blacklist is back.
Ironically, many of the vulnerabilities that Windows has always had - e.g., autorun on CDROMs, running emailed executables, etc. - were only done to keep things simple for naive users. Ultimately, these minor conveniences have encouraged a malware ecosystem that is far more complicated and stressful to these same users than the lack of them would ever have been.
But now there's good money to be made from frightened and confused users, both illegitimately and semi-legitimately. So the unintended consequence of ease-of-use turns out to be convenient for some, but not the novice users for whom it was originally designed.
...with 300+ variations.
That's a well-used line of FUD, but it really doesn't matter very much. Distributions differ in many respects - installation programs, package managers, whether they use Gnome or KDE - but they're all using the same Linux kernel and will all run the same software. E.g., you don't need to download different versions of Firefox depending on which distribution you run, unless you want to handle the installation through your particular package manager. I install a fair amount of software the old-fashioned way from tarballs, and I don't think I've ever seen a package that requires (or won't work with) a particular distribution.
Because it costs nothing to keep a Linux box up-to-the-minute, I'd even bet that the Linux ecosystem is much more uniform than the Windows universe, where many (most?) people are still running XP (or even earlier) due to the cost and difficulty of upgrading.
What kind of crappy machine is vulnerable to files on an external medium?
The kind of machine that would run an attached executable when you open an e-mail might be expected to do such a thing.
I can think of no security issues that could be introduced by this development.
Nor can I... at least for any reasonable OS that doesn't do anything so colossally stupid as to run any executable it finds there.
But I suppose that point's already been made here.
...before we start seeing pictures of Jesus riding one of these?
anyone who has not had their head stuck in the ground for the past 30 years should be well aware
With most conservatives I know yearning for 1952 again, that could explain a lot...
You have to wonder where Linux would be today if Torvalds had tried to commercialize it instead of releasing it into the wild at such an early stage of development....
Well, I know everybody's just joking around here, but...
One of the more exciting papers I've read in this area appeared in Nature a little while back (14 May 2009). It shows not only that activated ribonucleotides could have been formed directly from simple molecules that were plausibly present on the early earth, but that the necessary reactions are of high yield, are catalyzed by inorganic phosphates, and take place under mild conditions. Because the ribonucleotides are formed as the phosphates ("activated"), they're suitable for polymerization to RNA under similarly mild conditions.
To me, this seals the deal for RNA the same way that Miller-Urey did for amino acids, and maybe even more so (because the reactions take place under ambient conditions, no lightning bolts needed). It's widely thought that early forms of life were based on RNA rather than DNA, so there you go. Now we just need to figure out how to make a ribosome.
See Powner et.al., "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions," Nature 459, 239-242 (2009).
Sorry for the geekiness here, but of you know a little organic chemistry you'll find this really cool...
Indeed. Religion is only one flavor of crazy. There are many others...
McAfee has no right even existing.
You're a Linux user... Am I right?
Like craigslist adult forums, but very very immediate.
Which is pretty much the way they did it 30 years ago...
I just had my main sewer line rooted a couple of weeks ago. If I had known I could use one of my spare rocket thrusters for that, I might have saved a bundle of money...
it probably won't include a Linux driver on a disc either. Now what?
Well, there is the internet.
Actually, though, more often I find the opposite scenario to be true. Most hardware "just works" with Linux, but for Windows you need to install stuff from the included CD. You may be loading just a driver, or you might be installing whatever additional spyware/adware/nagware/crapware the hardware vendor (or some 3rd party) wants on your machine. But as long as it "works", you won't know or care.
I have nothing (well, a few things maybe) against Windows itself as an OS, but the ecosystem surrounding it is an unmitigated cesspool. The people who swim there see the big chunks of poop floating around, but they think that's just the price you have to pay for a day at the beach (and, of course, you get what you pay for). You'll never convince them to try the clean, cool pond just over the hill, because, well, they'd have to climb that damned hill to get there.
Maybe so, but without the forgetting, forgiving is always provisional. You're forgiven today, but non necessarily tomorrow...
It's part of the "deliberative processes", and releasing it "could, more than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression."
And at what point is the public entitled to be a part of this deliberative process? After all of the decisions have already been made?
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Because no one is "forcing" me to use a service, it is therefore somehow unethical or unreasonable to voice an opinion on it?
If no one is allowed to criticize the practices of a company unless they are being held captive, how will others be able to make the informed choice of whether to leave or stay?
With a Windows system you can go to Wal-mart and buy a copy of most current software titles.
Well, you've got me there. As a Linux user I haven't had to go to WalMart (or anywhere else) to buy a copy of a current software title in about 15 years now. Sure do miss those good old days...
It's pretty hard for do-gooders to tell other people what to do if they're living in a self-contained habitat light years away in deep space.
Except... that habitat will have its own go-gooders and enforcers, and the rules will be vastly more restrictive than anything you see here. That's just a consequence of living with others in a closed space, and the absolutely vital requirement for extreme resource conservation. Someone's going to be on your case if you so much as whack off anywhere but in the water reclaimation port.
You may get away from where you were, but how are you going to get away from where you are when that turns out to be 100 times worse?
Yes, that's how it works. The end result is that only parties with very, very deep pockets will be able to bear the risk of initiating an action, since you can never be 100% sure of the outcome.
And no, living like a science fiction movie isn't a benefit either. Not all SciFi is Utopian.
No, it isn't. Yet many people here imagine how unrelentingly cool and exciting their lives would be, if only they were living in The Future. Well, we are living in the future, from the reference point of a century ago, but that doesn't protect us from being depressed and miserable.
Guess what: The girls on the voyage to Proxima Centauri in 2300 aren't going to like you any more than the ones here and now, and you'll be hating them just as much for it. The stuff you'll do there every day will seem just as routine and mundane as your current boring life, and probably even more so. Everybody's favorite fantasy - the thing they'll yearn for every day of their lives - will be the legends they hear of life on our lush, gentle Earth, just as we're living it today.
So, let's just realize that we're already on a more utopian planet than we're ever going to find in the nearby galaxy, and spend our efforts on preserving it for our descendants...
By all means, let us keep all our eggs in one basket and just wait patiently for some extinction event.
Well, that does have the advantage of being practical, at the very least. If we choose, we can deal with most terrestrial "extinction event" threats a good deal more cheaply - by multiple orders of magnitude, probably - than by sending a substantial number of our population to a distant and hostile "habitat". There aren't many (any?) such events you can think of that would result in a less survivable environment than we'd encounter on any reachable extraterrestrial planet.
Of course, in that case our infants won't be arriving at distant worlds with super powers (absent kryptonite), but you only get what you pay for after all...
Well, no one is suggesting that TI doesn't have the right to cripple their products if they so choose. People here are merely pointing out that they are doing so, and criticizing them for it. That way we can all be informed consumers, and refuse to purchase the product if we so choose. So isn't that a good thing under your free market principles? Or are you upset because you think TI has some right to operate under the cover of darkness, and customers who are fooled have no right to complain publicly?
If you want to understand religion (and the religious), you have to think of it as having more to do with authority than belief in the supernatural. We humans are pack animals at heart. We - or at least the more conservative among us - yearn to follow the Alpha Dog unquestioningly. That AD might be a Hitler or Stalin, or it could be a priesthood, backed by supernatural forces that only they control. Either way, life becomes more predictable, and we don't have to trouble ourselves with decisions about how to live it.
I've never bought the argument that religious folks are motivated by any need to explain the origin of the world and universe or anything like that. Most of them don't know - and don't care - how their toaster knows when their toast is done, or how the voices come out of their radios. What they want is to be told what to do, to belong to a group where everyone behave predictably, and to despise those who don't belong.