How difficult is it to do a reverse phone lookup these days?
Any cop can look up your auto license plates as well. So what?
Someone did some calculations, and figured it would take 45,000 NSA employees just to listen to a mere one second of each phone call made within the US. You are far more likely to get your privacy violated by getting your picture taken running a red light, then by the government tapping your phone. In other words, they're not going to bother tapping your phones. They're going to reserve that to those receiving phone calls from terrorists.
I've got a better chance of being hit by lightning that being killed by the (boogeyman) Terrorists.
The left has succesfully advocated bans on products that with far less odds of death. Lawn darts, the Ford Pinto, etc.
Take appropriate measures against the risk
We are. Hence this program. This is not domestic spying, it is data mining. Your calls are NOT being recorded. Instead information is being correlated. It is the data equivalent of a policeman on the night beat keeping an eye out for suspicious activity in the neighborhood.
It's not spying! Your conversations are NOT being recorded, as the media is implying. This is just a database of phone numbers and times, without names or addresses. It is used for data mining, not monitoring. Your phone company has much more information than this. Less than a month ago we all gave the IRS much more personal information, but not one privacy advocate complained.
I can understand if you have a problem with the data mining, and the process to correlate this information to find patterns. But it is not spying and people should stop lying that it is.
There's a level of caution that has been ingrained
Of course. When you're suddenly half a million dollars in debt because you leveraged options from a company whose only product was a website, you tend to learn the lesson.
*Insert rant about how the term Free Software is better than open source here*.
Yes, because we all know that free software is software that is a free download, like Internet Explorer, Flash player, and Java. It doesn't even matter if you quibble over "libre" or "gratis" definitions, because those programs are still "libre" to use.
That's why the term "Open Source Software" was invented. It's not a perfect term, but it's a hell of a lot clearer than "Free Software".
p.s. If it weren't for the restrictive terms in copyleft licenses, a much better term would have been "unencumbered source".
Don't be stupid. I've looked through my dictionary, and I cannot find the defintion of "available" that states "must have a direct link". Stop being so fscking pedantic. The source is there, it is available, and it is available to everyone. You just have to register. The registration is free. You don't even have to use your real name or address.
Funny how someone who tells us to define our terms uses the WRONG definitions! You are describing "copyleft" which is s subset of Open Source. Much of Open Source software has no requirement that you agree to a license, no requirement that you give back, no requirement to make changes available. X.org is one example. Apache is another. FreeBSD and cousins are yet more examples.
If the source code is freely available to use as you want, then the software is Open Source. Java is not Open Source because you cannot use the source code how you want. It has nothing to do about requiring reciprocity.
The languages you cite, except for Lisp, are also low level languages (as compared to Python, for example). Lisp is a special case, and requires a special machine. You can't write a Lisp kernel on an x86, for example.
Glibc currently runs on linux and the Hurd, you do not have to rebuild anything.
Then that means that Hurd copied the Linux API. That's because significant parts of kernel APIs are not standardized. If two kernels are literal drop-in replacements for each other (ei. no kernel related #ifdefs in glibc, for example), then one has deliberately copied the other.
I'm wondering what it will take, how much the loss will have to be, before companies start wising up to security. Maybe a multi-billion dollar class action suit against the credit card company that let their CEO carry home everyone's account on his laptop. Nah, not even then. Companies will continue their bonehead insecurity practices until the day civilization collapses to pre-1969 levels.
As a word of defense for the stupid people in the world, a lot of times its supid IT policies that cause this. If you make it so the user cannot remember their password, they WILL write it down.
If you require passwords to have lower case AND uppercase AND numbers AND symbols AND be more than eight characters, then the user is going to write it down.
If you require a different password for every program, service, etc., then the user will write them all down.
If you require changing passwords every six weeks, then the user will write it (or part of it) down. Especially if they're not allowed to rotate in old passwords.
My company does all of the above, which forces me to write down my passwords. I know better, but since there's no way to remember them all, I write them down. My workstation password rotates, so I write down the numeric suffix on my computer case, and use a standard password. Every webapp requires a different password, because each of them have a different password scheme, and a few of them rotate. Consequently I write these down, particularly the ones I only use once a year.
Most corporate decision makers have been thoroughly brainwashed by Microsoft. If Microsoft made doors instead of Windows, here is what would happen: the decision makers would require the doors NOT to be locked, becuase it would inconvenience them should they choose to work late. They would post a security guard at each window, but none at the doors. When they got robbed, they would say "oh well, there's nothing we can do about it except hire another MCSE, because that's just how doors are."
As soon as GNU Hurd is mature we'll have a drop-in replacement (right?).
As soon as Hurd is mature, we'll finally get an OS named "GNU". Until then, calling something "GNU/Linux" is merely pandering to RMS' ego.
p.s. And even when we get it, it will NOT be a drop-in replacement. Kernels are the brains of operating systems, you don't just "drop" them in anymore than you can do out-patient head transplants. That's why glibc was (re)written *FOR* Linux. I don't know if Hurd is copying Linux's API, but if it isn't, you'll have to rebuild glibc and everything else that makes a kernel call to use the Hurd API instead.
p.p.s. I greatly suspect Hurd will have a Linux compatibility layer, just to get it bootstrapped. If that compatibility layer becomes the standard Hurd flavor, then we might have to start calling it "Linux/Hurd":-)
It's all Linux. It's the full monolithic kernel squatting atop Mach. OSX did the same with FreeBSD. All the drivers, filesystems, etc., are a part of the monolithic kernel.
When you're programming at the lowest level, that of the kernel, you need a low level language. Kernels fiddle, juggle, and mangle, and memory as part of their job, so you're going to need a language that has pointers. Strike one. You're going to need a language that can interface cleanly with even lower level assembly. Strike two. And because kernels are obessively detailed oriented, you're going to need a language that doesn't abstract away those details. Strike three. C wins. You can use C++ if you wish, or even Objective C, but you will need C or something very like C.
I'll eat my words, without catsup, when you can manage to show me a running usable kernel (for a reasonably traditional CPU) in a high level language like Python (that isn't itself running atop a C-based subkernel).
You raise some interesting points, but you fail to notice a really big one. In C++ and Java, messages are merely function calls. All your objects are running in the same address space.
I don't know enough about computer science to properly make an argument one way or another
That's true, because you go on to say...
perhaps a monolithic kernel is better suited to the open-source development process, which would seem counterintuitive at first because it discourages modularization, but who knows...
Running something in a different address space is NOT modularization. Linux drivers (and those of every other monolithic kernel) are extremely modular. You can load and unload them at runtime, mix and match them, etc. Linux is also modular enough to swap out major components at build time, such as the VM. File systems are also modular components.
Running stuff in a different address space forces you to be modular, but that doesn't the converse is true, that everything in the same address space must be a tangled mess of undifferentiated code.
QNX is great, but it is a highly specialized realtime OS. It's also the only true microkernel that has any sort of popularity. NT isn't a true microkernel, OSX used Mach but not as a microkernel, Hurd is still another two decades away from completion, etc.
The grandparent makes an excellent point. There are no true microkernels out there for popular use.
I'm a libertarian close to the anarcho- end of the spectrum, yet I'm starting to get tired of all these people using "free speech" as carte blanch to do anything. This case isn't about free speech, it's about some guy breaking into private property and committing vandalism.
Slashdot Mirror
How difficult is it to do a reverse phone lookup these days?
Any cop can look up your auto license plates as well. So what?
Someone did some calculations, and figured it would take 45,000 NSA employees just to listen to a mere one second of each phone call made within the US. You are far more likely to get your privacy violated by getting your picture taken running a red light, then by the government tapping your phone. In other words, they're not going to bother tapping your phones. They're going to reserve that to those receiving phone calls from terrorists.
One of the biggest reasons new PCs are purchased as well as all of the new componants for the PCs are the games.
Says who? Please cite some references.
Or the Swedes...
I've got a better chance of being hit by lightning that being killed by the (boogeyman) Terrorists.
The left has succesfully advocated bans on products that with far less odds of death. Lawn darts, the Ford Pinto, etc.
Take appropriate measures against the risk
We are. Hence this program. This is not domestic spying, it is data mining. Your calls are NOT being recorded. Instead information is being correlated. It is the data equivalent of a policeman on the night beat keeping an eye out for suspicious activity in the neighborhood.
It's not spying! Your conversations are NOT being recorded, as the media is implying. This is just a database of phone numbers and times, without names or addresses. It is used for data mining, not monitoring. Your phone company has much more information than this. Less than a month ago we all gave the IRS much more personal information, but not one privacy advocate complained.
I can understand if you have a problem with the data mining, and the process to correlate this information to find patterns. But it is not spying and people should stop lying that it is.
There's a level of caution that has been ingrained
Of course. When you're suddenly half a million dollars in debt because you leveraged options from a company whose only product was a website, you tend to learn the lesson.
*Insert rant about how the term Free Software is better than open source here*.
Yes, because we all know that free software is software that is a free download, like Internet Explorer, Flash player, and Java. It doesn't even matter if you quibble over "libre" or "gratis" definitions, because those programs are still "libre" to use.
That's why the term "Open Source Software" was invented. It's not a perfect term, but it's a hell of a lot clearer than "Free Software".
p.s. If it weren't for the restrictive terms in copyleft licenses, a much better term would have been "unencumbered source".
Don't be stupid. I've looked through my dictionary, and I cannot find the defintion of "available" that states "must have a direct link". Stop being so fscking pedantic. The source is there, it is available, and it is available to everyone. You just have to register. The registration is free. You don't even have to use your real name or address.
To repeat, THE SOURCE IS AVAILABLE!
Funny how someone who tells us to define our terms uses the WRONG definitions! You are describing "copyleft" which is s subset of Open Source. Much of Open Source software has no requirement that you agree to a license, no requirement that you give back, no requirement to make changes available. X.org is one example. Apache is another. FreeBSD and cousins are yet more examples.
If the source code is freely available to use as you want, then the software is Open Source. Java is not Open Source because you cannot use the source code how you want. It has nothing to do about requiring reciprocity.
If a language is a language (if it is Turing-complete) then you can write an OS with it. It's silly, but you can.
Only if it gives you the ability to directly access the hardware. In other words, you need those evil pointer things.
The languages you cite, except for Lisp, are also low level languages (as compared to Python, for example). Lisp is a special case, and requires a special machine. You can't write a Lisp kernel on an x86, for example.
Glibc currently runs on linux and the Hurd, you do not have to rebuild anything.
Then that means that Hurd copied the Linux API. That's because significant parts of kernel APIs are not standardized. If two kernels are literal drop-in replacements for each other (ei. no kernel related #ifdefs in glibc, for example), then one has deliberately copied the other.
I'm wondering what it will take, how much the loss will have to be, before companies start wising up to security. Maybe a multi-billion dollar class action suit against the credit card company that let their CEO carry home everyone's account on his laptop. Nah, not even then. Companies will continue their bonehead insecurity practices until the day civilization collapses to pre-1969 levels.
Holy crap! You work for the same company I do!
If you require passwords to have lower case AND uppercase AND numbers AND symbols AND be more than eight characters, then the user is going to write it down.
If you require a different password for every program, service, etc., then the user will write them all down.
If you require changing passwords every six weeks, then the user will write it (or part of it) down. Especially if they're not allowed to rotate in old passwords.
My company does all of the above, which forces me to write down my passwords. I know better, but since there's no way to remember them all, I write them down. My workstation password rotates, so I write down the numeric suffix on my computer case, and use a standard password. Every webapp requires a different password, because each of them have a different password scheme, and a few of them rotate. Consequently I write these down, particularly the ones I only use once a year.
Most corporate decision makers have been thoroughly brainwashed by Microsoft. If Microsoft made doors instead of Windows, here is what would happen: the decision makers would require the doors NOT to be locked, becuase it would inconvenience them should they choose to work late. They would post a security guard at each window, but none at the doors. When they got robbed, they would say "oh well, there's nothing we can do about it except hire another MCSE, because that's just how doors are."
As soon as GNU Hurd is mature we'll have a drop-in replacement (right?).
:-)
As soon as Hurd is mature, we'll finally get an OS named "GNU". Until then, calling something "GNU/Linux" is merely pandering to RMS' ego.
p.s. And even when we get it, it will NOT be a drop-in replacement. Kernels are the brains of operating systems, you don't just "drop" them in anymore than you can do out-patient head transplants. That's why glibc was (re)written *FOR* Linux. I don't know if Hurd is copying Linux's API, but if it isn't, you'll have to rebuild glibc and everything else that makes a kernel call to use the Hurd API instead.
p.p.s. I greatly suspect Hurd will have a Linux compatibility layer, just to get it bootstrapped. If that compatibility layer becomes the standard Hurd flavor, then we might have to start calling it "Linux/Hurd"
It's all Linux. It's the full monolithic kernel squatting atop Mach. OSX did the same with FreeBSD. All the drivers, filesystems, etc., are a part of the monolithic kernel.
When you're programming at the lowest level, that of the kernel, you need a low level language. Kernels fiddle, juggle, and mangle, and memory as part of their job, so you're going to need a language that has pointers. Strike one. You're going to need a language that can interface cleanly with even lower level assembly. Strike two. And because kernels are obessively detailed oriented, you're going to need a language that doesn't abstract away those details. Strike three. C wins. You can use C++ if you wish, or even Objective C, but you will need C or something very like C.
I'll eat my words, without catsup, when you can manage to show me a running usable kernel (for a reasonably traditional CPU) in a high level language like Python (that isn't itself running atop a C-based subkernel).
You raise some interesting points, but you fail to notice a really big one. In C++ and Java, messages are merely function calls. All your objects are running in the same address space.
I don't know enough about computer science to properly make an argument one way or another
That's true, because you go on to say...
perhaps a monolithic kernel is better suited to the open-source development process, which would seem counterintuitive at first because it discourages modularization, but who knows...
Running something in a different address space is NOT modularization. Linux drivers (and those of every other monolithic kernel) are extremely modular. You can load and unload them at runtime, mix and match them, etc. Linux is also modular enough to swap out major components at build time, such as the VM. File systems are also modular components.
Running stuff in a different address space forces you to be modular, but that doesn't the converse is true, that everything in the same address space must be a tangled mess of undifferentiated code.
QNX is great, but it is a highly specialized realtime OS. It's also the only true microkernel that has any sort of popularity. NT isn't a true microkernel, OSX used Mach but not as a microkernel, Hurd is still another two decades away from completion, etc.
The grandparent makes an excellent point. There are no true microkernels out there for popular use.
Right, this is the same guy that said the FreeBSD developers were incompetent.
I'm a libertarian close to the anarcho- end of the spectrum, yet I'm starting to get tired of all these people using "free speech" as carte blanch to do anything. This case isn't about free speech, it's about some guy breaking into private property and committing vandalism.
Why do you want them to suffer? Maybe that's the problem.