Virtualization still requires running actual Windows, just inside an emulator.
I don't mean to nitpick, but just for the sake of accuracy, emulation and virtualization are not the same thing.
Virtualization is the process of abstracting computer resources in order to hide it's physical characteristics from it's users. IE: running more than one operating system simultaneously by "virtually splitting" the hardware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization
Emulation is software "pretending" to be hardware. An emulator is a stand-alone application that loads the binaries, interprets them and translates the instructions to it's native hardware. Another example of emulation may be software that tries to mimick the behaviour of another application or system (xterm is a good example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation
For further clarity: you can not run, for example, SNES games on an x86 system using virtualization because the games were not written / compiled for the x86 processor. You can run an SNES emulator, however, that understands the SNES instruction set and translates it to x86 instructions. For this reason virtualization is much faster than emulation since the instructions run natively and there is no translation involved (but there are other uses for virtualization as well, such as making one system behave as many for security purposes etc.).
I don't think you understand what patents are and how they work.
There are 3 types of patents:
Utility Patent - protects the way that your "invention" is used and works. Your "invention" does not have to be a machine or something tangible. It can be a business method or a process of doing something. For example, you can patent a method for making a pepperoni pizza so long as your method is novel. You did not have to have invented pepperoni pizza.
Design Patent - protects the way something looks. I'm not 100% clear on this but I assume that this is different from copyright law in that it can cover the ornamental appearance of a tangible invention. To make further use of my pepperoni pizza example, you could file a design patent on the way your pizza looks so long as no other pepperoni pizzas invented prior looks the same etc. I'm sure that car companies get design patents all the time on the appearances of their vehicles.
From what I gathered from the GP (I'm going by my interpretation of what he said, I'm not familiar with the patents themselves), the case in question was a patent on a METHOD for using specific gene sequences in a form of therapy. They weren't patenting the DNA itself.
I have to wonder, as I've never used Wifi at a coffee shop, are these networks secured at all ?
I admit that I don't really know the exact problems faced by these coffee shops, but assuming it's as simple as non-customers using up tons of bandwidth then why not print the WPA key on the receipts and change it each morning ? If you don't want to tie Wifi to a transaction then write it on the menu and make it so it's not visible from outside the coffee shop. That way you at least get people inside of your store, and business 101 says that getting people in the door is the first step towards making a sale. And lets face it, coffee shops are there to make money. If people are physically entering the store and sitting down at a table to use Wifi and not paying for anything then there's no reason not to ask them to leave. I mean restaurants and strip clubs don't have a problem asking non-paying customers to GTFO. Why is it different for coffee shops ?
As for bandwidth hogging activities I don't really see any reason NOT to block bit torrent and p2p etc. Letting people surf the net and check their e-mail over a coffee seems, to me, to be the real reason to offer Wifi. Torrents and p2p don't just hog bandwidth they can create potential liability for the business. So while the GP didn't necessarily offer any solutions to big chains I have to agree with him that any coffee shop running into problems isn't managing their network properly.
Just a warning: The last time I tried dissemination I was stuck with a life-long commitment 9 months later. Not inseminating in the first place is strongly preferred. YMMV.
"What it comes down to is those companies that do have sensitive data on their mobile devices probably are large enough to have a competent IT staff capable of locking the device down properly."
"all. And NO, sheer size of a company does not yield "competent" IT staff, trust me on this one..."
Jesus H.... who to trust ? On the one hand GP makes a good point and on the other P makes a good one.
I've always been torn with this issue because on the one hand I believe that any kind of infrastructure that "the people" require needs to be public and open for anyone. On the other hand I believe in small government and don't like to give too much power to the governing body. So which is the lesser of the two evils ? (I know some people have strong opinions on that but I'm pretty much torn for reasons that would take me off topic).
So as a Canadian I had an idea with regards to how Canada (or anywhere) can handle that. In Canada (and other British Commonwealth nations) we have something called a "Crown Corporation". The only crown corporation in Canada currently being The Bank of Canada (which serves a similar purpose to The Federal Reserve in the US). If all necessary infrastrucure (which doesn't have to only be telecom / internet... we're talking electricity, water etc.) then you solve the problem of giving the government vs. giving the market control. Then every voting citizen is awarded an equal share in the corporation and it's run like a business but the voting public gets a say. The government doesn't have control, a corporation does but it's a corporation that's owned entirely by the public.
I'd love to hear replies pointing out the flaw with my idea because I'm sure there are some.
Unless they've altered any GPL'd code then the public ftp mirrors (like ftp.kernel.org) should do just fine ?
TFA states they use a custom built Linux but that doesn't mean they've altered any source code. Custom built can mean they've changed a few config files or rolled their own "distro" (for lack of a better term).
That's a great point / warning and it's one more reason why we (pretty much everywhere) need net neutrality legislation.
My ISP has a maximum transfer / month and I don't see anything wrong with that. They tell me what it is, give me a way to check my usage and I can purchase more if I want / need it. With that kind of setup there's no reason for ISPs to shape traffic (unless 3rd parties pay them to, which is something the legislation needs to make illegal) so I don't think the ISPs have much to lose following a similar model. If bandwidth is their concern there's ways to cover that without harming / deceiving their consumers.
Precisely. I would also support a bill that allows companies to shape traffic as much as they like so long as they are required, via the bill, to make customers aware of this fact before money exchanges hands.
I am all about a free and open Internet and I'm also all about consumer rights. I am also about business rights. I know there is a lot of conflict of interest between commercial entities and "the people" but on a fundamental level business exists by the people with the function of serving the people. This "business vs. the people" attitude is a little sad. Not surprising given how certain businesses have abused market place dominance and tried to cover up mistakes or misdeeds in the name of making money, but we are all essentially one. So while consumer protection is a noble cause and quite necessary in certain areas, I don't like to see bills that blindly squash a myriad of business rights solely in the name of human rights. The trap is that we fall into this mindset where we unnecessarily hamper business in the name of good and it can be no different than overly restrictive laws that are in the name of "think of the children". For me it basically boils down to something similar to a doctor's Hippocratic oath, "thou shall do no harm". As long as the public is free and unharmed then business should be free and unharmed.
With regards to net neutrality I don't like the idea that a big telecom could shape traffic and give priority to certain entities and feed us ads with no ability for the consumers to exercise choice (or in some cases even be aware of the fact), but I also don't like the idea of telling a business what they can or can't do with their own equipment. There is a happy medium here where we can have a free and open Internet but business rights can be satisfied as well. I don't have any answers and in the end I support any kind of net neutrality legislation that ensures a free and open Internet. I just think we need to be careful and not go too far in one direction unless it's absolutely necessary.
I don't know about tracking torrents, but in response to your "another hurdle" there's no reason they can't allow direct downloads AND a.torrent and let people choose which is easier / preferable.
Feel free to mod this redundant or OT but I just ordered a Dell Inspiron 1420N with Ubuntu and I feel really good about it:)
My wife and I have been talking about me getting a laptop for the last 4 years since I work from home, so this is going to give me a lot more mobility. I may finally be able to take a vacation. Anyway I really didn't want to pay the MS Tax and at the same time I wanted to send the message that I want Linux. It's a little ironic that this comes the same day/. posts a story about Dell being hammered in court for false advertising but I really don't care. I've been using Linux since '97/'98 and this is the first time I've bought a computer that's had Linux pre-installed and I can't even begin to tell you how good that feels.
This really IS the year of Linux on the desktop even if most people still don't give a flying fsck.
What better way to let Taco and the rest of the/. crew know how we feel. I suppose we could e-mail them directly but this is a community. This way others can chime in and comments can get modded up / down etc.
You know what I find interesting and a little optimistic ? During the last 2 presidential elections you heard the term "Lesser Evil" thrown around quite a bit here on Slashdot. I don't think too many people really liked Gore or Kerry they just *really* didn't want George W. in office. You'd also hear about the Libertarian party quite a bit and various democrats and libertarians would practically beg libertarians to vote democrats just to ensure that George W. was not elected.
In this particular election I have yet to hear any of that at all. At least I have not heard "lesser evil" at all thus far in the primaries (maybe it's a bit early). It seems that most slashdotters are very pro-Obama. There's exceptions of course but it's no where near what it was in the last elections. If Obama wins the primary it is going to be a very interesting and nerve-wracking election (for me anyway).
What really bothers me about these international agreements is that, at least in Canada, they are often signed without public involvement. While I don't have any specific examples, I've heard of cases where the Canadian charter (most supreme law in Canada, similar to the Constitution in the US) was over ruled by international law.
I mean, besides writing my federal representatives what can I, as a voting citizen, do about this ? Making amendments to the Charter and Constitution is a REALLY BIG DEAL and not easy to do. But signing international treaties which can over rule our most supreme national laws is standard practice.
What you suggest is entirely preemptive and excessively restrictive.
Not every single addict is a detriment to society and not every single drug user becomes an addict. Prohibition is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater and it punishes society BEFORE they have harmed anyone else.
Let's jot down all of the things that an addict can do to harm society as a result of his drug addiction:
1) He can steal money to support his habit (already illegal the last time I checked).
2) He can kill the drug dealer and steal the drugs (already illegal the last time I checked).
3) He can "not pull his weight" around his home, to use your example. Well, that's not illegal but I can not pull my weight around the house and be completely sober. This is entirely a civil matter that's worked out in house to house. Why anyone would ever dream of making it a criminal matter is beyond me. Not to mention it kind of begs the question of "what if he lives alone ?"
Prohibition is extremely absurd in my opinion. You have to ask yourself "who owns my body?". As far as I'm concerned (and as far as the most supreme laws in pretty much every civilized country seem to suggest), each and every individual owns his/her own body. Drug laws suggest that the state owns people's bodies and the argument that "drug use leads to destructive / illegal behaviour" removes the freedom of choice from the individuals to take risks with their own bodies and to govern their own behaviour. In other words, it punishes society by restricting their freedom BEFORE they have committed a crime.
Won't take the story off the main page though. Will just prevent you from being able to (successfully) click on the Read More link.
I don't mind Idle but I agree that there should be a way to filter it from the main page like all the other sections. Seems absolutely ridiculous that there isn't.
Not everyone agrees that a free market is what's best for society. There are always going to be political lobbyists, politicians and voting citizens who opt for more regulation. In fact, I'm personally surprised by how many of my peers seem to favour more communist-like systems.
The other day a friend of mine was watching a Youtube video of a speech given by one of the founding members of the Canadian Action Party and he, not being canadian, asked me who this guy was. I explained to him what the CAP was all about. Said that while I agree with their Canadian Nationalist views they feel that globalization is a big conspiracy by the corporations in order to rule the world and make everyone their slaves. His response was "well isn't that already true ?"
It seems that a large portion of the public feels that corporations have far too much power and that free market has failed. They want government to further regulate the markets because they would rather have the government control their lives than corporations (they refuse to see that the public gives the corporations their power just as we give the government it's power).
Since I've failed to remain neutral I might as well just add that I am a pro-free-market libertarian and I think it will take a couple of wars before we can claim that the corporations enslave people. I do agree, however, that they get away with too much, but not because of a lack of regulation. It's because money buys justice and politicians. THAT is what that needs to be fixed. Yet many people don't look that deep into it. I can say with assertion that most people that I know in person certainly don't. They see that money = corporations = free market = evil and thus want more regulation.
Oh and it doesn't help matters when every single case of deregulation has resulted in short term economic upheaval while things balance out. Forget about selling long term advantages if it's going to cost people jobs and higher prices in the short term.
Re:Geeks still get beat up..
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I know this could strike a debate... but Hermione is not too far from "Heroine". Yes she did come across as being a bit conceited and annoying at times, but she was still one of the protagonists in the story and quite often saved the day.
You have valid points about Harry Potter, but I still feel that Harry Potter was a huge step forward in the world of geek protagonists. My opinion is fueled further by the fact that I just finished watching a re-run of "Saved By The Bell". Boy am I glad the days are over where the protagonists were pretty boy jocks who skipped class to do push-ups and all the girls melted over them for it. It was a disgrace. We *HAVE* come a very long way in a short period of time. In the 80's Harry Potter probably would have never been published. Or at the very least he would have had huge pecs, not worn glasses and would have made fun of Hermione and Ron.
I'm not really sure how "news worthy" this is. As one example, the Ontario Education Act prohibits public schools in Ontario from using text books that are not written by Canadian authors.
The Canadian government trying to keep things in Canada is very standard practice. I didn't RTFA and I'm sure it mentions the Patriot Act, but I really doubt the Patriot Act is the sole reason that they won't outsource hosting companies to the US. Their policy is most likely that they can not outsource anything to anywhere outside of Canada unless they have no choice.
It would have to be compiled specifically for that machine, or network tools can be limited to a specific group as well.
When I harden filesystem permissions I lock down/sbin and/usr/sbin to remove the read and executable bit from the directory and also to remove read and exec bit from all binaries that aren't required by normal users (it's really lame how many user tools end up in sbin) then I limit dev tools and network tools to specific groups. So ping, wget, ftp, ssh, telnet etc. is all restricted as well as compilers, interpreters etc. (except bash for obvious reasons). I also restrict system diagnostic tools like uptime, ps, who, last etc.
And anything that isn't absolutely required gets uninstalled. Usually dev tools are required though for compiling new versions of php etc.
"seriously, what sort of *nix system thinks you don't need a C compiler by default and makes you go looking for it in the repositories?"
One that targets non-developer desktop users ? Or even servers ?
As a sysadmin one of the many tasks I do to vanilla installs is to either uninstall the dev tools or restrict them to a particular group. Many exploits automatically download source for their rootkits or trojans etc. and compile it on the machine. Not having dev tools available to the user that the web server is running under, for example, makes these types of attacks more difficult and helps limit what an attacker can do if he does gain access (imagine a scenario where the attacker has no shell but can tell the web server to execute commands... a simple 'wget' and 'make' later and he has himself a back door that gives him shell access as the web server user).
In other words, if you have no pressing need for dev tools then it's wiser not to have them installed. If you're a developer then you can easily add them via the repositories.
Slashdot Mirror
Virtualization still requires running actual Windows, just inside an emulator.
I don't mean to nitpick, but just for the sake of accuracy, emulation and virtualization are not the same thing.
Virtualization is the process of abstracting computer resources in order to hide it's physical characteristics from it's users. IE: running more than one operating system simultaneously by "virtually splitting" the hardware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization
Emulation is software "pretending" to be hardware. An emulator is a stand-alone application that loads the binaries, interprets them and translates the instructions to it's native hardware. Another example of emulation may be software that tries to mimick the behaviour of another application or system (xterm is a good example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation
For further clarity: you can not run, for example, SNES games on an x86 system using virtualization because the games were not written / compiled for the x86 processor. You can run an SNES emulator, however, that understands the SNES instruction set and translates it to x86 instructions. For this reason virtualization is much faster than emulation since the instructions run natively and there is no translation involved (but there are other uses for virtualization as well, such as making one system behave as many for security purposes etc.).
I don't think you understand what patents are and how they work.
There are 3 types of patents:
Utility Patent - protects the way that your "invention" is used and works. Your "invention" does not have to be a machine or something tangible. It can be a business method or a process of doing something. For example, you can patent a method for making a pepperoni pizza so long as your method is novel. You did not have to have invented pepperoni pizza.
Design Patent - protects the way something looks. I'm not 100% clear on this but I assume that this is different from copyright law in that it can cover the ornamental appearance of a tangible invention. To make further use of my pepperoni pizza example, you could file a design patent on the way your pizza looks so long as no other pepperoni pizzas invented prior looks the same etc. I'm sure that car companies get design patents all the time on the appearances of their vehicles.
Planet Patent - government grant given to people who discover or invent new asexually reproducing plants and lasts for 20 years. Very simplified explanation, read more at http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/patent/patent-types/plant-patents.html if you're interested.
From what I gathered from the GP (I'm going by my interpretation of what he said, I'm not familiar with the patents themselves), the case in question was a patent on a METHOD for using specific gene sequences in a form of therapy. They weren't patenting the DNA itself.
Let's not go to the moon. It is a silly place.
I have to wonder, as I've never used Wifi at a coffee shop, are these networks secured at all ?
I admit that I don't really know the exact problems faced by these coffee shops, but assuming it's as simple as non-customers using up tons of bandwidth then why not print the WPA key on the receipts and change it each morning ? If you don't want to tie Wifi to a transaction then write it on the menu and make it so it's not visible from outside the coffee shop. That way you at least get people inside of your store, and business 101 says that getting people in the door is the first step towards making a sale. And lets face it, coffee shops are there to make money. If people are physically entering the store and sitting down at a table to use Wifi and not paying for anything then there's no reason not to ask them to leave. I mean restaurants and strip clubs don't have a problem asking non-paying customers to GTFO. Why is it different for coffee shops ?
As for bandwidth hogging activities I don't really see any reason NOT to block bit torrent and p2p etc. Letting people surf the net and check their e-mail over a coffee seems, to me, to be the real reason to offer Wifi. Torrents and p2p don't just hog bandwidth they can create potential liability for the business. So while the GP didn't necessarily offer any solutions to big chains I have to agree with him that any coffee shop running into problems isn't managing their network properly.
Closed source, more expensive (than Windows and open-source operating systems) and more vendor lock-in.
It might make a decent desktop system but it's one of the most closed and expensive systems you can use. I don't really see the appeal to Google.
"or become widely disseminated"
Just a warning: The last time I tried dissemination I was stuck with a life-long commitment 9 months later. Not inseminating in the first place is strongly preferred. YMMV.
"What it comes down to is those companies that do have sensitive data on their mobile devices probably are large enough to have a competent IT staff capable of locking the device down properly."
... who to trust ? On the one hand GP makes a good point and on the other P makes a good one.
...
"all. And NO, sheer size of a company does not yield "competent" IT staff, trust me on this one..."
Jesus H.
If only life were simpler
I completely agree.
... we're talking electricity, water etc.) then you solve the problem of giving the government vs. giving the market control. Then every voting citizen is awarded an equal share in the corporation and it's run like a business but the voting public gets a say. The government doesn't have control, a corporation does but it's a corporation that's owned entirely by the public.
I've always been torn with this issue because on the one hand I believe that any kind of infrastructure that "the people" require needs to be public and open for anyone. On the other hand I believe in small government and don't like to give too much power to the governing body. So which is the lesser of the two evils ? (I know some people have strong opinions on that but I'm pretty much torn for reasons that would take me off topic).
So as a Canadian I had an idea with regards to how Canada (or anywhere) can handle that. In Canada (and other British Commonwealth nations) we have something called a "Crown Corporation". The only crown corporation in Canada currently being The Bank of Canada (which serves a similar purpose to The Federal Reserve in the US). If all necessary infrastrucure (which doesn't have to only be telecom / internet
I'd love to hear replies pointing out the flaw with my idea because I'm sure there are some.
Unless they've altered any GPL'd code then the public ftp mirrors (like ftp.kernel.org) should do just fine ?
TFA states they use a custom built Linux but that doesn't mean they've altered any source code. Custom built can mean they've changed a few config files or rolled their own "distro" (for lack of a better term).
That's a great point / warning and it's one more reason why we (pretty much everywhere) need net neutrality legislation.
My ISP has a maximum transfer / month and I don't see anything wrong with that. They tell me what it is, give me a way to check my usage and I can purchase more if I want / need it. With that kind of setup there's no reason for ISPs to shape traffic (unless 3rd parties pay them to, which is something the legislation needs to make illegal) so I don't think the ISPs have much to lose following a similar model. If bandwidth is their concern there's ways to cover that without harming / deceiving their consumers.
Precisely. I would also support a bill that allows companies to shape traffic as much as they like so long as they are required, via the bill, to make customers aware of this fact before money exchanges hands.
I am all about a free and open Internet and I'm also all about consumer rights. I am also about business rights. I know there is a lot of conflict of interest between commercial entities and "the people" but on a fundamental level business exists by the people with the function of serving the people. This "business vs. the people" attitude is a little sad. Not surprising given how certain businesses have abused market place dominance and tried to cover up mistakes or misdeeds in the name of making money, but we are all essentially one. So while consumer protection is a noble cause and quite necessary in certain areas, I don't like to see bills that blindly squash a myriad of business rights solely in the name of human rights. The trap is that we fall into this mindset where we unnecessarily hamper business in the name of good and it can be no different than overly restrictive laws that are in the name of "think of the children". For me it basically boils down to something similar to a doctor's Hippocratic oath, "thou shall do no harm". As long as the public is free and unharmed then business should be free and unharmed.
With regards to net neutrality I don't like the idea that a big telecom could shape traffic and give priority to certain entities and feed us ads with no ability for the consumers to exercise choice (or in some cases even be aware of the fact), but I also don't like the idea of telling a business what they can or can't do with their own equipment. There is a happy medium here where we can have a free and open Internet but business rights can be satisfied as well. I don't have any answers and in the end I support any kind of net neutrality legislation that ensures a free and open Internet. I just think we need to be careful and not go too far in one direction unless it's absolutely necessary.
I don't know about tracking torrents, but in response to your "another hurdle" there's no reason they can't allow direct downloads AND a .torrent and let people choose which is easier / preferable.
Feel free to mod this redundant or OT but I just ordered a Dell Inspiron 1420N with Ubuntu and I feel really good about it :)
/. posts a story about Dell being hammered in court for false advertising but I really don't care. I've been using Linux since '97/'98 and this is the first time I've bought a computer that's had Linux pre-installed and I can't even begin to tell you how good that feels.
My wife and I have been talking about me getting a laptop for the last 4 years since I work from home, so this is going to give me a lot more mobility. I may finally be able to take a vacation. Anyway I really didn't want to pay the MS Tax and at the same time I wanted to send the message that I want Linux. It's a little ironic that this comes the same day
This really IS the year of Linux on the desktop even if most people still don't give a flying fsck.
Why ?
/. crew know how we feel. I suppose we could e-mail them directly but this is a community. This way others can chime in and comments can get modded up / down etc.
What better way to let Taco and the rest of the
You know what I find interesting and a little optimistic ? During the last 2 presidential elections you heard the term "Lesser Evil" thrown around quite a bit here on Slashdot. I don't think too many people really liked Gore or Kerry they just *really* didn't want George W. in office. You'd also hear about the Libertarian party quite a bit and various democrats and libertarians would practically beg libertarians to vote democrats just to ensure that George W. was not elected.
In this particular election I have yet to hear any of that at all. At least I have not heard "lesser evil" at all thus far in the primaries (maybe it's a bit early). It seems that most slashdotters are very pro-Obama. There's exceptions of course but it's no where near what it was in the last elections. If Obama wins the primary it is going to be a very interesting and nerve-wracking election (for me anyway).
What really bothers me about these international agreements is that, at least in Canada, they are often signed without public involvement. While I don't have any specific examples, I've heard of cases where the Canadian charter (most supreme law in Canada, similar to the Constitution in the US) was over ruled by international law.
I mean, besides writing my federal representatives what can I, as a voting citizen, do about this ? Making amendments to the Charter and Constitution is a REALLY BIG DEAL and not easy to do. But signing international treaties which can over rule our most supreme national laws is standard practice.
What you suggest is entirely preemptive and excessively restrictive.
Not every single addict is a detriment to society and not every single drug user becomes an addict. Prohibition is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater and it punishes society BEFORE they have harmed anyone else.
Let's jot down all of the things that an addict can do to harm society as a result of his drug addiction:
1) He can steal money to support his habit (already illegal the last time I checked).
2) He can kill the drug dealer and steal the drugs (already illegal the last time I checked).
3) He can "not pull his weight" around his home, to use your example. Well, that's not illegal but I can not pull my weight around the house and be completely sober. This is entirely a civil matter that's worked out in house to house. Why anyone would ever dream of making it a criminal matter is beyond me. Not to mention it kind of begs the question of "what if he lives alone ?"
Prohibition is extremely absurd in my opinion. You have to ask yourself "who owns my body?". As far as I'm concerned (and as far as the most supreme laws in pretty much every civilized country seem to suggest), each and every individual owns his/her own body. Drug laws suggest that the state owns people's bodies and the argument that "drug use leads to destructive / illegal behaviour" removes the freedom of choice from the individuals to take risks with their own bodies and to govern their own behaviour. In other words, it punishes society by restricting their freedom BEFORE they have committed a crime.
Won't take the story off the main page though. Will just prevent you from being able to (successfully) click on the Read More link.
I don't mind Idle but I agree that there should be a way to filter it from the main page like all the other sections. Seems absolutely ridiculous that there isn't.
Canadian English = British English
Not everyone agrees that a free market is what's best for society. There are always going to be political lobbyists, politicians and voting citizens who opt for more regulation. In fact, I'm personally surprised by how many of my peers seem to favour more communist-like systems.
The other day a friend of mine was watching a Youtube video of a speech given by one of the founding members of the Canadian Action Party and he, not being canadian, asked me who this guy was. I explained to him what the CAP was all about. Said that while I agree with their Canadian Nationalist views they feel that globalization is a big conspiracy by the corporations in order to rule the world and make everyone their slaves. His response was "well isn't that already true ?"
It seems that a large portion of the public feels that corporations have far too much power and that free market has failed. They want government to further regulate the markets because they would rather have the government control their lives than corporations (they refuse to see that the public gives the corporations their power just as we give the government it's power).
Since I've failed to remain neutral I might as well just add that I am a pro-free-market libertarian and I think it will take a couple of wars before we can claim that the corporations enslave people. I do agree, however, that they get away with too much, but not because of a lack of regulation. It's because money buys justice and politicians. THAT is what that needs to be fixed. Yet many people don't look that deep into it. I can say with assertion that most people that I know in person certainly don't. They see that money = corporations = free market = evil and thus want more regulation.
Oh and it doesn't help matters when every single case of deregulation has resulted in short term economic upheaval while things balance out. Forget about selling long term advantages if it's going to cost people jobs and higher prices in the short term.
I know this could strike a debate ... but Hermione is not too far from "Heroine". Yes she did come across as being a bit conceited and annoying at times, but she was still one of the protagonists in the story and quite often saved the day.
You have valid points about Harry Potter, but I still feel that Harry Potter was a huge step forward in the world of geek protagonists. My opinion is fueled further by the fact that I just finished watching a re-run of "Saved By The Bell". Boy am I glad the days are over where the protagonists were pretty boy jocks who skipped class to do push-ups and all the girls melted over them for it. It was a disgrace. We *HAVE* come a very long way in a short period of time. In the 80's Harry Potter probably would have never been published. Or at the very least he would have had huge pecs, not worn glasses and would have made fun of Hermione and Ron.
I'm not really sure how "news worthy" this is. As one example, the Ontario Education Act prohibits public schools in Ontario from using text books that are not written by Canadian authors.
The Canadian government trying to keep things in Canada is very standard practice. I didn't RTFA and I'm sure it mentions the Patriot Act, but I really doubt the Patriot Act is the sole reason that they won't outsource hosting companies to the US. Their policy is most likely that they can not outsource anything to anywhere outside of Canada unless they have no choice.
It would have to be compiled specifically for that machine, or network tools can be limited to a specific group as well.
/sbin and /usr/sbin to remove the read and executable bit from the directory and also to remove read and exec bit from all binaries that aren't required by normal users (it's really lame how many user tools end up in sbin) then I limit dev tools and network tools to specific groups. So ping, wget, ftp, ssh, telnet etc. is all restricted as well as compilers, interpreters etc. (except bash for obvious reasons). I also restrict system diagnostic tools like uptime, ps, who, last etc.
When I harden filesystem permissions I lock down
And anything that isn't absolutely required gets uninstalled. Usually dev tools are required though for compiling new versions of php etc.
I'm certain I've heard of proactive virus protection before ... but where ?
AH ! Now I remember !
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Clearly prior art.
"seriously, what sort of *nix system thinks you don't need a C compiler by default and makes you go looking for it in the repositories?"
... a simple 'wget' and 'make' later and he has himself a back door that gives him shell access as the web server user).
One that targets non-developer desktop users ? Or even servers ?
As a sysadmin one of the many tasks I do to vanilla installs is to either uninstall the dev tools or restrict them to a particular group. Many exploits automatically download source for their rootkits or trojans etc. and compile it on the machine. Not having dev tools available to the user that the web server is running under, for example, makes these types of attacks more difficult and helps limit what an attacker can do if he does gain access (imagine a scenario where the attacker has no shell but can tell the web server to execute commands
In other words, if you have no pressing need for dev tools then it's wiser not to have them installed. If you're a developer then you can easily add them via the repositories.