you'll probably find (if you bothered to look) that washington is more dangerous for several reasons, not limited to difference in population and urbanisation compared to huntsville and tucson, differences in demographics (there is a higher population of african americans in huntsville and washington compared to tucson - and no i'm not racist but the police and justice system in the US is, because of which makes sense why blacks would see more of a need to keep their own "protection"), etc... but no worries cause you're all tied up in your selective statistics. i guess it's no surprise that you're a physicist... if you got out more your cyclotron-vision may not be so severe.
that's like telling a drunk not to drink... good luck with that
The reason the overall murder rate in Australia is so much lower (before and after the gun ban) than in the US has everything to do with differences between Australians and Americans, not in the countries' laws
wrong again sunshine... actually its because Australia has never been as liberal with gun ownership as in the US, where bearing arms is a constitutional right (regardless of which state you're in).
delete operating system files, rename or overwrite them
try doing the same for ANY file that is currently in use (open/locked)
root in linuxland is all-powerful. root can change, delete or overwrite *anything*.
actually if the file is in use by the OS you will come across the same thing in linux
...and all of that is notwithstanding anything to do with permissions
Changing individual operating system files is something even an administrator should not be allowed to do
true true, unfortunately not the case for windows because malware still seems to find ways
proof is in the pudding... a global dominance of datacenter, web service and embedded markets has resulted in zero widespread threats for linux, while i have heard of cases where even a brand new out of the box windows machine is already infected
"easy" is highly subjective, which in this case implies being somewhat programming savvy. ask 90% of windows users what a shell script is and you'll get a blank stare
by definition a virus must spread itself to infect more machines. linux doesn't offer that means, but windows does. hence no linux viruses (except for lab experiments).
if Linux is to ever seriously compete on the desktop it will have to contend with morons who don't care about security as they will download and install stuff without doing any sort of vetting first
if they are the moron you claim they are, then it could be assumed they are too stupid to know how to install a program as root and would install it in their own username, which if it were malicious could only fuck up files with write permission for that user (so system files would still be safe) and the solution would be to fry the home directory.
windows does have permissions (ACL) but it doesn't seem to make use of them as there are many windows system files that aren't write-protected. even if file protection is available, if not enabled by default it is at most a toothless guard dog.
on a side note, as much as it would be great to see linux make more inroads into the desktop market, i'm quite happy for windows and mac to be as competitive as they are because its better that the morons use windows and leave the linux forums to those with some basic level of intellect. i'm sure the linux devs would share a similar view.
couldn't be stuffed reading all your gobbledygook, but i don't know what you're smoking about the whole "trustedinstaller" user thing.
regardless of who i'm logged into on a windows machine, i can install any program with simple click-through privelige escalation
root in linuxland is simply the highest level of access, which is also required for windows to be able to operate (regardless of whether you call it admin, trustedinstaller, blahblah).
as long as you don't claim to be an aeronautical engineer if you aren't and then go and modify a bunch of planes without any clue as to what you are really doing
on the other hand if you call yourself a software engineer and there is no risk from that (if you are developing games or whatnot) then no harm no foul.
a lot of programmers do what would be considered software engineering without the title too.
if you are responsible for (and know what you're doing when it comes to developing) software that requires compliance then you could probably call that software engineering.
in my experience, engineering is mostly to do with taking responsibility for showing complaince with standards or regulations (coming from an aerospace, structural and mechanical background at least).
there's plenty of people who can develop good software, but fewer real engineers willing to cop the can for it if it goes wrong.
i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to convince any networks that they should change any aspects of their advertising programs merely to defeat adblocking recorders...
proof is in the pudding... fox would rather risk the legal route than implement any of your simple technical recommendations
not only is secunia a microsoft partner (so not really what you would call an objective source), but there will always be more bugs and vulnerabilities for a project that is more actively developed... not knowing about windows vulnerabilities doesn't mean they don't exist... better the devil you know
Slashdot Mirror
omfg that's not one of those retarded languages like python is it?
i would probably also use parentheses rather than square brackets, but honestly never tried that so not sure if squares work or not
that sounds more like pidgin from the pacific isles (used to be the staple labour force for working the cane farms in queensland)
you'll probably find (if you bothered to look) that washington is more dangerous for several reasons, not limited to difference in population and urbanisation compared to huntsville and tucson, differences in demographics (there is a higher population of african americans in huntsville and washington compared to tucson - and no i'm not racist but the police and justice system in the US is, because of which makes sense why blacks would see more of a need to keep their own "protection"), etc... but no worries cause you're all tied up in your selective statistics. i guess it's no surprise that you're a physicist... if you got out more your cyclotron-vision may not be so severe.
the solution to that is "don't be stupid"
BAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
that's like telling a drunk not to drink... good luck with that
The reason the overall murder rate in Australia is so much lower (before and after the gun ban) than in the US has everything to do with differences between Australians and Americans, not in the countries' laws
wrong again sunshine... actually its because Australia has never been as liberal with gun ownership as in the US, where bearing arms is a constitutional right (regardless of which state you're in).
delete operating system files, rename or overwrite them
try doing the same for ANY file that is currently in use (open/locked)
root in linuxland is all-powerful. root can change, delete or overwrite *anything*.
actually if the file is in use by the OS you will come across the same thing in linux
...and all of that is notwithstanding anything to do with permissions
Changing individual operating system files is something even an administrator should not be allowed to do
true true, unfortunately not the case for windows because malware still seems to find ways
proof is in the pudding... a global dominance of datacenter, web service and embedded markets has resulted in zero widespread threats for linux, while i have heard of cases where even a brand new out of the box windows machine is already infected
if [ "$USER" == "root" ] then
would probably work without the quotes around the env var
"easy" is highly subjective, which in this case implies being somewhat programming savvy. ask 90% of windows users what a shell script is and you'll get a blank stare
by definition a virus must spread itself to infect more machines. linux doesn't offer that means, but windows does. hence no linux viruses (except for lab experiments).
if Linux is to ever seriously compete on the desktop it will have to contend with morons who don't care about security as they will download and install stuff without doing any sort of vetting first
if they are the moron you claim they are, then it could be assumed they are too stupid to know how to install a program as root and would install it in their own username, which if it were malicious could only fuck up files with write permission for that user (so system files would still be safe) and the solution would be to fry the home directory.
windows does have permissions (ACL) but it doesn't seem to make use of them as there are many windows system files that aren't write-protected. even if file protection is available, if not enabled by default it is at most a toothless guard dog.
on a side note, as much as it would be great to see linux make more inroads into the desktop market, i'm quite happy for windows and mac to be as competitive as they are because its better that the morons use windows and leave the linux forums to those with some basic level of intellect. i'm sure the linux devs would share a similar view.
i guess windows doesn't have any excuse for being the insecure, virus-riddled crapware that is is then huh?
couldn't be stuffed reading all your gobbledygook, but i don't know what you're smoking about the whole "trustedinstaller" user thing.
regardless of who i'm logged into on a windows machine, i can install any program with simple click-through privelige escalation
root in linuxland is simply the highest level of access, which is also required for windows to be able to operate (regardless of whether you call it admin, trustedinstaller, blahblah).
java is a pos no matter what os its running on
if i sniff enough crack and paint fumes, smoke enough hooch and drink enough gas, his voice sounds like angels...
as long as you don't claim to be an aeronautical engineer if you aren't and then go and modify a bunch of planes without any clue as to what you are really doing
on the other hand if you call yourself a software engineer and there is no risk from that (if you are developing games or whatnot) then no harm no foul.
a lot of programmers do what would be considered software engineering without the title too.
if you are responsible for (and know what you're doing when it comes to developing) software that requires compliance then you could probably call that software engineering.
in my experience, engineering is mostly to do with taking responsibility for showing complaince with standards or regulations (coming from an aerospace, structural and mechanical background at least).
there's plenty of people who can develop good software, but fewer real engineers willing to cop the can for it if it goes wrong.
i guess it does get cold there
fox network is a con.... maybe fox should sue foxconn for ripping off both their name and reputation
i'm usually disappointed in my slashdot comments if they don't start a troll flight.... bring it on :)
microsoft rulz ok
iphone sucks dick
google is evil
i love justin bieber!
especially about band camp... it should be illegal to shove a flute in one's pussy
gosh darned shrimp-chucking kangaroo shit... there was a film camera in australia!?
i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to convince any networks that they should change any aspects of their advertising programs merely to defeat adblocking recorders...
proof is in the pudding... fox would rather risk the legal route than implement any of your simple technical recommendations
Secunia joins Microsoft System Center Alliance program
http://secunia.com/company/blog_news/news/196/
not only is secunia a microsoft partner (so not really what you would call an objective source), but there will always be more bugs and vulnerabilities for a project that is more actively developed... not knowing about windows vulnerabilities doesn't mean they don't exist... better the devil you know
Most malware on Windows gets dumped into %APPDATA% because it can't go anywhere else without raising a red flag
gosh i don't even need to worry about windows viruses any more... *opens interesting looking attachment in email from unknown*
imagine a virus infecting tvs, set top boxes, pvrs, etc all running a linux kernel... it would be like synapse from the film "antitrust"