They call them "Trojans" because they don't want to admit that macs can get viruses. It's all just "malware" nowadays, and the lines are blurred to the point of one being indistinguishable from the other.
The vast majority of malware on PC's are trojans as well, technically. That doesn't stop mac users from decrying all the "viruses".
Everything got viruses back in the 80's. Why? Because viruses were new and cool, and kiddies liked writing them.
Nowadays, kiddies prefer hax0ring the interwebs. Writing viruses is passe. So now, the only people that write viruses are those trying to make money from it.
When you don't have a large marketshare, making money is more difficult. So smaller platforms are simply ignored.
This new model suggests that the financial benefits of attacking windows have become less than the benefits of attacking Macs. Nothing special there.
The president's only real power is to sign into law what congress passes (or veto it). If the president wants to pass a piece of legislation, he must get congress to first pass it, so he can sign it.
Guess what congress is NOT doing? Giving the president ANY legislation he wants to sign.
No, the flaw is that you are talking about physical property, not intellectual property. Also, it's something that's covered by national security.
By law, the federal government does not retain copyright on anything it produces, but it can retain copyright on things transferred to it. This means any documents, source code, etc.. is in the public domain by default.
This is also why there's a thing called the "Freedom of Information act" that forces the government to disclose documents that are not secret.
Yes, this is a county government, but many of the same rules apply and counties are funded partially by the federal government. Most government funding requires the recipients to follow specific rules about things.
Stop misrepresenting what I said. I did not "backtrack", and I did not say "It doesn't matter how tiny IBM's involvement is." I said "It doesn't matter how tiny you claim IBM's involvement is"
Yes, your situation was absurd, and you admit it was meant as such. The difference is that your situation was fictional and absurd, while this situation is real and is in fact the case. Your argument that it was an "analogy" is pointless because you're trying to compare a real thing to a fictional absurd thing.
She is not commenting on UNC's ISP, electric company, or IT employees. Why do you not see why that's the issue?
No, it doesn't. It says "Groklaw is not affiliated with IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Google, or any other party to the litigation it covers." which is vaguely worded, because they don't define what "affiliated" is. The most common usage would mean "officially associated", that doesn't mean they don't receive products, services, information, or anything else of value from those companies.
Wave your hands all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Any conflict of interest, no matter how "tiny" you claim it is, is still a conflict of interest. But IBM's involvement isn't really even that important to the point. The fact that they are involved is just evidence that such conflicts of interest exist, and the fact that PJ refuses to disclose whether or not there are any (and we know there's at least one) is the problem.
The fact she refuses to say one way or the other, then rails against others for conflicts of interest is called being a hypocrite.
Conflict of interest does not mean someone gains or loses from something they do. It means, they are INFLUENCED by the conflict.
For instance, a judge that may have earned a tidy profit from a brokerage company is ruling on whether that brokerage company broke the law. Either way the judge rules will not affect their current financial situation (the gains happened in the past). But, because they have previously gained, they are unduly influenced in favor of the brokerage and would have a conflict of interest.
PJ benefited from IBM's benevolence, and continues to do so. That's a conflict of interest.
You're rude as well, you just think you're smart by using inuendo. "What's yours?" is a subtle way of trying to claim i have conflicts of interest, yet i specifically stated in this thread what my conflict of intersts are. Yet, you lie here and say I have not.
I'm not rude, i'm just saying things as they are and not being passive aggressive.
No. If she stated that she had no conflicts of interest in any of the things she reports on, that would be one thing. She doesn't do that. She doesn't disclose whether or NOT she has conflicts. That means she's hiding it one way or the other. So yes, she's hiding it. We just don't know whether she's hiding that she has no conflict or whether she does have conflicts.
Could IBM put pressure on UNC to dump Groklaw if she posts something they disapprove of? Yes, that could certainly happen. But, more importantly, she's *APPRECIATIVE* of the fact IBM has donated her hardware.
So, you're taking an imaginary situation and trying to compare it to a real one. Show me an actual park where a rock quary donated rubble to the pavement of a park that someone writes blog posts praising rock quaries and condemning something that is against rock quaries.
Yeah, right. We're talking about the fact that PJ public supports IBM in her blog posts, and it just so happens that IBM also donates the servers her site runs under.
If she had a shred of decency, she would have moved her site to a server that was not associated with IBM. But she didn't.
Please. I've been on slashdot since long before he has.
For the record, I have no conflict of interest here. My problem with PJ is that she holds those she disagrees with to a different standard than she holds herself or those she agrees with.
She frequently accuses those she disagrees with of the very same things her side of things does.
This is a prime example. If she wants to accuse others of conflicts of interest, she should start with herself and disclose any she has. She should also look closely at the folks she defends, who clearly have their own conflicts.
There's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, there is something wrong with accusing others of it while having your own that you refuse to acknowledge.
None of that changes the fact that Groklaw runs their servers on IBM donated hardware. Whether or not it was intentionally donated for groklaw or not doesn't change the fact that it's a conflict of interest, and one PJ and IBM refuse to admit to.
The lie here is you. You know damn well that it's well known that Groklaw runs on servers donated by IBM. Slashdot has even run stories confirming it. So it's even here.
This is fact. So don't pretend you don't know it to be true.
The more important part is that Groklaw refuses to disclose whether or not IBM provides any other support. Because they refuse to disclose IF they have any conflicts of interest, it's very hypocritical of them to complain about any elses.
Exactly. This is rich coming from her. After all, she refuses to disclose her biases. She refuses to disclose who she works for (or even just if she works for anyone that could be a conflict of interest). It's been exposed in the past that she receives services from IBM, and she strongly supports people like Rob Weir and Bob Sutor, both of which have very strong ties to corporate interests in what they espouse.
This is way beyond the pot calling the kettle black here, this is the pot complaining that the kettle boils water.
None of those images are clickable. I'm not sure what you're talking about, they're just img tags.
Or were you refering to the last bit that is a video? If so, then you are being highly disingenuous. You don't need a plugin to view any of the images, as you stated categorically. You're being dishonest.
The video link could certainly be done in a way to be more compatible, but it's pretty easy to look at the url and figure out how to view the video without the plugin.
Slashdot Mirror
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/04/14/216231/new-targeted-mac-os-x-trojan-requires-no-user-interaction
"requires no user interaction"
They call them "Trojans" because they don't want to admit that macs can get viruses. It's all just "malware" nowadays, and the lines are blurred to the point of one being indistinguishable from the other.
The vast majority of malware on PC's are trojans as well, technically. That doesn't stop mac users from decrying all the "viruses".
Everything got viruses back in the 80's. Why? Because viruses were new and cool, and kiddies liked writing them.
Nowadays, kiddies prefer hax0ring the interwebs. Writing viruses is passe. So now, the only people that write viruses are those trying to make money from it.
When you don't have a large marketshare, making money is more difficult. So smaller platforms are simply ignored.
This new model suggests that the financial benefits of attacking windows have become less than the benefits of attacking Macs. Nothing special there.
Yeah, it's not like Apple has ever done anything to encourage that thinking...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g
The president's only real power is to sign into law what congress passes (or veto it). If the president wants to pass a piece of legislation, he must get congress to first pass it, so he can sign it.
Guess what congress is NOT doing? Giving the president ANY legislation he wants to sign.
No, the flaw is that you are talking about physical property, not intellectual property. Also, it's something that's covered by national security.
By law, the federal government does not retain copyright on anything it produces, but it can retain copyright on things transferred to it. This means any documents, source code, etc.. is in the public domain by default.
This is also why there's a thing called the "Freedom of Information act" that forces the government to disclose documents that are not secret.
Yes, this is a county government, but many of the same rules apply and counties are funded partially by the federal government. Most government funding requires the recipients to follow specific rules about things.
Stop misrepresenting what I said. I did not "backtrack", and I did not say "It doesn't matter how tiny IBM's involvement is." I said "It doesn't matter how tiny you claim IBM's involvement is"
Yes, your situation was absurd, and you admit it was meant as such. The difference is that your situation was fictional and absurd, while this situation is real and is in fact the case. Your argument that it was an "analogy" is pointless because you're trying to compare a real thing to a fictional absurd thing.
She is not commenting on UNC's ISP, electric company, or IT employees. Why do you not see why that's the issue?
No, it doesn't. It says "Groklaw is not affiliated with IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Google, or any other party to the litigation it covers." which is vaguely worded, because they don't define what "affiliated" is. The most common usage would mean "officially associated", that doesn't mean they don't receive products, services, information, or anything else of value from those companies.
That's all that groklaw says on the matter.
I couldn't care less about whether Florian Mueller is fornicating with goats, much less having a bias or conflict of interest.
I just don't care.
But, I do hate when people who obviously have their own biases accuse others of things they themselves are perpetrating.
Wave your hands all you want, it doesn't change the facts. Any conflict of interest, no matter how "tiny" you claim it is, is still a conflict of interest. But IBM's involvement isn't really even that important to the point. The fact that they are involved is just evidence that such conflicts of interest exist, and the fact that PJ refuses to disclose whether or not there are any (and we know there's at least one) is the problem.
The fact she refuses to say one way or the other, then rails against others for conflicts of interest is called being a hypocrite.
No, I come across as having a strong opinion. That opinion is based on hating hypocrites.
Most counties get Federal funding that contributes to their budget. So some portion of it could be considered any US taxpayer.
Conflict of interest does not mean someone gains or loses from something they do. It means, they are INFLUENCED by the conflict.
For instance, a judge that may have earned a tidy profit from a brokerage company is ruling on whether that brokerage company broke the law. Either way the judge rules will not affect their current financial situation (the gains happened in the past). But, because they have previously gained, they are unduly influenced in favor of the brokerage and would have a conflict of interest.
PJ benefited from IBM's benevolence, and continues to do so. That's a conflict of interest.
You're rude as well, you just think you're smart by using inuendo. "What's yours?" is a subtle way of trying to claim i have conflicts of interest, yet i specifically stated in this thread what my conflict of intersts are. Yet, you lie here and say I have not.
I'm not rude, i'm just saying things as they are and not being passive aggressive.
No. If she stated that she had no conflicts of interest in any of the things she reports on, that would be one thing. She doesn't do that. She doesn't disclose whether or NOT she has conflicts. That means she's hiding it one way or the other. So yes, she's hiding it. We just don't know whether she's hiding that she has no conflict or whether she does have conflicts.
Could IBM put pressure on UNC to dump Groklaw if she posts something they disapprove of? Yes, that could certainly happen. But, more importantly, she's *APPRECIATIVE* of the fact IBM has donated her hardware.
So, you're taking an imaginary situation and trying to compare it to a real one. Show me an actual park where a rock quary donated rubble to the pavement of a park that someone writes blog posts praising rock quaries and condemning something that is against rock quaries.
Yeah, right. We're talking about the fact that PJ public supports IBM in her blog posts, and it just so happens that IBM also donates the servers her site runs under.
If she had a shred of decency, she would have moved her site to a server that was not associated with IBM. But she didn't.
You'd know if you read the thread, moron. Stop pretending you're smarter than anyone else.
Why do you care if others make money off it? It's government developed so that means it was funded by taxpayer money.
All taxpayers should have access to it, even if they want to make money from it. It should automatically be public domain.
You can still CYA by a simple BSD style license.
Please. I've been on slashdot since long before he has.
For the record, I have no conflict of interest here. My problem with PJ is that she holds those she disagrees with to a different standard than she holds herself or those she agrees with.
She frequently accuses those she disagrees with of the very same things her side of things does.
This is a prime example. If she wants to accuse others of conflicts of interest, she should start with herself and disclose any she has. She should also look closely at the folks she defends, who clearly have their own conflicts.
There's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, there is something wrong with accusing others of it while having your own that you refuse to acknowledge.
All you're doing is proving it's true.
The statement does nothing to change the fact that it's conflict of interest.
None of that changes the fact that Groklaw runs their servers on IBM donated hardware. Whether or not it was intentionally donated for groklaw or not doesn't change the fact that it's a conflict of interest, and one PJ and IBM refuse to admit to.
The lie here is you. You know damn well that it's well known that Groklaw runs on servers donated by IBM. Slashdot has even run stories confirming it. So it's even here.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/04/09/0639232/sco-relies-on-ibm-donated-servers-with-groklaw
This is fact. So don't pretend you don't know it to be true.
The more important part is that Groklaw refuses to disclose whether or not IBM provides any other support. Because they refuse to disclose IF they have any conflicts of interest, it's very hypocritical of them to complain about any elses.
Exactly. This is rich coming from her. After all, she refuses to disclose her biases. She refuses to disclose who she works for (or even just if she works for anyone that could be a conflict of interest). It's been exposed in the past that she receives services from IBM, and she strongly supports people like Rob Weir and Bob Sutor, both of which have very strong ties to corporate interests in what they espouse.
This is way beyond the pot calling the kettle black here, this is the pot complaining that the kettle boils water.
None of those images are clickable. I'm not sure what you're talking about, they're just img tags.
Or were you refering to the last bit that is a video? If so, then you are being highly disingenuous. You don't need a plugin to view any of the images, as you stated categorically. You're being dishonest.
The video link could certainly be done in a way to be more compatible, but it's pretty easy to look at the url and figure out how to view the video without the plugin.