Wrong. NO ONE is up to, or must be allowed to, regulate the internet. The internet is for everyone and must not be "regulated" beyond ensuring fair distribution of IP addresses and names (web). It is not for the US, or the UK, or even the UN to say, "Such and such communication is NOT allowed", or "Such and such information is not to be diseminated", and the like.
No one country owns the internet and we must not allow the UN to control it (anymore than allowing the US to control it). The US would try to hold the world to US law, irrespective of local law while the UN would try to dilute the rules down to the most inofensive mush to placate the Irans or Saudi Arabias of the world (or any state run by religious fanatics).
Give the UN control of naming (take it away from ICANN) and be the central repository of IP addresses. That way, IP addresses are assigned/provided as per actual need. As this would use up the IPv4 addresses relatively quickly, it would help force EVERYONE to IPv6 (including the recalcitrant US).
As for what communication is allowed over the internet, what content? No one gets to control it for everyone else. Stick with local laws.
I prefer he internet pretty much the way it is: pseudo-feudal. You have lots of open space, with the farmers and other country folk. They may or may not be under the protection of a knight (ISP). You also have heavily fortified castles (corporate and other private networks) firewalled from the larger net.
As time goes on, and collections of poorly protected folk get repeatedly attacked by marauders, they either fortify their demsne's (fortified homes of clans/families aka ancient Ireland and Scotland) or seek a protector to fortify their local domain for them.
Seen in this light, it's kinda cool the way it is. Just keep going the way it is...as for ICANN, who gives a f*ck for them? Give its responsibilities to a more broadly supported/supportable body. Do the same for IP assignments too so that huge blocks cannot be unfairly tied up, yet unused, by CERTAIN countries.
actually really did suck. Hammy acting (if you wish to call what went on in that show "acting"), midlin special effects, boring story line with major holes in it.
Here's one that always bothered me (I was a typical moronic teenager at the time so I watched the show). The Cylons supposedly wiped out most of humanity, leaving a "ragtag fleet" of fleeing humans in search of the original homeworld Earth. Except that every frickin episode, they visited yet another planet populated with perfectly happy, living humans! Everywhere they went while on their search for Earth were human-populated planets! Doesn't appear that the Cylons did much damage at all to humanity, just a small, whiney, rag-tag sub-sub-portion of humanity.
Then, for such a powerful cyborg-ish foe, the Cylons got their asses handed to them in virtually EVERY encounter except for the initial one. Man, they SUCK! Their reaction time and aim was worse than all the human pilots in their pathetically tiny (Where is the fuel stored for always-on engines?) and poorly designed starfighters. And all combat resembled, exactly, that of modern fighter aircraft within an atmosphere.
OK, OK, too much (!?) nitpiking on technical detail, but the biggie is still hanging there: All those human-populated planets, most of which apparently had never heard of, let alone seen, a Cylon at any time.
Other than apparently hot robot sex, beautiful women, and big breasts, the new version doesn't sound like much of an improvement on the old one, though even something as simple as a sideview of a hot woman's breast is a vast improvement...but what does THAT say about the original?
Or, you can use thermal depolymerization as written up in the May 2003 Discover magazine article on the process being tested by "Changing World Technologies", CEO Brian Appel. They have a proof-of-concept plant running in Missouri and the city of Pittsburgh is in talks about setting up a plant to handle this.
The process and plant can convert virtually any type of waste into relatively benign fuel oil, and more. From the article: "The process is designed to handle almost any waste product imaginable, including turkey offal, tires, plastic bottles, harbor-dredged muck, old computers, municipal garbage, cornstalks, paper-pulp effluent, infectious medical waste, oil-refinery residues, even biological weapons such as anthrax spores. According to Appel, waste goes in one end and comes out the other as three products, all valuable and environmentally benign: high-quality oil, clean-burning gas, and purified minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing."
"Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, ! and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water."
Don't need mega-oil companies, ever increasing garbage dumps, hazardous waste buildup, near absolute dependence on foreign sources of petroleum-related energy. And don't need nanotech to either for this process.
Not. In any case, I have a fully legal domain as well. It always appears up and legit. You do not know it is dynamic. I could email you directly now and you would receive it and every spam check you made would come back negative. Sorry.
Certainly. Right away. I'll ask my ISP for a nice static IP. It will be "reasonably priced", of course, so it wont hurt a bit.
I use dialup. I use my own mailserver. I have my own domain name. I cannot (cannot) get a static IP, cost and ISP restriction. I use dyndns. I ain't gonna stop. Oh yeah, no spam ever traverses my system. Oh sure, spammers try to send it to ME but they are not able to USE my system to transport spam. They cannot infect me either (Sorry. Linux. Immune. I laugh at you potential, infectable doze users! I LAUGH maniacally!). So...nope, no static IP and no blocked egress port 25. Not an answer.
...we just need to figure it out how to do it our way, or copy the way the cells do it.
Sheesh. There already IS a way to duplicate them and the way they do it. It's called "sex". It's fun and can be nicely habit-forming.
The smallest living, self-replicating cell IS the smallest possible "self-assembler". To be a "universal assembler" requires access to near infinite information/instructions and this means that there cannot be a universal assembler. Can't be done. The best you can do has already been done inside the smallest cells in existence. This would be somewhat larger than a pox virus (smallpox, monkeypox, cowpox, take your pick). Pox viruses are some of the largest viruses there are, retaining many functions full-blown cells but not quite retaining enough to be self-sufficient. They STILL need a larger cell to infect, this larger cell being big enough to contain the remaining information required just for self-replication.
With bacteria, the more information you provide them for generating desired molecules (say some non-native, to that bacteria, protein), the higher the cost to that bacteria. There IS a size requirement for information. It isn't arbitrarily small. It cannot be arbitrarily condensed. It has size, mass, energetic cost. To deal with this takes more energy, size, mass.
Basically, what Drexler wants? You cannot get there from here.
The smallest self-assembler is equivalent in size to the smallest microorganism. Nanotech devices cannot do better than the already extant nanotech devices: all the enzymes and proteins in a cell (any cell, any virus, any bacterium). Not a single enzyme or protein in any cell anywhere is capable of reproducing itself from first principles (atoms). Even the small "self-replicating" prion protein cannot make itself from scratch. It requires a premade template protein assembled by ribosomes using instructions provided by RNA which was produced by RNA polymerase, which is itself a copy of a DNA "library" generated by an evolutionary decendent of RNA polymerase called DNA polymerase.
The closest thing to a self-assembling "machine" would be the hypothetical self-replicating RNA molecule of primordial, pre-life earth. The presumed precursor to all things living today. But you don't get much use from a self-replicating RNA except more copies of that RNA, which doesn't even do anything but copy itself. It cannot be a universal replicator. Nothing can. Information takes space. All the information needed to replicate the smallest possible item, a prion, is exactly the size of a prion - and it doesn't do anything de novo, just refolds an already extant protein generated by the minimum-sized machinery necessary to generate that protein. Thus a virus could be considered a measure of the smallest possible self replicant capable of producing complex systems (the virus).
But wait! A virus CANNOT be the smallest possible self-replicator. It REQUIRES a pre-existent cell with all the machinery necessary to start from first principles (atoms and small molecules) and generate more complex "machines" and structures. Thus a virus is not, and can not be considered self-contained anymore than a prion can. No, a full-blown cell, the smallest being independently replicable bacteria, are the smallest possible self-replicator starting from first principles (atoms and molecules as a source of building material). Drexler, not being really versed in anything beyond simple chemistry and physics sees things through rose-colored glasses, and ignores the facts around him.
If a self-replicating, autonomous nano universal replicator were actually possible, it would have won evolutionarily as the most efficient replicator and it would be the dominant form of replicator on earth. Hmmm...nope, none around here. There isn't even anything CLOSE to such a beastie within ANY living organism of ANY type.
Re:Try this again, formatted.
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
I've been using grsecurity in limited fashion in all my kernels for some time now. I generally limit use to the network security portion (my system is used by myself alone, no multiusers), largely out of fear of breaking software.
How does OO, the desktop systems (Gnome and KDE), and games (native or windoze via wine) work with the executable protections in grsecurity? Can anyone offer a few names of apps that actually crap out if executable/memory space protections are enabled in grsecurity?
Enabling the network security options has thus far proven to be benign in a system useability sense for me. I would try other settings if I knew I could still fire up Myth II (native) or Medal of Honor, Half-Life, etc (wine) without problems.
EULAs are not enforceable and have certainly not been tested in courts. No company (M$) wants to take their EULA into the courts for fear of getting it tossed out as illegitimate, clearly and legally, and known to the whole world. You are free to violate your EULAs.
You could safely indicate a way to use firewall software to prevent secret communication to the mother company. Spyware isn't magic. It uses a port somewhere and a protocol to send its nefarious information. Block that communication link if you feel that removing the actual spyware is a bad thing. Thus, leave the evil spyware in place but cut its lines of communciation.
Just because you may not notice or know about spyware on your system (thus it isn't causing "problems") doesn't mean you are not being harmed. You ARE harmed whenever your privacy is violated. Spyware violates privacy. You are harmed by allowing this or that company (plus the individuals in the company) to watch what you do, when, with what. You are harmed by junk mail/spam/junk email.
You do not need to suffer repeated crashes, lockups, etc, due to spyware to be harmed by spyware. There is NO legitimate reason to secretly watch what you are doing on your computer (or anywhere else without valid court order allowing it). The spyware producers obviously know they are doing something unseemly or wrong in that they do not provide obvious announcements indicating that they have installed an app to track your web movements or computer/software use. They do not provide a simple opt-in/opt-out system. The do not obtain informed consent. This is a nice definition of doing harm.
No. Many Americans have a love of guns that does border on the almost sexual. They take the Second Amendment, chop it into convenient parts (ALWAYS skipping the "well regulated militia" part) and use that as a reason that everyone should have a right to howitzers, teflon bullets, machine guns, silencers, etc, etc.
No doubt, many gun nuts DO masturbate via their guns. Barrel up an orifice, in and out to "delight".
I did qualify my very legitimate gripe about American over-love of guns with the social observation (indirectly) to the American problem with loving violence, vigilanti-justice, and the idea that might makes right. It is likely the latter problems that drives the gun violence (and violence in general) problems UNIQUE to the USA in the Western World.
Be that as it may, the current Regime in the Whitehouse angers me that their idea of "patriotism" and civil liberties is actually forcing me to rethink my general dislike of guns. This anti-civil liberties, anti-Constitutional bulldozer in D.C. is forcing me to be sympathetic to the paranoids that collect guns to fend of a dictatorship. Funny how they thought it was Bill Clinton and the Democrats at the heart of a conspiracy to destroy our Constitutional Rights when it actually turns out to be their own bedmates in the Republican party that are at the heart of such a drive.
By the way, I had a handgun once. As one would expect, while I was away from home someone broke into my house and stole my gun, among other things. Lot of good a gun does. And no, I don't need to carry one as I am quite confident of the ability to take care of myself the manly way...with my hands. Only a total nutjob would barge in on me in my house while I was there...and a lot of good a gun would do then. Such a bustin would likely leave me LOTS of time to run for my bedroom nightstand, or the gun closet, or wherever. Of course a bigger nutjob than such a criminal would be someone who sits there with a gun on hand all the time, ready to go.
I can think of a real-life example of how such a device COULD be of real use, although I think a full-blown PC in tablet form (as these things tend to be) is too much.
My wife is a veterinarian. She works at a university and deals with laboratory animals and animals in the ag-sci department. This job involves a lot of on-site inspection and examination of animals to make sure they are well-treated or that sick animals are receiving proper care. Notes need to be taken and instructions given to handlers/researchers. A tablet that could properly interpret writing and had a wlan capability (to tie into the university wlan) would make recordkeeping quite a bit easier. Instructions to investigators or handlers would be noted in the logs and immediately fed into storage (and cc'd to the director of the lab animal department) so there would be a nice, clean, up-to-date record of animal care and veterinarian instructions.
I imagine something similar could be useful in human medicine as well, as well as other types of situations and research. Basically, a yellow pad with wireless connectivity/networkability.
The department my wife works in has considered various handheld toys but none of them are particularly useful to the extent needed. One silly member of the department gets all goo-gaw over the latest toys like blackberries and the like (for a status symbol or some nonsense) and pushes to try to get the university to spring for a handheld for her, and as a side-affect, the others in the department. As it turns out, it is merely a nifty toy useful for certain things but not really for what they need/want...and is inordinately costly to boot.
If there were a reasonably powerful, easy-to-carry-and-use tablet at a reasonable cost, then I could see them actually having a use for this (instead of Visors, or Palm Pilots, and other glorified addressbooks).
No, the losing parts of the libertarian platform is the sexual worship of private property above life itself so that they hate the environment and all its protections. A libertarian would rather see every forest, river, and the very atmosphere we breath, be destroyed or polluted beyond redemption than have a single persons fictional private property right violated. Yes, fictional, because it is not evolutionarily/biologically encoded. It is purely a social construct, a social idea, not some inherent right. ALL rights are merely a social contract which absolutely requires give and take amongst those in the society - to reach a happy medium - whereby the most good is done for the most people, minimizing the real harm.
Get over the idea that parks, wilderness, and wildlife are mere bits of property to be owned and disposed of as the owner sees fit and you might have a more winning platform. Drugs, schmugs.
I see. This then appears to describe Mandrake. You either use the GUI (MandrakeUpdate) or simply run urpmi at the CLI and it does the rest, with an explicit OK if you want to really do what it takes to install X (meeting dependencies without making you explicitly select each and every one for install).
That kind of argument is crap. If a neighboring state allows nearly unregulated access to guns then the neighbor state that doesn't, that tightly regulates guns, is screwed. Those who want guns in regulated state simply drive to unregulated state, buy their guns, then drive back to regulated state, commit their crimes, etc. Thus, the state with tighter gun control gets screwed (and thus any reasonable statistical analysis gets screwed) by the low gun control state.
This sort of thing isn't a problem in Europe, for instance. Each state is rather similar in their control of guns. You can't simply drive (or boat) from England to France, buy a gun, then go back to England and commit a gun-crime. The regulations controlling gun access in both countries is quite similar.
To get a reasonable statistical analysis on gun accessibility vs crime, you should stick to areas where there is pretty good control of the flow of guns back and forth. You can then analyze a region/country that worships guns as if they are sexual objects (ie, the USA) vs those that view them more reasonably (anywhere else) and see how crime stacks up. Of course, the sick sexual attraction of guns for many Americans itself may be more important as to why the US has a higher murder rate than anywhere else not a direct war zone than the actual easy access to guns. A confounding variable in any analysis.
But limestone is itself of biogenic origin. It is entirely made up of microorganism skeletons (diatoms, etc). The limestone, that is, not the fossil fuel.
Science is always right. It corrects itself when found wrong, thus any "wrong-ness" is merely passing as it gets to the more correct description. First, with regards to "theories". Theories are not insubstantial entities. The term "it's just a theory" is a total misunderstanding about what a theory really is. A total misunderstanding about how strong the evidence must be to support something being termed a "theory" rather than just a hypothesis. Saying something is "just a theory" is not faint praise by any stretch. It is akin to saying something is all but absolutely correct - something (a theory) is just short of a Law.
In any case, you lost any credibility when you lumped "evolution" in with the "Big Bang" as being things that might be found in the future to be myths. Evolution is fact. The ONLY aspect about evolution that falls into "theory" territory is the HOW of evolution, not whether or not it occurs. There is zero, none, nunca question at all in the scientific community about whether evolution occurs. There is no scientific debate on this fact. Evolution simply occurs. There IS legitimate debate and study on HOW it occurs.
The Big Bang is a different kettle of fish. It is supported by a great deal of observational data but...the observational perspective that we are stuck with for a view (for observation) is also compatible with certain non-Big Bang theories. In fact, it will be hard (if not impossible) for the Big Bang to ever be more than a seemingly reasonable theory. Evolutionary theories (the how, not the if) is more in line with something that can take the next step from theory to Law.
Isn't "fat" and "overweight" redundant? Also, I think you forgot "pasty skinned". So, dump either "fat" or "overweight" and replace it with "pasty skinned" and you have yourself a winner (or loser, depending on your point of view).
Uhm...what exactly do you mean by "a package system that works automatically"? Do you mean something relatively nasty that automatically looks for and installs updates/upgrades without user input?
I don't want my system to get altered in any way without getting my personal OK beforehand. I rather suspect that there are a lot of others that feel this way about it too. Unless what you mean by "automatic" is something entirely outside of what I have interpreted it to mean...
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. NO ONE is up to, or must be allowed to, regulate the internet. The internet is for everyone and must not be "regulated" beyond ensuring fair distribution of IP addresses and names (web). It is not for the US, or the UK, or even the UN to say, "Such and such communication is NOT allowed", or "Such and such information is not to be diseminated", and the like.
No one country owns the internet and we must not allow the UN to control it (anymore than allowing the US to control it). The US would try to hold the world to US law, irrespective of local law while the UN would try to dilute the rules down to the most inofensive mush to placate the Irans or Saudi Arabias of the world (or any state run by religious fanatics).
Give the UN control of naming (take it away from ICANN) and be the central repository of IP addresses. That way, IP addresses are assigned/provided as per actual need. As this would use up the IPv4 addresses relatively quickly, it would help force EVERYONE to IPv6 (including the recalcitrant US).
As for what communication is allowed over the internet, what content? No one gets to control it for everyone else. Stick with local laws.
I prefer he internet pretty much the way it is: pseudo-feudal. You have lots of open space, with the farmers and other country folk. They may or may not be under the protection of a knight (ISP). You also have heavily fortified castles (corporate and other private networks) firewalled from the larger net.
As time goes on, and collections of poorly protected folk get repeatedly attacked by marauders, they either fortify their demsne's (fortified homes of clans/families aka ancient Ireland and Scotland) or seek a protector to fortify their local domain for them.
Seen in this light, it's kinda cool the way it is. Just keep going the way it is...as for ICANN, who gives a f*ck for them? Give its responsibilities to a more broadly supported/supportable body. Do the same for IP assignments too so that huge blocks cannot be unfairly tied up, yet unused, by CERTAIN countries.
actually really did suck. Hammy acting (if you wish to call what went on in that show "acting"), midlin special effects, boring story line with major holes in it.
Here's one that always bothered me (I was a typical moronic teenager at the time so I watched the show). The Cylons supposedly wiped out most of humanity, leaving a "ragtag fleet" of fleeing humans in search of the original homeworld Earth. Except that every frickin episode, they visited yet another planet populated with perfectly happy, living humans! Everywhere they went while on their search for Earth were human-populated planets! Doesn't appear that the Cylons did much damage at all to humanity, just a small, whiney, rag-tag sub-sub-portion of humanity.
Then, for such a powerful cyborg-ish foe, the Cylons got their asses handed to them in virtually EVERY encounter except for the initial one. Man, they SUCK! Their reaction time and aim was worse than all the human pilots in their pathetically tiny (Where is the fuel stored for always-on engines?) and poorly designed starfighters. And all combat resembled, exactly, that of modern fighter aircraft within an atmosphere.
OK, OK, too much (!?) nitpiking on technical detail, but the biggie is still hanging there: All those human-populated planets, most of which apparently had never heard of, let alone seen, a Cylon at any time.
Other than apparently hot robot sex, beautiful women, and big breasts, the new version doesn't sound like much of an improvement on the old one, though even something as simple as a sideview of a hot woman's breast is a vast improvement...but what does THAT say about the original?
I CAN think (and visualize) the such a world of no scarcity, etc. ALL people would become as vacuous and daft as Paris Hilton.
Imagine. Every frickin' one of us a male or female variant on the Paris Hilton model.
Or, you can use thermal depolymerization as written up in the May 2003 Discover magazine article on the process being tested by "Changing World Technologies", CEO Brian Appel. They have a proof-of-concept plant running in Missouri and the city of Pittsburgh is in talks about setting up a plant to handle this.
The process and plant can convert virtually any type of waste into relatively benign fuel oil, and more. From the article: "The process is designed to
handle almost any waste product imaginable, including turkey offal,
tires, plastic bottles, harbor-dredged muck, old computers, municipal
garbage, cornstalks, paper-pulp effluent, infectious medical waste,
oil-refinery residues, even biological weapons such as anthrax spores.
According to Appel, waste goes in one end and comes out the other as
three products, all valuable and environmentally benign: high-quality
oil, clean-burning gas, and purified minerals that can be used as
fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing."
"Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into
ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a
175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38
pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, ! and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as
123 pounds of sterilized water."
Don't need mega-oil companies, ever increasing garbage dumps, hazardous waste buildup, near absolute dependence on foreign sources of petroleum-related energy. And don't need nanotech to either for this process.
Not. In any case, I have a fully legal domain as well. It always appears up and legit. You do not know it is dynamic. I could email you directly now and you would receive it and every spam check you made would come back negative. Sorry.
Certainly. Right away. I'll ask my ISP for a nice static IP. It will be "reasonably priced", of course, so it wont hurt a bit.
I use dialup. I use my own mailserver. I have my own domain name. I cannot (cannot) get a static IP, cost and ISP restriction. I use dyndns. I ain't gonna stop. Oh yeah, no spam ever traverses my system. Oh sure, spammers try to send it to ME but they are not able to USE my system to transport spam. They cannot infect me either (Sorry. Linux. Immune. I laugh at you potential, infectable doze users! I LAUGH maniacally!). So...nope, no static IP and no blocked egress port 25. Not an answer.
Sheesh. There already IS a way to duplicate them and the way they do it. It's called "sex". It's fun and can be nicely habit-forming.
The smallest living, self-replicating cell IS the smallest possible "self-assembler". To be a "universal assembler" requires access to near infinite information/instructions and this means that there cannot be a universal assembler. Can't be done. The best you can do has already been done inside the smallest cells in existence. This would be somewhat larger than a pox virus (smallpox, monkeypox, cowpox, take your pick). Pox viruses are some of the largest viruses there are, retaining many functions full-blown cells but not quite retaining enough to be self-sufficient. They STILL need a larger cell to infect, this larger cell being big enough to contain the remaining information required just for self-replication.
With bacteria, the more information you provide them for generating desired molecules (say some non-native, to that bacteria, protein), the higher the cost to that bacteria. There IS a size requirement for information. It isn't arbitrarily small. It cannot be arbitrarily condensed. It has size, mass, energetic cost. To deal with this takes more energy, size, mass.
Basically, what Drexler wants? You cannot get there from here.
The smallest self-assembler is equivalent in size to the smallest microorganism. Nanotech devices cannot do better than the already extant nanotech devices: all the enzymes and proteins in a cell (any cell, any virus, any bacterium). Not a single enzyme or protein in any cell anywhere is capable of reproducing itself from first principles (atoms). Even the small "self-replicating" prion protein cannot make itself from scratch. It requires a premade template protein assembled by ribosomes using instructions provided by RNA which was produced by RNA polymerase, which is itself a copy of a DNA "library" generated by an evolutionary decendent of RNA polymerase called DNA polymerase.
The closest thing to a self-assembling "machine" would be the hypothetical self-replicating RNA molecule of primordial, pre-life earth. The presumed precursor to all things living today. But you don't get much use from a self-replicating RNA except more copies of that RNA, which doesn't even do anything but copy itself. It cannot be a universal replicator. Nothing can. Information takes space. All the information needed to replicate the smallest possible item, a prion, is exactly the size of a prion - and it doesn't do anything de novo, just refolds an already extant protein generated by the minimum-sized machinery necessary to generate that protein. Thus a virus could be considered a measure of the smallest possible self replicant capable of producing complex systems (the virus).
But wait! A virus CANNOT be the smallest possible self-replicator. It REQUIRES a pre-existent cell with all the machinery necessary to start from first principles (atoms and small molecules) and generate more complex "machines" and structures. Thus a virus is not, and can not be considered self-contained anymore than a prion can. No, a full-blown cell, the smallest being independently replicable bacteria, are the smallest possible self-replicator starting from first principles (atoms and molecules as a source of building material). Drexler, not being really versed in anything beyond simple chemistry and physics sees things through rose-colored glasses, and ignores the facts around him.
If a self-replicating, autonomous nano universal replicator were actually possible, it would have won evolutionarily as the most efficient replicator and it would be the dominant form of replicator on earth. Hmmm...nope, none around here. There isn't even anything CLOSE to such a beastie within ANY living organism of ANY type.
I've been using grsecurity in limited fashion in all my kernels for some time now. I generally limit use to the network security portion (my system is used by myself alone, no multiusers), largely out of fear of breaking software.
How does OO, the desktop systems (Gnome and KDE), and games (native or windoze via wine) work with the executable protections in grsecurity? Can anyone offer a few names of apps that actually crap out if executable/memory space protections are enabled in grsecurity?
Enabling the network security options has thus far proven to be benign in a system useability sense for me. I would try other settings if I knew I could still fire up Myth II (native) or Medal of Honor, Half-Life, etc (wine) without problems.
Simple answer: recommend mozilla. Solid, stable, unaffected/uncrippled/uncripple-able by spyware.
The end.
Ah, but you CAN recommend a google search for spyware removal. They cannot bar mention of google.
EULAs are not enforceable and have certainly not been tested in courts. No company (M$) wants to take their EULA into the courts for fear of getting it tossed out as illegitimate, clearly and legally, and known to the whole world. You are free to violate your EULAs.
You could safely indicate a way to use firewall software to prevent secret communication to the mother company. Spyware isn't magic. It uses a port somewhere and a protocol to send its nefarious information. Block that communication link if you feel that removing the actual spyware is a bad thing. Thus, leave the evil spyware in place but cut its lines of communciation.
Just because you may not notice or know about spyware on your system (thus it isn't causing "problems") doesn't mean you are not being harmed. You ARE harmed whenever your privacy is violated. Spyware violates privacy. You are harmed by allowing this or that company (plus the individuals in the company) to watch what you do, when, with what. You are harmed by junk mail/spam/junk email.
You do not need to suffer repeated crashes, lockups, etc, due to spyware to be harmed by spyware. There is NO legitimate reason to secretly watch what you are doing on your computer (or anywhere else without valid court order allowing it). The spyware producers obviously know they are doing something unseemly or wrong in that they do not provide obvious announcements indicating that they have installed an app to track your web movements or computer/software use. They do not provide a simple opt-in/opt-out system. The do not obtain informed consent. This is a nice definition of doing harm.
one solid saving grace. You can't be tried multiple times for the same offense. Everything else, particularly in the area of torts, is totally dicked.
No. Many Americans have a love of guns that does border on the almost sexual. They take the Second Amendment, chop it into convenient parts (ALWAYS skipping the "well regulated militia" part) and use that as a reason that everyone should have a right to howitzers, teflon bullets, machine guns, silencers, etc, etc.
No doubt, many gun nuts DO masturbate via their guns. Barrel up an orifice, in and out to "delight".
I did qualify my very legitimate gripe about American over-love of guns with the social observation (indirectly) to the American problem with loving violence, vigilanti-justice, and the idea that might makes right. It is likely the latter problems that drives the gun violence (and violence in general) problems UNIQUE to the USA in the Western World.
Be that as it may, the current Regime in the Whitehouse angers me that their idea of "patriotism" and civil liberties is actually forcing me to rethink my general dislike of guns. This anti-civil liberties, anti-Constitutional bulldozer in D.C. is forcing me to be sympathetic to the paranoids that collect guns to fend of a dictatorship. Funny how they thought it was Bill Clinton and the Democrats at the heart of a conspiracy to destroy our Constitutional Rights when it actually turns out to be their own bedmates in the Republican party that are at the heart of such a drive.
By the way, I had a handgun once. As one would expect, while I was away from home someone broke into my house and stole my gun, among other things. Lot of good a gun does. And no, I don't need to carry one as I am quite confident of the ability to take care of myself the manly way...with my hands. Only a total nutjob would barge in on me in my house while I was there...and a lot of good a gun would do then. Such a bustin would likely leave me LOTS of time to run for my bedroom nightstand, or the gun closet, or wherever. Of course a bigger nutjob than such a criminal would be someone who sits there with a gun on hand all the time, ready to go.
I can think of a real-life example of how such a device COULD be of real use, although I think a full-blown PC in tablet form (as these things tend to be) is too much.
My wife is a veterinarian. She works at a university and deals with laboratory animals and animals in the ag-sci department. This job involves a lot of on-site inspection and examination of animals to make sure they are well-treated or that sick animals are receiving proper care. Notes need to be taken and instructions given to handlers/researchers. A tablet that could properly interpret writing and had a wlan capability (to tie into the university wlan) would make recordkeeping quite a bit easier. Instructions to investigators or handlers would be noted in the logs and immediately fed into storage (and cc'd to the director of the lab animal department) so there would be a nice, clean, up-to-date record of animal care and veterinarian instructions.
I imagine something similar could be useful in human medicine as well, as well as other types of situations and research. Basically, a yellow pad with wireless connectivity/networkability.
The department my wife works in has considered various handheld toys but none of them are particularly useful to the extent needed. One silly member of the department gets all goo-gaw over the latest toys like blackberries and the like (for a status symbol or some nonsense) and pushes to try to get the university to spring for a handheld for her, and as a side-affect, the others in the department. As it turns out, it is merely a nifty toy useful for certain things but not really for what they need/want...and is inordinately costly to boot.
If there were a reasonably powerful, easy-to-carry-and-use tablet at a reasonable cost, then I could see them actually having a use for this (instead of Visors, or Palm Pilots, and other glorified addressbooks).
No, the losing parts of the libertarian platform is the sexual worship of private property above life itself so that they hate the environment and all its protections. A libertarian would rather see every forest, river, and the very atmosphere we breath, be destroyed or polluted beyond redemption than have a single persons fictional private property right violated. Yes, fictional, because it is not evolutionarily/biologically encoded. It is purely a social construct, a social idea, not some inherent right. ALL rights are merely a social contract which absolutely requires give and take amongst those in the society - to reach a happy medium - whereby the most good is done for the most people, minimizing the real harm.
Get over the idea that parks, wilderness, and wildlife are mere bits of property to be owned and disposed of as the owner sees fit and you might have a more winning platform. Drugs, schmugs.
I see. This then appears to describe Mandrake. You either use the GUI (MandrakeUpdate) or simply run urpmi at the CLI and it does the rest, with an explicit OK if you want to really do what it takes to install X (meeting dependencies without making you explicitly select each and every one for install).
That kind of argument is crap. If a neighboring state allows nearly unregulated access to guns then the neighbor state that doesn't, that tightly regulates guns, is screwed. Those who want guns in regulated state simply drive to unregulated state, buy their guns, then drive back to regulated state, commit their crimes, etc. Thus, the state with tighter gun control gets screwed (and thus any reasonable statistical analysis gets screwed) by the low gun control state.
This sort of thing isn't a problem in Europe, for instance. Each state is rather similar in their control of guns. You can't simply drive (or boat) from England to France, buy a gun, then go back to England and commit a gun-crime. The regulations controlling gun access in both countries is quite similar.
To get a reasonable statistical analysis on gun accessibility vs crime, you should stick to areas where there is pretty good control of the flow of guns back and forth. You can then analyze a region/country that worships guns as if they are sexual objects (ie, the USA) vs those that view them more reasonably (anywhere else) and see how crime stacks up. Of course, the sick sexual attraction of guns for many Americans itself may be more important as to why the US has a higher murder rate than anywhere else not a direct war zone than the actual easy access to guns. A confounding variable in any analysis.
But limestone is itself of biogenic origin. It is entirely made up of microorganism skeletons (diatoms, etc). The limestone, that is, not the fossil fuel.
Science is always right. It corrects itself when found wrong, thus any "wrong-ness" is merely passing as it gets to the more correct description. First, with regards to "theories". Theories are not insubstantial entities. The term "it's just a theory" is a total misunderstanding about what a theory really is. A total misunderstanding about how strong the evidence must be to support something being termed a "theory" rather than just a hypothesis. Saying something is "just a theory" is not faint praise by any stretch. It is akin to saying something is all but absolutely correct - something (a theory) is just short of a Law.
In any case, you lost any credibility when you lumped "evolution" in with the "Big Bang" as being things that might be found in the future to be myths. Evolution is fact. The ONLY aspect about evolution that falls into "theory" territory is the HOW of evolution, not whether or not it occurs. There is zero, none, nunca question at all in the scientific community about whether evolution occurs. There is no scientific debate on this fact. Evolution simply occurs. There IS legitimate debate and study on HOW it occurs.
The Big Bang is a different kettle of fish. It is supported by a great deal of observational data but...the observational perspective that we are stuck with for a view (for observation) is also compatible with certain non-Big Bang theories. In fact, it will be hard (if not impossible) for the Big Bang to ever be more than a seemingly reasonable theory. Evolutionary theories (the how, not the if) is more in line with something that can take the next step from theory to Law.
Isn't "fat" and "overweight" redundant? Also, I think you forgot "pasty skinned". So, dump either "fat" or "overweight" and replace it with "pasty skinned" and you have yourself a winner (or loser, depending on your point of view).
Uhm...what exactly do you mean by "a package system that works automatically"? Do you mean something relatively nasty that automatically looks for and installs updates/upgrades without user input?
I don't want my system to get altered in any way without getting my personal OK beforehand. I rather suspect that there are a lot of others that feel this way about it too. Unless what you mean by "automatic" is something entirely outside of what I have interpreted it to mean...