Nice story, although for someone familiar with *BSD the punchline is clearly "[...] someone asked what version of BSD they were running. As I recall he said that over half were running the latest [...]"
Yeah, you pretty much nail it. I've thought about this a lot, and i'm also sure that together with intelligence comes what we so far call 'human error'. Intelligent machines will sure share that trait
> unless you are certain that the binary you are running corresponds to the alleged source code.
Yes, i am.
> It should be possible to recreate the exact binary from the source code.
Obviously it is, since that is how i obtained the binary in the first place
> A simple analysis shows that this is very hard in practice, severely limiting the whole point of running free software.
wat?
16 bit? What are you even talking about? Embedded?
Anyway, i doubt it would be hard to implement securelevel, since it is essentially just one integer and a couple comparisons of it against constants.
If you think your thoughts are encrypted, i've got bad news for you.
Anyway, here's the good news: I'm selling these awesome protective tinfoil hats, for $20, a real bargain!
Slashdot Mirror
Nice story, although for someone familiar with *BSD the punchline is clearly "[...] someone asked what version of BSD they were running. As I recall he said that over half were running the latest [...]"
sounds like they're Trying Too Hard(tm).
Now that your post is +5 Informative, would you mind adding some information regarding those ,,*very* good reasons''?
oh sh--
Am i doing it right?
> you're a fucking idiot.
FTFY
> Give me a PHP programmer and I can tell you he isn't worth anything
FTFY
*smoke* *smoke* you *smoke*
Yeah, you pretty much nail it. I've thought about this a lot, and i'm also sure that together with intelligence comes what we so far call 'human error'. Intelligent machines will sure share that trait
well yeah, internet explorer is a killer app too, but they took the term way more literally
Yeah... until it's /your/ IPod which gets stolen!
> unless you are certain that the binary you are running corresponds to the alleged source code.
Yes, i am.
> It should be possible to recreate the exact binary from the source code.
Obviously it is, since that is how i obtained the binary in the first place
> A simple analysis shows that this is very hard in practice, severely limiting the whole point of running free software.
wat?
I /am/ the sysadmin. I always knew i was bound to hate myself.
if this is what happens on reddit, then i'm glad not to use it
Well they better be listening on Gliese 526 then, because most other targets are slightly more distant.
Yes, they do.
how much time it will take until the transmission even arrives 'somewhere'? This story is bullshit.
> I [...] fell in love with the aspects of free software
> in 2013 I stick with Windows
Eh..yeah. That sure seems legit.
> "Same for me"
Did you even read the post you're replying to?
Yeah, pretty much all of this. Would mod you up if /. wasn't all like "You cannot moderate a thread that you've commented in"
Excel...the Windows killer-app.
You Sir^H^H^H"Power-User", made my day.
16 bit? What are you even talking about? Embedded? Anyway, i doubt it would be hard to implement securelevel, since it is essentially just one integer and a couple comparisons of it against constants.
rookies wouldn't break root anywhere in the first place
as root you can just chattr -i the file. Pity lunix doesn't have a feature like FreeBSD's securelevel.
If you think your thoughts are encrypted, i've got bad news for you.
Anyway, here's the good news: I'm selling these awesome protective tinfoil hats, for $20, a real bargain!