The more money something costs, the higher quality and/or more useful it must be.
Flawed but understandable reasoning.
Not entirely flawed. The more money something costs, the higher calibre of the salesdroid that accompanies it. The more money something costs, the more it keeps out the riff-raff who cannot afford it.
Legitimately, the more money something costs, the more support you should be able to get out of the vendor, but the vendor can't afford to go broke supporting you. Most likely it buys you a piece of the salesdroid's ear that you can chew on when things go wrong.
The above has little if anything to do with the thing itself that you are buying. Microsoft gets away with this because Microsoft has a monopoly.
Yea, sure, I'm paranoid, but sometimes being paranoid and/not/ being a dumbass are the same thing.
"Paranoia is good." Gotta agree.
The question is WHY does it exist? "The link goes to a copy of xulwebmail on my web server sitting on my cable modem.... Also, note that I don't think xulwebmail actually works" Low Slashdot id, something set up on a box, partially (mis?)-configured, trying various whatevers. Completely plausible. Almost certainly not intentionally harmful.
There is a slight possibility that someone has hijacked his Slashdot account, and a remote possibility that he's been biding his time. In either case, you would be asked to sign up for something or something is asked for that should not be necessary. In any event you don't compromise any account that rates better than what I'd call post-card security (Any and everybody can read it but mostly nobody bothers).
My social security number and... If you see that, it's a scam or worse. If it wants you to trust it, it's a scam or worse. If your banker says "Trust me", find another banker.
I don't buy it. And perhaps it's because I fall into the young category and might be lacking the "real world" experience.
Not so much young as that what you can see and think scales linearly while the hidden complexities tend to scale exponentially. The devil is in the details and as noted elsewhere "The biggest problem I see with large scale projects that fail is they get bogged down in minutae." It's not just the complexity of the final product, you have to deal with all the complexities all along the path toward creating that final product and most important choosing which path at each fork in the road.
There's a reason the captian of the ship pilots from the bridge, where he can see what's in front of him. Linus seems to want to pilot his ship from the engine room.
Sounds good until you get grounded on a submerged reef. It's even more fun in uncharted waters.
Wisecrack from a master sculptor. "I just removed the parts that weren't David." At a particular level that is exactly what happens. Linus is right when he says "And if there is anything I've learnt from Linux, it's that projects have a life of their own, and you should _not_ try to enforce your "vision" too strongly on them. Most often you're wrong anyway."
>Few users at the start of their careers will have >the skills to actually >evaluate the guts of the packages they download.
A few users have that ability. Some of them even use that ability. They tend to be very noisy if they find anything amiss.
If I go directly to the CVS/FTP server of a given project... even if one of said coders turns evil and inserts malicious code into it. There are various cheap tricks including, downloading from a convenient mirror and comparing MD5s with the official site. Download, wait for noises, then install.
Somebody has a "critical-critical" patch and there's not even a mention at the legitimate source? I'd trust an AC posted patch on/. a lot faster.
simply expect to be spoon fed patches That's the way to ensure vulnerability, even on OpenBSD. If a system is secure, the one way to break that security is somehow induce somebody to patch that system and make it insecure. It's been done before.
Agreed, but it needs be very very careful as to any assumptions as to exactly which system it was that worked.
The first order of business is to somehow, anyhow, stem the tide. The second is to be very wary of jumping to any conclusions. If I'm going to do something bad that requires a name and address on it, I will use your name and address not mine. Third, it is probably better if the reactive responses are not exactly predictable. If your enemy has extremely predictable responses, you can defeat his superor forces with inferior forces.
Judging from this and the responses to this, I'd say that Open Source is in very good shape to take care of itself. Even better than a coordinated defense is being able to defend regardless of coordination or the lack thereof. Counting vulnerabilities is an extremely bad metric, particularly considering that Red Hat, etc knows that if you actually want people to patch their systems, you never under any circumstances downplay the potential severity.
LinuxWorld linked to the fake alert!... They've since yanked it, but boy were they fast in linking to it...
Initial reactions can be very telling. Security updates should always be treated with a bit of suspicion. Unexpected updates from strange places are almost certainly fakes.
If you want a legitimate comparison between Linux and Windows security, observe:
This is new and fresh enough to "set up a sandbox environment and run it, to see what happens!" Another Windows similar thingee, "been there done that".
Dated 23rd October 2004 on http://www.redhat.com/security/ which means that Red Hat was on top of it fast. This isn't the kind of thing that Slashdot sits on and Red Hat was one day plus ahead. For comparison, it took about 6 days for Microsoft to return anything about Code Red on a search from microsoft.com. That's 6 days after appearing on Slachdot (compared to 1 day before).
Get rid of the official ballots and let everyone bring their own ballot with them so that they can vote for whoever they want, not whoever the ruling government wants to let them choose from.
With a few magicians tricks, One ballot is put in the box. Several ballots are counted for that one ballot.
Not likely! There was some heated discussion between the creators of Minix and Linux over the fundamental structure of an OS. You do not get that kind of disagreement between something and its clone.
So, if IBM is really embracing Linux, why spend the time and money to certify AIX.
Because IBM's customers want AIX and Linux, not AIX or Linux. If it works on both then the choice can be made on secondary considerations or even just on the whim of the moment. In the unlikely event that one breaks, there is a fair chance that the other is not broken. With two valid contenders, there tends to be competition which actually improves both. I'd say that the AIX certification actually results in increasing the value of Linux.
Close, but there is the fact that the "editors" do pick and choose which submissions to accept or refuse. The selection process seems to be an unashamedly subjective question of whether it looked interesting to the editor-on-duty at the time.
Maybe it's just me, but it feels more like script editing than news editing. The idea seems to be to provoke controversy, to provoke a lot of good commentary about the subject of the hour. Within a medium of links to old news Slashdot seems to have a degree of success in making the news, something quite different from reporting the news.
Legacy projects usually end up backed up onto the oldest/slowest servers, until these machines are deemed to take up too much space/energy or make too much noise.
Wherever they wind up, they are someone else's junk. Inertia may preserve it for a while but as soon as it gets in anybody's way it will be gone without even enquiring as to what it was.
The answer to "Oh yeah? Where did it go?" is that nobody knows, nobody cares. Any more.
It's like stale backups. As soon as you need the disk space they are gone. And you don't even pay much attention as to just what it is that is now gone.
How easy the information is to find doesn't matter
I'd say that ease is the critical determinate.
If it costs more to search or whatever than the data is worth then that data is secure.
For failed or obsolete hard drives, I take them apart and take out the magnets. At this point I don't much care what happens to them. I'm sure that it would be possible to recover the information from the platters, but would be much more expensive than the data on those platters is worth.
Re:Except Animals are more likely to be right.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
As geeks, we get the same oversimplified view of the world that makes good and bad easier to see. A program either works or it doesn't. If I write a program and it doesn't execute, it's obviously not working. If it does execute, but doesn't provide the right result, it's not working. There are no limits to the reasons why programs don't work or don't work correctly. There are no limits to how many ways there are to make it work correctly. But in the end, it either works or it doesn't, and that's all that matters to us.
Too brittle.
There's a logical trap in the sequence. The program is useful therefore it works. The program works therefore it provides the right result. The program works therefore there are no bugs in it. It's not just yes/no, there's yes buts and no buts running loose. Maybe that's why the presence of bugs always seems to surprise people.
If a program blows up and you can bull your way through with a debugger to get usable results. If a program doesn't provide the right result but does serve to reduce uncertainty. Example, weather simulations and hurricane projections.
You can get some interesting races between very bad programs aimed at the right target and very good programs aimed at the wrong problem.
You can pretty well limit the number of ways to 256 ** byte count. Within that, there are a few ways to do it right and several orders of magnitude more ways to get it wrong.
There are many ways to have something wrong that nobody can ever notice. At least until it gets pushed beyond the expected limits. The bug was always there.
Re:Except Animals are more likely to be right.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
pessimism doesn't exist. people who are labeled pessimistic simply know they way the world works and tell others about it.
Methinks it's more like there are optimists, pessimists, and realists. In that order and with about that degree of separation.
Like humor. You can laugh or you can cry. Somehow laughing is better.
Hope springs eternal. Even if never justified it wold be much worse without.
English teachers think that English is like a programming languages, that there are rules which cannot be violated which define the English language-- i.e. that grammer and vocabulary is prescriptive rather than descriptive.
The thing is a good writer, a very good writer, can break any of the "rules" in such a way that it is obvious that the writer is right.
Words come into the language because a good writer uses the new word in a context where the new word is a better word in that context than the other choices.
Competetivity versus Competetivness. Should be something like the distinction between activity and activeness. In Microsoft's case, competetivity is the correct word.
Re:Fixing fundamental design mistakes?
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
Most of the huge Microsoft problems occurred after Microsoft had responded with a fix.
Not very effective were they?
Response? Only works if users will download fixes. It works when users upload fixes.
"You need to run this but I won't tell you what is in it or what it does." Not just once but repeatedly. They guys doing the malware will run it and compare to find the exact differences.
I imagine it was more a case of "his house was in our target landing zone" as opposed to "we missed our target landing zone and hit his house."
Methinks you're right. Places to put up a house or apartment are somewhat hard to come by and they will tend to pop up on any unoccupied piece of ground. Considering the damage done to the apartment building and not done to the returned piece of satellite, I'd guess that earthquakes are a much greater threat.
His whole premise is based on his 'Law of Accelerating Returns' which basically states that the pace of technological growth is increasing exponentially and we're at the point where the pace of growth is about to shoot straight up.
Imagine walking up to the face of a cliff. Doesn't say anything about how high the cliff is.
The problem is that while progress does occur, it's pretty much five steps forward which are visible and four steps backward which nobody notices. Further, progress is multidimensional with the further complication that higher degrees of progress also involve more dimensions.
I think part of the problem is that he is confusing cost with value. There is a "Law of Accelerating Costs" in which things which used to be expensive are expended in greater and greater amounts in the hope of actually accomplishing something. Newton and Liebnitz discovered/invented/whatever Calculus at the same instant in evolutionary terms. Without discounting their genius, if neither of them had, somebody else would have before long. Cost is easy to measure. You can even do it scientifically. Value is difficult to measure, primarily because value can easily show in places you didn't know you had places. As soon as one attempts to be scientific, there is a shift from measuring value to measuring cost.
Re:Fixing fundamental design mistakes?
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
A possible approach is to observe the usage patterns of a typical desktop user.
Both in computer and meat spaces. Even when stuff in run in tandem, you tend to have a few places it makes sense to be able to access. In box, out box, desk top, and if (s)he's out and it's important, the chair.
A problem with security (most implementations at least) is that it tends to be hard and brittle. NT security ensures that if any program can access a file then any (other) program can access that file. An office and its desk tends to be much richer. You have stuff out in the open, stuff in closed drawers, stuff in locked drawers. You have people who lock their office door when they leave and people who never bother to close the office door when they leave. Security isn't a yes/no proposition, there are degrees of security, and bluntly most stuff does not warrant a high degree of security even if it is on a computer. The executives who do not want any security are right. In many cases, everything they do should be open and above-board. In the few cases where they do need security they rightly do not want that security to be subservient to IT.
If you put your potted petunias in a safe because it's more secure, somebody will come along and make a fool of you. That's much of what plagues Microsoft. Just a check box with "Always trust Microsoft" and the results are quite predictable. Demonstrably false claimes of security will be demonstrated false.
OpenBSD is an interesting case. I suspect that the baiting of script kiddies is more of a game and a reality check, where the real target is the elimination of bugs. What you want to uncover bugs is something spectacular but that doesn't really harm much of anything. Hidden damage from bugs does a lot more real damage.
none of these anecdotes prove anything [Emphasis added]
Proofs belong in mathematics and logic. You don't even find proofs in science. When you deal with the real world, you need all the help you can get.
One anecdote can lead to insight as to what is going on. Several anecdotes give one some idea as to what the probabilities are. When figuring probabilities, you need to factor in the competence and bias of the story teller.
Microsoft Works could solve a problem that OOo couldn't. So what does my anecdote prove?
That you don't know the difference between editing and copy+pasting?
Slashdot Mirror
The more money something costs, the higher quality and/or more useful it must be.
Flawed but understandable reasoning.
Not entirely flawed.
The more money something costs, the higher calibre of the salesdroid that accompanies it.
The more money something costs, the more it keeps out the riff-raff who cannot afford it.
Legitimately, the more money something costs, the more support you should be able to get out of the vendor, but the vendor can't afford to go broke supporting you. Most likely it buys you a piece of the salesdroid's ear that you can chew on when things go wrong.
The above has little if anything to do with the thing itself that you are buying. Microsoft gets away with this because Microsoft has a monopoly.
Yea, sure, I'm paranoid, but sometimes being paranoid and /not/ being a dumbass are the same thing.
... Also, note that I don't think xulwebmail actually works"
...
"Paranoia is good." Gotta agree.
The question is WHY does it exist?
"The link goes to a copy of xulwebmail on my web server sitting on my cable modem.
Low Slashdot id, something set up on a box, partially (mis?)-configured, trying various whatevers. Completely plausible. Almost certainly not intentionally harmful.
There is a slight possibility that someone has hijacked his Slashdot account, and a remote possibility that he's been biding his time.
In either case, you would be asked to sign up for something or something is asked for that should not be necessary. In any event you don't compromise any account that rates better than what I'd call post-card security (Any and everybody can read it but mostly nobody bothers).
My social security number and
If you see that, it's a scam or worse.
If it wants you to trust it, it's a scam or worse.
If your banker says "Trust me", find another banker.
I don't buy it. And perhaps it's because I fall into the young category and might be lacking the "real world" experience.
Not so much young as that what you can see and think scales linearly while the hidden complexities tend to scale exponentially.
The devil is in the details and as noted elsewhere "The biggest problem I see with large scale projects that fail is they get bogged down in minutae." It's not just the complexity of the final product, you have to deal with all the complexities all along the path toward creating that final product and most important choosing which path at each fork in the road.
There's a reason the captian of the ship pilots from the bridge, where he can see what's in front of him. Linus seems to want to pilot his ship from the engine room.
Sounds good until you get grounded on a submerged reef.
It's even more fun in uncharted waters.
Wisecrack from a master sculptor. "I just removed the parts that weren't David."
At a particular level that is exactly what happens. Linus is right when he says "And if there is anything I've learnt from Linux, it's that projects have a life of their own, and you should _not_ try to enforce your "vision" too strongly on them. Most often you're wrong anyway."
>Few users at the start of their careers will have >the skills to actually >evaluate the guts of the packages they download.
... even if one of said coders turns evil and inserts malicious code into it.
/. a lot faster.
A few users have that ability. Some of them even use that ability. They tend to be very noisy if they find anything amiss.
If I go directly to the CVS/FTP server of a given project
There are various cheap tricks including, downloading from a convenient mirror and comparing MD5s with the official site. Download, wait for noises, then install.
Somebody has a "critical-critical" patch and there's not even a mention at the legitimate source? I'd trust an AC posted patch on
simply expect to be spoon fed patches
That's the way to ensure vulnerability, even on OpenBSD.
If a system is secure, the one way to break that security is somehow induce somebody to patch that system and make it insecure. It's been done before.
...the system works!
Agreed, but it needs be very very careful as to any assumptions as to exactly which system it was that worked.
The first order of business is to somehow, anyhow, stem the tide.
The second is to be very wary of jumping to any conclusions. If I'm going to do something bad that requires a name and address on it, I will use your name and address not mine.
Third, it is probably better if the reactive responses are not exactly predictable. If your enemy has extremely predictable responses, you can defeat his superor forces with inferior forces.
Judging from this and the responses to this, I'd say that Open Source is in very good shape to take care of itself. Even better than a coordinated defense is being able to defend regardless of coordination or the lack thereof. Counting vulnerabilities is an extremely bad metric, particularly considering that Red Hat, etc knows that if you actually want people to patch their systems, you never under any circumstances downplay the potential severity.
LinuxWorld linked to the fake alert! ... They've since yanked it, but boy were they fast in linking to it...
Initial reactions can be very telling.
Security updates should always be treated with a bit of suspicion.
Unexpected updates from strange places are almost certainly fakes.
This is an honor virus. Please forward to all your friends, then ...
They all are.
The difference is in how visible what they are up to is.
Hiding stuff from "dumb" users is a bad idea.
Do you know if there's a cure for this?
You don't want a cure for this.
If you want a legitimate comparison between Linux and Windows security, observe:
This is new and fresh enough to "set up a sandbox environment and run it, to see what happens!" Another Windows similar thingee, "been there done that".
Dated 23rd October 2004 on http://www.redhat.com/security/ which means that Red Hat was on top of it fast. This isn't the kind of thing that Slashdot sits on and Red Hat was one day plus ahead. For comparison, it took about 6 days for Microsoft to return anything about Code Red on a search from microsoft.com. That's 6 days after appearing on Slachdot (compared to 1 day before).
Get rid of the official ballots and let everyone bring their own ballot with them so that they can vote for whoever they want, not whoever the ruling government wants to let them choose from.
With a few magicians tricks,
One ballot is put in the box.
Several ballots are counted for that one ballot.
Linux was a Minix clone.
Not likely!
There was some heated discussion between the creators of Minix and Linux over the fundamental structure of an OS. You do not get that kind of disagreement between something and its clone.
So, if IBM is really embracing Linux, why spend the time and money to certify AIX.
Because IBM's customers want AIX and Linux, not AIX or Linux.
If it works on both then the choice can be made on secondary considerations or even just on the whim of the moment.
In the unlikely event that one breaks, there is a fair chance that the other is not broken.
With two valid contenders, there tends to be competition which actually improves both. I'd say that the AIX certification actually results in increasing the value of Linux.
Close, but there is the fact that the "editors" do pick and choose which submissions to accept or refuse. The selection process seems to be an unashamedly subjective question of whether it looked interesting to the editor-on-duty at the time.
Maybe it's just me, but it feels more like script editing than news editing. The idea seems to be to provoke controversy, to provoke a lot of good commentary about the subject of the hour. Within a medium of links to old news Slashdot seems to have a degree of success in making the news, something quite different from reporting the news.
Legacy projects usually end up backed up onto the oldest/slowest servers, until these machines are deemed to take up too much space/energy or make too much noise.
Wherever they wind up, they are someone else's junk.
Inertia may preserve it for a while but as soon as it gets in anybody's way it will be gone without even enquiring as to what it was.
The answer to
"Oh yeah? Where did it go?"
is that nobody knows, nobody cares.
Any more.
It's like stale backups. As soon as you need the disk space they are gone. And you don't even pay much attention as to just what it is that is now gone.
one of the earliest definitions: When an application uses a single file for all of its source code, it's a monolithic application.
So if the even bytes are put into one file and the odd bytes are put into another file the application is no longer monolithic?
If you put all the source for QNX into one file, that will not make QNX monolithic.
I'm sure we can come up with a particular definition of monolithic that Linux would be included in.
Oh yes.
You have to reboot to switch kernels,
You have to reboot to switch between Linux and FreeBSD.
Linux is very modular. Without too much trouble you can replace any part of it with something else. A fair number of them while the system is running.
How easy the information is to find doesn't matter
I'd say that ease is the critical determinate.
If it costs more to search or whatever than the data is worth then that data is secure.
For failed or obsolete hard drives, I take them apart and take out the magnets. At this point I don't much care what happens to them. I'm sure that it would be possible to recover the information from the platters, but would be much more expensive than the data on those platters is worth.
As geeks, we get the same oversimplified view of the world that makes good and bad easier to see. A program either works or it doesn't. If I write a program and it doesn't execute, it's obviously not working. If it does execute, but doesn't provide the right result, it's not working. There are no limits to the reasons why programs don't work or don't work correctly. There are no limits to how many ways there are to make it work correctly. But in the end, it either works or it doesn't, and that's all that matters to us.
Too brittle.
There's a logical trap in the sequence.
The program is useful therefore it works.
The program works therefore it provides the right result.
The program works therefore there are no bugs in it.
It's not just yes/no, there's yes buts and no buts running loose.
Maybe that's why the presence of bugs always seems to surprise people.
If a program blows up and you can bull your way through with a debugger to get usable results.
If a program doesn't provide the right result but does serve to reduce uncertainty. Example, weather simulations and hurricane projections.
You can get some interesting races between very bad programs aimed at the right target and very good programs aimed at the wrong problem.
You can pretty well limit the number of ways to 256 ** byte count. Within that, there are a few ways to do it right and several orders of magnitude more ways to get it wrong.
There are many ways to have something wrong that nobody can ever notice. At least until it gets pushed beyond the expected limits. The bug was always there.
pessimism doesn't exist. people who are labeled pessimistic simply know they way the world works and tell others about it.
Methinks it's more like there are optimists, pessimists, and realists. In that order and with about that degree of separation.
Like humor.
You can laugh or you can cry.
Somehow laughing is better.
Hope springs eternal.
Even if never justified it wold be much worse without.
English teachers think that English is like a programming languages, that there are rules which cannot be violated which define the English language-- i.e. that grammer and vocabulary is prescriptive rather than descriptive.
The thing is a good writer, a very good writer, can break any of the "rules" in such a way that it is obvious that the writer is right.
Words come into the language because a good writer uses the new word in a context where the new word is a better word in that context than the other choices.
Competetivity versus Competetivness.
Should be something like the distinction between activity and activeness.
In Microsoft's case, competetivity is the correct word.
Most of the huge Microsoft problems occurred after Microsoft had responded with a fix.
Not very effective were they?
Response? Only works if users will download fixes.
It works when users upload fixes.
"You need to run this but I won't tell you what is in it or what it does."
Not just once but repeatedly.
They guys doing the malware will run it and compare to find the exact differences.
I imagine it was more a case of "his house was in our target landing zone" as opposed to "we missed our target landing zone and hit his house."
Methinks you're right. Places to put up a house or apartment are somewhat hard to come by and they will tend to pop up on any unoccupied piece of ground. Considering the damage done to the apartment building and not done to the returned piece of satellite, I'd guess that earthquakes are a much greater threat.
His whole premise is based on his 'Law of Accelerating Returns' which basically states that the pace of technological growth is increasing exponentially and we're at the point where the pace of growth is about to shoot straight up.
Imagine walking up to the face of a cliff. Doesn't say anything about how high the cliff is.
The problem is that while progress does occur, it's pretty much five steps forward which are visible and four steps backward which nobody notices.
Further, progress is multidimensional with the further complication that higher degrees of progress also involve more dimensions.
I think part of the problem is that he is confusing cost with value. There is a "Law of Accelerating Costs" in which things which used to be expensive are expended in greater and greater amounts in the hope of actually accomplishing something. Newton and Liebnitz discovered/invented/whatever Calculus at the same instant in evolutionary terms. Without discounting their genius, if neither of them had, somebody else would have before long. Cost is easy to measure. You can even do it scientifically. Value is difficult to measure, primarily because value can easily show in places you didn't know you had places. As soon as one attempts to be scientific, there is a shift from measuring value to measuring cost.
A possible approach is to observe the usage patterns of a typical desktop user.
Both in computer and meat spaces.
Even when stuff in run in tandem, you tend to have a few places it makes sense to be able to access. In box, out box, desk top, and if (s)he's out and it's important, the chair.
A problem with security (most implementations at least) is that it tends to be hard and brittle. NT security ensures that if any program can access a file then any (other) program can access that file. An office and its desk tends to be much richer. You have stuff out in the open, stuff in closed drawers, stuff in locked drawers. You have people who lock their office door when they leave and people who never bother to close the office door when they leave. Security isn't a yes/no proposition, there are degrees of security, and bluntly most stuff does not warrant a high degree of security even if it is on a computer. The executives who do not want any security are right. In many cases, everything they do should be open and above-board. In the few cases where they do need security they rightly do not want that security to be subservient to IT.
If you put your potted petunias in a safe because it's more secure, somebody will come along and make a fool of you. That's much of what plagues Microsoft. Just a check box with "Always trust Microsoft" and the results are quite predictable. Demonstrably false claimes of security will be demonstrated false.
OpenBSD is an interesting case. I suspect that the baiting of script kiddies is more of a game and a reality check, where the real target is the elimination of bugs. What you want to uncover bugs is something spectacular but that doesn't really harm much of anything. Hidden damage from bugs does a lot more real damage.
The changes have made the way we live, the way we travel, and the way we do business much more restrictive and expensive.
If the terrorists say "jump" and we say "how high?", the terrorists have won.
none of these anecdotes prove anything [Emphasis added]
Proofs belong in mathematics and logic.
You don't even find proofs in science.
When you deal with the real world, you need all the help you can get.
One anecdote can lead to insight as to what is going on.
Several anecdotes give one some idea as to what the probabilities are.
When figuring probabilities, you need to factor in the competence and bias of the story teller.
Microsoft Works could solve a problem that OOo couldn't. So what does my anecdote prove?
That you don't know the difference between editing and copy+pasting?