While I see a lot of arguements about how BSD (or any *nix) is more secure than Windows standing by itself, I have yet to see a solid study done that also factors in the users behind each operating system.
While there is a general trend that a BSD setup is more secure than Windows, is the factor of the programming really making that much of a difference? Or is there another corrolation between the users of the machines?
Because BSD (and other *nix) requires a tad more technical understanding to operate than say a Windows machine, it would be the general trend that those users of BSD would also know about computer security and the "proper way" to secure their machines. A machine can only be as secure as the admin that secures it.
While I am not disputing the fact that BSD is generally more secure than Windows if compared by itself, I am wondering whether the said difference is really that big without factoring in the "admin" behind each machine in those statistics?
Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference and (2) This device must accept any interference received, including interferences that may cause undesired operation.
I think I see those on stuff like TV, and other electronics that are not radio broadcasting related. While on things with a HAM radio, is not subject to the same rules... though I can't be sure, can someone check?
If you are flying over International waters, how does that affect Copyright Laws? Since you are not technically in any nation, people gamble in International waters and such.
So, can the MPAA or RIAA sue you, or would it be really difficult?
If you read what you just did, it is called a developed habit. If you can accomplish something by repeating it, then you will do it without thinking. However, if you have to do something different each time, then it can't be made in to a habit and you must read and think about it.
I believe there are two ways to make people read and/or "know not by the force of habit" what they are about to do.
The first way is to make it so that you have six options: Yes, No, OK, Cancel, Accept, Decline. Only ONE of the three positive confirmation is the true positive confirmation and you must read the notice to find which one is correct, otherwise all of them are treated as negative. And in each instance, the correct positive is randomized.
The second way lies in the design of the dialog boxes and the choice of wording with the appropriate level of danger. Also programmers should begin to program their buttons to display what will happen if an options is selected instead of "Yes" or "No".
For example: If a dialog is warning of something minor like you are going to clear the cache, the prompt should only have OK and CANCEL. If the dialog is a warning of something moderately important like whether you want to logoff, then the prompt should be YES and NO. However, if the dialog box is a warning to execute an unsigned/unsafe executable it the options should display EXECUTE and DO NOT EXECUTE. Never should it be "Yes" or "No", because Yes and NO does not describe the action that is about to take place. If the buttons describes the impending action, then it would prove to be more helpful than a YES or NO.
The level of severity should be assosiated with the type of wording, so that minor things are one type: OK/CANCEL; While moderate things are: YES/NO; and very dangerous or important things should have its buttons be descriptive of the action about to take place.
While I did not do a formal study of this, as a web programmer at my workplace, I find that in cases of important confirmations of whether an entry should be deleted, putting "DELETE entry" and "RETAIN entry" is more effective in cutting down accidental deleting than "YES" and "NO" confirmation buttons.
The idea of just clicking "YES" to get rid of a dialog box is so ingrained in to some users' minds that they reflexively click "YES" even when they don't want to (or have not fully understood what they have read until too late). So the idea is to make the buttons more descriptive than just "YES/NO" or "OK/CANCEL".
So some things can be mitigated with a better technological solution. Sadly, technological solutions can only minimize stupidity, and doesn't cure it.
Copying wholesale and just sell a copy is one thing. But I have to respect even those people that copy and IMPROVE upon an existing invention and sell it.
If you improved upon it, I believe it should be fair game as it benefits everyone in the long run and leads to competitive innovation. A lot of times, innovation comes in steps, this is a patent violation I am willing to turn a blind eye towards.
Usually when you enact the 4th Amendment with a warrant, you have to be extra careful in defining what you are looking for, and how you "obtain" the evidence. If the evidence becomes "tainted" then it can be thrown out.
Are those non-government corporate agents good enough to not screw the evidence up? And what seperates them from the Police besides being corporate hired and not part of the government?
conducted by the Online Entertainment Users Association, it is found that only 15% of doctorial candidates are Academic Studies addicts. The study found that about 15% of doctorial candidates meet the criteria for Academic Studies addiction as provided by Joe A. Gamer, a leading researcher in Academic Studies addiction.
Well for those of you whom are morbidly interested you can go here.
Someone sent the link to me a while back, interesting read.
Also, it is interesting to note that in Japan, if you commit suicide using the "jump in front of commuter train" method, your FAMILY gets the fines if you succeed (and you do if you fail). The fines consists of the clean up costs, any property damages you cause, and some amount to cover "the inconvience to other commuters" fine on top of it. This apparently works fairly well in Japan, but then it is the "shame" it bring to the family (the Asian "face" thing, western equvilant might be "honor"), and that is a cultural thing which makes potential "jumpers" think twice.
Also...... In the United States, suicide is legal ONLY in Oregon. All other states prohibit such a thing either specifically via a Law or indirectly with some other statue prohibiting another thing that leads to suicide. Interesting read here.
In the United Kingdoms, it is not illegal to commit suicide on your own by the Suicide Act of 1961, but you may not aid someone else.
The discussion about suicides and ethanasia has been discussed to death in my philosphy class, so I will not go in to the moral details/discussions of it.
And finally, the obligatory Wikipedia link about Suicide and Euthanasia.
For those wondering why I look these things up, I work at a mortuary, these things are not uncommon.
The amount of reasonability of ones action in a court of law is directly proportional to the ratio of your lawyer charging you over the amount your opponent's lawyer charging your opponent.
Based upon what the U.S. Patent Office has done with This patent, any patent that infringes on human rights (I.E. Liberty) will be denied. So, nah, breathing air, won't be allowed to be patented.
Verizon is trying to block spam, the same is done with SBC. All you have to do is contact the abuse department to "opt-out" of the blocking. I had the SMTP outgoing port blocked by SBC, and I just contacted the abuse department and told them to unblock it. 24 hours later, they told me to cycle my modem, and volia, outbound SMTP!
So try to contact them first, the FCC also usually put your case a lower priority if you do not first try to resolve it with the phone company first.
Ah, the Constitution only says that every is guranteed a republican form of government. But ultimately, the details is left to the secretary of state of each state.
I stand corrected.
In every election, regardless of the level, the Federal Elections Commission must "certify" it in the very end in order to comply with a clause in the Constitution that every [subordinate] government [in the Union] must be a republican (note lower case "r") govornment.
If the FEC do not certify it, then that means the Federal Government refused to recognize those elected and thus that particular government (state, city, county, etc.) has lost its powers and federal funding. So, no, it does affect State and other local government to at least some degree.
I do not think it is a good idea to donate to a "for profit" thing without strings attached. It leads to dangerous precedents. What is to stop Paramount next time from deliberately cancelling a show to make the fans pay for more, even if it is not a budget nor a ratings issue? This breaks the system.
The point is that ratings is suppose to drive the people at Paramount to make a good show, if they don't make one that is good to gain the ratings and viewership of the fans, then they don't get the money to continue. And if they are good with the show, then people will watch, advertisers will pay, and Paramount gets rewarded with money for a job well done.
To give them money despite the low ratings might do more harm than good. It is like "Wow, if we do a bad job, we will still get money. Let's not do anything." I don't think that is right. Also, if you really believe that Enterprise is good, then watch it and give good ratings, send fan mail, call your TV station (or UPN directly); but don't give them free money without strings attached. Doing so will lead them to take advantage of you to "charge you more" and raise prices.
In California, at least, if a city or some local government post a speed limit sign that says 10 MPH on an interstate freeway (for example), you don't have to follow it because the speed sign is not "reasonable" from an engineer/public safety perspective. All speed limit signs MUST be backed by engineering studies that says the proper speed limits should be set at x MPH for this stretch of road. If you get a ticket for speeding, and in court you demand the prosecutor providing engineering studies proof to back-up the vailidity of the speed limit, and they cannot, your case is then dismissed and you are free.
Therefore, even if the law is passed, it doesn't mean you should follow it blindly.
On another tangent, if the traffic is going 80 MPH, and you go 70 MPH on a 60 MPH highway it was possible to get a ticket for going too fast and too slow at the same time. Though usually the court will throw out one of the two.
"There is a crowd of children yelling "Fight! Fight!" Robert, clad in a torn old fashioned gold Star Fleet officer's tunic is fighting a bigger kid. He is hit hard and goes down. Shatner enters again and tells Robert that perhaps gold is not his color and he should wear something that won't start fights. Robert incrediously tells him that he was the one who started the fight, "...because he (the other kid) said Han Solo was cooler than Captain Kirk." "Kick his fuckin' ass," responds Shatner. Robert wakes up and proceeds to down his opponent with a classic Shatner double-foot drop kick to the chest, and beating him senseless."
If this was a COMMON occurance with Bank of America, I would worry. But once in a while, it happens. (Come on, even the Pentagon can fumble with secret projects that ends up no longer secret.) So long as they act in a responsible manner... (which appears to be okay)... it should be okay. Murphy's Law applies always. While losing stuff is bad, and if it is in the wrong hands much worst... It would be disasterous if they don't have plans in place to recover it.
But the difference is that if it was a CREDIT CARD, then the function would be beyond the Oyster card (UK), or the Octopus Card (HK), or the iCard (Japan), etc. As if you are move from one system to another, it will (in theory) be accepted. Skipping that middleman.
Because it looks like the Oyster card is valid in London only. And also, you still have to go to a machine to put money in the Oyster card, while if you can just use the credit card, you skip that step also.
A good place for this would be at public transportation places. Examples: Subways, buses, etc.
Credit Card transaction can be pre-authorized, meaning that they don't actually charge you yet but reserves an amount of money on the credit to be charged later.
So.... in taking the subway, you can pass your wallet over the gate as you walk in and it will pre-authorize the card, then as you walk out and pass your wallet over the gate, it charges you the appropriate amount based on the distance you travel. All without the middle device of a train ticket or a special train pass to do the same thing. Quick, fast, efficient. Not only do you save time not having to fiddle with a ticket or card (and bypass the line in ticket purchasing), you don't even have to bloat your wallet with all the different ones. The same can be said of buses, shuttles, and most public transportation use.
Though I can imagine that there might be other uses, but this one would come in handy as a city with competing/disparate transportation companies then will automatically be unified in payment system, no more multiple stored value tickets or cards for different systems.
Have you heard of: "If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Except where void or prohibited by law."?
Well, FireWire = 1394 and 1394 = iLink, but FireWire != iLink because it is prohibited by law (it has to do with Trademarks). So I say 1394, will cover both and all of the same thing. That is the only reason, but just for you: FireWire!
Slashdot Mirror
While I see a lot of arguements about how BSD (or any *nix) is more secure than Windows standing by itself, I have yet to see a solid study done that also factors in the users behind each operating system.
While there is a general trend that a BSD setup is more secure than Windows, is the factor of the programming really making that much of a difference? Or is there another corrolation between the users of the machines?
Because BSD (and other *nix) requires a tad more technical understanding to operate than say a Windows machine, it would be the general trend that those users of BSD would also know about computer security and the "proper way" to secure their machines. A machine can only be as secure as the admin that secures it.
While I am not disputing the fact that BSD is generally more secure than Windows if compared by itself, I am wondering whether the said difference is really that big without factoring in the "admin" behind each machine in those statistics?
Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
(1) This device may not cause harmful interference and
(2) This device must accept any interference received, including interferences that may cause undesired operation.
I think I see those on stuff like TV, and other electronics that are not radio broadcasting related. While on things with a HAM radio, is not subject to the same rules... though I can't be sure, can someone check?
If you are flying over International waters, how does that affect Copyright Laws? Since you are not technically in any nation, people gamble in International waters and such.
So, can the MPAA or RIAA sue you, or would it be really difficult?
If you read what you just did, it is called a developed habit. If you can accomplish something by repeating it, then you will do it without thinking. However, if you have to do something different each time, then it can't be made in to a habit and you must read and think about it.
I believe there are two ways to make people read and/or "know not by the force of habit" what they are about to do.
The first way is to make it so that you have six options: Yes, No, OK, Cancel, Accept, Decline. Only ONE of the three positive confirmation is the true positive confirmation and you must read the notice to find which one is correct, otherwise all of them are treated as negative. And in each instance, the correct positive is randomized.
The second way lies in the design of the dialog boxes and the choice of wording with the appropriate level of danger. Also programmers should begin to program their buttons to display what will happen if an options is selected instead of "Yes" or "No".
For example:
If a dialog is warning of something minor like you are going to clear the cache, the prompt should only have OK and CANCEL.
If the dialog is a warning of something moderately important like whether you want to logoff, then the prompt should be YES and NO.
However, if the dialog box is a warning to execute an unsigned/unsafe executable it the options should display EXECUTE and DO NOT EXECUTE. Never should it be "Yes" or "No", because Yes and NO does not describe the action that is about to take place. If the buttons describes the impending action, then it would prove to be more helpful than a YES or NO.
The level of severity should be assosiated with the type of wording, so that minor things are one type: OK/CANCEL; While moderate things are: YES/NO; and very dangerous or important things should have its buttons be descriptive of the action about to take place.
While I did not do a formal study of this, as a web programmer at my workplace, I find that in cases of important confirmations of whether an entry should be deleted, putting "DELETE entry" and "RETAIN entry" is more effective in cutting down accidental deleting than "YES" and "NO" confirmation buttons.
The idea of just clicking "YES" to get rid of a dialog box is so ingrained in to some users' minds that they reflexively click "YES" even when they don't want to (or have not fully understood what they have read until too late). So the idea is to make the buttons more descriptive than just "YES/NO" or "OK/CANCEL".
So some things can be mitigated with a better technological solution. Sadly, technological solutions can only minimize stupidity, and doesn't cure it.
Copying wholesale and just sell a copy is one thing. But I have to respect even those people that copy and IMPROVE upon an existing invention and sell it.
If you improved upon it, I believe it should be fair game as it benefits everyone in the long run and leads to competitive innovation. A lot of times, innovation comes in steps, this is a patent violation I am willing to turn a blind eye towards.
Usually when you enact the 4th Amendment with a warrant, you have to be extra careful in defining what you are looking for, and how you "obtain" the evidence. If the evidence becomes "tainted" then it can be thrown out.
Are those non-government corporate agents good enough to not screw the evidence up? And what seperates them from the Police besides being corporate hired and not part of the government?
conducted by the Online Entertainment Users Association, it is found that only 15% of doctorial candidates are Academic Studies addicts. The study found that about 15% of doctorial candidates meet the criteria for Academic Studies addiction as provided by Joe A. Gamer, a leading researcher in Academic Studies addiction.
It is all a matter of perspective.
Well for those of you whom are morbidly interested you can go here.
Someone sent the link to me a while back, interesting read.
Also, it is interesting to note that in Japan, if you commit suicide using the "jump in front of commuter train" method, your FAMILY gets the fines if you succeed (and you do if you fail). The fines consists of the clean up costs, any property damages you cause, and some amount to cover "the inconvience to other commuters" fine on top of it. This apparently works fairly well in Japan, but then it is the "shame" it bring to the family (the Asian "face" thing, western equvilant might be "honor"), and that is a cultural thing which makes potential "jumpers" think twice.
Also...... In the United States, suicide is legal ONLY in Oregon. All other states prohibit such a thing either specifically via a Law or indirectly with some other statue prohibiting another thing that leads to suicide. Interesting read here.
In the United Kingdoms, it is not illegal to commit suicide on your own by the Suicide Act of 1961, but you may not aid someone else.
The discussion about suicides and ethanasia has been discussed to death in my philosphy class, so I will not go in to the moral details/discussions of it.
And finally, the obligatory Wikipedia link about Suicide and Euthanasia.
For those wondering why I look these things up, I work at a mortuary, these things are not uncommon.
The amount of reasonability of ones action in a court of law is directly proportional to the ratio of your lawyer charging you over the amount your opponent's lawyer charging your opponent.
Not only do they have to sue the people whom made ssh, telnet, FTP, etc. for that identifcation patent....
They also have to sue Diamond Multimedia for introducing the Rio PMP300 in September 1998 or they gotta sue Sensory Science or Creative Labs!
Sorry, this case is going to sink.
Based upon what the U.S. Patent Office has done with This patent, any patent that infringes on human rights (I.E. Liberty) will be denied. So, nah, breathing air, won't be allowed to be patented.
Verizon is trying to block spam, the same is done with SBC. All you have to do is contact the abuse department to "opt-out" of the blocking. I had the SMTP outgoing port blocked by SBC, and I just contacted the abuse department and told them to unblock it. 24 hours later, they told me to cycle my modem, and volia, outbound SMTP!
So try to contact them first, the FCC also usually put your case a lower priority if you do not first try to resolve it with the phone company first.
Ah, the Constitution only says that every is guranteed a republican form of government. But ultimately, the details is left to the secretary of state of each state. I stand corrected.
The police officer can "try" to ticket you, but the court will throw one out and keep the other standing.
In every election, regardless of the level, the Federal Elections Commission must "certify" it in the very end in order to comply with a clause in the Constitution that every [subordinate] government [in the Union] must be a republican (note lower case "r") govornment.
If the FEC do not certify it, then that means the Federal Government refused to recognize those elected and thus that particular government (state, city, county, etc.) has lost its powers and federal funding. So, no, it does affect State and other local government to at least some degree.
I do not think it is a good idea to donate to a "for profit" thing without strings attached. It leads to dangerous precedents. What is to stop Paramount next time from deliberately cancelling a show to make the fans pay for more, even if it is not a budget nor a ratings issue? This breaks the system.
The point is that ratings is suppose to drive the people at Paramount to make a good show, if they don't make one that is good to gain the ratings and viewership of the fans, then they don't get the money to continue. And if they are good with the show, then people will watch, advertisers will pay, and Paramount gets rewarded with money for a job well done.
To give them money despite the low ratings might do more harm than good. It is like "Wow, if we do a bad job, we will still get money. Let's not do anything." I don't think that is right. Also, if you really believe that Enterprise is good, then watch it and give good ratings, send fan mail, call your TV station (or UPN directly); but don't give them free money without strings attached. Doing so will lead them to take advantage of you to "charge you more" and raise prices.
In California, at least, if a city or some local government post a speed limit sign that says 10 MPH on an interstate freeway (for example), you don't have to follow it because the speed sign is not "reasonable" from an engineer/public safety perspective. All speed limit signs MUST be backed by engineering studies that says the proper speed limits should be set at x MPH for this stretch of road. If you get a ticket for speeding, and in court you demand the prosecutor providing engineering studies proof to back-up the vailidity of the speed limit, and they cannot, your case is then dismissed and you are free.
Therefore, even if the law is passed, it doesn't mean you should follow it blindly.
On another tangent, if the traffic is going 80 MPH, and you go 70 MPH on a 60 MPH highway it was possible to get a ticket for going too fast and too slow at the same time. Though usually the court will throw out one of the two.
This movie. It is awful.
"There is a crowd of children yelling "Fight! Fight!" Robert, clad in a torn old fashioned gold Star Fleet officer's tunic is fighting a bigger kid. He is hit hard and goes down. Shatner enters again and tells Robert that perhaps gold is not his color and he should wear something that won't start fights. Robert incrediously tells him that he was the one who started the fight, "...because he (the other kid) said Han Solo was cooler than Captain Kirk." "Kick his fuckin' ass," responds Shatner. Robert wakes up and proceeds to down his opponent with a classic Shatner double-foot drop kick to the chest, and beating him senseless."
If this was a COMMON occurance with Bank of America, I would worry. But once in a while, it happens. (Come on, even the Pentagon can fumble with secret projects that ends up no longer secret.) So long as they act in a responsible manner... (which appears to be okay)... it should be okay. Murphy's Law applies always. While losing stuff is bad, and if it is in the wrong hands much worst... It would be disasterous if they don't have plans in place to recover it.
But the difference is that if it was a CREDIT CARD, then the function would be beyond the Oyster card (UK), or the Octopus Card (HK), or the iCard (Japan), etc. As if you are move from one system to another, it will (in theory) be accepted. Skipping that middleman.
Because it looks like the Oyster card is valid in London only. And also, you still have to go to a machine to put money in the Oyster card, while if you can just use the credit card, you skip that step also.
42. What was the question again?
"MS lack of no quality."
There.
Okay, I tried hard, but I cannot say it with a straight face, but I said it.
A good place for this would be at public transportation places. Examples: Subways, buses, etc.
Credit Card transaction can be pre-authorized, meaning that they don't actually charge you yet but reserves an amount of money on the credit to be charged later.
So.... in taking the subway, you can pass your wallet over the gate as you walk in and it will pre-authorize the card, then as you walk out and pass your wallet over the gate, it charges you the appropriate amount based on the distance you travel. All without the middle device of a train ticket or a special train pass to do the same thing. Quick, fast, efficient. Not only do you save time not having to fiddle with a ticket or card (and bypass the line in ticket purchasing), you don't even have to bloat your wallet with all the different ones. The same can be said of buses, shuttles, and most public transportation use.
Though I can imagine that there might be other uses, but this one would come in handy as a city with competing/disparate transportation companies then will automatically be unified in payment system, no more multiple stored value tickets or cards for different systems.
"Microsoft, The more you tighten your grip [on piracy], the more [legitimate users] will slip through your fingers."
Have you heard of: "If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Except where void or prohibited by law."? Well, FireWire = 1394 and 1394 = iLink, but FireWire != iLink because it is prohibited by law (it has to do with Trademarks). So I say 1394, will cover both and all of the same thing. That is the only reason, but just for you: FireWire!