Just to backup what Yonder Way said, Yes. I worked on a project for a little while that was to provide scheduled playback for Internet audio and optional video streaming. It used a MySQL database for tracking artists, program schedules, playlists for the programs, supported e-Commerce, traked where the actual audio and video streams were, etc. For playback, there are many different applications (free) that can do the job depending upon the format you wish to provide. The hardest part (not including the time for development, which is not hard, just time consuming) is selecting the various components from all the choices available.
For the inventive and those that need a solution that doesn't exist, the various video formats and protocols are published and applications can be written to provide the solution needed (which is something I had to do in part for Akamai when I worked there).
As a final note, a Linux based solution would work far better and be far more reliable than a Windows based solution (it would also provide a far better ROI and a lower TCO).
They must be stopped! They've been on a rampage! Running throught the streets killing on a whim! Last night I was jumped in a dark alley by a video game carrying a club! I was fortunate that someone heard my screams and stopped the game with a portable three-finger-salute weapon!
So then it would seem to me that referencing anything illegal within any context in any format whatsoever, by the logic of the law behind this ruling, would be illegal.
There sure are a lot of libraries, books, newspapers, magazines, web sites, e-mails, and conversations out there that are breaking the law. We need more prisons to hold all the violators.
AVG for anti-virus and e-mail scanning. Also recommended for Linux systems that use Samba in a Windows network. AVG is consistently rated at or near the top of the list in reviews.
Might as well mention anti- spyware and adware applications I use as well. I've not only used these, but not one person I have recommended these to (or system I've installed them on) has ever had an infestation in 4 years. In fact some have had commercial software fail to protect their systems while these applications prevailed.
Zone Alarm
Spybot Search and Destroy
Spyware Blaster
Ad-Aware
IMEO, there is a way to fix or at least mitigate the problem. Make ISPs more responsible. The ISPs control the connections of every computer on the Internet. The technology is available (many of us have it on our own PCs and routers in the UNIX world) to block things such as e-mail with spoofed headers, port scans, repeated attempts by crackers to break into our systems, etc. The ISPs can head off most of the attacks virtually at the source. In the overall scheme of things, is trivial to disable the account of an offender. In the case of someone with a compromised system, the ISP can disable their account until they secure their system (I've had ISPs do this to people that have cause me problems on my networks). When people start losing their accounts due to their irresponsible attitude or naivete toward computer and network security, they will quickly become more responsible and knowledgeable.
If someone abuses the telephone service, it's not real difficult to have the phone company take action (and depending upon the abuse, have the offender arrested). ISPs must be forced to take the same responsibility.
The only way to stem the tide of cyber-terrorism (or whatever you'd like to call it), is to make ISPs take the responsibility to mitigate it.
There is a reason why NSA spying, a national ID and database, and other such bills and programs implemented in the name of "security" are extremely bad and should never be allowed.
There is something called precedence and case law. When something like the NSA spying is allowed to continue, unchecked, it sets a precedent. It creates a pattern and a way for government to continue on a downward spiral to remove more and more civil liberties. The Constitution and supporting documents were written in the manner and phrasing they were by careful design. Our forefathers personally experienced the kind of erosion I speak of, and they wrote our early laws in a manner such that it would be very difficult for that same thing to happen again. There is a catch though.
Every last one of them realized - again because they personally experienced it - the amount of work and effort required for a People to retain freedom and liberty. They knew that the People needed to have the absolute freedom to arm themselves because at some point government would fail to insure their freedom (either by failing to defend the nation or by taking away freedom themselves). They built in a careful system of checks and balances so that programs such as the NSA spying could not happen (at least for long) as long as the People paid attention and took appropriate action. The Executive branch is slowing removing the checks and balances, with the help of Congress, and my country is quickly once again becoming what my fathers (yes, I mean mine - they were in the Revolutionary War) fought hard to defeat.
The problem today is that the American people have become complacent and apathetic. I know many people - some of them immediate family members - that give the standard response of "It doesn't effect me. I've done nothing wrong so I see nothing wrong with it." Well, the Jews did nothing wrong either. Just who is it that decides if you've done anything wrong? Well, it used to be a jury of your peers. Today it seems to be the DoJ and other parts of the Executive branch of the government. Who will it be tomorrow?
The NSA program thus far has been nothing but a waste of taxpayer money. It is an invasion of privacy. More importantly, it is a direct violation of the Constitution and its intent and opens the door for the federal government to take away more civil rights in the future. It gives the governemt much more power than they were ever meant to have, and more than they should ever have. But, hey, it doesn't effect me, or you (you as in the collective "you" reading this post), so why fight it or complain about it? Come election time, just go right on ahead and vote for the status quo - the same politicians that have been eroding our freedom for the past 50 years. Don't be afraid, the federal government has nothing but your best interests in mind. They care nothing for power or money and power and money have never been known to cause any kind of corruption.
Truely creative minds create and innovate not for money, but because they enjoy it. Once politics, money, corporations, and the like step in, all the fun in creating is lost. It becomes a major PITA and the creators stop creating.
Alas, this is exactly what's happening in this country (the US).
I have tested Linux (RH versions from RHEL to Fedora versions) against various versions of Windoze (including XP) using the same hardware. The only reason I would not choose some Linux distros for some desktops is a) if the user can not handle the installation or upgrading of applications they need (Come on OSS developers, haven't you ever heard of statically linked binaries!?) and/or b) lack of Linux support from a particular application they require.
Linux is faster than Windoze running the same applications and same games than Windoze when installed and tuned properly. Windoze can not be tuned for the computer it's running on like Linux and other FOSS can. Before you make some comment about the end using not being able to compile a kernel or tune an OS, think about how many users ever install Windoze to begin with? Most users buy an OEM system with OS installed. They never go through an install, most don't even upgrade later, and fewer even know what an OS really is let alone are capable of installing one. All this is done at the store, so having a professional tune a Linux system to run fast and efficient on the computer it's installed on is not a big deal.
As for other factors, Windoze users must have a ton of protection software installed on their system or become part of the horde of owned systems out there flooding the 'net with viruses, worms, trojans, spam, and DDoS attacks. Linux desktop systems do not need all of these applications. Not to mention anti-spy and adware applications. My brother and I have installed many Linux systems (as well as have many of the computer geeks we know) on systems for young children to senior citizens. In nearly every case they user has preferred Linux over Windoze after getting used to the slightly different look. In fact, most prefer the different look and they far prefer the configurability of that of any version of Windoze. XP is far, far, far from secure. Security of a system goes beyond just the ease of cracking it. It also applies to its susceptibility to the afore mentioned viruses, etc.
As for legacy support, well Linux has that hands down without the bloat. It's called loadable device drivers (or modules). It's called putting in only what's needed for the particular system it's installed on to run, and not all the extra crap that Windoze must add because it doesn't have loadable device drivers. It's also called the Linux community designs from the ground up, and Microsoft buys technology and squeezes it in wherever they can (AFAIK, M$ has never invented anything. It's either been purchased or otherwise acquired).
Well, I'd really like to add more, but I have work to do.
Maybe someone has pointed this out already, but I don't have the time to read the entire forum...
1. UNIX type servers tend to last longer than Windows (both hardware and software). For example, my company will be purchasing a couple of Linux servers this year and we expect them to last at least 6 years. If we bought Windows, we'd have to at least replace the OS in a couple years. I have applications that I have written that Windows simply can't handle, even on faster-than-snot hardware, but Linux handles just fine on mid-range hardware. No need to buy a new server for these, when the older machines we have work perfectly well.
2. There is no way to track the number of Linux, BSD, and other free UNIX like servers out there. There's no licensing required. This relates to (1) and (3).
3. A company can buy a Windows server and put a free UNIX type OS on it. Why buy a Windows server? Because in many cases the servers only come with Windows.
4. How many companies put their own machines together (including servers) and put their OS of choice on them? Many.
Studies on UNIX vs. Windows market share in whatever their forms, as far as I'm concerned, can't be accurate. This article does not take into account all the UNIX servers that are not purchased from the big boys, and therefore, IMEO, is not based upon an accurate representation of "Windows bumps Unix as top server OS". We won't even talk about Netcraft statistics, etc. (Need I also mention the author wrote Unix instead of UNIX, or UNIX like - Linux is NOT UNIX, but is UNIX like).
Whether it be my decision to use Linux, or my decision regarding anything else in falling under my job description or the tasks I'm given. I simply state that I was hired to do a job and trusted to make a decision or perforam a task. If you don't trust me to make that decision, or perform the task, if you don't trust my expertise, then get someone else to do it.
I have yet to be fired or let go because the powers that be either didn't trust me or decided I wasn't expert enough to make the decision or perform the task. In addition, I never make a decision without doing the proper homework to back up my decision, and I make the data to back up my position clearly available to those in charge before I implement the solution.
....How about if the government butts the hell out of our business and parents take control of their kids?! The root of the problem is the loser parents in this country, and the power hungry government is only helping to make things worse. It's not just with regard to child porn either, it's also education, teenage pregnancy, drugs, etc.
They do, it's called the PATRIOT Act. There's also the infamous "We're the government and we'll do whatever the hell we like" act (as evidenced by Bush signing the bill in the first place!).
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), to Archibald Stuart, 1791
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
Incorrect, you must be a politician (j/k) as they often mis-interpret or leave out sections that limit their powers as well. Note that "to regulate" has nothing to do with taxation, it has to do with the laws governing the practice in question.
Article 1, Section 9, "Limits on Congress":
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
The federal government never has had the right to tax inter-state commerce. Their taxation rights are EXTREMELY limited because the founding fathers were taxed to death. They were not going to allow this to happen again, so they limited the power of the federal government to tax the People and the States. Though the feds have the right to tax manufacturing for example, they have no right to tax the goods when they are exported from the State they were manufactured in.
They really don't have the right to impose income tax on citizens living and working in the US either, but that's another issue.
The way federal tax is supposed to work is each State counts the people in it. The State then pays a federal tax based upon the number of people in the State. That's what the Census is for (and that too has been misused by government).
States not making money from taxes imposed upon Internet purchases is a problem, I agree. On the other hand, state governments wasting (or taking advantage of) so much money is an even greater problem.
The Federal Government has the right to tax and control US imports and exports, firearms, and alcohol and nothing else. They do not have the right to tax sales between states, or impose taxation laws regarding such sales. The feds sole purpose in life is to insure the security of the States, and not control them. Whenever the feds take or are given the power to control even the smallest facet of any given state, that state, and the people in it, are then subject to yet more whims of the feds. The Constitution and governing laws of this country were carefully formed with this in mind. Over the years the People and States have lost sight of the reasons our laws were written the way they were. Now we are seeing the results of this more clearly in our f'd up tax system, the Patriot Act, DMCA, etc., etc.
The solution? I don't exactly know. What I do know is that it is up to the individual states to figure out how they will continue to function, and to stop being beholden to the feds. to do it for them. It is up to the People to make sure their states do this, and not allow the feds to continue to expand the control they were never meant to have.
While there are indeed other causes of evolution besides natural selection, it makes no sense to say "That's natural selection, not evolution" -- that's like saying "That's an automobile, not a vehicle". And your idea that evolution means that viruses turn into birds also makes no sense.
It's not my idea, don't put thoughts in my head. As the Theory of Evolution would have it, a virus could indeed turn into a bird over time. So, if that makes no sense to you, then your entire premise that Evolution is a fact makes no sense either.
In addition, any theory that is taught as fact, as many are, is completely wrong and in contrast to the scientific method and what scientists are supposed to practice in the first place. I don't care if it's Evolution, Creation, or Bob's Miraculous Conception of the Universe.
Dang it, I hit "Submit" instead of "Preview" so the formatting is hosed for the whole thing.
a scientific theory is an explanatory model to account for some law or observation. it isn't the same as "theory" in every day speech, like "a hunch". furthermore, a fact is not "mathematical proof", otherwise we couldn't say that it's a fact that adolf hitler lived. it is confirmed to such a degree of certainty that there is not a reasonable doubt about it.
the general idea that all life on earth arose through a progression of self-replicating chemical systems due to the preservation of random mutations over billions of years, is most certainly a fact.
Prove it, beyond any doubt. You can't, the scientific community can't (or this discussion would not take place). None of us were there. We have no factual proof that anything took place over billions of years. Evolution is NOT a fact, it is a theory, and statements to the contrary are almost always born out of the misrepresentations given by professors and scientists when "educating" others about the theory of Evolution.
"intelligent design" advocates are labeled as utter lunatics, because they don't have any support for their beliefs.
Wrong. The same evidence that supports the theory of Evolution supports the theory of intelligent design. Note how I call them both theories, because that's what they are. Neither are scientific fact, both are scientific theory.
they might as well be teaching kids about santa claus and leprechauns. the only intelligent designers we know of are humans, and i think we can all agree that humans didn't make ourselves and all other life on the planet.
Key phrase there "...that we know of...". We do not know everything there is to know about the universe. To think that we are the only ones in it, and especially to think that we are the only oens capable of any kind of design proves our arrogance and ignorance as a species.
until creationists ("intelligent design" people included) can demonstrate the existence of some intelligence that is consistent with the creation of life as we know it, there is no argument to be made for intelligent design.
Until the Evolutionists can demonstrate the non-existence of such intelligence, there is no argument to be made for Evolution. The argument works both ways, but apparently in the minds of Evolutionists, it does not (because after all, the majority seem to think the theory of Evolution is a scientific fact, and therefore by definition proving otherwise is not necessary).
natural selection is one part of evolution. evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population". it is comprised both of mutation and natural selection. so it's not really incorrect to say that natural selection is evolution. it's an enormous part of it.
Nice how you took that snippet out of context and didn't add the forgoing sentences or the rest of that sentence that reads "...to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
Natural Selection is a small part of evolution. The theory that all species evolved from nothing, to a single selled organism, to very complex organisms like humans involves much more than natural selection and evolution within a species. The overall Theory of Evolution goes beyond this, and beyond your short definition taken out of context. Natural Selection is proven over and over again and we can watch it happen in the lab and in nature. Species often adapt to thier environment or die because of a failure to do so. We can also observe evolution within a species, but we have yet to observe, or otherwise have proof of, the evolution of one species into another. There has been no scientific proof that shows that any species can evolve into a completely new species in any amount of time.
a scientific theory is an explanatory model to account for some law or observation. it isn't the same as "theory" in every day speech, like "a hunch". furthermore, a fact is not "mathematical proof", otherwise we couldn't say that it's a fact that adolf hitler lived. it is confirmed to such a degree of certainty that there is not a reasonable doubt about it.
the general idea that all life on earth arose through a progression of self-replicating chemical systems due to the preservation of random mutations over billions of years, is most certainly a fact.
Prove it, beyond any doubt. You can't, the scientific community can't (or this discussion would not take place). None of us were there. We have no factual proof that anything took place over billions of years. Evolution is NOT a fact, it is a theory, and statements to the contrary are almost always born out of the misrepresentations given by professors and scientists when "educating" others about the theory of Evolution.
"intelligent design" advocates are labeled as utter lunatics, because they don't have any support for their beliefs.
Wrong. The same evidence that supports the *theory* of Evolution supports the *theory* of intelligent design. Note how I call them both theories, because that's what they are. Neither are scientific fact, both are scientific theory.
they might as well be teaching kids about santa claus and leprechauns. the only intelligent designers we know of are humans, and i think we can all agree that humans didn't make ourselves and all other life on the planet.
Key phrase there "...that we know of...". We do not know everything there is to know about the universe. To think that we are the only ones in it, and especially to think that we are the only oens capable of any kind of design proves our arrogance and ignorance as a species.
until creationists ("intelligent design" people included) can demonstrate the existence of some intelligence that is consistent with the creation of life as we know it, there is no argument to be made for intelligent design.
Until the Evolutionists can demonstrate the non-existence of such intelligence, there is no argument to be made for Evolution. The argument works both ways, but apparently in the minds of Evolutionists, it does not (because after all, the majority seem to think the theory of Evolution is a scientific fact, and therefore by definition proving otherwise is not necessary).
natural selection is one part of evolution. evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population". it is comprised both of mutation and natural selection. so it's not really incorrect to say that natural selection is evolution. it's an enormous part of it.
Nice how you took that snippet out of context and didn't add the forgoing sentences or the rest of that sentence that reads "...to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
Natural Selection is a small part of evolution. The theory that all species evolved from nothing, to a single selled organism, to very complex organisms like humans involves much more than natural selection and evolution within a species. The overall Theory of Evolution goes beyond this, and beyond your short definition taken out of context. Natural Selection is proven over and over again and we can watch it happen in the lab and in nature. Species often adapt to thier environment or die because of a failure to do so. There has been no scientific proof that shows that any species can evolve into a completely new species in any amount of time.
How about the simple fact that the theory of evolution is taught as fact in many, many schools from elementary to the university level (this is certainly true in the schools in my neck of the woods). In fact it appears that in every post regarding evolution that appears here in/., many people are constantly posting about just how factual evolution is.
Give some logical, scientific explanation as to why a theory is taught as fact, and it is rare that any opposing theory is taught in parallel. In addition, explain why it is that when someone just mentions "intelligent design", they are immediately labeled as a radical, or anti-science, or with some other derogatory label.It's simply amazing how many people will watch "Stargate SG-1" (one of my favorite shows I might add) and yet if the same plot had God as the originator of the human species (or any other) in the universe, it wouldn't last a season.
Also explain to me why it is that many teenagers (and I have 3, and speaking to them and their friends I know this to be true at least in our school district) don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection. I'd also like to know how evolution has anything to do with a virus (reference the avian flu mentioned in another post) changing the way it survives according to its environment. That's natural selection, not evolution. I haven't yet seen proof that it's mutated into an actual bird yet. The confusion furthers my point about the rampant confusion and misleading of students with regard to what's evolution, what's not, what is theory, and what is fact.
As "Caesar" stresses in his article, DRM on TiVo is nothing new. There's really no point in getting steamed at TiVo about this...they're victims of DRM just as much as their customers.
Our Dish Networks DVR does not have DRM and in fact we am legally allowed to record anything we want with it (and we do all the time). It even has instructions in the manual as to how to copy recorded events to VHS (though the same instructions could be used to record to any media).
So, why then is TiVo a victim whereas Dish is not? I'd say because TiVo allowed themselves to be.
That's because viruses on Linux are so rarely reported due to their limited scope of effectiveness. Since Windows is more popular in the combined server and desktop markets, outbreaks cause significantly more damage (though I'm willing to bet the damage caused per exploited system is a far lower average than the lower volume, but higher cost server attacks that UNIXes more often suffer).
I think you are only partially correct. I think you're correct that Linux viruses are reported less often because of their "...limited scope of effectiveness." I believe you are incorrect as to the damage that is done. Because of the basic security model of UNIX type systems, viruses can only do so much harm as compared to the typical Windows system.
In addition, Windows users tend toward not being so, how to put it nicely, interested in learning the proper maintenance of their systems (hey, I'm not complaining, doing it for them pays my bills), so they tend to frequently get infected by things that don't exploit security holes in the systems but rather excess holes in the heads of the users.
Thank the industry for making people believe that the PC should be as simple as operating a toaster. I say to them "It's not. It's complex. Deal with it."
Compare to Linux in which most exploits are a result of actual security problems in either the kernel or the supporting applications, and you have less widespread attacks that affect fewer systems.
Most exploits in Windows are due to even more holes in the OS and applications..NET, ActiveX, macro languages and the power they provide all users and external entities are all major security flaws in the Windows architecture (don't take my word for it, do the research). These flaws don't exist in Linux distributions (and hopefully they never will). 99% of the security problems in UNIX type systems are due to the occasional kernel bug and stupid users running as root.
Difference in market shares, my friend. If you want to exploit a Linux system you're probably an attacker targeting a specific network and installation for a very specific purpose (making this attack something of an oddball).
Even if UNIX type systems had the market share of Windows, the basic security model would still prevent most of the wide spread, serious problems that Windows based viruses, trojans, and worms cause. In order to make a UNIX virus truly damaging, first the user must install it in the system as executable (usually a two step process at least). Then, they must either give it root privileges, or have installed it as root. Then, it must be able to access other systems it wants to infect as root, which is not normally a simple thing. With a Windows system, all one has to do is view an e-mail, and bam, it spreads like wildfire.
If you're looking to exploit a Windows system, however, you're more likely just a general Internet thug trying to install spam bots and backdoors on home machines. The latter causes more problem since the target is a much, much larger pool of users, so the latter gets more heavily reported even though the targetted attacks usually cause more on-average damage.
These attacks don't work well on UNIX type systems either because of the basic security model. When the damage causes someone to lose productivity, and it spreads to millions of computers, I wouldn't call that "on-average".
I use Open Office at work for ALL my documents, and the rest of the company uses M$ Office. I've also been using Open Office for school for going on three years for both presentations and documents (again while everyone else uses M$).At work, we regularly release customer documents in PDF, which requires a purchased program for the M$-centric folks. I can simply use a single application - Open Office.
I create my documents in native format, and when I need to have a shared version, I either convert to PDF and publish it, or save as.doc. In either case, I've never had a problem. The only problem rarely comes with IMPORTING.doc files and occasionally Power Point. Then again, I often have problems opening a.doc and.ppt file in M$ Office that was created by someone else using M$ Office.
M$ Office does not retain compatibility even between the same version. Most of the time the reason is background images, bullets (for PPT), and system fonts. Occasionally they'll be an image problem, but usually only if the creator saves images as links instead of part of the document (causing others who open the document to get broken links where the image should be). I've often had to check an M$ Office document on the target machine before I print/present it even if it's bee created/saved with the SAME version of M$ Office on a different machine. If the two machines have a different version of M$ Office, all bets are off.
Open Office on the other hand retains compatibility and exports the same every time much better. There can be a problem between Windows and Linux versions with regards to fonts and bullets, but I have never had a problem when opening a document on two different Linux machines or two different Windows machines. I've certainly never had a problem opening on two different machines running the same version.
As for HTML, anyone that uses Word, Frontpage, Open Office, or Dreamweaver for HTML documents has no business creating web content. This is especially true for Word. Word creates HTML with the most useless crap in them that I've ever seen in my life. Talk about a major waste of bandwidth. Just try to hand edit these pages in order to make a simple change from a remote shell! As for Dreamweaver - I'd call it Nightmare Creator. I've had my fill of editing Dreamweaver created pages. Open Office likes to edit your edits. I like my HTML formatted in a certain way for ease of reading/maintenance and I certainly don't need the editor deciding how I want the formatting. Frontpage - well it's yet another case of an M$ tool creating M$ centric files. The bottom line: If you're serious about creating web content that people can actually load fast, enjoy, and that is easy to maintain, do it by hand in a simple text editor.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to backup what Yonder Way said, Yes. I worked on a project for a little while that was to provide scheduled playback for Internet audio and optional video streaming. It used a MySQL database for tracking artists, program schedules, playlists for the programs, supported e-Commerce, traked where the actual audio and video streams were, etc. For playback, there are many different applications (free) that can do the job depending upon the format you wish to provide. The hardest part (not including the time for development, which is not hard, just time consuming) is selecting the various components from all the choices available.
For the inventive and those that need a solution that doesn't exist, the various video formats and protocols are published and applications can be written to provide the solution needed (which is something I had to do in part for Akamai when I worked there).
As a final note, a Linux based solution would work far better and be far more reliable than a Windows based solution (it would also provide a far better ROI and a lower TCO).
PGA
They must be stopped! They've been on a rampage! Running throught the streets killing on a whim! Last night I was jumped in a dark alley by a video game carrying a club! I was fortunate that someone heard my screams and stopped the game with a portable three-finger-salute weapon!
PGA
Now if only the game content would match the eye candy, us gamers would be in heaven.
PGA
So then it would seem to me that referencing anything illegal within any context in any format whatsoever, by the logic of the law behind this ruling, would be illegal.
There sure are a lot of libraries, books, newspapers, magazines, web sites, e-mails, and conversations out there that are breaking the law. We need more prisons to hold all the violators.
PGA
Gee, here's an interesting concept...
How about letting parents be the parents instead of giving the job to the government?
PGA
AVG for anti-virus and e-mail scanning. Also recommended for Linux systems that use Samba in a Windows network. AVG is consistently rated at or near the top of the list in reviews.
Might as well mention anti- spyware and adware applications I use as well. I've not only used these, but not one person I have recommended these to (or system I've installed them on) has ever had an infestation in 4 years. In fact some have had commercial software fail to protect their systems while these applications prevailed.
Zone Alarm
Spybot Search and Destroy
Spyware Blaster
Ad-Aware
PGA
IMEO, there is a way to fix or at least mitigate the problem. Make ISPs more responsible. The ISPs control the connections of every computer on the Internet. The technology is available (many of us have it on our own PCs and routers in the UNIX world) to block things such as e-mail with spoofed headers, port scans, repeated attempts by crackers to break into our systems, etc. The ISPs can head off most of the attacks virtually at the source. In the overall scheme of things, is trivial to disable the account of an offender. In the case of someone with a compromised system, the ISP can disable their account until they secure their system (I've had ISPs do this to people that have cause me problems on my networks). When people start losing their accounts due to their irresponsible attitude or naivete toward computer and network security, they will quickly become more responsible and knowledgeable.
If someone abuses the telephone service, it's not real difficult to have the phone company take action (and depending upon the abuse, have the offender arrested). ISPs must be forced to take the same responsibility.
The only way to stem the tide of cyber-terrorism (or whatever you'd like to call it), is to make ISPs take the responsibility to mitigate it.
PGA
There is a reason why NSA spying, a national ID and database, and other such bills and programs implemented in the name of "security" are extremely bad and should never be allowed.
There is something called precedence and case law. When something like the NSA spying is allowed to continue, unchecked, it sets a precedent. It creates a pattern and a way for government to continue on a downward spiral to remove more and more civil liberties. The Constitution and supporting documents were written in the manner and phrasing they were by careful design. Our forefathers personally experienced the kind of erosion I speak of, and they wrote our early laws in a manner such that it would be very difficult for that same thing to happen again. There is a catch though.
Every last one of them realized - again because they personally experienced it - the amount of work and effort required for a People to retain freedom and liberty. They knew that the People needed to have the absolute freedom to arm themselves because at some point government would fail to insure their freedom (either by failing to defend the nation or by taking away freedom themselves). They built in a careful system of checks and balances so that programs such as the NSA spying could not happen (at least for long) as long as the People paid attention and took appropriate action. The Executive branch is slowing removing the checks and balances, with the help of Congress, and my country is quickly once again becoming what my fathers (yes, I mean mine - they were in the Revolutionary War) fought hard to defeat.
The problem today is that the American people have become complacent and apathetic. I know many people - some of them immediate family members - that give the standard response of "It doesn't effect me. I've done nothing wrong so I see nothing wrong with it." Well, the Jews did nothing wrong either. Just who is it that decides if you've done anything wrong? Well, it used to be a jury of your peers. Today it seems to be the DoJ and other parts of the Executive branch of the government. Who will it be tomorrow?
The NSA program thus far has been nothing but a waste of taxpayer money. It is an invasion of privacy. More importantly, it is a direct violation of the Constitution and its intent and opens the door for the federal government to take away more civil rights in the future. It gives the governemt much more power than they were ever meant to have, and more than they should ever have. But, hey, it doesn't effect me, or you (you as in the collective "you" reading this post), so why fight it or complain about it? Come election time, just go right on ahead and vote for the status quo - the same politicians that have been eroding our freedom for the past 50 years. Don't be afraid, the federal government has nothing but your best interests in mind. They care nothing for power or money and power and money have never been known to cause any kind of corruption.
Paul G. Allen
Truely creative minds create and innovate not for money, but because they enjoy it. Once politics, money, corporations, and the like step in, all the fun in creating is lost. It becomes a major PITA and the creators stop creating.
Alas, this is exactly what's happening in this country (the US).
PGA
....and I don't do Windows.
PGA
You must have very limited experience then.
I have tested Linux (RH versions from RHEL to Fedora versions) against various versions of Windoze (including XP) using the same hardware. The only reason I would not choose some Linux distros for some desktops is a) if the user can not handle the installation or upgrading of applications they need (Come on OSS developers, haven't you ever heard of statically linked binaries!?) and/or b) lack of Linux support from a particular application they require.
Linux is faster than Windoze running the same applications and same games than Windoze when installed and tuned properly. Windoze can not be tuned for the computer it's running on like Linux and other FOSS can. Before you make some comment about the end using not being able to compile a kernel or tune an OS, think about how many users ever install Windoze to begin with? Most users buy an OEM system with OS installed. They never go through an install, most don't even upgrade later, and fewer even know what an OS really is let alone are capable of installing one. All this is done at the store, so having a professional tune a Linux system to run fast and efficient on the computer it's installed on is not a big deal.
As for other factors, Windoze users must have a ton of protection software installed on their system or become part of the horde of owned systems out there flooding the 'net with viruses, worms, trojans, spam, and DDoS attacks. Linux desktop systems do not need all of these applications. Not to mention anti-spy and adware applications. My brother and I have installed many Linux systems (as well as have many of the computer geeks we know) on systems for young children to senior citizens. In nearly every case they user has preferred Linux over Windoze after getting used to the slightly different look. In fact, most prefer the different look and they far prefer the configurability of that of any version of Windoze. XP is far, far, far from secure. Security of a system goes beyond just the ease of cracking it. It also applies to its susceptibility to the afore mentioned viruses, etc.
As for legacy support, well Linux has that hands down without the bloat. It's called loadable device drivers (or modules). It's called putting in only what's needed for the particular system it's installed on to run, and not all the extra crap that Windoze must add because it doesn't have loadable device drivers. It's also called the Linux community designs from the ground up, and Microsoft buys technology and squeezes it in wherever they can (AFAIK, M$ has never invented anything. It's either been purchased or otherwise acquired).
Well, I'd really like to add more, but I have work to do.
PGA
Maybe someone has pointed this out already, but I don't have the time to read the entire forum...
1. UNIX type servers tend to last longer than Windows (both hardware and software). For example, my company will be purchasing a couple of Linux servers this year and we expect them to last at least 6 years. If we bought Windows, we'd have to at least replace the OS in a couple years. I have applications that I have written that Windows simply can't handle, even on faster-than-snot hardware, but Linux handles just fine on mid-range hardware. No need to buy a new server for these, when the older machines we have work perfectly well.
2. There is no way to track the number of Linux, BSD, and other free UNIX like servers out there. There's no licensing required. This relates to (1) and (3).
3. A company can buy a Windows server and put a free UNIX type OS on it. Why buy a Windows server? Because in many cases the servers only come with Windows.
4. How many companies put their own machines together (including servers) and put their OS of choice on them? Many.
Studies on UNIX vs. Windows market share in whatever their forms, as far as I'm concerned, can't be accurate. This article does not take into account all the UNIX servers that are not purchased from the big boys, and therefore, IMEO, is not based upon an accurate representation of "Windows bumps Unix as top server OS". We won't even talk about Netcraft statistics, etc. (Need I also mention the author wrote Unix instead of UNIX, or UNIX like - Linux is NOT UNIX, but is UNIX like).
PGA
Whether it be my decision to use Linux, or my decision regarding anything else in falling under my job description or the tasks I'm given. I simply state that I was hired to do a job and trusted to make a decision or perforam a task. If you don't trust me to make that decision, or perform the task, if you don't trust my expertise, then get someone else to do it.
I have yet to be fired or let go because the powers that be either didn't trust me or decided I wasn't expert enough to make the decision or perform the task. In addition, I never make a decision without doing the proper homework to back up my decision, and I make the data to back up my position clearly available to those in charge before I implement the solution.
PGA
....How about if the government butts the hell out of our business and parents take control of their kids?! The root of the problem is the loser parents in this country, and the power hungry government is only helping to make things worse. It's not just with regard to child porn either, it's also education, teenage pregnancy, drugs, etc.
PGA (parent of four)
They do, it's called the PATRIOT Act. There's also the infamous "We're the government and we'll do whatever the hell we like" act (as evidenced by Bush signing the bill in the first place!).
PGA
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
PGA
Incorrect, you must be a politician (j/k) as they often mis-interpret or leave out sections that limit their powers as well. Note that "to regulate" has nothing to do with taxation, it has to do with the laws governing the practice in question.
Article 1, Section 9, "Limits on Congress":
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
The federal government never has had the right to tax inter-state commerce. Their taxation rights are EXTREMELY limited because the founding fathers were taxed to death. They were not going to allow this to happen again, so they limited the power of the federal government to tax the People and the States. Though the feds have the right to tax manufacturing for example, they have no right to tax the goods when they are exported from the State they were manufactured in.
They really don't have the right to impose income tax on citizens living and working in the US either, but that's another issue.
The way federal tax is supposed to work is each State counts the people in it. The State then pays a federal tax based upon the number of people in the State. That's what the Census is for (and that too has been misused by government).
PGA
States not making money from taxes imposed upon Internet purchases is a problem, I agree. On the other hand, state governments wasting (or taking advantage of) so much money is an even greater problem.
The Federal Government has the right to tax and control US imports and exports, firearms, and alcohol and nothing else. They do not have the right to tax sales between states, or impose taxation laws regarding such sales. The feds sole purpose in life is to insure the security of the States, and not control them. Whenever the feds take or are given the power to control even the smallest facet of any given state, that state, and the people in it, are then subject to yet more whims of the feds. The Constitution and governing laws of this country were carefully formed with this in mind. Over the years the People and States have lost sight of the reasons our laws were written the way they were. Now we are seeing the results of this more clearly in our f'd up tax system, the Patriot Act, DMCA, etc., etc.
The solution? I don't exactly know. What I do know is that it is up to the individual states to figure out how they will continue to function, and to stop being beholden to the feds. to do it for them. It is up to the People to make sure their states do this, and not allow the feds to continue to expand the control they were never meant to have.
PGA
While there are indeed other causes of evolution besides natural selection, it makes no sense to say "That's natural selection, not evolution" -- that's like saying "That's an automobile, not a vehicle". And your idea that evolution means that viruses turn into birds also makes no sense.
It's not my idea, don't put thoughts in my head. As the Theory of Evolution would have it, a virus could indeed turn into a bird over time. So, if that makes no sense to you, then your entire premise that Evolution is a fact makes no sense either.
In addition, any theory that is taught as fact, as many are, is completely wrong and in contrast to the scientific method and what scientists are supposed to practice in the first place. I don't care if it's Evolution, Creation, or Bob's Miraculous Conception of the Universe.
PGA
Dang it, I hit "Submit" instead of "Preview" so the formatting is hosed for the whole thing. a scientific theory is an explanatory model to account for some law or observation. it isn't the same as "theory" in every day speech, like "a hunch". furthermore, a fact is not "mathematical proof", otherwise we couldn't say that it's a fact that adolf hitler lived. it is confirmed to such a degree of certainty that there is not a reasonable doubt about it.
the general idea that all life on earth arose through a progression of self-replicating chemical systems due to the preservation of random mutations over billions of years, is most certainly a fact.
Prove it, beyond any doubt. You can't, the scientific community can't (or this discussion would not take place). None of us were there. We have no factual proof that anything took place over billions of years. Evolution is NOT a fact, it is a theory, and statements to the contrary are almost always born out of the misrepresentations given by professors and scientists when "educating" others about the theory of Evolution.
"intelligent design" advocates are labeled as utter lunatics, because they don't have any support for their beliefs.
Wrong. The same evidence that supports the theory of Evolution supports the theory of intelligent design. Note how I call them both theories, because that's what they are. Neither are scientific fact, both are scientific theory.
they might as well be teaching kids about santa claus and leprechauns. the only intelligent designers we know of are humans, and i think we can all agree that humans didn't make ourselves and all other life on the planet.
Key phrase there "...that we know of...". We do not know everything there is to know about the universe. To think that we are the only ones in it, and especially to think that we are the only oens capable of any kind of design proves our arrogance and ignorance as a species.
until creationists ("intelligent design" people included) can demonstrate the existence of some intelligence that is consistent with the creation of life as we know it, there is no argument to be made for intelligent design.
Until the Evolutionists can demonstrate the non-existence of such intelligence, there is no argument to be made for Evolution. The argument works both ways, but apparently in the minds of Evolutionists, it does not (because after all, the majority seem to think the theory of Evolution is a scientific fact, and therefore by definition proving otherwise is not necessary).
natural selection is one part of evolution. evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population". it is comprised both of mutation and natural selection. so it's not really incorrect to say that natural selection is evolution. it's an enormous part of it.
Nice how you took that snippet out of context and didn't add the forgoing sentences or the rest of that sentence that reads "...to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
Natural Selection is a small part of evolution. The theory that all species evolved from nothing, to a single selled organism, to very complex organisms like humans involves much more than natural selection and evolution within a species. The overall Theory of Evolution goes beyond this, and beyond your short definition taken out of context. Natural Selection is proven over and over again and we can watch it happen in the lab and in nature. Species often adapt to thier environment or die because of a failure to do so. We can also observe evolution within a species, but we have yet to observe, or otherwise have proof of, the evolution of one species into another. There has been no scientific proof that shows that any species can evolve into a completely new species in any amount of time.
PGA
a scientific theory is an explanatory model to account for some law or observation. it isn't the same as "theory" in every day speech, like "a hunch". furthermore, a fact is not "mathematical proof", otherwise we couldn't say that it's a fact that adolf hitler lived. it is confirmed to such a degree of certainty that there is not a reasonable doubt about it.
the general idea that all life on earth arose through a progression of self-replicating chemical systems due to the preservation of random mutations over billions of years, is most certainly a fact.
Prove it, beyond any doubt. You can't, the scientific community can't (or this discussion would not take place). None of us were there. We have no factual proof that anything took place over billions of years. Evolution is NOT a fact, it is a theory, and statements to the contrary are almost always born out of the misrepresentations given by professors and scientists when "educating" others about the theory of Evolution.
"intelligent design" advocates are labeled as utter lunatics, because they don't have any support for their beliefs.
Wrong. The same evidence that supports the *theory* of Evolution supports the *theory* of intelligent design. Note how I call them both theories, because that's what they are. Neither are scientific fact, both are scientific theory.
they might as well be teaching kids about santa claus and leprechauns. the only intelligent designers we know of are humans, and i think we can all agree that humans didn't make ourselves and all other life on the planet.
Key phrase there "...that we know of...". We do not know everything there is to know about the universe. To think that we are the only ones in it, and especially to think that we are the only oens capable of any kind of design proves our arrogance and ignorance as a species.
until creationists ("intelligent design" people included) can demonstrate the existence of some intelligence that is consistent with the creation of life as we know it, there is no argument to be made for intelligent design.
Until the Evolutionists can demonstrate the non-existence of such intelligence, there is no argument to be made for Evolution. The argument works both ways, but apparently in the minds of Evolutionists, it does not (because after all, the majority seem to think the theory of Evolution is a scientific fact, and therefore by definition proving otherwise is not necessary).
natural selection is one part of evolution. evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population". it is comprised both of mutation and natural selection. so it's not really incorrect to say that natural selection is evolution. it's an enormous part of it.
Nice how you took that snippet out of context and didn't add the forgoing sentences or the rest of that sentence that reads "...to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
Natural Selection is a small part of evolution. The theory that all species evolved from nothing, to a single selled organism, to very complex organisms like humans involves much more than natural selection and evolution within a species. The overall Theory of Evolution goes beyond this, and beyond your short definition taken out of context. Natural Selection is proven over and over again and we can watch it happen in the lab and in nature. Species often adapt to thier environment or die because of a failure to do so. There has been no scientific proof that shows that any species can evolve into a completely new species in any amount of time.
PGA
How about the simple fact that the theory of evolution is taught as fact in many, many schools from elementary to the university level (this is certainly true in the schools in my neck of the woods). In fact it appears that in every post regarding evolution that appears here in /., many people are constantly posting about just how factual evolution is.
Give some logical, scientific explanation as to why a theory is taught as fact, and it is rare that any opposing theory is taught in parallel. In addition, explain why it is that when someone just mentions "intelligent design", they are immediately labeled as a radical, or anti-science, or with some other derogatory label.It's simply amazing how many people will watch "Stargate SG-1" (one of my favorite shows I might add) and yet if the same plot had God as the originator of the human species (or any other) in the universe, it wouldn't last a season.
Also explain to me why it is that many teenagers (and I have 3, and speaking to them and their friends I know this to be true at least in our school district) don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection. I'd also like to know how evolution has anything to do with a virus (reference the avian flu mentioned in another post) changing the way it survives according to its environment. That's natural selection, not evolution. I haven't yet seen proof that it's mutated into an actual bird yet. The confusion furthers my point about the rampant confusion and misleading of students with regard to what's evolution, what's not, what is theory, and what is fact.
PGA
As "Caesar" stresses in his article, DRM on TiVo is nothing new. There's really no point in getting steamed at TiVo about this...they're victims of DRM just as much as their customers.
Our Dish Networks DVR does not have DRM and in fact we am legally allowed to record anything we want with it (and we do all the time). It even has instructions in the manual as to how to copy recorded events to VHS (though the same instructions could be used to record to any media).
So, why then is TiVo a victim whereas Dish is not? I'd say because TiVo allowed themselves to be.
PGA
That's because viruses on Linux are so rarely reported due to their limited scope of effectiveness. Since Windows is more popular in the combined server and desktop markets, outbreaks cause significantly more damage (though I'm willing to bet the damage caused per exploited system is a far lower average than the lower volume, but higher cost server attacks that UNIXes more often suffer).
.NET, ActiveX, macro languages and the power they provide all users and external entities are all major security flaws in the Windows architecture (don't take my word for it, do the research). These flaws don't exist in Linux distributions (and hopefully they never will). 99% of the security problems in UNIX type systems are due to the occasional kernel bug and stupid users running as root.
I think you are only partially correct. I think you're correct that Linux viruses are reported less often because of their "...limited scope of effectiveness." I believe you are incorrect as to the damage that is done. Because of the basic security model of UNIX type systems, viruses can only do so much harm as compared to the typical Windows system.
In addition, Windows users tend toward not being so, how to put it nicely, interested in learning the proper maintenance of their systems (hey, I'm not complaining, doing it for them pays my bills), so they tend to frequently get infected by things that don't exploit security holes in the systems but rather excess holes in the heads of the users.
Thank the industry for making people believe that the PC should be as simple as operating a toaster. I say to them "It's not. It's complex. Deal with it."
Compare to Linux in which most exploits are a result of actual security problems in either the kernel or the supporting applications, and you have less widespread attacks that affect fewer systems.
Most exploits in Windows are due to even more holes in the OS and applications.
Difference in market shares, my friend. If you want to exploit a Linux system you're probably an attacker targeting a specific network and installation for a very specific purpose (making this attack something of an oddball).
Even if UNIX type systems had the market share of Windows, the basic security model would still prevent most of the wide spread, serious problems that Windows based viruses, trojans, and worms cause. In order to make a UNIX virus truly damaging, first the user must install it in the system as executable (usually a two step process at least). Then, they must either give it root privileges, or have installed it as root. Then, it must be able to access other systems it wants to infect as root, which is not normally a simple thing. With a Windows system, all one has to do is view an e-mail, and bam, it spreads like wildfire.
If you're looking to exploit a Windows system, however, you're more likely just a general Internet thug trying to install spam bots and backdoors on home machines. The latter causes more problem since the target is a much, much larger pool of users, so the latter gets more heavily reported even though the targetted attacks usually cause more on-average damage.
These attacks don't work well on UNIX type systems either because of the basic security model. When the damage causes someone to lose productivity, and it spreads to millions of computers, I wouldn't call that "on-average".
PGA
I use Open Office at work for ALL my documents, and the rest of the company uses M$ Office. I've also been using Open Office for school for going on three years for both presentations and documents (again while everyone else uses M$).At work, we regularly release customer documents in PDF, which requires a purchased program for the M$-centric folks. I can simply use a single application - Open Office.
.doc. In either case, I've never had a problem. The only problem rarely comes with IMPORTING .doc files and occasionally Power Point. Then again, I often have problems opening a .doc and .ppt file in M$ Office that was created by someone else using M$ Office.
I create my documents in native format, and when I need to have a shared version, I either convert to PDF and publish it, or save as
M$ Office does not retain compatibility even between the same version. Most of the time the reason is background images, bullets (for PPT), and system fonts. Occasionally they'll be an image problem, but usually only if the creator saves images as links instead of part of the document (causing others who open the document to get broken links where the image should be). I've often had to check an M$ Office document on the target machine before I print/present it even if it's bee created/saved with the SAME version of M$ Office on a different machine. If the two machines have a different version of M$ Office, all bets are off.
Open Office on the other hand retains compatibility and exports the same every time much better. There can be a problem between Windows and Linux versions with regards to fonts and bullets, but I have never had a problem when opening a document on two different Linux machines or two different Windows machines. I've certainly never had a problem opening on two different machines running the same version.
As for HTML, anyone that uses Word, Frontpage, Open Office, or Dreamweaver for HTML documents has no business creating web content. This is especially true for Word. Word creates HTML with the most useless crap in them that I've ever seen in my life. Talk about a major waste of bandwidth. Just try to hand edit these pages in order to make a simple change from a remote shell! As for Dreamweaver - I'd call it Nightmare Creator. I've had my fill of editing Dreamweaver created pages. Open Office likes to edit your edits. I like my HTML formatted in a certain way for ease of reading/maintenance and I certainly don't need the editor deciding how I want the formatting. Frontpage - well it's yet another case of an M$ tool creating M$ centric files. The bottom line: If you're serious about creating web content that people can actually load fast, enjoy, and that is easy to maintain, do it by hand in a simple text editor.
PGA