Airport security is trying to protect your life. IDs are an important part of that. If you want to be an extremist libertarian nutjob, go build a shack in the woods and read Ayn Rand to the squirrels.
This guy is wasting everyone's time, and the main product is just getting more attention for himself. I'm all for civil liberties, but this guy is distracting people from doing their jobs -- namely, again, keeping bad people off planes.
I doubt this guy wants to do anyone harm. But if he gets his way, and randoms are allowed on planes without any ID, then security is going to be a LOT harder.
I used to like airports. They were like temples of technology and accomplishment. You could go there and just watch airplanes mill around. Now, because some asshats used them as weapons, they're basically like Checkpoint Charlie.
John Gilmore needs to realize that law and security is a balancing act. And he's adopted an extremist, unrealistic viewpoint.
Umm, I've seen the Quake 2 source code (it's available under GPL). Both the Quake 2 server and client are FILLED with security holes. Basically, there's no security whatsoever -- there are so many buffer overruns that there isn't any point in even enumerating them. I seriously doubt Quake 3 patched ALL of them.
On the other hand, the problem he's talking about with ActiveX is known, up front -- it's a DESIGN flaw, everyone knows about it, because it was freakin' DESIGNED that way. That's why ActiveX controls are signed. Nobody who builds ActiveX controls has any illusions about the security model. It's a totally binary security model -- you either trust the code completely, or not at all.
I'm not saying ActiveX is a good design -- far from it. Java is a far better model for secure mobile code. But this guy is a total hypocrite -- the products he has worked on are security NIGHTMARES. Anyone who wants to verify this can download the Quake 2 source code. Quake 3 has a similar, though slightly less drastic, history on security holes.
Tell me how you are going to prevent an unknowledgable user from running a program he or she doesn't know is spyware?
Until we are running ALL code in rights-controlled sandboxes (think Java security applied to everything), there will ALWAYS be an opening for spyware. The general population of computer users are just that -- USERS, not geeks, not administrators, not programmers. Software like this protects these people, and it is a Good Thing.
1) Microsoft releases an open-source product.
2) Slashdot weenies piss and moan.
3) I point out what a fuckwit the poster was.
4) Another fuckwit pisses and moans.
FOAD, idiot.
This is an outright LIE. XP will NEVER intentionally spontaneously reboot.
The kernel-mode error checking is MORE STRICT in XP than it was in Windows 2000. In other words, if Windows or a driver does something stupid, a BSOD is more likely to occur -- which is a good thing, because if an error DOES occur, you want to know about it.
Microsoft provides Driver Verifier for all 3rd parties who are developing device drivers, and they are required to use it in order to validate their drivers before getting certified.
This is just more UNIX FUD and LIES. Why is it acceptable to say "I've never run WinXP" when WRITING about XP, which is equivalent to saying "I DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY."
If you are ignorant, then SHUT THE HELL UP or go get educated about it first.
Who here has never seen a UNIX box panic? Or spontaneously reboot? Anyone who thinks that kernel faults are a unique feature of Windows doesn't know JACK SHIT about UNIX, or operating systems in general.
Yet more proof that Slashdot is more about UNIX snobbery than anything else.
Read the guy's post. ORDINARY people don't know what the fuck "./configure && make && make install" is. And they sure as hell won't know what to do if something goes wrong. (And don't EVEN tell me nothing can go wrong. I've used UNIX for so long I'll never believe that bullshit.)
Who's being arrogant now? Someone who thinks that only elite UNIX weenies should be able to use computers? At least my mom can go out, buy a piece of software, and install it without being treated like she isn't WORTHY of using your precious fucking OS.
And tuffy, if you think that *nothing* flows over the X11 network socket, even for local displays, then you obviously don't know a damn thing about X.
The X shared memory extension moves *some*, but not all, data over the shared memory section. A lot is still moved over the pipe, and the pipe is the "logical" network session.
Ummmmm, how is this superior to Windows or Mac OS X? Which have both had this for many years?
X has been around longer than Windows. And it JUST NOW has a feature that has been around for years on Windows. Why is it that OSS weenies jump up and down when a tiny feature like this finally arrives for X, when non-OSS has had this for years, and act like OSS just pulled a rabbit out of its hat?
I will, of course, be modded into obscurity by OSS weenies, who will be offended by reality. So be it.
Physical goods, especially those that can only be produced by really sophisticated processes (chips, mobos, etc.) are definitely not free. They CANNOT be free.
This is just a euphemism for some other marketing bullshit. And besides -- what's wrong with paying for your hardware? Computers are ridiculously cheap. $600 gets you a very decent system. Be an adult and pay for what you take.
E-bikes are hardly "green". Batteries contain all sorts of evil chemicals. And they have to be charged, of course -- and in China, that probably means a coal-fired power-plant.
China already HAS "green" bikes. They have Chinese engines. You know, the kind with legs.
If this is considered "fascinating" or "new", then this just tells us that the Slashdot editors / submitters are easily amused, and/or have really short memories.
This was a crappy idea 5 years ago, when I first heard about it. I don't see how it could have improved since then.
I'm glad the Linux community is wasting time on trivial crap like this. Please continue to do so, while the rest of the world does something useful. Like building and selling useful software.
I'm a former 'softie, and I hate to see people without half a neuron speaking for the company. Microsoft has a lot of good people, and a lot of good products. I just can't figure out why they let IDIOTS speak for the company so often.
Who writes this bullshit? The "phone system" is definitely NOT "maxed out". In the 1990s, telcos put many, many miles of fiber in the ground, and in general increased the capacity of their switching stations. At the same time, research in fiber optics lead allowed them to increase the bandwidth of EXISTING cables.
The long-haul telcos are sitting on far, far more bandwidth than they have consumers for. That's why the telco industry has been in a slump for years -- they invested tons of money in capacity (during the.com booom), and now there isn't ENOUGH demand for it.
Yes, we would all like to have 100Mb/s to the desktop. However, part of being an adult is realizing that wishing doesn't get you jack shit. Money does.
The tax is not a monetary tax. It's a MIPS tax. Anyone who wants to send legitimate email will have the opportunity to do, with virtually no impact on how they do it. The sender must run an algorithm - insted of buying a stamp.
The only people affected (besides the obviuos spammers) will be those wo run large email redistribution lists. I'm sure that accomodatiosn will be made for em.
Integer and floating point math are really very similar, between native compiled languages (like C/C++) and managed languages (like Java/C#/VB.Net/etc.).
This benchmark really isn't very useful, at least as a comparison to see if managed languages are "ready" for real development work.
A much better benchmark should include realistic use of dynamic memory allocation (free/malloc vs. new/gc), arrays, etc. This is where managed/unmanaged languages really crucially differ.
Uhhh, you're wrong on the NAT claim. XP has provided a NAT from day 1. It's called Internet Connection Sharing, and it is totally integrated into the XP firewall (Internet Connection Firewall).
And it DOES have protocol helpers for H.323. I should know -- I was the dev lead on that team. Think before you just mumble.
Anyone who needs GRE- or AH-specific functionality knows where to find it. ICS/ICF is targeted at home users, and it does that job very well. There will always be a market for super-fancy firewalls. But for the vast majority of people, XP's does the trick.
Slashdot Mirror
What an unrealistic dick.
Airport security is trying to protect your life. IDs are an important part of that. If you want to be an extremist libertarian nutjob, go build a shack in the woods and read Ayn Rand to the squirrels.
This guy is wasting everyone's time, and the main product is just getting more attention for himself. I'm all for civil liberties, but this guy is distracting people from doing their jobs -- namely, again, keeping bad people off planes.
I doubt this guy wants to do anyone harm. But if he gets his way, and randoms are allowed on planes without any ID, then security is going to be a LOT harder.
I used to like airports. They were like temples of technology and accomplishment. You could go there and just watch airplanes mill around. Now, because some asshats used them as weapons, they're basically like Checkpoint Charlie.
John Gilmore needs to realize that law and security is a balancing act. And he's adopted an extremist, unrealistic viewpoint.
Umm, I've seen the Quake 2 source code (it's available under GPL). Both the Quake 2 server and client are FILLED with security holes. Basically, there's no security whatsoever -- there are so many buffer overruns that there isn't any point in even enumerating them. I seriously doubt Quake 3 patched ALL of them.
On the other hand, the problem he's talking about with ActiveX is known, up front -- it's a DESIGN flaw, everyone knows about it, because it was freakin' DESIGNED that way. That's why ActiveX controls are signed. Nobody who builds ActiveX controls has any illusions about the security model. It's a totally binary security model -- you either trust the code completely, or not at all.
I'm not saying ActiveX is a good design -- far from it. Java is a far better model for secure mobile code. But this guy is a total hypocrite -- the products he has worked on are security NIGHTMARES. Anyone who wants to verify this can download the Quake 2 source code. Quake 3 has a similar, though slightly less drastic, history on security holes.
Tell me how you are going to prevent an unknowledgable user from running a program he or she doesn't know is spyware?
Until we are running ALL code in rights-controlled sandboxes (think Java security applied to everything), there will ALWAYS be an opening for spyware. The general population of computer users are just that -- USERS, not geeks, not administrators, not programmers. Software like this protects these people, and it is a Good Thing.
Patches are hard to get? You mean you are too lazy to click the Start button, and move the mouse up to the strange words that say "Windows Update"???
You're too lazy to go to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/ ?
What's the matter with people?
That's the stupidest thing I've read all day long. And I've been reading POLITICS all day long.
1) Microsoft releases an open-source product. 2) Slashdot weenies piss and moan. 3) I point out what a fuckwit the poster was. 4) Another fuckwit pisses and moans. FOAD, idiot.
Idiot. Microsoft releases an open-source project, and all you can do is draw drug-dealer analogies. Slashdot... mindless as ever.
This is an outright LIE. XP will NEVER intentionally spontaneously reboot.
The kernel-mode error checking is MORE STRICT in XP than it was in Windows 2000. In other words, if Windows or a driver does something stupid, a BSOD is more likely to occur -- which is a good thing, because if an error DOES occur, you want to know about it.
Microsoft provides Driver Verifier for all 3rd parties who are developing device drivers, and they are required to use it in order to validate their drivers before getting certified.
This is just more UNIX FUD and LIES. Why is it acceptable to say "I've never run WinXP" when WRITING about XP, which is equivalent to saying "I DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY."
If you are ignorant, then SHUT THE HELL UP or go get educated about it first.
Who here has never seen a UNIX box panic? Or spontaneously reboot? Anyone who thinks that kernel faults are a unique feature of Windows doesn't know JACK SHIT about UNIX, or operating systems in general.
Yet more proof that Slashdot is more about UNIX snobbery than anything else.
Read the guy's post. ORDINARY people don't know what the fuck "./configure && make && make install" is. And they sure as hell won't know what to do if something goes wrong. (And don't EVEN tell me nothing can go wrong. I've used UNIX for so long I'll never believe that bullshit.)
Who's being arrogant now? Someone who thinks that only elite UNIX weenies should be able to use computers? At least my mom can go out, buy a piece of software, and install it without being treated like she isn't WORTHY of using your precious fucking OS.
He isn't trolling. He's telling the truth.
And tuffy, if you think that *nothing* flows over the X11 network socket, even for local displays, then you obviously don't know a damn thing about X.
The X shared memory extension moves *some*, but not all, data over the shared memory section. A lot is still moved over the pipe, and the pipe is the "logical" network session.
Ummmmm, how is this superior to Windows or Mac OS X? Which have both had this for many years?
X has been around longer than Windows. And it JUST NOW has a feature that has been around for years on Windows. Why is it that OSS weenies jump up and down when a tiny feature like this finally arrives for X, when non-OSS has had this for years, and act like OSS just pulled a rabbit out of its hat?
I will, of course, be modded into obscurity by OSS weenies, who will be offended by reality. So be it.
This is pure fantasy bullshit.
Physical goods, especially those that can only be produced by really sophisticated processes (chips, mobos, etc.) are definitely not free. They CANNOT be free.
This is just a euphemism for some other marketing bullshit. And besides -- what's wrong with paying for your hardware? Computers are ridiculously cheap. $600 gets you a very decent system. Be an adult and pay for what you take.
E-bikes are hardly "green". Batteries contain all sorts of evil chemicals. And they have to be charged, of course -- and in China, that probably means a coal-fired power-plant.
China already HAS "green" bikes. They have Chinese engines. You know, the kind with legs.
If this is considered "fascinating" or "new", then this just tells us that the Slashdot editors / submitters are easily amused, and/or have really short memories.
This was a crappy idea 5 years ago, when I first heard about it. I don't see how it could have improved since then.
You are wrong, wrong, WRONG.
* You can go to AutoDesk's web site and request a FREE trial version of AutoCAD 2004.
* You can buy an academic license for Visual Studio (including VB) for less than a hundred bucks.
* You can learn SQL by using MySQL for free.
There are LEGITIMATE ways to learn things without stealing them.
Piracy is theft. Period. They deserve everything that is happening to them.
Just because you want something, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
I'm glad the Linux community is wasting time on trivial crap like this. Please continue to do so, while the rest of the world does something useful. Like building and selling useful software.
Yeah, I have some advice. Get a freakin clue. Subliminal messaging doesn't do jack shit.
I'm a former 'softie, and I hate to see people without half a neuron speaking for the company. Microsoft has a lot of good people, and a lot of good products. I just can't figure out why they let IDIOTS speak for the company so often.
Who writes this bullshit? The "phone system" is definitely NOT "maxed out". In the 1990s, telcos put many, many miles of fiber in the ground, and in general increased the capacity of their switching stations. At the same time, research in fiber optics lead allowed them to increase the bandwidth of EXISTING cables.
.com booom), and now there isn't ENOUGH demand for it.
The long-haul telcos are sitting on far, far more bandwidth than they have consumers for. That's why the telco industry has been in a slump for years -- they invested tons of money in capacity (during the
Yes, we would all like to have 100Mb/s to the desktop. However, part of being an adult is realizing that wishing doesn't get you jack shit. Money does.
The tax is not a monetary tax. It's a MIPS tax. Anyone who wants to send legitimate email will have the opportunity to do, with virtually no impact on how they do it. The sender must run an algorithm - insted of buying a stamp. The only people affected (besides the obviuos spammers) will be those wo run large email redistribution lists. I'm sure that accomodatiosn will be made for em.
Integer and floating point math are really very similar, between native compiled languages (like C/C++) and managed languages (like Java/C#/VB.Net/etc.).
This benchmark really isn't very useful, at least as a comparison to see if managed languages are "ready" for real development work.
A much better benchmark should include realistic use of dynamic memory allocation (free/malloc vs. new/gc), arrays, etc. This is where managed/unmanaged languages really crucially differ.
I was on the MS ICS/ICF team. I can guarantee that ALL of it was developed solely by Microsoft, from the ground up.
You paranoid, greedy, dirty hippies should get a life. Firewalls and NATs have been around long before Linux, GNU, etc.
Uhhh, you're wrong on the NAT claim. XP has provided a NAT from day 1. It's called Internet Connection Sharing, and it is totally integrated into the XP firewall (Internet Connection Firewall).
And it DOES have protocol helpers for H.323. I should know -- I was the dev lead on that team. Think before you just mumble.
Anyone who needs GRE- or AH-specific functionality knows where to find it. ICS/ICF is targeted at home users, and it does that job very well. There will always be a market for super-fancy firewalls. But for the vast majority of people, XP's does the trick.