If you do have shielded cable, don't ground both ends!!! Bring all cables at one end to a common ground, and let the other end float. Otherwise, you will create a ground loop and actually make the noise worse.
There are generally two schools of thought on grounding:
ground everything in a nice "tree", with no possiblity for loops
ground the @#$% out of everything
The problem with choice 1 is that the length of the return path can become long enough to become significant when compared to the frequency of the signals of interest. When this happens, your ground isn't really ground anymore.
If you want proof of this try probing a 1 GHz signal on an o-scope using a 6" ground lead, instead of the very short ground pin provided with the probe. (You'll need a multi-GHz o-scope and high frequency probe for this experiment obviously.)
A "tree" style grounding is more practical for low frequency signals, or special situations.
If you want to learn more about all of this, I recommend MIL-HDBK-217.
See sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 to start.
And that fuckload of money allows you to attend the class. Just because you pay to attend does not entitle you to an A, or even a passing grade.
Where in the FUCK did I ever imply that anyone was entitled to anything other than the grade they earned?
Try responding to what I actually wrote rather than silly straw-man arguments.
No paper, no grade. Not hard to understand, I trust?
Another straw-man. I give you a paper, you can grade it. The point of this thread is no whether or not I give YOU a paper, but who else you can give this paper to.
get that people want to protect their creative works, but if you're in a college class, you are getting something in return: a passing grade, provided you didn't plagiarize someone else's material.
And you are also paying a metric FUCKLOAD of money. It not too much to ask that the people you are paying upwards of $20,000 per year, not violate federal copyright law.
If you want to distribute my work get my permission.
Something tells me that attitudes would be quite different if this database stored the full text of academic journal papers they never bough the rights to have a copy of.
All Universities I know of require students to allow them to claim IP rights to all student generated works, invention or otherwise.
Citation please!
We're talking about undergrad papers from student who are PAYING the university.
(Work for hire doesn't come into play.)
I know I NEVER signed anything giving my alma mater rights to my work.
As the original author of the work, I provided one copy to my professors.
Creating an additional copy and providing it to a third party who will use it for commercial gain was never authorized, and would need to be. It's obviously not fair use, and as a result I expect that this ruling will not stand.
No, the statement means "the GFDL is not necessarily a free license by the definitions of OSI, Debian, etc."
This is exactly what I meant about being less than forthright.
The OPEN SOURCE INITIATIVE would be a group that determines whether a license meets their criteria as being "open source", not free. The FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION would be a group that determines whether a license meets their criteria as being "free", not open.
The OSI has published criteria to determine "openness" and the FSF has published criteria to determine "freeness".
These are two similar concepts, but there are very important differenences. (The most important of these differences, in my mind, is ideology.)
I find it had to believe that either you or the OP are not familiar with these differences.
If you or the OP want to make the argument that the license is not "free", then that argument needs to be made against a clearly defined definition of what it is to be "free". To point out that group OSI doesn't like the license, does not actually mean it's not free, since the OSI does not attempt to define what is "free software".
I'll quote Stallman here: The Free Software movement, which I founded in 1983 focuses on freedom and community, on human rights for software users. "Open source" was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things. To hush them up, to bury them, put them out of people's sight. So they talk about practical advantages that come from using the software. Well, I also talk about practical advantages in my speeches. So here's what I say [Stallman outlines a large circle with his hands], and here's what they say [Stallman outlines a smaller circle within the first circle] - except that they go into more depth on it, and that is useful, y'know. Making the case to businesses that they will get some practical advantage out of releasing their software under, usually, a Free Software licence, that's useful, but the point is it's still a more superficial part of the issue.
Go to the OSI site and search on "freedom". You won't find a defintion of "free" there and you will find a bunch of blog postings which illustrate exactly what RMS is saying.
It's got a windbaggy ideological preamble; people shouldn't be forced to put their support behind a particular politically loaded credo just because they want to contribute to WP.
It's sad how people don't understand how important ideology is.
Although GFDL can be a free license, it can also be a non-free license if you choose to use it with some of the optional parts like invariant subsections.
This statement deliberately confuses what it means to be "free". Free doesn't mean "I can do anything I want." Free means "I have all the basic freedoms required to take advantage of this data, while at the same time it is guaranteed that others will have these freedoms as well."
People really don't give the free software foundation enough credit.
If Linux was released under the BSD license it would be nothing.
It is percisely because of all those annoying restricions and windbag idealists that the project has endured.
I think bribing six jurors would be easier and cheaper anyway.
That doesn't make any sense.
On one hand:
You've got SIX people any of whom could blow the whistle and corroborate each other's stories.
These people will be actually asked to justify their positions.
A hung jury does not prevent a retrial
The jurors are most likely not members of any gov't branch
Sitting on a jury is a temporary position
On the other hand:
One person can be approached in a single person-to-person discussion. It will be person A's word against person B's.
A procedural error is just that an error. You don't have to explain why you chose to make it because it is an "accident"
A re-trial has been blocked
The prosecutor receives a paycheck from the gov't. Even if he doesn't know the guy he's prosecuting, his boss' cousin's husband probably does.
The prosecutor does have a full-time job to worry about. He does not want to hurt his career by pissing off the people who will be making decisions about it.
I don't think you're quite considering how dangerous it is to approach said persons with the prospect of a bribe. Most likely, you would just wind up sealing your fate.
I don't think you're giving this guy enough credit. He's a Senator. He's "got people". He's not going to send you a signed and dated letter offering you a bribe.
Assume you're immoral, rich and politically well connected:
You will have a third party contact the individual in a face to face meeting. The subject of the meeting will not be discussed in advance to reduce the possiblility of recordings. An offer will be made guaranteeing something like:
Minimal repercussions for the error
A seat on the board of some corporation 8 years down the road, with a ridiculous salary to match
Direct communication will never be made again. Make the error in the prescribed way and 8 years from now a stranger will suggest that they try to get a seat on the board of a certain corporation. To prove they are on the level a set of recognition symbols will be provided that will be displayed by both the person who will be responsible for assigning the repercussions of the error and an officer of the company that will be hiring. This will be something inocuous, unlikely and recognizable, like coughing exactly three times at the start of their next public appearence. A story might also be provided with a few plausible details of a previous "gentleman's agreement".
So at this point, what evidence do you have that someone just tried to bribe you?
In a democracy, gaming the system may keep you out of the pen, but merely being brought into court can see to the end of your political significance.
I doubt there's any shortage of people ready to trade their "politcal significance" for a bank account with six or more zeros at the end of it.
You'll note that a high powered telescope are not attached to most people's faces.
The thing you don't seem to get is that we're not talking about one person's eyes.
We're talking about a dozen or so high-resolution cameras streaming many thousands of images to persistent storage.
The rig they're driving around has been carefully designed to pick up MUCH more data than a "person's face" would.
TFA is about a computerized data collection system, not some guy walking around looking at stuff. The post I was responding to was defending this, not someone using "their face".
If you need a high power telescope to see something, it's not plainly viewable.
That's funny, I'd love to see where that's defined in LAW. Link please.
Somehow you think there's a major difference between driving slowly with a with a bunch of high-resolution digital cameras and staying still with one. I'd love to see the court ruling that said this.
What is really comes down to is that if a community feels that you're being an ass, the local police find something to charge you with. The argument being made here is like making the argument that just beacuse taking one "free" newspaper is legal, driving around and taking ALL the free newpapers in the city is legal.
Just because it's considered generally acceptable to take one picture from a car for your own use, does not make it acceptable to take as many pictures as you want of a specific target for commerical use.
IANAL, but anything plainly viewable from public property is not considered private.
No you're definately not a lawyer, nor did you apparently think about what you just said for longer than it took to write it.
So if I set up my high powered telescope in the park and use it to post pictures of what goes in inside your house online for my own commerical gain, that's fine with you? Do you really think that's legal?
Laws governing photography are lagging way behind the technology and they won't catch until there are topless photos of some senator's daugther sunbathing all over the internet. That said, there as still laws on the books. Someone simply can't use the excuse "I'm on public property" to photograph anything you want for commercial gain.
Look into regulations for shooting movies in certain cities for example.
Are you going to go to the web page, then tell the browser "now switch to this other code"? Probably not...
Actually, yes that's exactly what I and Stallman were referring to. It's really not difficult to imagine. Just like how I can set preference for downloading images, or opening pop-up windows on a general or ary case basis, I should be able to set parameters that control javascript execution.
An attacker need only write to your code repository
If an attacker can write to arbitrary files one your hard disk remotely, you are screwed regardless of whether your system has this feature. You still have yet to show a credible case where this reduces security since all your examples rely on the security of the system being already hopelessly broken.
Stallman's argument has been that one should distribute the source if one distributes the binary.
It's amazing that such half-assed commentary gets modded "insightful".
The source code is virtually useless without the rights to use it.
If I don't know for sure that a piece of code is under a specfic license, I have to assume the worst. That means no derivative works, no distribution, no looking at it sideways, etc. You should try actually reading what Stallman wants. Having source code availible without a proper license doesn't grant any of the four freedoms he lists.
Stallman has never been so worried about free software as he has been about promoting business models which suit his political philosophy.
I'd love to see your citation for that piece of tripe. In fact, I double dog dare you to name one person who has done more to advance the cause of free (as in freedom) software.
It's not about you attacking the bank; it's about you attacking me when I try to use the bank's services.
I don't think you understand what is being asked for.
Stallman wants a user interface control where he can say "run this other code instead". It's very hard to argue that this could create the problem you're talking about. The attacker would have to have control over your browser's user interface, meaning you're already screwed.
He is exactly right, and there is no citation for what goes on in the scene and the street.
That's nonsense.
Statistics can be compiled, just like anything else.
For example, find 100 torrents for pirated movies and count how many were filmed with a handheld camera.
It's funny how it's considered "flamebait" to point out that the OP was simply too lazy to do this and was simply picking numbers off the top of his head.
He could easily have said "In my experince...blah blah blah", but no he had to make very specific claims, which should be pretty easy to defend, but then refuse to provide anything but his word to back it up.
If I claimed that 50% of people who smoke cigarettes, die of lung cancer, one would expect me to be able to provide a reference.
And people still die in Volvos. Yes, it may be harder to do so, but the uberidiot will always find a way.
The poster implied that that using something other than Windows would have been better.
Read what you just wrote again. Driving a Volvo is safer than the Pinto. That doesn't mean you'll survive all accidents, but THAT IS NOT THE STANDARD THAT MUST BE MET FOR DRIVING THE VOLVO TO BE A BETTER CHOICE.
You completely missed the point of my post. Look up "straw-man".
(You've just re-iterated the same strawman agrument again.)
The poster implied that that using something other than Windows would have been better. I posit that this particular user would have screwed the pooch no matter what OS they were on. This was not a built-in vulnerability of Windows (of which there are many).
Spoken like someone who doesn't have much experience with other operating systems.
I would say it's been roughly six months since I've installed ANYTHING on my computer that wasn't cryptographically signed by a distribution maintainer.
People from the windows world have this idea that other operating systems look at little different, and that's about it. Most Linux distributions take a fundamentally different approach to the distribution of software, and management of installed software.
Unlike windows, you are forced to follow certain standards in order to show up in the official list of stable software. One of the things that can get you dropped is having stupid defaults, like sharing a users home directory to the whole internet by default.
Unlike windows, users for the most part stick to the stable software versions approved by their distributions.
Windows on the other hand has been continually conditioning users to click yes to "warning" dialog boxes, and software is generally downloaded directly from third parties with little or no verification. The closest thing you'll find on a typical corporate windows desktop to protect against malware is anti-virus software, which is trivial for a malware author to work around.
(In the case of a Linux distro, you need to convince an actual person to re-accept your package. In the case of AV software, you simply tweak the code until it passes through the scanner again.
6. people who think that 'anything but Windows' is automatically secure.
This is a straw man argument.
Nobody's claiming another OS is ALWAYS secure.
What they are saying is why the hell would you deliberately use an OS with a terrbile security track record that is difficult to secure.
To use the claasic "car analogy" it's like driving around in a smashed-up pinto versus a brand-new Volvo. If you're worried about surviving an accident the choice of vehicles is obvious. Even more so in the case of software since the price differential is much smaller.
The 40% number comes from Apple's product announcement....I'm going to assume that you've actually opened up the battery to verify this, right? Do you mind posting the numbers for the casing and connector
Hold on just a frinkin minute!
So you're satisfied with marketing literature for the 40% claim but you actually want part numbers and dimensions from me?
WAKE UP MAN. I'M NOT THE ONE TRYING TO SELL SOMETHING. Why don't you try reading the article?
You're posting a comment to an article where how to replace the pattery pack is described.
Did you even read it? That means that is both has a connector and a casing. They exist inside the laptop.
... and apparently you live in some fantasy world where cellphone batteries use standard connectors with readily availible part numbers and datasheets as opposed to the custom, one-of-a-kind connectors that are actually used.
What it comes down to is that using tri-wing bits to make it a bitch to remove and replace a battery does not create a weight savings, nor does adding a useless warning label.
At a bare minimum the designers could have not been assholes and used regular philips head screws.
The claim that Apple has done all of this to improve capacity, doesn't justify the silly screws and warning label.
Not running a Anti-virus is not a badge of honor. It's a invitation to consider your PC owned till proven otherwise.
AV software is like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound: too little, too late
The thing people like you seem to forget is the virus developers have access to AV software too.
As such, it really only protects you from OLD threats. As in, THINGS YOU SHOULD HAVE PATCHED BY NOW.
(I note that keeping your software updated against the latest security patches was NOT on your list.)
Think about it, it's a losing cycle. The AV vendors are always reactive. They simply can't get ahead. It's not possible. They would have to essentially solve the halting problem in order to do so.
Using software that is well designed and frequently patched for security vulnerabilities is part of a "security mindset." AV software is really a patch that somebody reaches for after they've alread put to sea in a leaky boat. It's an afterthought. An attempt to correct poor choices that were made without security in mind.
The thing is, any leader of a major country could do this with minimal problems
Minimal problems, my ass.
You're talking about an exteremly challenging technical task that would require massive resouces.
You really need to reconsider your definition of "easy".
(There's lots of ways with a low probability of success...but when you add in all the probabilities of the different ways it's no longer insignificant.)
I'd like to see your math behind this. You're making this statement as if you actually have numbers. but I'm betting that you don't, and this argument is based purely on "truthiness".
Well, if you're willing to *wait* even a small country could wipe out all life on earth.
All they need to do is sit around and do nothing unit the sun burns out or an asteriod hits the earth, unassisted. :P
Your definition of "not that difficult" is also quite amusing. As in:
"It would only require an engineering and construction effort, the likes of which the world has never seen. It's not that difficult."
So just WHAT exactly do you consider to be difficult?
The space between difficult and impossible must be very sparsely populated in your universe.
Linux has actually TWO Sane mans of Installation. RPM, DEB. (Sorry Gentoo Users, Portage doesn't cut it.)
I have personally been running Gentoo for years now.
The only time I have run an installation was because I bought a new computer.
Portage works. It works amazingly well. Not perfectly, but good enough for me and many others.
If you have some silly philisophical complaint about the way one distro does things, that doesn't make that distro "not sane."
It sounds like you don't really understand how Portage works anyways. See this link.
I started out with RPM, but it did not suit my long term needs.
Short term, it works great. In the long term, when you decide you want package foobar 3.2.2 and your distro only has RPMs for 2.9.8, you wind up doing exactly the same processes portage does, except:
-You're doing it manually
-You get stuck in dependency hell
(Now you need foolib 2.3.5, but all your other packages are built against 2.3.4 and the two versions can't coexist. So now you need to rebuild thirty packages, manually.)
Even if portage doesn't have ebuilds for foobar 3.2.2 and foolib 2.9.8, all you wind up doing is creating two new ebuilds and letting portage do the recompiliation of all the packages built against 2.9.8 for you.
I wouldn't claim RPM is "not sane" but to say that it's beyond Portage is foolish.
Both systems work for thousands of users. Both have their places.
Bullshit.
Regular water WILL rust stainless steel, as explained by other posts.
Haven't you ever left a nice stainless kitchen knife in the sink?
Water will not rust stainless steel, salt water will. This discussion is about drinking pure water. Hold the salt please.
YOU SAID EARLIER:
I know from experience that de-ionized water will rust stainless steel.
So now you have just directly contradicted yourself.
My post was simply to point out the meaninglessness or yours, and your response has been to directly contradict yourself. The point is that your post implying that deionized water is sooo bad that it will rust stainless is really not meaningful. Regular water and salt water ALSO have the potential to rust stainless.
Thus, the statement that deionized water can rust stainless does not mean much.
If you want to suggest that chemical X is bad for humans, seek out a study illustrating the effects of chemical X on humans. Misleading statements about chemical X is bad becuase it may have some effect on metal alloy Y are not a good argument.
Slashdot Mirror
There are generally two schools of thought on grounding:
The problem with choice 1 is that the length of the return path can become long enough to become significant when compared to the frequency of the signals of interest. When this happens, your ground isn't really ground anymore.
If you want proof of this try probing a 1 GHz signal on an o-scope using a 6" ground lead, instead of the very short ground pin provided with the probe. (You'll need a multi-GHz o-scope and high frequency probe for this experiment obviously.)
A "tree" style grounding is more practical for low frequency signals, or special situations.
If you want to learn more about all of this, I recommend MIL-HDBK-217.
See sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 to start.
And that fuckload of money allows you to attend the class. Just because you pay to attend does not entitle you to an A, or even a passing grade.
Where in the FUCK did I ever imply that anyone was entitled to anything other than the grade they earned?
Try responding to what I actually wrote rather than silly straw-man arguments.
No paper, no grade. Not hard to understand, I trust?
Another straw-man. I give you a paper, you can grade it. The point of this thread is no whether or not I give YOU a paper, but who else you can give this paper to.
get that people want to protect their creative works, but if you're in a college class, you are getting something in return: a passing grade, provided you didn't plagiarize someone else's material.
And you are also paying a metric FUCKLOAD of money. It not too much to ask that the people you are paying upwards of $20,000 per year, not violate federal copyright law.
If you want to distribute my work get my permission.
Something tells me that attitudes would be quite different if this database stored the full text of academic journal papers they never bough the rights to have a copy of.
All Universities I know of require students to allow them to claim IP rights to all student generated works, invention or otherwise.
Citation please!
We're talking about undergrad papers from student who are PAYING the university.
(Work for hire doesn't come into play.)
I know I NEVER signed anything giving my alma mater rights to my work.
As the original author of the work, I provided one copy to my professors.
Creating an additional copy and providing it to a third party who will use it for commercial gain was never authorized, and would need to be. It's obviously not fair use, and as a result I expect that this ruling will not stand.
No, the statement means "the GFDL is not necessarily a free license by the definitions of OSI, Debian, etc."
This is exactly what I meant about being less than forthright.
The OPEN SOURCE INITIATIVE would be a group that determines whether a license meets their criteria as being "open source", not free. The FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION would be a group that determines whether a license meets their criteria as being "free", not open.
The OSI has published criteria to determine "openness" and the FSF has published criteria to determine "freeness".
These are two similar concepts, but there are very important differenences. (The most important of these differences, in my mind, is ideology.)
I find it had to believe that either you or the OP are not familiar with these differences.
If you or the OP want to make the argument that the license is not "free", then that argument needs to be made against a clearly defined definition of what it is to be "free". To point out that group OSI doesn't like the license, does not actually mean it's not free, since the OSI does not attempt to define what is "free software".
I'll quote Stallman here:
The Free Software movement, which I founded in 1983 focuses on freedom and community, on human rights for software users. "Open source" was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things. To hush them up, to bury them, put them out of people's sight. So they talk about practical advantages that come from using the software. Well, I also talk about practical advantages in my speeches. So here's what I say [Stallman outlines a large circle with his hands], and here's what they say [Stallman outlines a smaller circle within the first circle] - except that they go into more depth on it, and that is useful, y'know. Making the case to businesses that they will get some practical advantage out of releasing their software under, usually, a Free Software licence, that's useful, but the point is it's still a more superficial part of the issue.
Go to the OSI site and search on "freedom". You won't find a defintion of "free" there and you will find a bunch of blog postings which illustrate exactly what RMS is saying.
It's got a windbaggy ideological preamble; people shouldn't be forced to put their support behind a particular politically loaded credo just because they want to contribute to WP.
It's sad how people don't understand how important ideology is.
Although GFDL can be a free license, it can also be a non-free license if you choose to use it with some of the optional parts like invariant subsections.
This statement deliberately confuses what it means to be "free". Free doesn't mean "I can do anything I want." Free means "I have all the basic freedoms required to take advantage of this data, while at the same time it is guaranteed that others will have these freedoms as well."
People really don't give the free software foundation enough credit.
If Linux was released under the BSD license it would be nothing.
It is percisely because of all those annoying restricions and windbag idealists that the project has endured.
That doesn't make any sense.
On one hand:
On the other hand:
I don't think you're quite considering how dangerous it is to approach said persons with the prospect of a bribe. Most likely, you would just wind up sealing your fate.
I don't think you're giving this guy enough credit. He's a Senator. He's "got people". He's not going to send you a signed and dated letter offering you a bribe.
Assume you're immoral, rich and politically well connected:
You will have a third party contact the individual in a face to face meeting. The subject of the meeting will not be discussed in advance to reduce the possiblility of recordings. An offer will be made guaranteeing something like:
Direct communication will never be made again. Make the error in the prescribed way and 8 years from now a stranger will suggest that they try to get a seat on the board of a certain corporation. To prove they are on the level a set of recognition symbols will be provided that will be displayed by both the person who will be responsible for assigning the repercussions of the error and an officer of the company that will be hiring. This will be something inocuous, unlikely and recognizable, like coughing exactly three times at the start of their next public appearence. A story might also be provided with a few plausible details of a previous "gentleman's agreement".
So at this point, what evidence do you have that someone just tried to bribe you?
In a democracy, gaming the system may keep you out of the pen, but merely being brought into court can see to the end of your political significance.
I doubt there's any shortage of people ready to trade their "politcal significance" for a bank account with six or more zeros at the end of it.
You'll note that a high powered telescope are not attached to most people's faces.
The thing you don't seem to get is that we're not talking about one person's eyes.
We're talking about a dozen or so high-resolution cameras streaming many thousands of images to persistent storage.
The rig they're driving around has been carefully designed to pick up MUCH more data than a "person's face" would.
TFA is about a computerized data collection system, not some guy walking around looking at stuff. The post I was responding to was defending this, not someone using "their face".
If you need a high power telescope to see something, it's not plainly viewable.
That's funny, I'd love to see where that's defined in LAW. Link please.
Somehow you think there's a major difference between driving slowly with a with a bunch of high-resolution digital cameras and staying still with one. I'd love to see the court ruling that said this.
What is really comes down to is that if a community feels that you're being an ass, the local police find something to charge you with. The argument being made here is like making the argument that just beacuse taking one "free" newspaper is legal, driving around and taking ALL the free newpapers in the city is legal.
Just because it's considered generally acceptable to take one picture from a car for your own use, does not make it acceptable to take as many pictures as you want of a specific target for commerical use.
IANAL, but anything plainly viewable from public property is not considered private.
No you're definately not a lawyer, nor did you apparently think about what you just said for longer than it took to write it.
So if I set up my high powered telescope in the park and use it to post pictures of what goes in inside your house online for my own commerical gain, that's fine with you? Do you really think that's legal?
Laws governing photography are lagging way behind the technology and they won't catch until there are topless photos of some senator's daugther sunbathing all over the internet. That said, there as still laws on the books. Someone simply can't use the excuse "I'm on public property" to photograph anything you want for commercial gain.
Look into regulations for shooting movies in certain cities for example.
Are you going to go to the web page, then tell the browser "now switch to this other code"? Probably not...
Actually, yes that's exactly what I and Stallman were referring to. It's really not difficult to imagine. Just like how I can set preference for downloading images, or opening pop-up windows on a general or ary case basis, I should be able to set parameters that control javascript execution.
An attacker need only write to your code repository
If an attacker can write to arbitrary files one your hard disk remotely, you are screwed regardless of whether your system has this feature. You still have yet to show a credible case where this reduces security since all your examples rely on the security of the system being already hopelessly broken.
Stallman's argument has been that one should distribute the source if one distributes the binary.
It's amazing that such half-assed commentary gets modded "insightful".
The source code is virtually useless without the rights to use it.
If I don't know for sure that a piece of code is under a specfic license, I have to assume the worst. That means no derivative works, no distribution, no looking at it sideways, etc. You should try actually reading what Stallman wants. Having source code availible without a proper license doesn't grant any of the four freedoms he lists.
Stallman has never been so worried about free software as he has been about promoting business models which suit his political philosophy.
I'd love to see your citation for that piece of tripe. In fact, I double dog dare you to name one person who has done more to advance the cause of free (as in freedom) software.
It's not about you attacking the bank; it's about you attacking me when I try to use the bank's services.
I don't think you understand what is being asked for.
Stallman wants a user interface control where he can say "run this other code instead". It's very hard to argue that this could create the problem you're talking about. The attacker would have to have control over your browser's user interface, meaning you're already screwed.
He is exactly right, and there is no citation for what goes on in the scene and the street.
That's nonsense.
Statistics can be compiled, just like anything else.
For example, find 100 torrents for pirated movies and count how many were filmed with a handheld camera.
It's funny how it's considered "flamebait" to point out that the OP was simply too lazy to do this and was simply picking numbers off the top of his head.
He could easily have said "In my experince...blah blah blah", but no he had to make very specific claims, which should be pretty easy to defend, but then refuse to provide anything but his word to back it up.
If I claimed that 50% of people who smoke cigarettes, die of lung cancer, one would expect me to be able to provide a reference.
Well, outside of Oscar season the percentage of early-run pirated movies which are from in-theater cameras approaches 100%.
Citation please.
This smacks of someone just making up crap to support their viewpoint.
And people still die in Volvos. Yes, it may be harder to do so, but the uberidiot will always find a way. The poster implied that that using something other than Windows would have been better.
Read what you just wrote again. Driving a Volvo is safer than the Pinto. That doesn't mean you'll survive all accidents, but THAT IS NOT THE STANDARD THAT MUST BE MET FOR DRIVING THE VOLVO TO BE A BETTER CHOICE.
You completely missed the point of my post. Look up "straw-man".
(You've just re-iterated the same strawman agrument again.)
The poster implied that that using something other than Windows would have been better. I posit that this particular user would have screwed the pooch no matter what OS they were on. This was not a built-in vulnerability of Windows (of which there are many).
Spoken like someone who doesn't have much experience with other operating systems.
I would say it's been roughly six months since I've installed ANYTHING on my computer that wasn't cryptographically signed by a distribution maintainer.
People from the windows world have this idea that other operating systems look at little different, and that's about it.
Most Linux distributions take a fundamentally different approach to the distribution of software, and management of installed software.
Unlike windows, you are forced to follow certain standards in order to show up in the official list of stable software. One of the things that can get you dropped is having stupid defaults, like sharing a users home directory to the whole internet by default.
Unlike windows, users for the most part stick to the stable software versions approved by their distributions.
Windows on the other hand has been continually conditioning users to click yes to "warning" dialog boxes, and software is generally downloaded directly from third parties with little or no verification. The closest thing you'll find on a typical corporate windows desktop to protect against malware is anti-virus software, which is trivial for a malware author to work around.
(In the case of a Linux distro, you need to convince an actual person to re-accept your package. In the case of AV software, you simply tweak the code until it passes through the scanner again.
6. people who think that 'anything but Windows' is automatically secure.
This is a straw man argument.
Nobody's claiming another OS is ALWAYS secure.
What they are saying is why the hell would you deliberately use an OS with a terrbile security track record that is difficult to secure.
To use the claasic "car analogy" it's like driving around in a smashed-up pinto versus a brand-new Volvo. If you're worried about surviving an accident the choice of vehicles is obvious. Even more so in the case of software since the price differential is much smaller.
The 40% number comes from Apple's product announcement....I'm going to assume that you've actually opened up the battery to verify this, right? Do you mind posting the numbers for the casing and connector Hold on just a frinkin minute!
... and apparently you live in some fantasy world where cellphone batteries use standard connectors with readily availible part numbers and datasheets as opposed to the custom, one-of-a-kind connectors that are actually used.
So you're satisfied with marketing literature for the 40% claim but you actually want part numbers and dimensions from me?
WAKE UP MAN. I'M NOT THE ONE TRYING TO SELL SOMETHING.
Why don't you try reading the article?
You're posting a comment to an article where how to replace the pattery pack is described.
Did you even read it? That means that is both has a connector and a casing. They exist inside the laptop.
What it comes down to is that using tri-wing bits to make it a bitch to remove and replace a battery does not create a weight savings, nor does adding a useless warning label.
At a bare minimum the designers could have not been assholes and used regular philips head screws.
The claim that Apple has done all of this to improve capacity, doesn't justify the silly screws and warning label.
by making the battery completely internal they save enough space to increase the battery size by 40%
Citation please.
I would believe 10%. 40% sounds like a bunch of crap.
For example, the amount of space used by the casing and connector on my cellphone battery is miniscule.
This design choice sounds like removing the ability to change the wiper blades from a car as a "weight reduction" measure.
Not running a Anti-virus is not a badge of honor. It's a invitation to consider your PC owned till proven otherwise.
AV software is like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound: too little, too late
The thing people like you seem to forget is the virus developers have access to AV software too.
As such, it really only protects you from OLD threats. As in, THINGS YOU SHOULD HAVE PATCHED BY NOW.
(I note that keeping your software updated against the latest security patches was NOT on your list.)
Think about it, it's a losing cycle. The AV vendors are always reactive. They simply can't get ahead. It's not possible. They would have to essentially solve the halting problem in order to do so.
Using software that is well designed and frequently patched for security vulnerabilities is part of a "security mindset." AV software is really a patch that somebody reaches for after they've alread put to sea in a leaky boat. It's an afterthought. An attempt to correct poor choices that were made without security in mind.
The thing is, any leader of a major country could do this with minimal problems
Minimal problems, my ass.
You're talking about an exteremly challenging technical task that would require massive resouces.
You really need to reconsider your definition of "easy".
(There's lots of ways with a low probability of success...but when you add in all the probabilities of the different ways it's no longer insignificant.)
I'd like to see your math behind this. You're making this statement as if you actually have numbers. but I'm betting that you don't, and this argument is based purely on "truthiness".
Well, if you're willing to *wait* even a small country could wipe out all life on earth.
:P
All they need to do is sit around and do nothing unit the sun burns out or an asteriod hits the earth, unassisted.
Your definition of "not that difficult" is also quite amusing. As in:
"It would only require an engineering and construction effort, the likes of which the world has never seen. It's not that difficult."
So just WHAT exactly do you consider to be difficult?
The space between difficult and impossible must be very sparsely populated in your universe.
Linux has actually TWO Sane mans of Installation. RPM, DEB. (Sorry Gentoo Users, Portage doesn't cut it.)
I have personally been running Gentoo for years now.
The only time I have run an installation was because I bought a new computer.
Portage works. It works amazingly well. Not perfectly, but good enough for me and many others.
If you have some silly philisophical complaint about the way one distro does things, that doesn't make that distro "not sane."
It sounds like you don't really understand how Portage works anyways. See this link.
I started out with RPM, but it did not suit my long term needs.
Short term, it works great. In the long term, when you decide you want package foobar 3.2.2 and your distro only has RPMs for 2.9.8, you wind up doing exactly the same processes portage does, except:
-You're doing it manually
-You get stuck in dependency hell
(Now you need foolib 2.3.5, but all your other packages are built against 2.3.4 and the two versions can't coexist. So now you need to rebuild thirty packages, manually.)
Even if portage doesn't have ebuilds for foobar 3.2.2 and foolib 2.9.8, all you wind up doing is creating two new ebuilds and letting portage do the recompiliation of all the packages built against 2.9.8 for you.
I wouldn't claim RPM is "not sane" but to say that it's beyond Portage is foolish.
Both systems work for thousands of users. Both have their places.
Unfortunately, that is incorrect.
Bullshit.
Regular water WILL rust stainless steel, as explained by other posts.
Haven't you ever left a nice stainless kitchen knife in the sink?
Water will not rust stainless steel, salt water will. This discussion is about drinking pure water. Hold the salt please.
YOU SAID EARLIER:
I know from experience that de-ionized water will rust stainless steel.
So now you have just directly contradicted yourself.
My post was simply to point out the meaninglessness or yours, and your response has been to directly contradict yourself. The point is that your post implying that deionized water is sooo bad that it will rust stainless is really not meaningful. Regular water and salt water ALSO have the potential to rust stainless.
Thus, the statement that deionized water can rust stainless does not mean much.
If you want to suggest that chemical X is bad for humans, seek out a study illustrating the effects of chemical X on humans. Misleading statements about chemical X is bad becuase it may have some effect on metal alloy Y are not a good argument.
I know from experience that de-ionized water will rust stainless steel.
"Regular" water will rust stainless steel. This statement is meaningless.
Look at a sailboat sometime. They deliberately use no stainless below the water line, yet there are plenty of ions.