Come on. Apple only did that so they could sell more than their competitors and help put them all out of business. It had nothing to do with the idea of DRM being evil--Apple is all about DRM! Apple IS all about control, and as they emphasize iOS and their app store--which are fundamentally based on DRM--they are moving towards more control for them and less freedom for their users. They also patent everything in sight, whether it's original or not, and use that to stifle competition.
Fact is, as good as their products are (I have an iPhone 4, and had a 3G, but I don't plan to support them with anymore of my business), at their core they are fueled by greed, and they are evil. They're no better than Microsoft in their business practices--they're just as immoral--they simply make much better products.
I think you're being hypocritical: you are the fanboy.
Isn't it decentralized? Seems to me like it might fit the bill for a LAN.
However, for a WLAN, all the bandwidth is shared, so I'm not sure having a P2P swarm would be any faster than simply using a Samba share. Ethernet, perhaps.
Actually, I never mentioned Ars Technica--you did.
Actually, my typo was not in the Python code, but in the shebang. It's a Unix thing. The Python code works "JUST FINE".
Please explain which Python exceptions your code could raise.
Please explain how quoting me backwards makes me look bad. I think it makes you look silly and childish.
Please explain how typing in ALtErNaTiNG CaPs makes you appear mature.
I have a challenge for you: Write a reply: 1) without using bold text, 2) without using alternating caps, 3) without using @'s or ampersands, 4) without using horizontal lines, 5) without a postscript (those make no sense online because you can backspace--they are for paper correspondence where one can't change what he's written), 6) without claiming or insinuating that you are a superior being. In other words, write without vitriol, without hyperbole, without insults--the way a normal, reasonable person would write. I am skeptical that you can even do it.
By the way, what drugs do you use, and how long have you been using?
Sounds nice. How will you infect the binary that's used to build all the software in a distro's main public repo? Keep in mind that many of them, like Launchpad's build service, build in freshly-extracted chroots, which are built from packages from the main public repo.
Again, you're back to compromising the distro's main repos. That's probably not impossible, but it would probably boil down to an unpatched remotely-exploitable vulnerability in the server software. Those are patched whenever they are found, and on such important systems, I'm sure they have IDSes that wouldn't allow anyone to spend so much time pentesting. The attack window would be very small and you'd need a fair bit of luck to find it in time.
Theories are easy to think of but proving one to be practical is difficult. Linux systems are fundamentally more secure by design, and their record proves it, as well.
Local privilege escalation? If you have physical access to the machine, you don't need a local privilege escalation. Sheesh, you don't even need a malicious repo, just install your malware directly.
You'd need a remote privilege escalation in order to install malicious repos on other systems. But if you have such access, why bother? Just install the malware directly.
The only reasonable route to such an attack would be to compromise existing repos, and I already explained why that would be very difficult and likely impractical.
The point is that creating a botnet of this size on Linux systems would be nearly impossible. The architecture of Linux systems and of Linux distros is fundamentally more secure.
Haha, I was actually going to refute some of your claims about Linux, but a few minutes of googling uncovered that you are an EPIC INTERNET TROLL!
So, APK, or cybordeath, or AlecStar, or Alex, or Alexander--I suspect APK are your initials, but I've had enough of googling you: game over.
No wonder you're an AC on here. I wonder how many times you've been banned from Slashdot. Your karma must be as low as possible.
You've been told this before on other forums, but I'll say it again: In all seriousness, you need to see a psychologist. We all have problems, but you show signs of extreme OCD, paranoia, egotism, delusion...I could go on. Your life would likely be much happier if you could get help to deal with these issues and overcome them. I suspect that you have so much free time to carry on these online campaigns because you have trouble holding down a job. Maybe you're on disability. I honestly feel sorry for you. I even wonder if you were in a wreck or something years ago and suffered brain damage, causing a severe personality change.
Anyway, I hope you will seek help and begin to change your life.
No, it's not 100% safe, but it's neither is going to the bathroom.
All the major distros sign their repos--even Ubuntu PPAs are signed. You're probably right in that the best attack vector would be to modify source code without being noticed, but even that is harder now because of RCSes--project authors will most likely notice commits that they didn't make. It gets to the point that, in order to insert trojans without being caught, attackers would need to attack authors' personal systems, rather than hosting servers--and personal systems are more likely to have changing IPs, be behind firewalls, and be taken offline at random.
The bottom line is that the bar to insert trojans into FOSS software distributed through Linux distros' repositories is so much higher than the bar to infect Windows machines that the odds of it happening on a large scale are relatively infinitesimal. And so, if Windows PCs were magically changed to Linux overnight, it would almost be like the measles and mumps: practically eliminated.
You write like Steve Gibson on meth. Hey, you are an AC...
Sounds like you have a lot of fun maintaining your defenses. I remember keeping up with that sort of thing back in the day. Then in 2003 I switched to Debian and haven't had to worry about malware since.
I'm amazed by the time and effort people spend to defend against malware when the best solution is so obvious. 'You can lead a horse to water..."
Maybe the problem is that some people enjoy "the game" so much that they wouldn't know what to do if they stopped playing.
Well, I honestly wish you luck, but I don't see how such success can be achieved as long as it's corrupt to the core. I hope the time you spend on it does not end up being spent in vain. I hope, though, that people like you who really do care will do just that: fork and start over with some kind of constitution that mitigates the corruption from the beginning. If not pure-minded idealists, who will?
The question of reliability is one part of it; the question of independence is another; the question of the required number is yet another. The "correct" answers to each of those three questions are entirely subjective. One cannot build objectivity from subjectivity: it's logically impossible. Therefore your standard for objectivity is subjective, and a farce.
Therefore the standard of and idea of notability is subjective, and a farce.
Therefore, Wikipedia has no objective standard for what is interesting, relevant, or "notable" enough to deserve mention--it's entirely up to whomever has enough power to outvote or outshout those who disagree with him.
Therefore, Wikipedia is a place for egotists to fight and brown-nose. It's interesting that the product of it is a resource that is often useful, however its usefulness is very limited, and it's clear that it cannot be considered a reliable source.
Those who are in charge allow the worst of human nature to run rampant, and therefore it is not a place in which I wish to spend my time constructing or improving anything. It's obvious that Wikipedia has discouraged many other people in the same way. I can't help but wonder if there are any regular contributors who aren't in denial or on their own power-trips.
Perhaps the worst is that Wikipedia is disingenuous: it claims to be a free and open place that's building knowledge for the benefit of mankind, but it's really a pyramid of power-trips--a beautiful library being consumed by termites inside the structure. I cringe at the hypocrisy whenever I see a banner asking for donations.
Um, that's probably a matter of poor cooling in the Acer laptop. There might be a lower-power mode you could set with hdparm, but spinning the disk down completely just isn't practical: it gets spun back up too much. And a good SSD might cost more than the laptop is worth--certainly more than a new hard disk.
Buy a new hard disk if you want, one that's quiet and cool--but that's no guarantee it will be cool in your laptop.
My suggestion: back up your data regularly, set aside some money to buy a new disk when it fails, and be prepared for HDD failure.
Things in life ought to progress, i.e. get better. This is especially true with FOSS. Software ought to get more stable, have more bugs eliminated over time. It's truly sad that basic software functions like file open dialogs get torn out and rewritten from scratch so much that the actual number of bugs in everyday functionality seems to remain relatively the same.
I suppose it's the usual emphasis on the shiny rather than the worky.
Re:How about Google Classic
on
Google's New Design
·
· Score: 1, Informative
So make your own simple HTML page that has nothing but the Google logo and a search form. Save to your hard disk. Set as home page. Done.
"Most book articles that I've read on Wikipedia are about what is between the covers. If a section of the article is about the cover, then as I've said, go ahead and upload the cover."
You just don't get it. Another meatbot policy wonk. People like you are holding Wikipedia back from what it could be. Attitudes like yours have no place on Internet media--they belong in old, paper media, where space is limited. It's like you can't see over the horizon--a horizon defined by whoever decided to spend the time to type up a policy on matter X and upload it, while other people were actually being constructive and creative.
It is small minds who spend their days thinking of ways to restrict the freedom of others.
Um...are you really so gullible? That's like a company wanting to increase profits while cutting back on quality control and customer service. It's like a TV show wanting to increase ratings by appealing to the lowest common denominator, destroying what made the show worth watching in the first place. It's like putting a finger in a broken dyke that has huge holes that are gushing water. It's like putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.
Of course, it's a lot easier to implement feel-good measures to improve morale rather than addressing the actual problems. Why not give out arcade tickets to editors and let them redeem them for Wikipedia t-shirts and coffee mugs?
They either don't get it (in which case they are incredibly stupid), or they are unwilling to change to fix the real problems, because they like too much about the status quo. My guess is the latter.
It's fun being on the crew of the largest oceanliner in history--quite an honor. It's foolish to try using sharks with head-mounted lasers to melt icebergs that lay in your path.
No; the idea of notability, mainly. It's entirely subjective, yet enforced under the auspices of objectivity.
The average visitor to an article about a book or a song or some other work is just as likely, if not moreso, to be interested in the work itself and its history, rather than how it was received by a bunch of critics, whose opinion the user probably doesn't care about. Few people visit Wikipedia articles to do social-historical research about what society (and self-appointed critics) think about something--Wikipedia is not a primary source, anyway, so it's unsuitable for such research. No, they come to Wikipedia to find out what the thing is and what it's about so they can find out whether it's interesting to themselves.
Information about how the work was received and how it influenced others is definitely relevant and belongs there--but the idea that such information is the only information that belongs is a foolish one.
You're operating under the misconception that added material must be of such importance and significance that an article would be "unusable" without it. (Most meatbots do.)
It's unreasonable, irrational, and foolish to claim that an article about a book shouldn't have a photo of the book's cover. That's one of the most basic things that an article should have: a photo of what the article's about!
If you don't get that, then there's clearly nothing left for us to discuss.
By the way, why bother reporting these problems to those who are the source of the problems? It's like going to an evil dictator and telling him, "Sir, our country is ruled by an evil dictator!..No, wait, please, sir, don't!..."
1. Go to a popular article. 2. Look at the list of editors. 3. Go to each one's page until you find one that is clearly a long-time user, involved in many articles, writes long lists of "accomplishments", is on several committees, etc.
For extra points, look at the discussions on their talk pages and follow comments to other users' talk pages. It won't be long before you come across highly-controversial admins on massive, long-lasting power trips.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on. Apple only did that so they could sell more than their competitors and help put them all out of business. It had nothing to do with the idea of DRM being evil--Apple is all about DRM! Apple IS all about control, and as they emphasize iOS and their app store--which are fundamentally based on DRM--they are moving towards more control for them and less freedom for their users. They also patent everything in sight, whether it's original or not, and use that to stifle competition.
Fact is, as good as their products are (I have an iPhone 4, and had a 3G, but I don't plan to support them with anymore of my business), at their core they are fueled by greed, and they are evil. They're no better than Microsoft in their business practices--they're just as immoral--they simply make much better products.
I think you're being hypocritical: you are the fanboy.
Isn't it decentralized? Seems to me like it might fit the bill for a LAN.
However, for a WLAN, all the bandwidth is shared, so I'm not sure having a P2P swarm would be any faster than simply using a Samba share. Ethernet, perhaps.
You ignored my challenge, so I will ignore all of yours.
Actually, I never mentioned Ars Technica--you did.
Actually, my typo was not in the Python code, but in the shebang. It's a Unix thing. The Python code works "JUST FINE".
Please explain which Python exceptions your code could raise.
Please explain how quoting me backwards makes me look bad. I think it makes you look silly and childish.
Please explain how typing in ALtErNaTiNG CaPs makes you appear mature.
I have a challenge for you: Write a reply: 1) without using bold text, 2) without using alternating caps, 3) without using @'s or ampersands, 4) without using horizontal lines, 5) without a postscript (those make no sense online because you can backspace--they are for paper correspondence where one can't change what he's written), 6) without claiming or insinuating that you are a superior being. In other words, write without vitriol, without hyperbole, without insults--the way a normal, reasonable person would write. I am skeptical that you can even do it.
By the way, what drugs do you use, and how long have you been using?
I'm curious: Please explain how quoting me backwards makes me look bad. And please explain how it is a form of reverse psychology.
Sounds nice. How will you infect the binary that's used to build all the software in a distro's main public repo? Keep in mind that many of them, like Launchpad's build service, build in freshly-extracted chroots, which are built from packages from the main public repo.
Again, you're back to compromising the distro's main repos. That's probably not impossible, but it would probably boil down to an unpatched remotely-exploitable vulnerability in the server software. Those are patched whenever they are found, and on such important systems, I'm sure they have IDSes that wouldn't allow anyone to spend so much time pentesting. The attack window would be very small and you'd need a fair bit of luck to find it in time.
Theories are easy to think of but proving one to be practical is difficult. Linux systems are fundamentally more secure by design, and their record proves it, as well.
Local privilege escalation? If you have physical access to the machine, you don't need a local privilege escalation. Sheesh, you don't even need a malicious repo, just install your malware directly.
You'd need a remote privilege escalation in order to install malicious repos on other systems. But if you have such access, why bother? Just install the malware directly.
The only reasonable route to such an attack would be to compromise existing repos, and I already explained why that would be very difficult and likely impractical.
The point is that creating a botnet of this size on Linux systems would be nearly impossible. The architecture of Linux systems and of Linux distros is fundamentally more secure.
Haha, I was actually going to refute some of your claims about Linux, but a few minutes of googling uncovered that you are an EPIC INTERNET TROLL!
So, APK, or cybordeath, or AlecStar, or Alex, or Alexander--I suspect APK are your initials, but I've had enough of googling you: game over.
No wonder you're an AC on here. I wonder how many times you've been banned from Slashdot. Your karma must be as low as possible.
You've been told this before on other forums, but I'll say it again: In all seriousness, you need to see a psychologist. We all have problems, but you show signs of extreme OCD, paranoia, egotism, delusion...I could go on. Your life would likely be much happier if you could get help to deal with these issues and overcome them. I suspect that you have so much free time to carry on these online campaigns because you have trouble holding down a job. Maybe you're on disability. I honestly feel sorry for you. I even wonder if you were in a wreck or something years ago and suffered brain damage, causing a severe personality change.
Anyway, I hope you will seek help and begin to change your life.
Oops:
#!/usr/env/python
should be
#!/usr/bin/env python
Silly me. But that won't matter for you, anyway.
Here's a lesson for you:
#!/usr/env/python
print "How to reverse in Python"[::-1]
No, it's not 100% safe, but it's neither is going to the bathroom.
All the major distros sign their repos--even Ubuntu PPAs are signed. You're probably right in that the best attack vector would be to modify source code without being noticed, but even that is harder now because of RCSes--project authors will most likely notice commits that they didn't make. It gets to the point that, in order to insert trojans without being caught, attackers would need to attack authors' personal systems, rather than hosting servers--and personal systems are more likely to have changing IPs, be behind firewalls, and be taken offline at random.
The bottom line is that the bar to insert trojans into FOSS software distributed through Linux distros' repositories is so much higher than the bar to infect Windows machines that the odds of it happening on a large scale are relatively infinitesimal. And so, if Windows PCs were magically changed to Linux overnight, it would almost be like the measles and mumps: practically eliminated.
You write like Steve Gibson on meth. Hey, you are an AC...
Sounds like you have a lot of fun maintaining your defenses. I remember keeping up with that sort of thing back in the day. Then in 2003 I switched to Debian and haven't had to worry about malware since.
I'm amazed by the time and effort people spend to defend against malware when the best solution is so obvious. 'You can lead a horse to water..."
Maybe the problem is that some people enjoy "the game" so much that they wouldn't know what to do if they stopped playing.
Well, I honestly wish you luck, but I don't see how such success can be achieved as long as it's corrupt to the core. I hope the time you spend on it does not end up being spent in vain. I hope, though, that people like you who really do care will do just that: fork and start over with some kind of constitution that mitigates the corruption from the beginning. If not pure-minded idealists, who will?
The question of reliability is one part of it; the question of independence is another; the question of the required number is yet another. The "correct" answers to each of those three questions are entirely subjective. One cannot build objectivity from subjectivity: it's logically impossible. Therefore your standard for objectivity is subjective, and a farce.
Therefore the standard of and idea of notability is subjective, and a farce.
Therefore, Wikipedia has no objective standard for what is interesting, relevant, or "notable" enough to deserve mention--it's entirely up to whomever has enough power to outvote or outshout those who disagree with him.
Therefore, Wikipedia is a place for egotists to fight and brown-nose. It's interesting that the product of it is a resource that is often useful, however its usefulness is very limited, and it's clear that it cannot be considered a reliable source.
Those who are in charge allow the worst of human nature to run rampant, and therefore it is not a place in which I wish to spend my time constructing or improving anything. It's obvious that Wikipedia has discouraged many other people in the same way. I can't help but wonder if there are any regular contributors who aren't in denial or on their own power-trips.
Perhaps the worst is that Wikipedia is disingenuous: it claims to be a free and open place that's building knowledge for the benefit of mankind, but it's really a pyramid of power-trips--a beautiful library being consumed by termites inside the structure. I cringe at the hypocrisy whenever I see a banner asking for donations.
Um, that's probably a matter of poor cooling in the Acer laptop. There might be a lower-power mode you could set with hdparm, but spinning the disk down completely just isn't practical: it gets spun back up too much. And a good SSD might cost more than the laptop is worth--certainly more than a new hard disk.
Buy a new hard disk if you want, one that's quiet and cool--but that's no guarantee it will be cool in your laptop.
My suggestion: back up your data regularly, set aside some money to buy a new disk when it fails, and be prepared for HDD failure.
Things in life ought to progress, i.e. get better. This is especially true with FOSS. Software ought to get more stable, have more bugs eliminated over time. It's truly sad that basic software functions like file open dialogs get torn out and rewritten from scratch so much that the actual number of bugs in everyday functionality seems to remain relatively the same.
I suppose it's the usual emphasis on the shiny rather than the worky.
So make your own simple HTML page that has nothing but the Google logo and a search form. Save to your hard disk. Set as home page. Done.
Your standard of objectivity is entirely subjective.
Notability is a farce.
Wikipedia is a beach made of sand castles guarded by an angry mob of insecure narcissists who can't think for themselves.
Sounds like you don't believe in Fair Use.
"Most book articles that I've read on Wikipedia are about what is between the covers. If a section of the article is about the cover, then as I've said, go ahead and upload the cover."
You just don't get it. Another meatbot policy wonk. People like you are holding Wikipedia back from what it could be. Attitudes like yours have no place on Internet media--they belong in old, paper media, where space is limited. It's like you can't see over the horizon--a horizon defined by whoever decided to spend the time to type up a policy on matter X and upload it, while other people were actually being constructive and creative.
It is small minds who spend their days thinking of ways to restrict the freedom of others.
Um...are you really so gullible? That's like a company wanting to increase profits while cutting back on quality control and customer service. It's like a TV show wanting to increase ratings by appealing to the lowest common denominator, destroying what made the show worth watching in the first place. It's like putting a finger in a broken dyke that has huge holes that are gushing water. It's like putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.
Of course, it's a lot easier to implement feel-good measures to improve morale rather than addressing the actual problems. Why not give out arcade tickets to editors and let them redeem them for Wikipedia t-shirts and coffee mugs?
They either don't get it (in which case they are incredibly stupid), or they are unwilling to change to fix the real problems, because they like too much about the status quo. My guess is the latter.
It's fun being on the crew of the largest oceanliner in history--quite an honor. It's foolish to try using sharks with head-mounted lasers to melt icebergs that lay in your path.
No; the idea of notability, mainly. It's entirely subjective, yet enforced under the auspices of objectivity.
The average visitor to an article about a book or a song or some other work is just as likely, if not moreso, to be interested in the work itself and its history, rather than how it was received by a bunch of critics, whose opinion the user probably doesn't care about. Few people visit Wikipedia articles to do social-historical research about what society (and self-appointed critics) think about something--Wikipedia is not a primary source, anyway, so it's unsuitable for such research. No, they come to Wikipedia to find out what the thing is and what it's about so they can find out whether it's interesting to themselves.
Information about how the work was received and how it influenced others is definitely relevant and belongs there--but the idea that such information is the only information that belongs is a foolish one.
You're operating under the misconception that added material must be of such importance and significance that an article would be "unusable" without it. (Most meatbots do.)
It's unreasonable, irrational, and foolish to claim that an article about a book shouldn't have a photo of the book's cover. That's one of the most basic things that an article should have: a photo of what the article's about!
If you don't get that, then there's clearly nothing left for us to discuss.
By the way, why bother reporting these problems to those who are the source of the problems? It's like going to an evil dictator and telling him, "Sir, our country is ruled by an evil dictator!..No, wait, please, sir, don't!..."
1. Go to a popular article.
2. Look at the list of editors.
3. Go to each one's page until you find one that is clearly a long-time user, involved in many articles, writes long lists of "accomplishments", is on several committees, etc.
For extra points, look at the discussions on their talk pages and follow comments to other users' talk pages. It won't be long before you come across highly-controversial admins on massive, long-lasting power trips.
Someone mod this man up.