Did you forget to read the top of the figure where it says "Microsoft OS" and not "Linux"?
No, I didn't forget to read it. It wasn't there. "Microsoft OS", "Windows", these were not mentioned in the article nor in the report. Things that were mentioned were things like Flash, Acrobat Reader and Microsoft Office. I get my updates to Flash and Acrobat through apt, so I think it's pretty relevant. My office suite is also updated via apt, although it wasn't made by Microsoft.
I find it hard to trust the credibility of the report, after a statement like this:
SANS' Ullrich says patching third-party applications isn't easy. "Third-party applications can be tough. There's no good system" for patching them, he says. The key is inventorying third-party Web applications, which the report shows are a major attack vector, Ullrich says.
It's called apt. It's already widely deployed in Debian and Ubuntu, and has been for a long time. The problem is solved.
False. It is the fact that you are dependent on systems whose operations are kept secret from you that makes you helpless, not the fact that you're using systems someone else conceived and expressed.
I think this is a great idea. In addition, since children and psychopaths can use money to purchase drugs, prostitutes and weapons, we should ban that too.
Yes, if it makes you a dependent who can be used. It makes you a threat to everyone around you because you're not really your own man, you're someone elses. You couldn't even be trusted enough to keep yourself self-reliant.
Some folks feel that building to be accessible the novice is a worthy goal, even if it means compromising the power of the tool. Some folks feel that building a powerful tool is a worthy goal, even if it means that there is a learning curve that challenges the novice. Both of them are right. Some folks can't do both of these things, and some folks can't do either of these things. Some of those folks will hide their incompetencies behind these worthy goals, and murky the discussion as a consequence. Still, at the end of the day, it's wrong to fund corporate entities that make their money keeping the problem solving mechanisms that you use to run your life secret from you.
Hey, it's my stalker! Hi stalker! If I was a stalker, I'd defend anonymity too. If I had as many shameful skeletons in the closet as you do, that would kill your career if anyone knew, I'd defend privacy too. But it's slip-slip-slip-sliding away day by day by day, and nothing's going to stop it. One day, I'll know exactly who and where you are.
I feel bad for Edward Boyden. With a quote like this:
realize the impermanence of everything, calculate that the sun will burn out in a few billion years, and decide to play video games for the remainder of its existence.
That is a truly sad man. Says terrible things for his sense of morals and ethics too... that's the sort of perspective that leads a person to see dead men and women walking around them, and treat them with scorn, and treat the self with scorn.
Perhaps a sufficiently intelligent AI will realize the eternal nature of everything, see that time as we understand it is an illusion, appreciate that every moment is precious and eternal, and that the past and future endure next to the present just like my coffee cup endures next to my coaster.
Yes because no group or subset of society has ever been wrongly subjected to bias and everyone loves targeted advertising in their mailbox (physical or email).
If everyone knew what was going on, they wouldn't do that anymore. Their ignorance was the reason for it in the first place, and you don't alleviate ignorance through secrecy.
>> One is where the facts are embarrassing because of hypocrisy. That scenario is alleviated by loss of anonymity and increased transparency.
I have never heard this argument against ones ability to commit hypocrisy. This is interesting, although I do not support it because of believe in free speech.
So, your position is that newspapers do not represent free speech because the writers publish their names.
>> Another is where the person is engaged in anti-social behavior because they are in a reactionary state and need assistance because they are going off the rails in isolation. That scenario is also alleviated by the loss of anonymity. People will get the help they need to be happy and self-reliant if society at large is aware that they need it.
This statement assumes that freedom of religion is a bad thing.
So, your position is that religions are anti-social organizations who would have their freedom taken away if the majority of people knew what was going on.
>> The third scenario is when people are engaged in premeditated anti-social behavior because they are amoral and vicious or involved in a conspiracy against the best interests of their peers for ideological reasons. Those people belong in the ground, and we should not be protecting their obscurity.
This statement assumes that all social behavior is moral or in the best interests of ones peers. If true, this statement essentially states that society has reached a point of maximum harmony and should never be changed.
So, you believe in protecting the right of amoral individuals to engage in vicious, pre-meditated anti-social behavior such as murder from obscurity, and you believe in protecting the right of groups of conspirators to act against the interests of their peers from obscurity.
Not only that, but you believe this because you feel that these groups are the sole source of social change, and are the only thing that will lead us towards greater harmony, and therefore must be protected.
You have a very strange way of looking at the world.
There is no justification for anonymity, nor for secrecy. Anonymity and secrecy preserve and reinforce the hazards that they purport to protect people from. They need to be abolished in a systematic fashion that doesn't expose early adopters to the dangers of hypocrisy, but tears the veils away for everyone all at once.
So you'll be posting your full name, home address, and telephone number to Slashdot?
Note, I hope you don't do that because it would be a very bad move on your part. However, it would also be consistent with your position.
The second sentence clearly demonstrates that you are intentionally misrepresenting my position. That must be why you choose not to quote it.
Did it ever occur to you that if there were no anonymity and no secrets, selective enforcement of law would no longer be possible? Right now, investigation is difficult by design, which means there's no problem with creating laws that the majority of people do not support and do not obey. You need to dig a bit to get the evidence on any one person, but it's generally there. Which means you can be singled out, and it's practical to prove you broke the law, but it's not practical for you to do an investigation and prove that millions of your peers are doing the same thing every day without their causing any harm. If such a defense was practical for individuals, most of us would have a lot less to fear than we do now.
One is where the facts are embarrassing because of hypocrisy. That scenario is alleviated by loss of anonymity and increased transparency.
Another is where the person is engaged in anti-social behavior because they are in a reactionary state and need assistance because they are going off the rails in isolation. That scenario is also alleviated by the loss of anonymity. People will get the help they need to be happy and self-reliant if society at large is aware that they need it.
The third scenario is when people are engaged in premeditated anti-social behavior because they are amoral and vicious or involved in a conspiracy against the best interests of their peers for ideological reasons. Those people belong in the ground, and we should not be protecting their obscurity.
There is no justification for anonymity, nor for secrecy. Anonymity and secrecy preserve and reinforce the hazards that they purport to protect people from. They need to be abolished in a systematic fashion that doesn't expose early adopters to the dangers of hypocrisy, but tears the veils away for everyone all at once.
This, too, is a fallacy, as each connection to another device brings incumbent risk. Your phone, a flash drive, somebody's DVD of pictures, any wired/wireless connection is a potential hack point. Diligence says we remove as many as we can and know of, but the statistical fact of botnets means that there IS NO SUCH THING AS TOTAL TRUST.
You are missing the point that "TRUST" doesn't mean "SAFE", it means "NOT-SAFE". It doesn't mean "I believe you won't screw me", it means "I haven't secured myself against you screwing me, and like it or not, I'm trusting you not to do it by leaving this vulnerability in place".
Remember, if you buy their products, it's your money being spent. I use GNU/Linux exclusively since 2001, so that's a non-issue to me.
Remember, if you give a company money, you're responsible, and accountable to your peers, for what they do with it. PETA members do not have an exclusive right to punishing people for how they spend their money, anyone can do it...
I disagree. Firefox on Ubuntu should look like it belongs on Linux. These mockups would be horribly out of place on any Linux desktop that isn't set up to look exactly like Vista/Win7.
So, you're cosmetic sensibilities trump my desire to cultivate muscle memory and work efficiently, to a degree that functionality that meets my needs should be gutted out so you can have something pretty to look at?
Trust in computer disciplines doesn't have anything to do with something being trustworthy. Trust is an expression that you have left yourself vulnerable, and are trusting that you won't be exploited. How you feel about leaving yourself vulnerable is irrelevant. The probability that you will be exploited is also irrelevant.
That's what Trusted Computing is all about... it's not that your computer is more secure... it's that your computer is less secure, and you are trusting third parties not to screw you instead of securing yourself against them.
Why keep it the same across platforms? No, seriously, do you use Firefox on multiple platforms AND are you bothered by the differences in UI between the various Firefox'en? You'll live.
Yes. Firefox on Ubuntu at home should look the same as Firefox on Windows at work. The theme engine is there for a reason. If you want your application to suit your choice of operating system, you need look no further.
Firefox has really gone downhill since Mozilla had all that money thrown at them.
Given that this is for a case that hasn't been concluded yet (remember that MS intends on appealing), it looks like this injunction is premature and causes undue harm to third parties, which means it was poorly thought out.
I know what they could do. Microsoft could release the source code for Word with a disclaimer stating that it's just a research project, and that distributing binaries may be illegal in some countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me enlighten you then, just so we're all on the same page:
http://www.bornalivetruth.org/timeline.php
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-voted-for-infanticide-4-times-his.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbp2-Tm9z4
Better that people suffer than that they don't exist at all.
The other wants to legalize infanticide and encourage voluntary chemical sterilization. That is worse.
Did you forget to read the top of the figure where it says "Microsoft OS" and not "Linux"?
No, I didn't forget to read it. It wasn't there. "Microsoft OS", "Windows", these were not mentioned in the article nor in the report. Things that were mentioned were things like Flash, Acrobat Reader and Microsoft Office. I get my updates to Flash and Acrobat through apt, so I think it's pretty relevant. My office suite is also updated via apt, although it wasn't made by Microsoft.
I find it hard to trust the credibility of the report, after a statement like this:
SANS' Ullrich says patching third-party applications isn't easy. "Third-party applications can be tough. There's no good system" for patching them, he says. The key is inventorying third-party Web applications, which the report shows are a major attack vector, Ullrich says.
It's called apt. It's already widely deployed in Debian and Ubuntu, and has been for a long time. The problem is solved.
Sorry... um... I wasn't trying to be funny... I was serious...
False. It is the fact that you are dependent on systems whose operations are kept secret from you that makes you helpless, not the fact that you're using systems someone else conceived and expressed.
I think this is a great idea. In addition, since children and psychopaths can use money to purchase drugs, prostitutes and weapons, we should ban that too.
Yes, if it makes you a dependent who can be used. It makes you a threat to everyone around you because you're not really your own man, you're someone elses. You couldn't even be trusted enough to keep yourself self-reliant.
Some folks feel that building to be accessible the novice is a worthy goal, even if it means compromising the power of the tool. Some folks feel that building a powerful tool is a worthy goal, even if it means that there is a learning curve that challenges the novice. Both of them are right. Some folks can't do both of these things, and some folks can't do either of these things. Some of those folks will hide their incompetencies behind these worthy goals, and murky the discussion as a consequence. Still, at the end of the day, it's wrong to fund corporate entities that make their money keeping the problem solving mechanisms that you use to run your life secret from you.
I do.
I wonder how many Palestinian lives were lost because of his deeds...
Hey, it's my stalker! Hi stalker! If I was a stalker, I'd defend anonymity too. If I had as many shameful skeletons in the closet as you do, that would kill your career if anyone knew, I'd defend privacy too. But it's slip-slip-slip-sliding away day by day by day, and nothing's going to stop it. One day, I'll know exactly who and where you are.
He did not express anything even remotely resembling those strawmen
I didn't express anything even remotely resembling his strawmen. So, it's a fair play.
I feel bad for Edward Boyden. With a quote like this:
realize the impermanence of everything, calculate that the sun will burn out in a few billion years, and decide to play video games for the remainder of its existence.
That is a truly sad man. Says terrible things for his sense of morals and ethics too... that's the sort of perspective that leads a person to see dead men and women walking around them, and treat them with scorn, and treat the self with scorn.
Perhaps a sufficiently intelligent AI will realize the eternal nature of everything, see that time as we understand it is an illusion, appreciate that every moment is precious and eternal, and that the past and future endure next to the present just like my coffee cup endures next to my coaster.
Yes because no group or subset of society has ever been wrongly subjected to bias and everyone loves targeted advertising in their mailbox (physical or email).
If everyone knew what was going on, they wouldn't do that anymore. Their ignorance was the reason for it in the first place, and you don't alleviate ignorance through secrecy.
I will take your post at face value.
>> One is where the facts are embarrassing because of hypocrisy. That scenario is alleviated by loss of anonymity and increased transparency.
I have never heard this argument against ones ability to commit hypocrisy. This is interesting, although I do not support it because of believe in free speech.
So, your position is that newspapers do not represent free speech because the writers publish their names.
>> Another is where the person is engaged in anti-social behavior because they are in a reactionary state and need assistance because they are going off the rails in isolation. That scenario is also alleviated by the loss of anonymity. People will get the help they need to be happy and self-reliant if society at large is aware that they need it.
This statement assumes that freedom of religion is a bad thing.
So, your position is that religions are anti-social organizations who would have their freedom taken away if the majority of people knew what was going on.
>> The third scenario is when people are engaged in premeditated anti-social behavior because they are amoral and vicious or involved in a conspiracy against the best interests of their peers for ideological reasons. Those people belong in the ground, and we should not be protecting their obscurity.
This statement assumes that all social behavior is moral or in the best interests of ones peers. If true, this statement essentially states that society has reached a point of maximum harmony and should never be changed.
So, you believe in protecting the right of amoral individuals to engage in vicious, pre-meditated anti-social behavior such as murder from obscurity, and you believe in protecting the right of groups of conspirators to act against the interests of their peers from obscurity.
Not only that, but you believe this because you feel that these groups are the sole source of social change, and are the only thing that will lead us towards greater harmony, and therefore must be protected.
You have a very strange way of looking at the world.
There is no justification for anonymity, nor for secrecy. Anonymity and secrecy preserve and reinforce the hazards that they purport to protect people from. They need to be abolished in a systematic fashion that doesn't expose early adopters to the dangers of hypocrisy, but tears the veils away for everyone all at once.
So you'll be posting your full name, home address, and telephone number to Slashdot?
Note, I hope you don't do that because it would be a very bad move on your part. However, it would also be consistent with your position.
The second sentence clearly demonstrates that you are intentionally misrepresenting my position. That must be why you choose not to quote it.
Did it ever occur to you that if there were no anonymity and no secrets, selective enforcement of law would no longer be possible? Right now, investigation is difficult by design, which means there's no problem with creating laws that the majority of people do not support and do not obey. You need to dig a bit to get the evidence on any one person, but it's generally there. Which means you can be singled out, and it's practical to prove you broke the law, but it's not practical for you to do an investigation and prove that millions of your peers are doing the same thing every day without their causing any harm. If such a defense was practical for individuals, most of us would have a lot less to fear than we do now.
There are 3 different scenarios.
One is where the facts are embarrassing because of hypocrisy. That scenario is alleviated by loss of anonymity and increased transparency.
Another is where the person is engaged in anti-social behavior because they are in a reactionary state and need assistance because they are going off the rails in isolation. That scenario is also alleviated by the loss of anonymity. People will get the help they need to be happy and self-reliant if society at large is aware that they need it.
The third scenario is when people are engaged in premeditated anti-social behavior because they are amoral and vicious or involved in a conspiracy against the best interests of their peers for ideological reasons. Those people belong in the ground, and we should not be protecting their obscurity.
There is no justification for anonymity, nor for secrecy. Anonymity and secrecy preserve and reinforce the hazards that they purport to protect people from. They need to be abolished in a systematic fashion that doesn't expose early adopters to the dangers of hypocrisy, but tears the veils away for everyone all at once.
This, too, is a fallacy, as each connection to another device brings incumbent risk. Your phone, a flash drive, somebody's DVD of pictures, any wired/wireless connection is a potential hack point. Diligence says we remove as many as we can and know of, but the statistical fact of botnets means that there IS NO SUCH THING AS TOTAL TRUST.
You are missing the point that "TRUST" doesn't mean "SAFE", it means "NOT-SAFE". It doesn't mean "I believe you won't screw me", it means "I haven't secured myself against you screwing me, and like it or not, I'm trusting you not to do it by leaving this vulnerability in place".
Remember, if you buy their products, it's your money being spent. I use GNU/Linux exclusively since 2001, so that's a non-issue to me.
Remember, if you give a company money, you're responsible, and accountable to your peers, for what they do with it. PETA members do not have an exclusive right to punishing people for how they spend their money, anyone can do it...
I disagree. Firefox on Ubuntu should look like it belongs on Linux. These mockups would be horribly out of place on any Linux desktop that isn't set up to look exactly like Vista/Win7.
So, you're cosmetic sensibilities trump my desire to cultivate muscle memory and work efficiently, to a degree that functionality that meets my needs should be gutted out so you can have something pretty to look at?
Fork, please...
Trust in computer disciplines doesn't have anything to do with something being trustworthy. Trust is an expression that you have left yourself vulnerable, and are trusting that you won't be exploited. How you feel about leaving yourself vulnerable is irrelevant. The probability that you will be exploited is also irrelevant.
That's what Trusted Computing is all about... it's not that your computer is more secure... it's that your computer is less secure, and you are trusting third parties not to screw you instead of securing yourself against them.
Why keep it the same across platforms? No, seriously, do you use Firefox on multiple platforms AND are you bothered by the differences in UI between the various Firefox'en? You'll live.
Yes. Firefox on Ubuntu at home should look the same as Firefox on Windows at work. The theme engine is there for a reason. If you want your application to suit your choice of operating system, you need look no further.
Firefox has really gone downhill since Mozilla had all that money thrown at them.
Given that this is for a case that hasn't been concluded yet (remember that MS intends on appealing), it looks like this injunction is premature and causes undue harm to third parties, which means it was poorly thought out.
I know what they could do. Microsoft could release the source code for Word with a disclaimer stating that it's just a research project, and that distributing binaries may be illegal in some countries.