Why do people keep building villages next to volcanos,
Volcanic soil is quite fertile.
museums with important artifacts in large cities,
So that it can be seen by as many people as possible. That's kinda the point of museums. Otherwise they'd just stick all their priceless artifacts in unmarked boxes in giant wharehouses, like they did with the Ark of the Covenant.
data centers in flood plains,
Flood plains soil, like volcanic soil, is usually quite fertile, and cities are nearly always built near rivers due to the fact that a city's growth is directly dependant on its water supply. Data centers are built in cities because it's easier to find qualified employees there.
major network hubs in cities.
Again, they need to be built where people are, or it would be way too difficult to find qualified technicians to run them.
I think the main risk here is that someone might make up an archive of all the keys for a certain model and then start distributing that archive, so that a thief could put them all on a USB key and then be able to drive off with any of that model vehicle with nothing more than a USB key the size of a cigarette lighter.
It's simply the difference between choosing to do something and having it forced on you.
(Note: I don't personally block any country's IPs, but have no problem with others doing so on their own computers, just as long as they don't try to restrict what I can access on mine.)
I thought that freedom of speech was one of the US's rules.
(P.S. There's no apostrophe in "its" when it's used to denote posession. The apostrophe should only be used to indicate a contraction of "it is." Just so ya know.
Science is most certainly not an art. Art is creative while science is descriptive. An artist is in the business of creating new things, new paintings, new sculptures, new pieces of music, etc., while a scientist is in the business of describing an already existing universe. Given a similar task, two ideal artists working idependantly would invariably produce different works, while two ideal scientists studying the same phenomenon would, under ideal conditions, always arrive at the same conclusions, defined by the truth about how that phenomenon operates.
I've had some huge problems configuring the Windows Boot Manager to boot Linux as well as Windows. So many problems, in fact, that I had to ditch it entirely and install GRUB, which was far easier to set up.
Seriously, I suppose I should have been a bit more specific in my post to exclude government agencies and other not-for-profit groups. I figured that people would be intelligent enough to know what I was talking about. I suppose I was mistaken.
Corporations are out to make a profit. As such they can never be expected to turn down the chance to suck more money out of their customers. The only way to make corporations stop a dishonest business proactice is to make that practice illegal, and to properly enforce those laws.
So, the customer has to use their full credit all at once, which means that they have to spend $50 or more, or else miss out on some of their settlement money. As I find it highly unlikely that there are a lot of products priced at exactly $50, I suspect that most will go for the "or more" option, in which case Apple stands to actually make money off this deal.
Well, The Longest Journey is getting a http://dreamfall.com/sequel in a few months, although it looks to be more of an action/adventure hybrid than a true adventure game.
I never said that Linux is a "magic bullet." Simply that it is far more secure than Windows, and that this security has little to do with its relative obscurity. A Linux machine can be compromised, but it's far more difficult to do so than with a Windows machine, and any exploits that do exist would work on a much smaller subset of Linux installations than their Windows equivalents.
The Linux kernel might be fairly low on bugs, but the entire library of software that typically comes with it is not. If you really think that's not true, then you must not watch Linux forums that list things like critical security updates for a distribution very often.
Those updates are for potential exploits in programs that the user may have installed (but, in the case of a typical desktop user, probably won't.) This hardly compares to the endless march of exploits that can attack the default configurations for Windows.
Your post reads like you've never thought to question any of the rhetoric associated with OSS. Have you ever heard of social engineering? How about the fact that you wouldn't need root privileges to install a keylogger on a user's account if you can get them to run a malicious program?
And how, pray tell, would such a malicious program get onto a Linux machine in the first place, since Linux programs are typically installed from a central repository using a tool such as apt-get or Portage, rather than from executables downloaded from random web sites, as Windows programs are?
Are you going to try and suggest that if we all ran Linux that an exploit for MySQL wouldn't be just as bad as SQL slammer?
And how many regular users will have MySQL installed on their systems, particularily in a configuration that allows it to be accessed remotely?
There are plenty of applications which are installed on the vast majority of Linux systems, like the kernel, bash, XFree86, etc.. If one of those had a major security vulnerability how is the lack of a "monoculture" going to help you?
Those programs are not remotely-accessable in their default configurations.
Just about everyone who posts something like what you did points out that most Linux users do not run under root. Guess what? That's because most of them are computer geeks like me, and I would assume you. I don't run Windows under my admin account and I don't run Linux under root. If the average user moves to Linux, they will probably end up running everything under root, because the average user doesn't want to deal with two logins and having to move from one to the other to do certain tasks. If you think somehow it will magically solve that problem because it's Linux, you're fooling yourself.
Except that nearly every Linux distribution strongly encourages or even outright forces the creation of a regular user account during installation, and many programs will pop up warnings when run as root.
In most distributions, Linux programs aren't simply "downloaded", as they are in Windows. They're installed from a central repository through a special utility (such as Debian's apt-get and Gentoo's Portage.) This prevents users from being tricked into installing maliscious software as they will not be used to simply downloading and running programs from strange websites, as they must in order to install most programs in Windows.
Sigh... There seems to be one of these in every virus-related thread...
Linux would not get this many viruses if it was as popular as Windows because Linux doesn't have these "same vulnerabilities". For one thing, while a default Windows install has countless "services" enabled that would allow a malicious user or program to gain access to the system, a typical Linux install would have absolutely no point of entry for these types of attacks unless the user choses to enable them.
Other types of problems such as trojan horse attacks and spyware would also find Linux machines far more difficult to exploit as all system files are kept in directories that typical users do not have write access to. Yes, I know it's possible to enable such a system on recent versions of Windows, but many users do not do so and many programs will not work in such a configuration.
Add this to the fact that Linux is not a monoculture, and that an exploit that opens up on one configuration will most likely not be a problem on others, and you have a system that is not and never will be as inherantly insecure as Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you have the package-management system do it automatically.
No. I just can't spell.
Although apparently I type faster than Slashdot likes...
If you were an open-minded True Believer, you'd understand.
I think the main risk here is that someone might make up an archive of all the keys for a certain model and then start distributing that archive, so that a thief could put them all on a USB key and then be able to drive off with any of that model vehicle with nothing more than a USB key the size of a cigarette lighter.
Except that you can't distribute physical keys over the Internet.
Like what happened when other companies started to outdo EA in their football games?
The frogurt is also cursed.
But it comes with your choice of toppings!
The toppings contain sodium benzoate.
In case the main site is slashdotted, you can also download the program in question here.
It's simply the difference between choosing to do something and having it forced on you.
(Note: I don't personally block any country's IPs, but have no problem with others doing so on their own computers, just as long as they don't try to restrict what I can access on mine.)
I thought that freedom of speech was one of the US's rules.
(P.S. There's no apostrophe in "its" when it's used to denote posession. The apostrophe should only be used to indicate a contraction of "it is." Just so ya know.
Where do you think DARPA gets their funding?
Science is most certainly not an art. Art is creative while science is descriptive. An artist is in the business of creating new things, new paintings, new sculptures, new pieces of music, etc., while a scientist is in the business of describing an already existing universe. Given a similar task, two ideal artists working idependantly would invariably produce different works, while two ideal scientists studying the same phenomenon would, under ideal conditions, always arrive at the same conclusions, defined by the truth about how that phenomenon operates.
I've had some huge problems configuring the Windows Boot Manager to boot Linux as well as Windows. So many problems, in fact, that I had to ditch it entirely and install GRUB, which was far easier to set up.
Waitaminute, there is no second "C" in BBC!
Cheese!
Seriously, I suppose I should have been a bit more specific in my post to exclude government agencies and other not-for-profit groups. I figured that people would be intelligent enough to know what I was talking about. I suppose I was mistaken.
Corporations are out to make a profit. As such they can never be expected to turn down the chance to suck more money out of their customers. The only way to make corporations stop a dishonest business proactice is to make that practice illegal, and to properly enforce those laws.
So, the customer has to use their full credit all at once, which means that they have to spend $50 or more, or else miss out on some of their settlement money. As I find it highly unlikely that there are a lot of products priced at exactly $50, I suspect that most will go for the "or more" option, in which case Apple stands to actually make money off this deal.
Well, The Longest Journey is getting a http://dreamfall.com/sequel in a few months, although it looks to be more of an action/adventure hybrid than a true adventure game.
I never said that Linux is a "magic bullet." Simply that it is far more secure than Windows, and that this security has little to do with its relative obscurity. A Linux machine can be compromised, but it's far more difficult to do so than with a Windows machine, and any exploits that do exist would work on a much smaller subset of Linux installations than their Windows equivalents.
In most distributions, Linux programs aren't simply "downloaded", as they are in Windows. They're installed from a central repository through a special utility (such as Debian's apt-get and Gentoo's Portage.) This prevents users from being tricked into installing maliscious software as they will not be used to simply downloading and running programs from strange websites, as they must in order to install most programs in Windows.
Sigh... There seems to be one of these in every virus-related thread...
Linux would not get this many viruses if it was as popular as Windows because Linux doesn't have these "same vulnerabilities". For one thing, while a default Windows install has countless "services" enabled that would allow a malicious user or program to gain access to the system, a typical Linux install would have absolutely no point of entry for these types of attacks unless the user choses to enable them.
Other types of problems such as trojan horse attacks and spyware would also find Linux machines far more difficult to exploit as all system files are kept in directories that typical users do not have write access to. Yes, I know it's possible to enable such a system on recent versions of Windows, but many users do not do so and many programs will not work in such a configuration.
Add this to the fact that Linux is not a monoculture, and that an exploit that opens up on one configuration will most likely not be a problem on others, and you have a system that is not and never will be as inherantly insecure as Windows.
It was about grammar. Specifically, whether it was correct to say "The United States is..." or "The United States are..."
By making everyone so pissed off at the state of the computer industry that they go back to using an abacus and slide rule?