Well, all that is access control (most things people call security system are acess control systems). And it alone isn't security.
Yep, NT had a different access control system. Quite inovative and untested, but also quite flexible. It realy can be used to create a more secure system than Unix, as it can be used to create a really messy system where nobody knows how to protect. Access control on itself isn't security.
"So if you use root to install firefox, then anything it does or accesses over the internet should also be trusted?"
Does it access by itself or by a user request? If it is accessing by itself it is trusted. You already trusted on the program to change your filesystem once, there is no aditional danger on trusting on it again.
"NT's security model is actually more robust and provides more security than the *nix model."
First, you are talking about access control, arent you? That alone isn't security. Now it wasn't more robust. It was even less robust, being a less tested and more complex alternative. But yes, it is more flexible.
Security is hard. You can't just declare something more secure based on a one-dimensional analysis.
If a system is working, it is working. There is variable on that. It is there to provide some service, and it does.
Now, you may want a better service. That is ok, it's a change and should be treated like one. It deserves some cost-benefit analysis and testing.
Re:Openness is Fundamental to Mathematics
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
"MATLAB -- is a million times better than the open source equivalent"
It is a joke, isn't it. It is not belivable that somebody that really uses that kind of software try any alternative and still likes MathLab.
Let me guess, you are never compeled to use a 'for' statement... Or loops of any kind. You don't create programs that take more than a second to execute (or would take more than that if written on a sane language, on MathLab it would take the biggest part of a day) and never had to compare execution time of anything you wrote (since it isn't related to the actual algorithm when using MathLab).
Well, you don't want both at the same time. But they are usefull so you can use a nice messaging program, or a sane CD/DVD burner, some sensible calendaring system, or symply to browse your system with a better navigator and have it look better.
"Our flagship product requires 400 MB of disk space for install on Windows, and (if you include the X11 and XCode libraries on Mac OS) about 1.5 GB on Macintosh."
If you are doing desktop apps, that isn't a problem. Disks are still growing, and 1.5 GB isn't really that big (unless you put it all on RAM during execution).
"And the software generally runs quite well on a P3 1 Ghz system"
"I guarantee you there is a significant percentage of Slashdot users who aren't even in a country that has Wal-mart stores."
I am not sure about that... I am brazilian, and not in that group. There is a Wallmart near where I live.
Personaly, I don't like to buy there, but I'd go if they were selling that computer. Perfect home server, can even plug it on the wall and not be afraid of lightning storms (that are too common in Brazil).
Well, I am an Emacs user. And you know what, I used it for 3 years before touching its configuration file. Also, my current config file is 5 lines long for using a GUI and 1 line for using a CLI, and 2 more for an obscure programming language I've tried once, totaling 8 lines. I can copy that same file on every machine I touch and have (cumulatively) spent less than half working day configuring it.
Emacs comes with sensible defauts, you just need to configure obscure functions. Word is a hell to use without configuring, and doesn't get much better after that since there is no way to bind keys to all the needed functionalities. All you get is a bit more screen space or more sane menus. Also, you must configure it on every machine you use, on every upgrade and, if you are not very carefull, on every reinstall.
"How can I compete with someone who only pays $30 a month for rent, can take his family to a nice restaraunt for a dollar, or ride anywhere in the country for a nickle?"
Make the Dollar worth less than a Peso. But don't worry, your governement is already fixing that problem for you.
But, of course, that is a hipotetical situation... Or do you really belive you can ride anywhere on Uruguay for cents? It has a small area, but not that much;)
Assuming you are using a x86, then yes, Java is available for you on Linux. Don't try to be cute using 64 bits, if you do so you'll start to see the limitations.
Also, the Linux jre has a different set of bugs from the Windows one, and since both sets aren't small (try to do anything different from what the designers intended and you'll see them) Java tends to not be very portable.
"...the software becomes firmware and semi-custom hardware."
We are still not capable of gethering all possible info from a stereo head (at several fps), even with totaly custom hardware and the fanciest algorithms available. Well, theoreticaly, we can, but it would suck so much power (besides being expensive) that a mobile robot wouldn't go anywhere.
I disagree that stereo vision isn't the way to go. Jamming is too common on medium-to-small sensors, even from natural sources. Also, a passive sensor could use much less energy than an active one, even more when you are at open field, when you need long distance sensoring.
But on big robots (SUV sized or bigger), radar and sonar are viable alternatives.
Stereo cameras are a kind of sensor that improved a lot on the last 15 years. Today we get better prices, better focus, the entire set is smaller and lighter, uses less energy...
Yet, we can't make a good use of them. That is because there is no computer we can put on a mobile robot able to get all the data a stereo head gives us on real time. We fall back to getting partial data, and optimizing for what we think the robot will face. We lose lots of flexibility doing that, creating situations like not being able to "see" a blue car at blue background, or aerial barriers.
"The brain is NOT a computer. Computers themselves are simple expressions of a mere slice of how we understand our own mental processes to work."
Funny, last time I saw, computers were machines capable of emulating any mathematical operation... Not based on how we think our brain work, nor limited to it.
Unless, of course, it was distributed by a company as big or bigger than Sony. On that case, the distributor can make a deal with the AV so it is not stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux have that same problem. It comes from Flash, not from the browser.
It is just not attacked (as far as I know) by those specific ads. But it is still vunerable.
Well, alternatively, they can only display images...
That Java also have to be fixed. It is sligtly better, but signed sites can do anything they want to your computer (it's a feature, not a bug!).
Browsers should block plugins by default.
Well, all that is access control (most things people call security system are acess control systems). And it alone isn't security.
Yep, NT had a different access control system. Quite inovative and untested, but also quite flexible. It realy can be used to create a more secure system than Unix, as it can be used to create a really messy system where nobody knows how to protect. Access control on itself isn't security.
Does it access by itself or by a user request? If it is accessing by itself it is trusted. You already trusted on the program to change your filesystem once, there is no aditional danger on trusting on it again.
First, you are talking about access control, arent you? That alone isn't security. Now it wasn't more robust. It was even less robust, being a less tested and more complex alternative. But yes, it is more flexible.
Security is hard. You can't just declare something more secure based on a one-dimensional analysis.
Well, it was installed by the root equivalent, wasn't it? Doesn't that mean that the software is trusted?
By the way, why is it asking authorization from a user to do some action that needs root?
If a system is working, it is working. There is variable on that. It is there to provide some service, and it does.
Now, you may want a better service. That is ok, it's a change and should be treated like one. It deserves some cost-benefit analysis and testing.
It is a joke, isn't it. It is not belivable that somebody that really uses that kind of software try any alternative and still likes MathLab.
Let me guess, you are never compeled to use a 'for' statement... Or loops of any kind. You don't create programs that take more than a second to execute (or would take more than that if written on a sane language, on MathLab it would take the biggest part of a day) and never had to compare execution time of anything you wrote (since it isn't related to the actual algorithm when using MathLab).
Well, you don't want both at the same time. But they are usefull so you can use a nice messaging program, or a sane CD/DVD burner, some sensible calendaring system, or symply to browse your system with a better navigator and have it look better.
Unless you make a sucesful packaged software. But Microsoft doesn't seem to be concerned about that.
If you are doing desktop apps, that isn't a problem. Disks are still growing, and 1.5 GB isn't really that big (unless you put it all on RAM during execution).
So, it isn't bloated.
I am not sure about that... I am brazilian, and not in that group. There is a Wallmart near where I live.
Personaly, I don't like to buy there, but I'd go if they were selling that computer. Perfect home server, can even plug it on the wall and not be afraid of lightning storms (that are too common in Brazil).
Well, I am an Emacs user. And you know what, I used it for 3 years before touching its configuration file. Also, my current config file is 5 lines long for using a GUI and 1 line for using a CLI, and 2 more for an obscure programming language I've tried once, totaling 8 lines. I can copy that same file on every machine I touch and have (cumulatively) spent less than half working day configuring it.
Emacs comes with sensible defauts, you just need to configure obscure functions. Word is a hell to use without configuring, and doesn't get much better after that since there is no way to bind keys to all the needed functionalities. All you get is a bit more screen space or more sane menus. Also, you must configure it on every machine you use, on every upgrade and, if you are not very carefull, on every reinstall.
Too bad it is GPLv3, so if you use SUSE you risk not being up to date.
Make the Dollar worth less than a Peso. But don't worry, your governement is already fixing that problem for you.
But, of course, that is a hipotetical situation... Or do you really belive you can ride anywhere on Uruguay for cents? It has a small area, but not that much ;)
Assuming you are using a x86, then yes, Java is available for you on Linux. Don't try to be cute using 64 bits, if you do so you'll start to see the limitations.
Also, the Linux jre has a different set of bugs from the Windows one, and since both sets aren't small (try to do anything different from what the designers intended and you'll see them) Java tends to not be very portable.
We are talking about pages intended to distribute videos. Please, quit being pedantic and ignore text only users.
Well, a trafic spike is equaly important if you just want to spread some information, or if you are working for the people in the spike.
We are still not capable of gethering all possible info from a stereo head (at several fps), even with totaly custom hardware and the fanciest algorithms available. Well, theoreticaly, we can, but it would suck so much power (besides being expensive) that a mobile robot wouldn't go anywhere.
I disagree that stereo vision isn't the way to go. Jamming is too common on medium-to-small sensors, even from natural sources. Also, a passive sensor could use much less energy than an active one, even more when you are at open field, when you need long distance sensoring.
But on big robots (SUV sized or bigger), radar and sonar are viable alternatives.
Stereo cameras are a kind of sensor that improved a lot on the last 15 years. Today we get better prices, better focus, the entire set is smaller and lighter, uses less energy...
Yet, we can't make a good use of them. That is because there is no computer we can put on a mobile robot able to get all the data a stereo head gives us on real time. We fall back to getting partial data, and optimizing for what we think the robot will face. We lose lots of flexibility doing that, creating situations like not being able to "see" a blue car at blue background, or aerial barriers.
Funny, last time I saw, computers were machines capable of emulating any mathematical operation... Not based on how we think our brain work, nor limited to it.
Come back when we reach peak-coal.
Or abuse of economical power.
Unless, of course, it was distributed by a company as big or bigger than Sony. On that case, the distributor can make a deal with the AV so it is not stopped.