Er, photon has sufficient momentum to kick other things around. Normally, momentum is given by p = gamma * m * v (gamma = 1 for v much less than c), but for particles with m = 0, this is wrong and momentum is now given by p = E / c (where E, for photons, is given by h*f).
Unless you are going to invoke "relativistic mass" (fewer and fewer physicists use this term—mainly because a relativistic mass is the same damned thing as relativistic energy, given the correspondence between mass and energy), photon has no mass.
Nevertheless, my sibling posters are right, and the source of gravity (the source term in the Einstein equations, analogous to the electric charges in Maxwell's equations) is the stress-energy tensor (not simply rest mass of particles) and photons do contribute to that.
That's called "finger memory"—probably the best way to remember a password, random, but memorable to you (your fingers, anyway).
In fact, that's probably the best way to go with any child—it'll force them to learn proper typing habits (10 fingers on the keyboard, resting on home keys and the spacebar) early on.
The only downside to finger memory that I can see is, if you usually type on, say, Dvorak or AZERTY, you might have a problem if it's a password you need to be able to type from more than one computer, as you will have to switch the keyboard first from QWERTY. For some of my more oft-used passwords, I just ended up developing finger memory for two different keyboards in the end.
How about, "if you have nothing to hide, hide it anyways"? Indeed. This also helps with when you do have something to hide—if you only hide it when you have a reason to hide, then the act of hiding itself becomes a sign of guilt. But if you always hide it regardless of the reason (and the general populus does it also), then it allows due process to work as it always has: innocent until proven guilty.
If TOR is too slow for everyday web browsing, it's way too slow for torrenting, and shush about newsgroups! ISPs might start thinking about blocking port 119.
Actually, the better thing to do would be to teach them about free music, such as ones provided at Jamendo and Opsound. And I mean free as in freedom, not as in lunch (kids shouldn't be drinking beer anyways).
And hopefully, the video situation will change in a few years as well...
Meanwhile, the movies mentioned in the article all come with a "blu-ray disc" logo on them, despite there being two distinctly different formats involved. That's misleading advertising, and I hope he wins his case. Except, of course, he's suing the wrong company. He should be suing Sony for their false advertising (i.e. promotion of the same Blu-ray logo for Profile 1.0 and 2.0), not Samsung for producing a hardware player that is not forward-compatible.
While I agree with you , I do feel for the folks who bought these players when they were $600 + , there is no reason that features should have been missing from the players when they came to market. Just to add a little more noise to the thread, I do not agree with you at all and I do not feel for these people at all.
Anyone dumb enough to buy into a format war (ensuring constant changes for both sides and devaluing of the losing side) deserves whatever they get. If they really needed to throw away that money, the least they could have done is donate it to a charity or, if they really had to gamble it on something, buy some penny stock.
It was a reply to "Vmsplice is part of the core kernel, it is not a configuration option. It is used all over the place," and I thought I already said that this is an obsolete kernel (and, yes, outside what is claimed to be vulnerable; I never claimed otherwise).
My point is that whether it's part of the core kernel or not, it should be relatively easy to strip it out without affecting most of functional components.
armageddon [1] uname -a Linux armageddon 2.6.14.7-k7 #1 PREEMPT Tue Sep 25 11:52:38 PDT 2007 i686 GNU/Linux armageddon [2] gcc m00p.c armageddon [3]./a.out (snip) [-] vmsplice: Function not implemented
Granted, this is a rather old (custom-compiled) kernel, but still quite functional. It may not be a configuration option, but it's by no means critical to the functioning of a generic kernel (if worse comes to worst, downgrade to 2.6.14.7).
Slashdot is not Congress. This is, as you point out, a private site. You have no first amendment protections here. In which case, the moderation could not have possibly been considered unconstitutional to begin with.
And for those of us who run multiple browsers,/etc/hosts FTW. There are a couple of ads near the bottom but nothing obnoxious at all. And for those still wanting more advanced control, along with cross-platform, cross-browser compatibility, Privoxy FTW. I haven't gotten any disgusting ads come through Privoxy, the filtering HTTP proxy in my more than a year of use. And they have versions available both in GNU/Linux and Mac OS X.
If a user installs a photo-sharing application, where does he/she think the application gets it's photos from? What's your point? On the other hand, what business does a flash game have to do with any of anybody's personal data? Or, for that matter, why should the photo-sharing application be able to see which groups you are in, who your friends are (well, just *maybe* this has some use, such as privacy control of pictures, but even this ought to be centralized in Facebook itself, not in a third-party app), or what notes you have written?
This kind of thing is not difficult to implement and has been done since the days of Titanic (if there's a leak, there's leak on only one section, not all; not that it worked well first time). This is clearly the case of either the Facebook developers being incompetent (as usual, I might add), or simply not caring.
Having said that, I myself don't care so much about their privacy policy and what they do with what I have on my Facebook profile---it's all lies and forgeries.
So, moderating a comment (-1, Troll) is unconstitutional? Cool! No, because the moderation itself (at least on a private site like this) is expression of opinion in and of itself, and such is protected by the First Amendment rights.
There are services like Hushmail for people who want privacy in their communications. Because that has a proven record of working so well?
No, if you really want privacy in your communication, you encrypt the plaintext on your own computer and never transmit on the net anything that is not encrypted. You trust no one. Especially people who say that they will keep your stuff private. It's not paranoia when there are people out to get you.
Having said that, I don't care about my (several) Facebook profiles (and privacy of those profiles) either, because it's all filled with lies, damned lies, and forgeries. My true friends will always be able to filter out what's not true and what is, and let the fools think that they know much about me, when they don't.
Re:Ah, RM "Proprietary is Never Good" Stallman...
on
Richard Stallman on OLPC
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software "better"--in a practical sense only. It says that non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the free software movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free software is the solution."
I suppose it's O.K. if you don't think freedom is the most important thing—everyone has an opinion and you have every right to disagree. But you should understand that free software has never been about making a good reliable program (although that is often a by-product)—it is about the freedom itself.
As for not using GPLv3, I don't think rms himself would hold that against anybody. As a matter of course, GNU projects will be under GPLv3, but rms has repeatedly said, for example, in the case of Linux, the kernel, it is entirely up to the kernel developers (the strongest statement you have from him is that he hopes that they will decide to upgrade to GPLv3), and as you can see in the list of free licenses (well, some not), he never held being not copyleft against any license—it's just that when one values freedom, GPL (and admittedly, it's latest version, in FSF's opinion) does the best job of protecting that freedom for everyone (or, the most number of people).
The only problem is, songwriters don't have a full control over their creative work. The mechanics of the system goes under various names, such as "compulsory license", "statutory license", or in TFA, "mechanical license". Lessig's Free Culture gives a better account than I can, but the most songwriters can do is refuse to write more songs, not refuse to license their already-published work.
Given the usual release cycles of albums (probably the real difference between the music industry and TV shows), they will need to do be able to sustain their strike for one year or longer—how many strikes have you seen that lasted one whole year?
With just a few tweaks, this could have been a good onion article. I disagree with you there. Onion is America's finest news source. There is no way Onion would print such unsubstantiated slander, no matter how much modification is made, from anybody. It would tarnish their reputation, and despite all the "corruption" and yellow journalism that goes on these days, I am fairly sure that no amount of "advertising fee" would persuade the Onion editorial board to approve such an article.
Re:I thought those things were already broken
on
Yahoo CAPTCHA Hacked
·
· Score: 1
bandwidth is only part of the cost, servers, co-location fees, DNS fees, advertisment, server administration costs (which may be part of the hosting fee.) it all costs money, how much it costs for you to lease the fiber-optic lines isn't the sum of all costs. However, much of that cost is a simple lump sum. If you'd care to see:
servers: especially if you are doing your own hosting, you buy the hardware once. And replace every once in a while as they fail. You do not have to spend more on servers as you serve more porn (presumably to "crack" more CAPTCHAs).
co-location fee: I suppose there are monthly costs associated with these (and I wouldn't have a clue how much they are), but again, you do not pay more in these as you serve more porn.
DNS fees: Er, are you serious? If they are doing it normally, these are about $7 per name per year. Compared to all other costs, this is pocket change, and if they are big enough to do the whole "domain tasting" thing, it's actually free (or constant cost with respect to the number of domains). Not to mention, again, that this cost does not rise as they serve more porn.
ads: Given that what they are doing is probably illegal (i.e. cracking CAPTCHAs; if not illegal, it's bound to violate some ToS), I'd hope that they are smart enough not to advertise. Do you see many mafia recruitment ads on the TV?
server administration costs: If they are hiring sysadmins, again, like co-location above, this will be some monthly fee, but again, the cost is constant with more porns served (except, of course, more highly paid sysadmins might be able to serve porns better, but that's going into too much detail).
If anything, the "costs" that you listed would actually encourage them to enlarge their "business" and "make it up in volume", so to speak. The only cost that, in some way, goes up with more porn served is bandwidth usage (and even this can be made up in volume).
Yes, if these were really small operations with huge overheads like these, they could spend well over $10 per CAPTCHA "broken" in this way. But, while we are at it, why don't we hope that wishes were horses and beggars could ride unicorns?
There are at least three methods which supposedly guard against bad science: 1) Peer review 2) Replication 3) "Scientific Method" Unfortunately, these are not the methods you think they are. In particular, as is evident in the Schön scandal, peer review is not a guard (was never designed to be) against fraud. It is more of a guard against crack-pottery (although, given that fraud is also a kind of crack-pottery, there are obviously some flaws).
I don't know what you could possibly mean by "scientific method", as the method of "hypothesis and then experiment to verify" is the method you use during your own research, not to detect bad science. The only reasonable meaning I could attach to your mention of "scientific method" is rather close to "replication", or, better put, "repeatability".
However, even the usual requirements of repeatability before a theory or result is widely accepted is not the perfect guard against (and no one pretends they are, in case you were misled) fraud in science.
For one, there is a culture of assuming good faith in published results (perhaps because scientists are not as big crooks as businessmen, politicians, or religious leaders and other professions), so for cutting-edge research, like the case of Schön scandal, most people would assume that they were doing something wrong when they cannot replicate the result. And it would take anywhere between 1 to 5 years, essentially how long it would take for a group to a give an honest effort to repeat the experiment, before such fraud is caught.
And, the truth of the matter is, repeating someone else's experiment exactly is not something you would want to do anyway. Yes, it has its place in modern science, but an exact replica of another research is, (1) boring, (2) not publishable, and probably (3) won't get grants. Most near-exact experiments are more likely to happen either as a result of two groups working in a friendly competition with each other, or as a sort of convergence (i.e. experiment itself is useful other scientific endeavors), such as production of BECs around the world.
I guess what I am trying to say is... there is no one familiar with the scientific fields who is under such a delusion that he would think that there are enough safeguards in system to catch deliberate frauds, like cops chasing thieves. The system is more of an honor and reputation system. At least in a vast majority of fields, there are a lot more lucrative things an unscrupulous person can do than do basic research, so basic research does not tend to attract such crooks (unlike, say, business or politics). And, if there were such a person, well, he should count on his fraud lasting more than 20, 30 years---if it does not and it is eventually caught (I'd give most frauds 10 years, since science would advance far enough to determine whether what was claimed could have actually been done), his reputation is toast; it would be grounds for revocation of his tenure, if any; and he would be unemployable in the academic world.
These are the strongest guards against fraud, not "peer review" nor "scientific method" (whatever you meant by that).
My graduate supervisor was very outspoken about the fact that his name would not come first on any paper from my research. Er, I thought that was the standard practice. Maybe it's just in physics (where I happen to have done a little research work), but I have always assumed that for most papers, the first name is the primary author and the last name is the advising principal investigator (and, everything in-between would be co-authors, colleagues in experiment, those who worked on experiment for a while and then left for a different appointment, etc.).
Why would a professor want his name first on any paper anyway? Does he want to look like a graduate student (who would usually be the primary author)?
Requiring MEs to learn op amps is what is giving them that sour outlook on life. You must be joking. I am not even an engineer, and op amps are the most wonderful thing in life. I don't have to mess with transistors, when someone's pointing a gun at my head, demanding an oscillator built in 5 minutes. And one time, I almost got hit by a bullet, but the bag of op amps I carry with me stopped it.
Of course, we all have servers just sitting out there that we can ssh to that will give us such unfettered access right? SilenceIsDefeat.org is not too fast, but they run SSH servers on port 80 and 443.
These days, I have a personal server setup in my office (where I have relatively lax IT policy), so I use that exclusively, but before that, this was such a godsend.
Re:I thought those things were already broken
on
Yahoo CAPTCHA Hacked
·
· Score: 1
All valid comments. Nonetheless, my website statistics says, over last 5 days, I transfered: 6.33 MB.
Even if I were to get Slashdotted (I can't imagine why—it's only a personal vanity site), over the course of a month, I would save $10 by hosting with a web host who charges me for what I actually use.
I have nothing against Dreamhost (it was my first host, and the first year, I got a great deal), but I don't want to pay $10/month for a personal website whose only regular users are me, myself, and novakyu.
I think this comes from the Bible (The Old Testament). Its point of origin is known as the Middle East. I don't know about western traditions - the Gauls or others Egh. I was feeling lazy, but here is the Wikipedia page about it. While most people may know it first from the Bible, I think it's the Codex Hammurabi that's often credited for having that written down first.
I am not a lawyer or a law student (so whatever I speak of "tradition of legal code" would be out of my arse), but this is the first written code of law to the west of China (and that's what I mean by "western"; like it or not, the Middle "East" and Muslims had frequent interaction with Europe, at least enough so if you want to divide the world into "East" and "West", they would fall in with "West"), so it must mean *something*.
Re:I thought those things were already broken
on
Yahoo CAPTCHA Hacked
·
· Score: 1
Many hosts will charge more for porn. Or not allow it at all. Hundred times more? I think at some point, it's probably cheaper for those in porn industry to get their own T1 line and a data center.
Do you have any evidence for this? At least at NearlyFreeSpeech.net, they don't have anything saying that they won't allow porn, and given the intimate connection between porn industry and the fight for first amendment rights (Larry Flint, anyone?), I doubt that they would disallow it, even unofficially. I am just saying this, because if what you say is true, and other webhosts will either charge 100 times more for porn or disallow it, and somehow porn entrepreneurs don't want to get their own data center, NearlyFreeSpeech.net could make a decent profit by hosting them (especially given that they charge by the bandwidth).
And I thought I heard at some point that porn sites actually tend to be better customers for most small web hosts (always pay with cash and never late with a payment, or something like that).
I guess it might be just me... but some of those sound like those annoying popups these "security" applications have.
A colleague of mine has something called "Comodo" on some kind of paranoid mode on his computer, and whenever I use his computer (we share it because in addition to being his office computer, it's also used for some common task), it's annoying. I think I usually see something around 1 popup a minute, like "pidgin.exe is writing to XXX", allow or deny? "blah.com attempted to connect to xxx.xx.xxx.xxx", allow or deny?
Unless I am the only one really annoyed by those needless warnings that condition the user into clicking "allow" for everything, I'm not sure if that's such a good thing.
Anyways. If you are looking for a simple catch phrase that might impress others, I think uptime of most GNU/Linux servers might be a good thing (this is "security" in a different sense---security from developer idiocy)---my notebook didn't need any reboots for a month or longer (numerous hibernations, though), until some proprietary application wanted me to reboot (for no apparent reason) and I naively followed, until I realized that neither the application nor its author had a freaking clue about how things are in GNU/Linux (or, indeed, simple Unix) world.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, photon has sufficient momentum to kick other things around. Normally, momentum is given by p = gamma * m * v (gamma = 1 for v much less than c), but for particles with m = 0, this is wrong and momentum is now given by p = E / c (where E, for photons, is given by h*f).
Unless you are going to invoke "relativistic mass" (fewer and fewer physicists use this term—mainly because a relativistic mass is the same damned thing as relativistic energy, given the correspondence between mass and energy), photon has no mass.
Nevertheless, my sibling posters are right, and the source of gravity (the source term in the Einstein equations, analogous to the electric charges in Maxwell's equations) is the stress-energy tensor (not simply rest mass of particles) and photons do contribute to that.
That's called "finger memory"—probably the best way to remember a password, random, but memorable to you (your fingers, anyway).
In fact, that's probably the best way to go with any child—it'll force them to learn proper typing habits (10 fingers on the keyboard, resting on home keys and the spacebar) early on.
The only downside to finger memory that I can see is, if you usually type on, say, Dvorak or AZERTY, you might have a problem if it's a password you need to be able to type from more than one computer, as you will have to switch the keyboard first from QWERTY. For some of my more oft-used passwords, I just ended up developing finger memory for two different keyboards in the end.
If TOR is too slow for everyday web browsing, it's way too slow for torrenting, and shush about newsgroups! ISPs might start thinking about blocking port 119.
...
Actually, the better thing to do would be to teach them about free music, such as ones provided at Jamendo and Opsound. And I mean free as in freedom, not as in lunch (kids shouldn't be drinking beer anyways).
And hopefully, the video situation will change in a few years as well
Anyone dumb enough to buy into a format war (ensuring constant changes for both sides and devaluing of the losing side) deserves whatever they get. If they really needed to throw away that money, the least they could have done is donate it to a charity or, if they really had to gamble it on something, buy some penny stock.
RTFP?
It was a reply to "Vmsplice is part of the core kernel, it is not a configuration option. It is used all over the place," and I thought I already said that this is an obsolete kernel (and, yes, outside what is claimed to be vulnerable; I never claimed otherwise).
My point is that whether it's part of the core kernel or not, it should be relatively easy to strip it out without affecting most of functional components.
Then could you explain this output:
./a.out
armageddon [1] uname -a
Linux armageddon 2.6.14.7-k7 #1 PREEMPT Tue Sep 25 11:52:38 PDT 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
armageddon [2] gcc m00p.c
armageddon [3]
(snip)
[-] vmsplice: Function not implemented
Granted, this is a rather old (custom-compiled) kernel, but still quite functional. It may not be a configuration option, but it's by no means critical to the functioning of a generic kernel (if worse comes to worst, downgrade to 2.6.14.7).
This kind of thing is not difficult to implement and has been done since the days of Titanic (if there's a leak, there's leak on only one section, not all; not that it worked well first time). This is clearly the case of either the Facebook developers being incompetent (as usual, I might add), or simply not caring.
Having said that, I myself don't care so much about their privacy policy and what they do with what I have on my Facebook profile---it's all lies and forgeries.
No, if you really want privacy in your communication, you encrypt the plaintext on your own computer and never transmit on the net anything that is not encrypted. You trust no one. Especially people who say that they will keep your stuff private. It's not paranoia when there are people out to get you.
Having said that, I don't care about my (several) Facebook profiles (and privacy of those profiles) either, because it's all filled with lies, damned lies, and forgeries. My true friends will always be able to filter out what's not true and what is, and let the fools think that they know much about me, when they don't.
I think you misunderstand him. I quote from Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software:
"For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software "better"--in a practical sense only. It says that non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the free software movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free software is the solution."
I suppose it's O.K. if you don't think freedom is the most important thing—everyone has an opinion and you have every right to disagree. But you should understand that free software has never been about making a good reliable program (although that is often a by-product)—it is about the freedom itself.
As for not using GPLv3, I don't think rms himself would hold that against anybody. As a matter of course, GNU projects will be under GPLv3, but rms has repeatedly said, for example, in the case of Linux, the kernel, it is entirely up to the kernel developers (the strongest statement you have from him is that he hopes that they will decide to upgrade to GPLv3), and as you can see in the list of free licenses (well, some not), he never held being not copyleft against any license—it's just that when one values freedom, GPL (and admittedly, it's latest version, in FSF's opinion) does the best job of protecting that freedom for everyone (or, the most number of people).
The only problem is, songwriters don't have a full control over their creative work. The mechanics of the system goes under various names, such as "compulsory license", "statutory license", or in TFA, "mechanical license". Lessig's Free Culture gives a better account than I can, but the most songwriters can do is refuse to write more songs, not refuse to license their already-published work.
Given the usual release cycles of albums (probably the real difference between the music industry and TV shows), they will need to do be able to sustain their strike for one year or longer—how many strikes have you seen that lasted one whole year?
If anything, the "costs" that you listed would actually encourage them to enlarge their "business" and "make it up in volume", so to speak. The only cost that, in some way, goes up with more porn served is bandwidth usage (and even this can be made up in volume).
Yes, if these were really small operations with huge overheads like these, they could spend well over $10 per CAPTCHA "broken" in this way. But, while we are at it, why don't we hope that wishes were horses and beggars could ride unicorns?
1) Peer review
2) Replication
3) "Scientific Method" Unfortunately, these are not the methods you think they are. In particular, as is evident in the Schön scandal, peer review is not a guard (was never designed to be) against fraud. It is more of a guard against crack-pottery (although, given that fraud is also a kind of crack-pottery, there are obviously some flaws).
I don't know what you could possibly mean by "scientific method", as the method of "hypothesis and then experiment to verify" is the method you use during your own research, not to detect bad science. The only reasonable meaning I could attach to your mention of "scientific method" is rather close to "replication", or, better put, "repeatability".
However, even the usual requirements of repeatability before a theory or result is widely accepted is not the perfect guard against (and no one pretends they are, in case you were misled) fraud in science.
For one, there is a culture of assuming good faith in published results (perhaps because scientists are not as big crooks as businessmen, politicians, or religious leaders and other professions), so for cutting-edge research, like the case of Schön scandal, most people would assume that they were doing something wrong when they cannot replicate the result. And it would take anywhere between 1 to 5 years, essentially how long it would take for a group to a give an honest effort to repeat the experiment, before such fraud is caught.
And, the truth of the matter is, repeating someone else's experiment exactly is not something you would want to do anyway. Yes, it has its place in modern science, but an exact replica of another research is, (1) boring, (2) not publishable, and probably (3) won't get grants. Most near-exact experiments are more likely to happen either as a result of two groups working in a friendly competition with each other, or as a sort of convergence (i.e. experiment itself is useful other scientific endeavors), such as production of BECs around the world.
I guess what I am trying to say is
These are the strongest guards against fraud, not "peer review" nor "scientific method" (whatever you meant by that).
Why would a professor want his name first on any paper anyway? Does he want to look like a graduate student (who would usually be the primary author)?
These days, I have a personal server setup in my office (where I have relatively lax IT policy), so I use that exclusively, but before that, this was such a godsend.
All valid comments. Nonetheless, my website statistics says, over last 5 days, I transfered: 6.33 MB.
Even if I were to get Slashdotted (I can't imagine why—it's only a personal vanity site), over the course of a month, I would save $10 by hosting with a web host who charges me for what I actually use.
I have nothing against Dreamhost (it was my first host, and the first year, I got a great deal), but I don't want to pay $10/month for a personal website whose only regular users are me, myself, and novakyu.
I don't know about western traditions - the Gauls or others Egh. I was feeling lazy, but here is the Wikipedia page about it. While most people may know it first from the Bible, I think it's the Codex Hammurabi that's often credited for having that written down first.
I am not a lawyer or a law student (so whatever I speak of "tradition of legal code" would be out of my arse), but this is the first written code of law to the west of China (and that's what I mean by "western"; like it or not, the Middle "East" and Muslims had frequent interaction with Europe, at least enough so if you want to divide the world into "East" and "West", they would fall in with "West"), so it must mean *something*.
Do you have any evidence for this? At least at NearlyFreeSpeech.net, they don't have anything saying that they won't allow porn, and given the intimate connection between porn industry and the fight for first amendment rights (Larry Flint, anyone?), I doubt that they would disallow it, even unofficially. I am just saying this, because if what you say is true, and other webhosts will either charge 100 times more for porn or disallow it, and somehow porn entrepreneurs don't want to get their own data center, NearlyFreeSpeech.net could make a decent profit by hosting them (especially given that they charge by the bandwidth).
And I thought I heard at some point that porn sites actually tend to be better customers for most small web hosts (always pay with cash and never late with a payment, or something like that).
I guess it might be just me ... but some of those sound like those annoying popups these "security" applications have.
A colleague of mine has something called "Comodo" on some kind of paranoid mode on his computer, and whenever I use his computer (we share it because in addition to being his office computer, it's also used for some common task), it's annoying. I think I usually see something around 1 popup a minute, like "pidgin.exe is writing to XXX", allow or deny? "blah.com attempted to connect to xxx.xx.xxx.xxx", allow or deny?
Unless I am the only one really annoyed by those needless warnings that condition the user into clicking "allow" for everything, I'm not sure if that's such a good thing.
Anyways. If you are looking for a simple catch phrase that might impress others, I think uptime of most GNU/Linux servers might be a good thing (this is "security" in a different sense---security from developer idiocy)---my notebook didn't need any reboots for a month or longer (numerous hibernations, though), until some proprietary application wanted me to reboot (for no apparent reason) and I naively followed, until I realized that neither the application nor its author had a freaking clue about how things are in GNU/Linux (or, indeed, simple Unix) world.