Actually, if you RTFA, while the bot has been seen walking on water, it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated to be a religious figure among other robots. Therefore a crucifixion would at this point be premature, as it would not make the water-walking bot a martyr to solidify and justify the faith of millions of robot minions for millennia to come.
Similarly, though, most MS worms and viruses exploit not holes in the operating system, but holes in various common programs that are Windows-specific. Blaster is an exception, but SoBig and Slammer are excellent examples--one exploits Outlook and the stupidity of many users, while the other exploits a small hole in Microsoft's SQL server. Neither, strictly speaking, exploit flaws in Windows itself. Even Blaster exploits a flaw in a network service that at least shouldn't be part of the OS, at least by the *nix OS-design paradigm.
When determining how secure an operating system is, it is essential to take into account the security of all the various programs people will run on it. Linux itself is very secure, but mostly because it doesn't do anything; all the potentially dangerous work is left to other programs, which often screw it up. Take a look at sendmail, for instance, and try to tell me it's more secure than a Microsoft product. Looking at security from this perspective, Linux isn't really an operating system, but rather the whole *nix category should be considered (in many ways) one OS.
When determining the security of a particular system, not only does the specific implementation of *nix become relevant, but the programs you run remain relevant--only now it really is the programs you run, not the programs that are available. Obviously the next root exploit in sendmail won't affect me if I'm running postfix. If I instead write my own mail server (just to keep the same example), it might be very secure through obscurity, but (since I'm a sysadmin, not a programmer) it won't be very fundamentally secure.
Basically, security is a lot more complicated than simply "Windows sux0r5." Bad programming and bad configuration can make any operating system insecure, and assessing the security of a particular system is quite a different thing from assessing the security of an OS in general.
This is very true. It's the dissolved compounds in water that make it a conductor, especially ionically bonded compounds. Toss a little NaCl in pure water and it'll be an excellent conductor.
The danger from water is not when it stays nice and pure and within its pipes, but when those pipes leak. If a little pure water gets on the motherboard, it won't matter, because water doesn't conduct; but that water won't stay pure for very long on a dusty board, and impurities will make it a good conductor very quickly.
I have a jug of distilled water here in my room for watering certain plants in my collection. Would you like to borrow a little to pour on your computer?
In the bongs I've used, mostly the water doesn't splash, it just has little bubbles of smoke coming through it. The little bit of noise made by these bubbles is more than offset by the smoothness of the hit, at least in my opinion.
I've heard that Catch 22 was similarly chosen. Supposedly Joseph Heller even used a different number right up till the end, when he changed it right before it was put in print. I don't recall what the number was, though. Perhaps someone more in a mood to go googling will supply that information.
The MPAA can sue whomever they want; the question isn't even whether they can win, which they certainly cannot, but whether they can waste enough of their victims' money before settling to discourage people from doing this sort of thing.
On the contrary, since the BBC owns the copyright for all this stuff (and where they don't own the actual copyright, they should in theory have the broadcast rights), it's completely legal. Hopefully, in fact, it will set some sort of precedent for other corporations (in other countries, such as the good ol' U.S. of A.) to follow.
OTOH, it's far more likely the MPAA will attempt (and fail) to sue the BBC, and any imitators, over this, to try to keep it from becoming a viable free distribution channel.
Can we for a small fee, or would the fee be prohibitive? Perhaps they can make it available for free to UK residents, and charge for bandwidth for the rest of us?
Joe User likes to use Kazaa to share and download music illegally. Being a "noob", as you so delicately put it, he doesn't know how to play these files other than in Kazaa itself. He does know how to rip CDs, but still plays the resulting files using Kazaa as if he had downloaded them.
Jane User is even more of a noob. She is not interested in illegal file sharing, but wants to rip her CDs to listen to on her computer. She asks Joe how to do this, and he shows her how to rip the CDs and listen to them using Kazaa, which he installs for her.
Jane rips a few CDs, then gets sued by the RIAA because she is, through no fault of her own, accidentally sharing all her MP3s. The RIAA wins, and I go on a killing spree and gun down every recording executive and major politician I can find.
Err, wait...scratch that last part.
It is, however, entirely plausible, including the RIAA suing Jane's pants off. I think I'll want to be in the courtroom for that one--this Jane chick sounds hot.
How is a chair like a computer program? If a carpenter makes a chair, and I steal it, then that's, well, stealing. If I copy a computer program, I haven't deprived anybody of anything, so I haven't stolen anything.
Would it be somehow wrong for me to look at a chair, say "I can do that", and proceed to prove it by making a copy? What if the chair was still in the store, and I hadn't bought it? Now I have a chair, for which I haven't paid. Come arrest me!
In the world envisioned by the parent poster, I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of actually building the chair; I would just sort of scan it, and print out another copy. That's not fundamentally different from building the chair myself, but it is fundamentally different from ganking the chair and walking out of the store with it.
He who breaks a thing to discover what it is has left the path of wisdom.
Not if in breaking it, I learn how to put it back together and make it work again. I've done this numerous times, and have not yet left the path of wisdom.
It's definitely worth the read, but the headline was a bit sensational.
The basic idea is, if you post in a public forum, people can read what you write. It's sort of like the old adage, "When you go out in public, people can see you."
...they may cause all my data to be horked... If i bork my laptop - well, i bork it. And when i need a machine that works well - for work - I use a Mac, and i don't dork with it.
Hmm...I thought I had something to say in response to this comment, but it turns out it's as complete a response to itself as I could have hoped for.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you RTFA, while the bot has been seen walking on water, it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated to be a religious figure among other robots. Therefore a crucifixion would at this point be premature, as it would not make the water-walking bot a martyr to solidify and justify the faith of millions of robot minions for millennia to come.
Can you run Linux on it? Or to echo a recent Ask /., can you run Mac OS X on it?
When you come in on Monday and you're not feeling real well, does anyone ever say to you, "Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays?"
Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked saying something like that, man.
With thanks to this guy.
Similarly, though, most MS worms and viruses exploit not holes in the operating system, but holes in various common programs that are Windows-specific. Blaster is an exception, but SoBig and Slammer are excellent examples--one exploits Outlook and the stupidity of many users, while the other exploits a small hole in Microsoft's SQL server. Neither, strictly speaking, exploit flaws in Windows itself. Even Blaster exploits a flaw in a network service that at least shouldn't be part of the OS, at least by the *nix OS-design paradigm.
When determining how secure an operating system is, it is essential to take into account the security of all the various programs people will run on it. Linux itself is very secure, but mostly because it doesn't do anything; all the potentially dangerous work is left to other programs, which often screw it up. Take a look at sendmail, for instance, and try to tell me it's more secure than a Microsoft product. Looking at security from this perspective, Linux isn't really an operating system, but rather the whole *nix category should be considered (in many ways) one OS.
When determining the security of a particular system, not only does the specific implementation of *nix become relevant, but the programs you run remain relevant--only now it really is the programs you run, not the programs that are available. Obviously the next root exploit in sendmail won't affect me if I'm running postfix. If I instead write my own mail server (just to keep the same example), it might be very secure through obscurity, but (since I'm a sysadmin, not a programmer) it won't be very fundamentally secure.
Basically, security is a lot more complicated than simply "Windows sux0r5." Bad programming and bad configuration can make any operating system insecure, and assessing the security of a particular system is quite a different thing from assessing the security of an OS in general.
Pure water is a poor conductor of electricity.
This is very true. It's the dissolved compounds in water that make it a conductor, especially ionically bonded compounds. Toss a little NaCl in pure water and it'll be an excellent conductor.
The danger from water is not when it stays nice and pure and within its pipes, but when those pipes leak. If a little pure water gets on the motherboard, it won't matter, because water doesn't conduct; but that water won't stay pure for very long on a dusty board, and impurities will make it a good conductor very quickly.
I have a jug of distilled water here in my room for watering certain plants in my collection. Would you like to borrow a little to pour on your computer?
In the bongs I've used, mostly the water doesn't splash, it just has little bubbles of smoke coming through it. The little bit of noise made by these bubbles is more than offset by the smoothness of the hit, at least in my opinion.
Learn a little about physics before you post on the topic again, please.
I could help you with that--just tell me where to forward the junk i get.
Come to think of it, give me the real email address of a spammer.
I've heard that Catch 22 was similarly chosen. Supposedly Joseph Heller even used a different number right up till the end, when he changed it right before it was put in print. I don't recall what the number was, though. Perhaps someone more in a mood to go googling will supply that information.
Does this mean that Earl Grey is selling a substance that is almost, but not quite, completely unlike tea?
The MPAA can sue whomever they want; the question isn't even whether they can win, which they certainly cannot, but whether they can waste enough of their victims' money before settling to discourage people from doing this sort of thing.
On the contrary, since the BBC owns the copyright for all this stuff (and where they don't own the actual copyright, they should in theory have the broadcast rights), it's completely legal. Hopefully, in fact, it will set some sort of precedent for other corporations (in other countries, such as the good ol' U.S. of A.) to follow.
OTOH, it's far more likely the MPAA will attempt (and fail) to sue the BBC, and any imitators, over this, to try to keep it from becoming a viable free distribution channel.
Doesn't that single quote look more exciting than a whole porn site?
*snip*
Oh... Excuse me, I think I just wet my pants.
Do you wet yourself when you look at porn, too?
I think the word you're looking for is "creamed".
Commercial uses are excluded, so unless you're a non-profit reselling at-cost, I think you'd be in some trouble for that.
International folks can't access it?
Can we for a small fee, or would the fee be prohibitive? Perhaps they can make it available for free to UK residents, and charge for bandwidth for the rest of us?
I want my Monty Python...
...but can she run Linux?
No, they haven't been playing with a full deck anyway.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
In Soviet Russia, I threw YOU at the ground and missed!
Hypothetical scenario:
Joe User likes to use Kazaa to share and download music illegally. Being a "noob", as you so delicately put it, he doesn't know how to play these files other than in Kazaa itself. He does know how to rip CDs, but still plays the resulting files using Kazaa as if he had downloaded them.
Jane User is even more of a noob. She is not interested in illegal file sharing, but wants to rip her CDs to listen to on her computer. She asks Joe how to do this, and he shows her how to rip the CDs and listen to them using Kazaa, which he installs for her.
Jane rips a few CDs, then gets sued by the RIAA because she is, through no fault of her own, accidentally sharing all her MP3s. The RIAA wins, and I go on a killing spree and gun down every recording executive and major politician I can find.
Err, wait...scratch that last part.
It is, however, entirely plausible, including the RIAA suing Jane's pants off. I think I'll want to be in the courtroom for that one--this Jane chick sounds hot.
How is a chair like a computer program? If a carpenter makes a chair, and I steal it, then that's, well, stealing. If I copy a computer program, I haven't deprived anybody of anything, so I haven't stolen anything.
Would it be somehow wrong for me to look at a chair, say "I can do that", and proceed to prove it by making a copy? What if the chair was still in the store, and I hadn't bought it? Now I have a chair, for which I haven't paid. Come arrest me!
In the world envisioned by the parent poster, I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of actually building the chair; I would just sort of scan it, and print out another copy. That's not fundamentally different from building the chair myself, but it is fundamentally different from ganking the chair and walking out of the store with it.
[O]therwise, you're just giving them the fish to eat, but not teaching them to fish on their own.
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for but a moment; light him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
He who breaks a thing to discover what it is has left the path of wisdom.
Not if in breaking it, I learn how to put it back together and make it work again. I've done this numerous times, and have not yet left the path of wisdom.
Torvalds: They are smoking crack.
That's basically what we've been saying all along, isn't it?
It's definitely worth the read, but the headline was a bit sensational.
The basic idea is, if you post in a public forum, people can read what you write. It's sort of like the old adage, "When you go out in public, people can see you."
...they may cause all my data to be horked...
If i bork my laptop - well, i bork it.
And when i need a machine that works well - for work - I use a Mac, and i don't dork with it.
Hmm...I thought I had something to say in response to this comment, but it turns out it's as complete a response to itself as I could have hoped for.