I'm not sure why ignorance about computers is acceptable when ignorance about other matters in life is not.
When you buy a car you're expected to know what the options are for, and if you don't you're expected to figure it out, not just say "ok" to everything the dealer offers.
When you order dinner at a restaurant you're expected to know what you're ordering or ask if you don't.
The same goes for cable service, telephone service, clothing, and every other product you acquire in life.
Why is it only IT companies are expected to assume their users are completely ignorant and must be handheld through everything?
Now, I'm not saying at all that I agree with the practice of selecting unneeded software packages by default, but that doesn't change the fact that users should be *expected* to figure out what something is before they click on it. The problem isn't that companies offer things that users don't need, the problem is that society accepts and even encourages ignorance in IT matters.
You may think you're being funny by saying that, but really it's just foolish.
Apple doesn't sell OSX. You cannot buy OSX. Apple sells hardware, which comes with permission to run OSX. When you go to an Apple store and buy an OSX disk you're just buying an upgrade to the software whose license came with your hardware. Therefore it has no price that they could refund you.
Almost every computer that handles classified information for the DoD is connected to a network. Not the Internet of course, but SIPRNET or one of the 30 or so other classified networks, depending on classification level and other considerations. I don't recall ever needing "a key, a passcard, and supervision" to access any of them, just a user name and password, like every other computer.
Damn near nothing is paper only anymore, and any time I needed a copy of a document I clicked the "print" button in Word or Acrobat, walked over to the printer and grabbed it. And yep, I can email them too! Only to accounts on the same network of course, and I am ultimately responsible for determining whether or not the recepient has the appropriate clearance and need to know, but it's that simple.
Lots of things are sensitve but unclassified (also known as SBU).
I hate calling people out like this, but you're spouting lots of FUD. You're either intentionally lying about how things work, or you've never had any contact with anything classified and are rattling off garbage that you either made up or pulled from some crappy novel.
Historically paper money only had value because it was backed by gold, or some other known commodity. Now it's backed by faith. How's that working out for everybody?
.
You gotta have faith ah faith ah faith ah.
(On a side note, what's up with/.s blockquoting lately?)
If I were the prosecutor, I would go after WHO is responsible for the hardware. And if they claim to not be the perpetrator, then I would require them to identify who it is (since they are responsible for their connections/hardware/etc).
Luckly that's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. If they don't have proof that it was you (which, from this ruling should no longer include an IP address) then you go free. You don't have to proove that it was someone else, just prevent them from proving it was you.
So if there's a post about anything socialistic in nature it should be tagged "Democrats"? Anything about vegetables should be tagged "Libertarians"? You should tag all war related stories "Romans"? How about posts about boats? Tag them "Vikings" I suppose.
Just because two things are ocasionally associated doesn't mean one always has to do with the other.
This story is about the FBI, not Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Mormons, Moonies or Xenu.
I'm totally non-partisan (anti-partisan actually, political parties are half of the problem in our country) and a centrist in my views, but I can't help being annoyed that this post has been tagged "Republican." What does any of this have to do with Republicans?
Speculation of any sort should be frowned upon in our society.
I'm all for capitalisim and making a profit, but buying something just so you can turn around and sell it to someone else for more money, without having made any improvements is just jackassery.
Good info, thanks for that.
I'm an atheist myself, but find religion fascinating. Also, I completely agree with you. Organized religion has brought much more pain and suffering to this world than it can ever take away.
I basically see it as this: Science is about understanding why the sky is blue. Religion is about saying "It's blue because God/Allah/Zeus/whatever wants it to be that way. Don't ask questions."
While your comment meets the current "fashion" for anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism, what you say is false.
They hate Americans, and all westerners because they've been told for generations that we are "infidels", non-believers, and it is therefore their duty by Allah to cleanse the Earth of these non-belivers. This is despite the Qur'an specifically recognizing Christians and Jews (People of the Book) and, believe it or not, even atheists. Mohammed himself also stated, "He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself as his accuser on the day of judgment." Alos, Qur'an 109:6(http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/109.qmt.html) says "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion."
Oh, and Bush/Cheney aren't in office anymore, the Country has moved on, maybe you should too.
The rape^H^H^H^Htesting hasn't been delayed at all. October is the date TWC has been saying it would start in Texas since they announced the whole thing. The San Antonio Express-News is just clueless, and sadly other media sites are picking up on their article and repeating the nonsense.
You and I must be reading different constitutions. I see nothing in the First Amendment about videos, music, games, DRM or anything of the sort.
The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
From what I read on that Apple post, it sounds like Apple is encouraging you to install multiple AV software. And OS X already runs ClamAV doesn't it? Although I have yet to see such a thing get pushed out, I assume Clam can get updates via SoftwareUpdate?
I don't think they're suggesting that each machine run multiple AV systems, just that there are multiple AV systems in use among all machines, thus decreasing the chances that a virus can exploit a weakness in a particular scanner and remain undetected.
Also, OS X Server comes with ClamAV, but standard OS X does not. However, ClamXAV is available (completely free of course) for OS X and provides a simple way to install ClamAV and a GUI for management. I'm a bit surprised Apple doesn't list it on the recommendation page.
Slashdot Mirror
There, fixed that for you.
Will have had been
I'm not sure why ignorance about computers is acceptable when ignorance about other matters in life is not.
When you buy a car you're expected to know what the options are for, and if you don't you're expected to figure it out, not just say "ok" to everything the dealer offers.
When you order dinner at a restaurant you're expected to know what you're ordering or ask if you don't.
The same goes for cable service, telephone service, clothing, and every other product you acquire in life.
Why is it only IT companies are expected to assume their users are completely ignorant and must be handheld through everything?
Now, I'm not saying at all that I agree with the practice of selecting unneeded software packages by default, but that doesn't change the fact that users should be *expected* to figure out what something is before they click on it. The problem isn't that companies offer things that users don't need, the problem is that society accepts and even encourages ignorance in IT matters.
You may think you're being funny by saying that, but really it's just foolish.
Apple doesn't sell OSX. You cannot buy OSX. Apple sells hardware, which comes with permission to run OSX. When you go to an Apple store and buy an OSX disk you're just buying an upgrade to the software whose license came with your hardware. Therefore it has no price that they could refund you.
+5, Awesome usenet reference.
You're joking, right?
Almost every computer that handles classified information for the DoD is connected to a network. Not the Internet of course, but SIPRNET or one of the 30 or so other classified networks, depending on classification level and other considerations. I don't recall ever needing "a key, a passcard, and supervision" to access any of them, just a user name and password, like every other computer.
Damn near nothing is paper only anymore, and any time I needed a copy of a document I clicked the "print" button in Word or Acrobat, walked over to the printer and grabbed it. And yep, I can email them too! Only to accounts on the same network of course, and I am ultimately responsible for determining whether or not the recepient has the appropriate clearance and need to know, but it's that simple.
Lots of things are sensitve but unclassified (also known as SBU).
I hate calling people out like this, but you're spouting lots of FUD. You're either intentionally lying about how things work, or you've never had any contact with anything classified and are rattling off garbage that you either made up or pulled from some crappy novel.
.
You gotta have faith ah faith ah faith ah.
(On a side note, what's up with /.s blockquoting lately?)
As far as your case is concerned, yes. What other person specifically committed the crime is not important in your trial, only that it wasn't you.
Luckly that's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. If they don't have proof that it was you (which, from this ruling should no longer include an IP address) then you go free. You don't have to proove that it was someone else, just prevent them from proving it was you.
Ok, maybe a little. But shh, don't tell anyone.
So if there's a post about anything socialistic in nature it should be tagged "Democrats"? Anything about vegetables should be tagged "Libertarians"? You should tag all war related stories "Romans"? How about posts about boats? Tag them "Vikings" I suppose.
Just because two things are ocasionally associated doesn't mean one always has to do with the other.
This story is about the FBI, not Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Mormons, Moonies or Xenu.
I'm totally non-partisan (anti-partisan actually, political parties are half of the problem in our country) and a centrist in my views, but I can't help being annoyed that this post has been tagged "Republican." What does any of this have to do with Republicans?
Retail adds value by providing distribution.
I said without adding value. A retailer adds plenty of value: Distribution.
Speculation of any sort should be frowned upon in our society. I'm all for capitalisim and making a profit, but buying something just so you can turn around and sell it to someone else for more money, without having made any improvements is just jackassery.
Good info, thanks for that. I'm an atheist myself, but find religion fascinating. Also, I completely agree with you. Organized religion has brought much more pain and suffering to this world than it can ever take away.
I basically see it as this: Science is about understanding why the sky is blue. Religion is about saying "It's blue because God/Allah/Zeus/whatever wants it to be that way. Don't ask questions."
While your comment meets the current "fashion" for anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism, what you say is false.
They hate Americans, and all westerners because they've been told for generations that we are "infidels", non-believers, and it is therefore their duty by Allah to cleanse the Earth of these non-belivers. This is despite the Qur'an specifically recognizing Christians and Jews (People of the Book) and, believe it or not, even atheists. Mohammed himself also stated, "He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself as his accuser on the day of judgment." Alos, Qur'an 109:6(http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/109.qmt.html) says "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion."
Oh, and Bush/Cheney aren't in office anymore, the Country has moved on, maybe you should too.
Jeremy@Arx[~]$ make children make: *** No rule to make target `children'. Stop.
The rape^H^H^H^Htesting hasn't been delayed at all. October is the date TWC has been saying it would start in Texas since they announced the whole thing. The San Antonio Express-News is just clueless, and sadly other media sites are picking up on their article and repeating the nonsense.
You and I must be reading different constitutions. I see nothing in the First Amendment about videos, music, games, DRM or anything of the sort.
The First Amendment reads:
No, as RIAA is pronounced Arr Eye Ay Ay, not Ree-ah. "An" is appropriate in this case.
Macs? When I was in school we used Apple IIe machines.
:...and that dog."
I think you mean taste the code compiling. What you're seeing is the sound the hard drive makes.
I don't think they're suggesting that each machine run multiple AV systems, just that there are multiple AV systems in use among all machines, thus decreasing the chances that a virus can exploit a weakness in a particular scanner and remain undetected.
Also, OS X Server comes with ClamAV, but standard OS X does not. However, ClamXAV is available (completely free of course) for OS X and provides a simple way to install ClamAV and a GUI for management. I'm a bit surprised Apple doesn't list it on the recommendation page.
"Would you say I have a plethora of patches?" "Jefe, what is a plethora?"