Well, guess what. Windows SHIPS insecure, but once installed by any competent person who knows how to tweak the system, Windows can be as secure as any other OS out there.
So let me get this straight: the fact that a Windows installation can be secured if you know what you're doing makes up for the facts that a) it ships insecure and b) neither Joe Sixpack nor Aunt Minnie has the slightest clue as to how to go about this or even that it's possible.
If you want to examine the long-term effects of the world's largest nuclear disaster, you don't look at Chernobyl, you look at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
These results don't say that global warming is occurring. In fact, they neither support nor oppose the idea at all.
As the submitter of the story, I'd like to congratulate you. Not only did you RTFM, you understood it. Alas, AFAICT, nobody's mentioned what I consider the most important fact: the cold water is descending into the Abyss, and taking with it large quantities of CO2. This is sequestering it just as if it were taken up by old-growth forests, harvested, and the wood dumped down old coal mines. This acts as a moderating factor, taking up at least some of the CO2 we're spewing into the atmosphere, but nobody on Slashdot seems to have noticed.
The current is a predicted effect of increased global warming causing the polar icecaps to melt.
Funny, I've never seen any predictions of this in the past. If there are any, I'd like to see a citation, otherwise, it's just changing your story after the fact.
We hear all about Global Warming and when one asks about Global Warming in the face of the recent cooling trend and your informed that "it's been called `Global Climate Change' for some time now, Neanderthal!"
It's the first rule of junk science: "If the facts don't support your position, change the name of your theory and hope that nobody will notice."
Alas, the Rocky and Bullwinklke maxim says otherwise: "But that trick never works!"
But a legitimate PI wouldn't have even conducted the search in the first place because you don't have any right or authority to permit him to do so.
I agree completely, for exactly the reasons you stated, and that was my point: the posters claiming that a PI doesn't have to have a warrant for some things that a cop does are wrong.
...to record all actions whether public or private.
I don't see how, when all the GPS can do is record the movements of the vehicle. It's actually less intrusive than a physical tail because it can't follow you out of the parking lot, down the street and into whatever building you enter.
No, someone working for the cops is an agent of the cops, and gets some additional responsibilities.
My point, exactly. However, I'd go further: if I, as a private citizen, hire a PI to search somebody's home, the evidence is still inadmissible, because without a warrant, the search constitutes Breaking and Entering, and removing evidence is Burglary. The only way you can avoid that is to have a warrant, and a PI can't get one AFAIK.
As I wrote in answer to a similar comment, if a PI could do things like search your home without a warrant and have what he found admissible, cops would just hire PIs to do their searches and not bother with warrants. They don't, because it won't work.
If a private detective could legally do things that a police officer would need a warrant for, the cops would just hire PIs to do their dirty work instead of getting warrants.
you need a warrant to track a person's private movements.
IANAL, but I don't think that's right. If it were, no PI could tail a husband suspected of cheating on his wife because a PI couldn't get a warrant. If the cops want to tail you, they can, without asking a judge. It's not unreasonable to argue that a GPS device is equivalent, although a judge might not accept your claim.
Thank you, but that's not what I meant. What I want to know is, does the fair use provision of the copyright law create an exemption to the DCMA, even though not explicitly stated?
Actually, I suspect that their argument would be far simpler: current American copyright law contains a specific exemption for limited copying for educational purposes. The MPAA can complain all it wants, but the law is on our side.
Thank you. I've never owned a computer that needed activation, having gone right from Win98Se to Linux. I've heard much bad about activation over the years, and little good, but this is a little better than what I'd have expected.
For the average person who got the OS with the computer, activation problems means that Microsoft has NOT gotten Anti-Piracy to work right. Legitimate users should not be bothered by the system.
Now that's an excellent idea, having OEM installations of Windows 7 (Hmmm, should we be calling this "Gates7"?) come already activated and verified would make things much simpler. Of course, we're talking about Microsoft, so it's not going to happen because there's nobody for them to steal it from.
Do you really believe for a second that these Taliban men captured in Afghanistan were not any kind of organization nor were carrying arms?
I'm sure they did. However, I'm also sure that they did not respect the laws and customs of war themselves, and that too is a condition for them being covered by the Geneva Conventions. If you're going to insist on citing the definition, you're going to have to accept all of it; you can't just cherry pick the parts that fit your side of the argument and ignore the rest.
There's one class of combatant that you haven't mentioned that also applies:
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
However, that also includes that unpleasant clause about respecting the laws and customs of war that liberals and Democrats like to pretend doesn't exist, because if they admitted it existed, they'd also have to admit that the insurgents in Iraq don't have any respect for the laws and customs of war, and thus disqualify themselves from being protected by the Geneva Convention.
Yes, it's the way all DEs handle scripts because that's the way Unix and all its variations (including Linux) work. If you double-click on a text file with the execute bit set, your DE will ask you if you want to run it, run it in a terminal or display it.
Hiding extensions in Linux is rather pointless because Linux doesn't use the extension to decide what kind of file it is. (It does, granted, use it to decide the default application to use with it, but that's easy to override.) As an example, shell scripts don't need to end in.sh, they just need to have the executable flag set.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you still don't have a wife.
Joe Biden is worse than Dan Quayle at his worst, and it's time we all accepted that we have a senile fool for VP.
So let me get this straight: the fact that a Windows installation can be secured if you know what you're doing makes up for the facts that a) it ships insecure and b) neither Joe Sixpack nor Aunt Minnie has the slightest clue as to how to go about this or even that it's possible.
If you want to examine the long-term effects of the world's largest nuclear disaster, you don't look at Chernobyl, you look at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No developers in Africa? Where do they send their film?
Sequestering it in cold water, miles below the surface.
As the submitter of the story, I'd like to congratulate you. Not only did you RTFM, you understood it. Alas, AFAICT, nobody's mentioned what I consider the most important fact: the cold water is descending into the Abyss, and taking with it large quantities of CO2. This is sequestering it just as if it were taken up by old-growth forests, harvested, and the wood dumped down old coal mines. This acts as a moderating factor, taking up at least some of the CO2 we're spewing into the atmosphere, but nobody on Slashdot seems to have noticed.
Funny, I've never seen any predictions of this in the past. If there are any, I'd like to see a citation, otherwise, it's just changing your story after the fact.
It's the first rule of junk science: "If the facts don't support your position, change the name of your theory and hope that nobody will notice."
Alas, the Rocky and Bullwinklke maxim says otherwise: "But that trick never works!"
I agree completely, for exactly the reasons you stated, and that was my point: the posters claiming that a PI doesn't have to have a warrant for some things that a cop does are wrong.
I didn't know that Breaking and Entering was a civil violation; I'd always thought it was a felony.
I don't see how, when all the GPS can do is record the movements of the vehicle. It's actually less intrusive than a physical tail because it can't follow you out of the parking lot, down the street and into whatever building you enter.
My point, exactly. However, I'd go further: if I, as a private citizen, hire a PI to search somebody's home, the evidence is still inadmissible, because without a warrant, the search constitutes Breaking and Entering, and removing evidence is Burglary. The only way you can avoid that is to have a warrant, and a PI can't get one AFAIK.
As I wrote in answer to a similar comment, if a PI could do things like search your home without a warrant and have what he found admissible, cops would just hire PIs to do their searches and not bother with warrants. They don't, because it won't work.
If a private detective could legally do things that a police officer would need a warrant for, the cops would just hire PIs to do their dirty work instead of getting warrants.
IANAL, but I don't think that's right. If it were, no PI could tail a husband suspected of cheating on his wife because a PI couldn't get a warrant. If the cops want to tail you, they can, without asking a judge. It's not unreasonable to argue that a GPS device is equivalent, although a judge might not accept your claim.
Thank you, but that's not what I meant. What I want to know is, does the fair use provision of the copyright law create an exemption to the DCMA, even though not explicitly stated?
Interesting. I wonder what will happen when a case comes up revolving around the conflict between the two laws.
Actually, I suspect that their argument would be far simpler: current American copyright law contains a specific exemption for limited copying for educational purposes. The MPAA can complain all it wants, but the law is on our side.
Thank you. I've never owned a computer that needed activation, having gone right from Win98Se to Linux. I've heard much bad about activation over the years, and little good, but this is a little better than what I'd have expected.
Now that's an excellent idea, having OEM installations of Windows 7 (Hmmm, should we be calling this "Gates7"?) come already activated and verified would make things much simpler. Of course, we're talking about Microsoft, so it's not going to happen because there's nobody for them to steal it from.
I'm sure they did. However, I'm also sure that they did not respect the laws and customs of war themselves, and that too is a condition for them being covered by the Geneva Conventions. If you're going to insist on citing the definition, you're going to have to accept all of it; you can't just cherry pick the parts that fit your side of the argument and ignore the rest.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
However, that also includes that unpleasant clause about respecting the laws and customs of war that liberals and Democrats like to pretend doesn't exist, because if they admitted it existed, they'd also have to admit that the insurgents in Iraq don't have any respect for the laws and customs of war, and thus disqualify themselves from being protected by the Geneva Convention.
Yes, it's the way all DEs handle scripts because that's the way Unix and all its variations (including Linux) work. If you double-click on a text file with the execute bit set, your DE will ask you if you want to run it, run it in a terminal or display it.
Hiding extensions in Linux is rather pointless because Linux doesn't use the extension to decide what kind of file it is. (It does, granted, use it to decide the default application to use with it, but that's easy to override.) As an example, shell scripts don't need to end in .sh, they just need to have the executable flag set.