Again, yes they absolutely can. how?: Install windows or even buy a new laptop with windows. First reboot after setup it comes straight up into a desktop, turn UAC off. simple.
Your concept of a distinction between regular user and admin user is understood, but not what people get outside of a corporate environment where an IT dept sets up users accounts, unless they know enough to manually do it themselves.
My usage of the phrase "regular user" means the default account everyone gets on their Windows PC when they buy one.
The notion of windows security is ridiculous as long as Microsoft keep making the default account of a PC have admin rights, as most home users don't know or even care enough to limit their own rights preemptively. They just buy the laptop and for the life of it use whatever desktop comes up when they power it up, and from there, they absolutely can and will turn off UAC.
No, UAC doesn't actually stop you doing anything, it just moans about it when you try, and then lets you after it asks if your'e sure. You click yes and carry on. There's a big difference to that and proper security. How would you feel about UAC being the only thing protecting your checking account? "I see you're not the account holder. Are you REALLY sure you want to transfer its entire balance to another account?"
Ok I'm here to collect my $5k. I just installed linux mint from scratch and it works perfectly, and detected ALL my hardware. No manual setup whatsoever. That wasn't even close to true for windows 7. Please PM me with your paypal email address so I can invoice you.
My claim is that as a normal windows user you can do bad stuff. if windows by default sets you up with administrative rights (which for sure every one up to and including Windows 7 does) then as far as I'm concerned that's the normal user.
Just to prove it I just browsed to the Windows directory and purposely modified and saved a DLL with a hex editor with no problem at all.
I installed Win 7 on this box myself and was never asked if I wanted this account to have admin user rights. The only thing I did was turn UAC off because its (still) so stupidly annoying any right-minded person cant live with it on.
>> In the context of this discussion you have to consider Windows deployed in *enterprise* settings.
No I really don't. Any requirement to allow for the fact that I have to have an IT department to make my OS secure sucks. my claim stands.
Linux is really more secure. Here's why. You as a normal windows user by default have sufficient rights to modify or delete files in the OS. Not true in Linux. When you install an application in windows it ususaly drops files all over everywhere, adds stuff the the registry etc. so ususally extends the operating system itself. There is no partitioning. Again, not true in Linux.
Wow you're clearly one of those people that at best last tried linux about 5 years ago or picked some obscure or minimalist distro to evaluate that was automatically going to be a bad match for desktop use.
Your 'obvious truths' are entirely a mix of Microsoft-originated FUD and probably your own paranoia about your locked-in skills being made irrelevant.
Sorry but thats just regurgitated marketing baloney that was cooked up by Microsoft about 10 years ago as the only even slightly credable-sounding statement they could come up with as their only defense against Linux.
It completely ignores all the hard to account for but very real costs, such as having to employ significantly more IT staff just because you're a windows shop and the windows infrastructure just needs way more support because its inherently insecure, non-optimal and has a stupid architecture.
Do you not realise that people adapt, and that after the first couple of days it takes to learn a new desktop and the usual teething problems (which would also happen with a Windows migration BTW) people would be just as happy if not more so with Linux?
So what actually happened is you decided it was worth selling your corporate soul, getting locked into a proprietary solution, and and taking on an expensive licensing and support commitment forever just to save about 2 weeks of problems? Wow talk about taking the short term view.
Where did you think Balmer ultimately gets that few mil from? There's no such thing as a free lunch... furthermore I bet you got it as discounts rather than actual cash, so he really didn't 'pay' anything anyway.
Personally I think the problem has a whole lot more to do with all the ways that the social and legal system is so skewed towards putting women above men in just about every way.
Its so bad now that just the word of one bad date can leave guys criminalized and/or economically and socially screwed for the rest of their lives. Its hardly surprising that many guys don't even want to take the chance.
My guess for this is two reasons: 1) The weren't given enough info prior to being asked to choose: e.g. exactly which green technology would be used or exactly why it would cost more.
2) People already have plenty of good reasons to have zero trust in large corps to do the right thing over making more profit (i.e. whats the guarantee they wouldn't just pocket most of the extra money collected and at most just fund a cheap smokescreen token effort).
>> we need to modularise all our electronics so that we are not constantly throwing and recycling large hunks of kit.
Nice idea, but all these companies, (Apple being one of if not the worst), are building-in limited life on purpose. For example have you seen how hard (read: impossible) and expensive (read:no savings over buying a whole new gadget) it is to change the rechargeable battery in most Apple products?
They are consciously and actively making you have to re-buy the same kit every 2 or 3 years because that is where a large part of their profit is coming from. They won't make any of their products modular, standards-compatible or serviceable as that would undermine their whole strategy.
He defaced a non-critical local government website. It did not cause any disruption of important services, he did not benefit fiancially or in any other tangible way, and the attack only lasted 30 minutes. For that he gets a penalty similar to what he'd get if he'd committed murder one. wow. Not that I condone the crime, but any system that far out of touch with reality deserves to be taken down.
Look around you. Who do you think is REALLY the power behind getting the UK gov. to tell all the ISPs in the UK to block Pirate Bay etc? Hollywood and the American music industry.
BTW I, the OP, am English. I knew what I was doing when I asked the question in my original post.
>> >> 'the purchaser of a license for a program is entitled, as a rule, to observe, study or test its functioning so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie that program.'"
Does this really affect the DMCA?
The DMCA already says that reverse engineering DRM is acceptable only under certain conditions (mostly to do with interoperability). I guess this ruling overrides that so you can now reverse engineer DRM anytime as long as you are the purchaser of a licence to use the DRM? Which seems you'd have to be if you legally purchase the DRM-protected content.
I'm thinking that the project has a large expectation that the brain will also significantly adapt and learn to translate/process the incoming info.
The brain almost certainly wont be receiving info from the bionic eye thats even close to the same as a functioning eye would send given the same stimulus.
Slashdot Mirror
>> regular users CAN NOT turn off UAC.
Again, yes they absolutely can. how?: Install windows or even buy a new laptop with windows. First reboot after setup it comes straight up into a desktop, turn UAC off. simple.
Your concept of a distinction between regular user and admin user is understood, but not what people get outside of a corporate environment where an IT dept sets up users accounts, unless they know enough to manually do it themselves.
My usage of the phrase "regular user" means the default account everyone gets on their Windows PC when they buy one.
The notion of windows security is ridiculous as long as Microsoft keep making the default account of a PC have admin rights, as most home users don't know or even care enough to limit their own rights preemptively. They just buy the laptop and for the life of it use whatever desktop comes up when they power it up, and from there, they absolutely can and will turn off UAC.
sorry but you just need to stop drinking the Microsoft cool-aid, but people like you never do.
...and come to that, the mere fact that a normal user can turn it off suggests it isn't proper security.
No, UAC doesn't actually stop you doing anything, it just moans about it when you try, and then lets you after it asks if your'e sure. You click yes and carry on. There's a big difference to that and proper security.
How would you feel about UAC being the only thing protecting your checking account? "I see you're not the account holder. Are you REALLY sure you want to transfer its entire balance to another account?"
Ok I'm here to collect my $5k.
I just installed linux mint from scratch and it works perfectly, and detected ALL my hardware. No manual setup whatsoever.
That wasn't even close to true for windows 7.
Please PM me with your paypal email address so I can invoice you.
My claim is that as a normal windows user you can do bad stuff. if windows by default sets you up with administrative rights (which for sure every one up to and including Windows 7 does) then as far as I'm concerned that's the normal user.
Just to prove it I just browsed to the Windows directory and purposely modified and saved a DLL with a hex editor with no problem at all.
I installed Win 7 on this box myself and was never asked if I wanted this account to have admin user rights.
The only thing I did was turn UAC off because its (still) so stupidly annoying any right-minded person cant live with it on.
>> In the context of this discussion you have to consider Windows deployed in *enterprise* settings.
No I really don't. Any requirement to allow for the fact that I have to have an IT department to make my OS secure sucks. my claim stands.
Linux is really more secure. Here's why.
You as a normal windows user by default have sufficient rights to modify or delete files in the OS.
Not true in Linux.
When you install an application in windows it ususaly drops files all over everywhere, adds stuff the the registry etc. so ususally extends the operating system itself. There is no partitioning.
Again, not true in Linux.
Wow you're clearly one of those people that at best last tried linux about 5 years ago or picked some obscure or minimalist distro to evaluate that was automatically going to be a bad match for desktop use.
Your 'obvious truths' are entirely a mix of Microsoft-originated FUD and probably your own paranoia about your locked-in skills being made irrelevant.
I'd make that claim about Solaris.
Sorry but thats just regurgitated marketing baloney that was cooked up by Microsoft about 10 years ago as the only even slightly credable-sounding statement they could come up with as their only defense against Linux.
It completely ignores all the hard to account for but very real costs, such as having to employ significantly more IT staff just because you're a windows shop and the windows infrastructure just needs way more support because its inherently insecure, non-optimal and has a stupid architecture.
Do you not realise that people adapt, and that after the first couple of days it takes to learn a new desktop and the usual teething problems (which would also happen with a Windows migration BTW) people would be just as happy if not more so with Linux?
So what actually happened is you decided it was worth selling your corporate soul, getting locked into a proprietary solution, and and taking on an expensive licensing and support commitment forever just to save about 2 weeks of problems? Wow talk about taking the short term view.
Where did you think Balmer ultimately gets that few mil from? There's no such thing as a free lunch... furthermore I bet you got it as discounts rather than actual cash, so he really didn't 'pay' anything anyway.
I thought they removed the gnome login option and forced you to load unity since about 11.10?
Free News Unsustainable, Says Warren Buffett
Billionaires Unsustainable, says Free News...
Personally I think the problem has a whole lot more to do with all the ways that the social and legal system is so skewed towards putting women above men in just about every way.
Its so bad now that just the word of one bad date can leave guys criminalized and/or economically and socially screwed for the rest of their lives.
Its hardly surprising that many guys don't even want to take the chance.
LOL probably literally. American cars are shit.
My guess for this is two reasons:
1) The weren't given enough info prior to being asked to choose: e.g. exactly which green technology would be used or exactly why it would cost more.
2) People already have plenty of good reasons to have zero trust in large corps to do the right thing over making more profit (i.e. whats the guarantee they wouldn't just pocket most of the extra money collected and at most just fund a cheap smokescreen token effort).
>> we need to modularise all our electronics so that we are not constantly throwing and recycling large hunks of kit.
Nice idea, but all these companies, (Apple being one of if not the worst), are building-in limited life on purpose. For example have you seen how hard (read: impossible) and expensive (read:no savings over buying a whole new gadget) it is to change the rechargeable battery in most Apple products?
They are consciously and actively making you have to re-buy the same kit every 2 or 3 years because that is where a large part of their profit is coming from. They won't make any of their products modular, standards-compatible or serviceable as that would undermine their whole strategy.
He defaced a non-critical local government website. It did not cause any disruption of important services, he did not benefit fiancially or in any other tangible way, and the attack only lasted 30 minutes.
For that he gets a penalty similar to what he'd get if he'd committed murder one. wow.
Not that I condone the crime, but any system that far out of touch with reality deserves to be taken down.
So what about muslims that wear niqabs, burkas or other face or head coverings because of religious beliefs?
Do they get a free pass?
now if only they could become product neutral.
Look around you. Who do you think is REALLY the power behind getting the UK gov. to tell all the ISPs in the UK to block Pirate Bay etc? Hollywood and the American music industry.
BTW I, the OP, am English. I knew what I was doing when I asked the question in my original post.
>> >> 'the purchaser of a license for a program is entitled, as a rule, to observe, study or test its functioning so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie that program.'"
Does this really affect the DMCA?
The DMCA already says that reverse engineering DRM is acceptable only under certain conditions (mostly to do with interoperability). I guess this ruling overrides that so you can now reverse engineer DRM anytime as long as you are the purchaser of a licence to use the DRM? Which seems you'd have to be if you legally purchase the DRM-protected content.
Meh. They could make it spin twice as fast just by using usb2.
I'm thinking that the project has a large expectation that the brain will also significantly adapt and learn to translate/process the incoming info.
The brain almost certainly wont be receiving info from the bionic eye thats even close to the same as a functioning eye would send given the same stimulus.
>> The software in question is called ViewNow. It is a mainframe computer program NSW Police began using in 1998
Uhh no it isn't. Its (just) an X server that runs on a PC.