"Okay so the Aqua interface is applied to the Microsoft OS that they bought and then they install the normal software that Apple really doesn't have an answer for like Microsoft Office which they also bought."
Of course Microsoft would care that their branding would be significantly less important in this context. A year or two without the prominent "look and feel" of windows and all of a sudden nobody cares. "Bill who?" And obviously you're confused; Apple doesn't really need an 'answer' for Microsoft Office; Microsoft Office is available for the Mac, and generally superior in appearance and functionality to the Windows counterpart.
"There have been open implimentations of MAPI for a long time. And it has changed so very little that it really makes no sense for them to purposly break it because huge companies and the US government rely on it. As well as 3rd party software vendors. The evolution software which is where Apple took this ability to work with Exchange. And the only reason evolution did this is because of the OSS communities refusal to use anything that isn't an open standard, such as MAPI, and plus they licensed it under GPL so that pretty much limited them to using scraper technology to get the data from OWA. This not only opens up huge holes in corporate security."
This paragraph is pretty convoluted. I'm not sure what context you mean 'a long time', but just a year or two ago the "Open MAPI" stuff was mostly just libraries, and the functionality available was still less than that available through OWA. Regardless, I'd like to see some evidence that Evolution was the source of Apple's code for Mail.app's access to Exchange; I bet Novell/Suse would lie to see that, as well. And you contradict yourself significantly by referencing "Open MAPI" implementations (that are already GPL'd) and suggesting that Evolution had to use OWA because they used the GPL license (that those open MAPI solutions also use). And you wrap with "This not only opens up huge holes in corporate security."... That's normally followed by ", but it also..."; (I figure any moment you're likely to say "Touche' ") Not only that, but I'd like to hear what great, gaping security holes it opens up in 'corporate security' over and above the provision of the OWA - which is a Microsoft product, not an Apple or OSS tool.
Heh... Entourage uses OWA in the event your Exchange admins block IMAP. So even MICROSOFT won't reverse engineer MAPI for the Mac. Perhaps that's because the Mac versions of office already 'feel' much nicer than their Windows counterparts; Entourage would be a 'hands-down' Outlook killer if it wasn't for the connection issues that it imposes on one. Gotta wonder what kinda politics go on between the Mac development crew at MS and the Windows crew.
You're not the only one by a long shot, but I have to point out the inherent logical absurdity of "Macs are going to be 'Just As Bad' when X percent of the people adopt them!". This entire worldview assumes that all system design decisions are security/malware neutral; this seems obviously absurd to me, no matter what system you apply it to. I mean, someone can certainly attempt to make a case explaining how the security model of OSX is inferior to Windows', or the other way 'round (which I think more likely), but to jump on the whole JAB bandwagon is abandoning reason in favor of politics.
I agree with the first part of your final line - "Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users." But the operating system is an integral part of that. Ever used any trusted platform? (a real one, like trusted solaris or hpux) There's some os-down security enforcement!
All security decisions are a compromise between usability and security. All of them. I can make my windows boxen 99.999% secure by unplugging them from the network and controlling all physical access. But in the real world, a useful system is attached to a network, and the OS is a vital part of that security arrangement.
Anyone who truly believes that *nix isn't attacked constantly, or for that matter, by very high-level attackers, is too limited in experience and not in a position to have reality impinge upon his or her preconceptions. Watch the firewalls protecting any *nix network - say at a bank - and then tell me that there just aren't that many attacks on *nix. Or - try this... run up your linux box, rename your root user to something else, and create an unprivileged user named root. Then log in to any IRC server that will let you, join #linux, and watch your firewall go stupid as script kiddies and various other bored hackers try and 'pwn' your system. The reason there aren't many worms for *nix at all is mostly because the security model makes it extremely difficult to build a useful worm/virus, and it's likely to stay that way.
Absolutely incorrect. Windows has always been a multi-user kluge on top of a kernel that's really a single user kernel at heart. Many of the 'problems' that Windows has dealt with over the years are directly related to that issue. Until the most recent versions of windows, "Privilege Escalation" attacks were nigh on trivial; most viruses and worms and many trojans rely on just such attacks to work.
The lack of malware on *nix in general has a lot to do with the relative ( compared to Windows, specifically ) difficulty of that same privilege escalation. The major exploits in all *nix have largely been such exploits. It's specious to suggest that malware authors have not targeted *nix; if you think that, you should spend some time watching firewalls behind which are *nix boxen that do something - like move money, or other valuable asset.
"What kind of bizzare NeverNeverLand are Slashdot Macheads living in where everyone can afford a Mac? Really, you people are astonishingly out-of-touch with the economic realities of most people's lives."
What kind of bizzare world is it where everyone can afford a computer? If you go and purchase a new computer, anything cheaper than a mini is, generally, crap anyway, unless you also sign a long-term access contract with a dial-up ISP or some such nonsense.
You want a game machine? Buy a console; they're cheaper and more fun for that purpose. I approach the question from the opposite direction. A PC that's equivalent to a Mac Mini is MORE money than the Apple - and that's not even taking into account the inferior OS. Even the 'Mini-Alikes' are noisier and less reliable, by all reports. And a computer comparable to the iMac? Maybe one of the high-dollar Sonys, *maybe*.
"Am I the only one on this forum who prefers working in WinXP?"
Obviously not.
"At least on a WinXP machine there are ways to circumvent the annoyances."
What means are there on an WinXP machine to circumvent the shortcomings of Windows XP?
"
1. The horrible windows management,
2. the slooooow task switching, and
3. frequent program crashes. "
All I can say is that if you were running a powerbook with Tiger and a processor over 300Mhz, the damned thing was broken. I see nothing like that on my 1.67Ghz pbook, my 1.42Ghz mini, or my 2x2Ghz G5. OSX is even usable and stable on an old Sawtooth 450Mhz box I picked up. Now if I could just find someone to buy the damned PCs I have laying around after the switch.:D
Perhaps you fell prey to something that is quite common for Windows users when first moving to OSX - clicking the little red jewel doesn't close the program in most instances. I've found more than one person who was complaining of a slow mac - with nearly every program on the system *running*. Try Command-tab and see how long the list is.
Or maybe the confusion isn't with the "Mac fanbois"?
Hrm... I have had firefox crash on.movs, but nothing like 1 in 4 times; and I've had it crash on.wmvs and.mpegs and... and... Now I came close to that ratio with.pdfs on windows, but finally figured out how to fix it ( associate pdfs with Acrobat Reader, not Acrobat Pro ). Regardless, no, quicktime is not a stellar example of a windows program, but I think all the video players for windows OR OSX are kinda clunky, fat, and slow, compared to, say, VLC.
As to the 'weight'; I'm not sure what's wrong with your setup, but something is broke somewhere if quicktime or itunes loads up like 3dsMAX or Pshop; my utilization doesn't come close with even the simplest picture or scene loaded. Weird.
How strange. Just got Entourage about eight months ago after using windows/outlook/exchange for ages and love it. The only complaint I have about it is the hoops you have to jump through to forward a calendar event. Oh, and our IT dept's insistence on blocking every possible access method but OWA. But I've always thought Outlook was a giant piece of crap. I guess that's why there is more than one email/groupware/(insert software type here) available, eh?
In general, I *much* prefer office on OSX to office on Windows, again, after using it on windows for years and just getting a mac at work some eight months ago. Wish they would port Visio, though. Not because I like it, but because everyone *else* does.
Don't spread stuff like that around! If everyone starts encrypting their traffic, then the government will get all excited and tell people that the kiddie porn rings and the terrorists are using encrypted communication, and they'll pass a law that makes all encrypted communication using an algorithm that's not approved (*and backdoored) by the US Gov't a crime.
I know police who catch these bastards. I think we should initiate a policy of constant video surveillance of all households with children, not to mention legally mandated implantation of RFID devices in all children under the age of 18 so we can monitor their whereabouts 24/7/365. I think we should have checkpoints at every entrance/exit on the highways, and require proper paperwork to allow transport of a child through those checkpoints. I think we should make illegal all photographic record of children other than officially approved school photos. In addition, we should require prospective parents to get a license to have children, with a mandatory background check for criminal tendencies and liberalism.
If you don't support these policies, you must believe that nothing bad ever happens to children, or you must bugger children in your basement. Which is it?
There is a nanoparticle produced by many modern devices that is deadly to humans. In concentrations as low as 1600ppm, it can cause death in two hours or less, and it's only TWO ATOMS ACROSS! It's called, oddly enough, "CO", and it's colorless, tasteless, and odorless. The FDA should require nano-labels on each nanodangerous nanoparticle! They are putting us at risk every day!
TFA says that nobody involved knows if the product *actually* contains 'nano technology'... It's chemistry, peeps... I doubt this stuff is assembled with SEMs. Really!
I always considered "chi" an analog for the neurochemistry that makes our body go. If you view language as functional and descriptive rather than normative and definitive it makes a lot more sense without violating any particular paradigm or worldview. So if I punch you in the armpit, I compress the sciatic nerve trunk and cause problems with the flow of neural messages from the brain to the heart and lungs; or, I compress and constrict your chi so that your breath and heart are arrested - two different functional descriptions of the same event.
"It's usually an easy sell when someone on our Unix team tells a project manager that they can have a machine ready for them in three weeks from when it comes in the door, and the Windows engineers tell them they can do it in three days."
Holy Crap. Get a better unix team, or get them a better hardware vendor! If hardware has to be ordered, I can deliver a better unix solution for most server targets in three days, no sweat. Any long pole in the tent is going to be physical limitations (getting power, network, cooling in the data center) and that will require similar time regardless of the platform. In fact, if everything else is taken care of, I can deliver a linux server or sun server ready for app install in about half an hour via kickstart or jumpstart.
I'm no defender of IP in general; I think we've cocked it all up here in the US. But regardless of the situation, I think that it should be considered *fraud* if someone sells me software as 'the real deal' and ships me a burned copy with no valid license. OTOH, Microsoft's definition of 'pirated' probably leaves a LOT to be desired. I'm betting they're including things like OEM versions - basically, I bet they're including everything that's being sold by anyone who's not an authorized distributor.
See above. The confusion of copyright and trademark with physical properties (partly through propaganda from the media and software companies, who successfully got copyright infringement first branded "piracy" and then "theft", in part by getting people to accept the innacurate appellation "Intellectual Properties") leads to egregious abuses of the system. It also leads to confused ontology. I'm sure, if you think about it, you can think of at least three ways that so called 'Intellectual Properties' differ from 'real properties'.
Others have already reprimanded you for incorrect attempted application of American precedent to a foreign Sovereignity.
The problem with the entire thesis that correlates violence with rap and video games and movies is that the violent crime rate per capita in the US has been steady for many years, and then began trending down radically after 1993, until 2004 represented the lowest recorded level.
I think that we're talking apples and oranges here, and our current 'security issue' on the internet outlines what I mean. Windows is the whipping boy of choice, and has demonstrated over and over that it's not secure. As nearly as I can tell, the "B2" rating you speak of doesn't validate security *at all*; it validates 'processes' and a 'model' designated by the military to be 'necessary for base security'. Again, after snooping the web for half an hour or so, it seems that B2 (and most of the other orange book/TPSPEC designations) are about security *from the local user*, and do not address security from external exploit. While that internal security is a necessary part of a secure system, I admit, I would submit that the current issues faced by windows in the wild prove that without intelligent attention to detail, 'B2' is completely irrelevant to *most* users...
In other words, it seems that B2 guarantees that you cannot gain control of a computer you have legal right to access, but doesn't speak to the design considerations that would keep a blackhat from taking control externally via things like buffer overflows and the like. Regardless, I'm still looking, but I think that SELinux might meet B2 if someone paid for it to be analyzed.
Ok, I'm confused. Are we arguing the same side of the question? Your link seems to indicate so, because the documentation states exactly what I did, above. To wit:
"Freedom of "Expression"
**In China, as in the United States, there is no constitutional right to freedom of "expression." Rather, both countries' constitutions specify that citizens enjoy the rights to freedom of "speech" and freedom of "publication/the press." ** This website uses the term "freedom of expression" as an umbrella term to encompass both of these rights.
"Freedom of "Speech"
"Freedom of speech" is often used in ** U.S. jurisprudence to refer to non-verbal "expression" (such as flag burning).** However, in the interests of clarity, in the Virtual Academy the term "freedom of speech" refers only to spoken and written expression.'
The two points of emphasis I include here are exactly the point I was attempting to make; to claim there is no constitutional right to 'freedom of expression' is semantically accurate but connotatively misleading, since expressive non-speech activities such as flag burning and flipping people the bird are included by the courts (American Jurisprudence) under the canopy of freedom of speech. I never implied, nor intended to convey, that *every* expressive activity was protected; I agreed that each one would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Just as some literal forms of speech have been ruled 'unprotected under the first amendment', one must expect that some forms of non-speech expression will not be protected under the first amendment. I merely pointed out that 'freedom of expression' is a term used in American Jurisprudence to describe the protections of the First Amendment, and I see nothing here that contradicts that.
Because it's not nit picking; it's absolutely incorrect whether you assume he means 512KiloBytes or 512Kilobits. The actual value is 512 BYTES. No kilo at all. There's no/. bias here unless you are willing to suggest that anyone who requires accurate information is a/.er. I doubt that's what you're trying to imply, eh?
I note that the article doesn't discuss what the second statement was, that supposedly showed their analysis to be incorrect. Were they factual statements, or artificially crafted statements designed to discount the original apprehension of the subject? What is the possibility that the subject had actually already encountered the statement in question and made a decision on it's validity or authenticity, or that the subject had sufficient knowledge of the question to know that it was artificially manufactured (if that was the case).
Second, I would wager a small amount of money that *any* topic that one analyzes and draws a conclusion about then slips onto the back burner to be dealt with via pattern matching rather than critical analysis. Examination of history seems to support this; scientific inertia, political inertia - slow acceptance of new truths. So I suggest that if one were to take a widely known scientific dichotomy, where there are two possible interpretations, that if one applied the same test to people who had analyzed data and drawn conclusions in that aspect, we would see the same brain behavior as we do in politics.
First, I would like to point out that *all* legal cases are decided on a case-by-case basis. I would add that the precedent in first amendment cases discusses a 'freedom of expression' under the Constitution - you can go to the SCUSA website and read the decisions yourself if you're so inclined. The case-by-case part has been, historically, to decide if a given action was indeed a protected form of first amendment expression.
Whoah... "never" is a long, long time, my friend. But just to show you how far we have progressed towards your 'never', here's a fun link:
"This is partly because they have only recently discovered that it is perfectly legal for them to do so. In a decision in People vs Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss, two activists in another movement, called the Coalition for Topfree Equality, the New York State court of appeals ruled last summer that women had the right to go barechested wherever men were allowed to. This meant, in effect, that they could do so not only when sunbathing in parks or on beaches, but also on the streets or in the subway."
New York thinks that discrimination between the sexes is unconstitutional. Furthermore, spend a little quality time with google and you can find precedent where indecent exposure charges were dismissed based on First Amendment right to expression. I think it's only a matter of time before public nudity falls under that aegis.
from TFA: "There is a minimum size you can write to or read from the disc. This minimum size is called a "sector," and is usually around 512k. So, unless you really like 512k files, it is very likely that you will end up either wasting space or cutting off the end of the file if your file system doesn't deal with this."
This is clearly not a typo - which is what I was certain I would find when I did RTFA. This guy has a basic, fundamental flaw in his understanding of the very thing he's writing an article about. This is a non-starter, IMO. Combine that with poor sentence structure and bad scansion... I mean:
"Note: My ibook has a "30 gig" drive. This is bullshit and I'll tell you why: Drives are defined by the binary definition of mega, kilo and giga. For example, a kilobyte is not 1000 bytes, but actually 1024 bytes. However, your HD manufacturer uses the metric definitions, even up to gigabytes. Now I can see you thinking..."But Wait Mr. Mad Penguin Person...Thats patently ridiculous and means they are lying on the box." Yah... "
If I'd written something like that, I'd delete it right away and start from scratch.
Slashdot Mirror
"Okay so the Aqua interface is applied to the Microsoft OS that they bought and then they install the normal software that Apple really doesn't have an answer for like Microsoft Office which they also bought."
Of course Microsoft would care that their branding would be significantly less important in this context. A year or two without the prominent "look and feel" of windows and all of a sudden nobody cares. "Bill who?" And obviously you're confused; Apple doesn't really need an 'answer' for Microsoft Office; Microsoft Office is available for the Mac, and generally superior in appearance and functionality to the Windows counterpart.
"There have been open implimentations of MAPI for a long time. And it has changed so very little that it really makes no sense for them to purposly break it because huge companies and the US government rely on it. As well as 3rd party software vendors. The evolution software which is where Apple took this ability to work with Exchange. And the only reason evolution did this is because of the OSS communities refusal to use anything that isn't an open standard, such as MAPI, and plus they licensed it under GPL so that pretty much limited them to using scraper technology to get the data from OWA. This not only opens up huge holes in corporate security."
This paragraph is pretty convoluted. I'm not sure what context you mean 'a long time', but just a year or two ago the "Open MAPI" stuff was mostly just libraries, and the functionality available was still less than that available through OWA. Regardless, I'd like to see some evidence that Evolution was the source of Apple's code for Mail.app's access to Exchange; I bet Novell/Suse would lie to see that, as well. And you contradict yourself significantly by referencing "Open MAPI" implementations (that are already GPL'd) and suggesting that Evolution had to use OWA because they used the GPL license (that those open MAPI solutions also use). And you wrap with "This not only opens up huge holes in corporate security."... That's normally followed by ", but it also..."; (I figure any moment you're likely to say "Touche' ") Not only that, but I'd like to hear what great, gaping security holes it opens up in 'corporate security' over and above the provision of the OWA - which is a Microsoft product, not an Apple or OSS tool.
Heh... Entourage uses OWA in the event your Exchange admins block IMAP. So even MICROSOFT won't reverse engineer MAPI for the Mac. Perhaps that's because the Mac versions of office already 'feel' much nicer than their Windows counterparts; Entourage would be a 'hands-down' Outlook killer if it wasn't for the connection issues that it imposes on one. Gotta wonder what kinda politics go on between the Mac development crew at MS and the Windows crew.
You're not the only one by a long shot, but I have to point out the inherent logical absurdity of "Macs are going to be 'Just As Bad' when X percent of the people adopt them!". This entire worldview assumes that all system design decisions are security/malware neutral; this seems obviously absurd to me, no matter what system you apply it to. I mean, someone can certainly attempt to make a case explaining how the security model of OSX is inferior to Windows', or the other way 'round (which I think more likely), but to jump on the whole JAB bandwagon is abandoning reason in favor of politics.
I agree with the first part of your final line - "Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users." But the operating system is an integral part of that. Ever used any trusted platform? (a real one, like trusted solaris or hpux) There's some os-down security enforcement!
All security decisions are a compromise between usability and security. All of them. I can make my windows boxen 99.999% secure by unplugging them from the network and controlling all physical access. But in the real world, a useful system is attached to a network, and the OS is a vital part of that security arrangement.
Anyone who truly believes that *nix isn't attacked constantly, or for that matter, by very high-level attackers, is too limited in experience and not in a position to have reality impinge upon his or her preconceptions. Watch the firewalls protecting any *nix network - say at a bank - and then tell me that there just aren't that many attacks on *nix. Or - try this... run up your linux box, rename your root user to something else, and create an unprivileged user named root. Then log in to any IRC server that will let you, join #linux, and watch your firewall go stupid as script kiddies and various other bored hackers try and 'pwn' your system. The reason there aren't many worms for *nix at all is mostly because the security model makes it extremely difficult to build a useful worm/virus, and it's likely to stay that way.
Absolutely incorrect. Windows has always been a multi-user kluge on top of a kernel that's really a single user kernel at heart. Many of the 'problems' that Windows has dealt with over the years are directly related to that issue. Until the most recent versions of windows, "Privilege Escalation" attacks were nigh on trivial; most viruses and worms and many trojans rely on just such attacks to work.
The lack of malware on *nix in general has a lot to do with the relative ( compared to Windows, specifically ) difficulty of that same privilege escalation. The major exploits in all *nix have largely been such exploits. It's specious to suggest that malware authors have not targeted *nix; if you think that, you should spend some time watching firewalls behind which are *nix boxen that do something - like move money, or other valuable asset.
"What kind of bizzare NeverNeverLand are Slashdot Macheads living in where everyone can afford a Mac? Really, you people are astonishingly out-of-touch with the economic realities of most people's lives."
What kind of bizzare world is it where everyone can afford a computer? If you go and purchase a new computer, anything cheaper than a mini is, generally, crap anyway, unless you also sign a long-term access contract with a dial-up ISP or some such nonsense.
You want a game machine? Buy a console; they're cheaper and more fun for that purpose. I approach the question from the opposite direction. A PC that's equivalent to a Mac Mini is MORE money than the Apple - and that's not even taking into account the inferior OS. Even the 'Mini-Alikes' are noisier and less reliable, by all reports. And a computer comparable to the iMac? Maybe one of the high-dollar Sonys, *maybe*.
"Am I the only one on this forum who prefers working in WinXP?"
:D
Obviously not.
"At least on a WinXP machine there are ways to circumvent the annoyances."
What means are there on an WinXP machine to circumvent the shortcomings of Windows XP?
"
1. The horrible windows management,
2. the slooooow task switching, and
3. frequent program crashes.
"
All I can say is that if you were running a powerbook with Tiger and a processor over 300Mhz, the damned thing was broken. I see nothing like that on my 1.67Ghz pbook, my 1.42Ghz mini, or my 2x2Ghz G5. OSX is even usable and stable on an old Sawtooth 450Mhz box I picked up. Now if I could just find someone to buy the damned PCs I have laying around after the switch.
Perhaps you fell prey to something that is quite common for Windows users when first moving to OSX - clicking the little red jewel doesn't close the program in most instances. I've found more than one person who was complaining of a slow mac - with nearly every program on the system *running*. Try Command-tab and see how long the list is.
Or maybe the confusion isn't with the "Mac fanbois"?
Hrm... I have had firefox crash on .movs, but nothing like 1 in 4 times; and I've had it crash on .wmvs and .mpegs and... and... Now I came close to that ratio with .pdfs on windows, but finally figured out how to fix it ( associate pdfs with Acrobat Reader, not Acrobat Pro ). Regardless, no, quicktime is not a stellar example of a windows program, but I think all the video players for windows OR OSX are kinda clunky, fat, and slow, compared to, say, VLC.
As to the 'weight'; I'm not sure what's wrong with your setup, but something is broke somewhere if quicktime or itunes loads up like 3dsMAX or Pshop; my utilization doesn't come close with even the simplest picture or scene loaded. Weird.
How strange. Just got Entourage about eight months ago after using windows/outlook/exchange for ages and love it. The only complaint I have about it is the hoops you have to jump through to forward a calendar event. Oh, and our IT dept's insistence on blocking every possible access method but OWA. But I've always thought Outlook was a giant piece of crap. I guess that's why there is more than one email/groupware/(insert software type here) available, eh?
In general, I *much* prefer office on OSX to office on Windows, again, after using it on windows for years and just getting a mac at work some eight months ago. Wish they would port Visio, though. Not because I like it, but because everyone *else* does.
Don't spread stuff like that around! If everyone starts encrypting their traffic, then the government will get all excited and tell people that the kiddie porn rings and the terrorists are using encrypted communication, and they'll pass a law that makes all encrypted communication using an algorithm that's not approved (*and backdoored) by the US Gov't a crime.
I know police who catch these bastards. I think we should initiate a policy of constant video surveillance of all households with children, not to mention legally mandated implantation of RFID devices in all children under the age of 18 so we can monitor their whereabouts 24/7/365. I think we should have checkpoints at every entrance/exit on the highways, and require proper paperwork to allow transport of a child through those checkpoints. I think we should make illegal all photographic record of children other than officially approved school photos. In addition, we should require prospective parents to get a license to have children, with a mandatory background check for criminal tendencies and liberalism.
If you don't support these policies, you must believe that nothing bad ever happens to children, or you must bugger children in your basement. Which is it?
There is a nanoparticle produced by many modern devices that is deadly to humans. In concentrations as low as 1600ppm, it can cause death in two hours or less, and it's only TWO ATOMS ACROSS! It's called, oddly enough, "CO", and it's colorless, tasteless, and odorless. The FDA should require nano-labels on each nanodangerous nanoparticle! They are putting us at risk every day!
TFA says that nobody involved knows if the product *actually* contains 'nano technology'... It's chemistry, peeps... I doubt this stuff is assembled with SEMs. Really!
I always considered "chi" an analog for the neurochemistry that makes our body go. If you view language as functional and descriptive rather than normative and definitive it makes a lot more sense without violating any particular paradigm or worldview. So if I punch you in the armpit, I compress the sciatic nerve trunk and cause problems with the flow of neural messages from the brain to the heart and lungs; or, I compress and constrict your chi so that your breath and heart are arrested - two different functional descriptions of the same event.
"It's usually an easy sell when someone on our Unix team tells a project manager that they can have a machine ready for them in three weeks from when it comes in the door, and the Windows engineers tell them they can do it in three days."
Holy Crap. Get a better unix team, or get them a better hardware vendor! If hardware has to be ordered, I can deliver a better unix solution for most server targets in three days, no sweat. Any long pole in the tent is going to be physical limitations (getting power, network, cooling in the data center) and that will require similar time regardless of the platform. In fact, if everything else is taken care of, I can deliver a linux server or sun server ready for app install in about half an hour via kickstart or jumpstart.
I'm no defender of IP in general; I think we've cocked it all up here in the US. But regardless of the situation, I think that it should be considered *fraud* if someone sells me software as 'the real deal' and ships me a burned copy with no valid license. OTOH, Microsoft's definition of 'pirated' probably leaves a LOT to be desired. I'm betting they're including things like OEM versions - basically, I bet they're including everything that's being sold by anyone who's not an authorized distributor.
Oh, crap, you mean the parent and GP aren't sarcasm? Wow.
See above. The confusion of copyright and trademark with physical properties (partly through propaganda from the media and software companies, who successfully got copyright infringement first branded "piracy" and then "theft", in part by getting people to accept the innacurate appellation "Intellectual Properties") leads to egregious abuses of the system. It also leads to confused ontology. I'm sure, if you think about it, you can think of at least three ways that so called 'Intellectual Properties' differ from 'real properties'.
Others have already reprimanded you for incorrect attempted application of American precedent to a foreign Sovereignity.
The problem with the entire thesis that correlates violence with rap and video games and movies is that the violent crime rate per capita in the US has been steady for many years, and then began trending down radically after 1993, until 2004 represented the lowest recorded level.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Check it out. If, in fact, violence in media is trending up, or steady since 1993, then there is a *negative* correlation society-wide.
Nope, I was wrong... No B2 for linux, apparently.
I think that we're talking apples and oranges here, and our current 'security issue' on the internet outlines what I mean. Windows is the whipping boy of choice, and has demonstrated over and over that it's not secure. As nearly as I can tell, the "B2" rating you speak of doesn't validate security *at all*; it validates 'processes' and a 'model' designated by the military to be 'necessary for base security'. Again, after snooping the web for half an hour or so, it seems that B2 (and most of the other orange book/TPSPEC designations) are about security *from the local user*, and do not address security from external exploit. While that internal security is a necessary part of a secure system, I admit, I would submit that the current issues faced by windows in the wild prove that without intelligent attention to detail, 'B2' is completely irrelevant to *most* users...
n ge-Linux/refs/Orange/OrangeApp-3.html
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/security/Ora
In other words, it seems that B2 guarantees that you cannot gain control of a computer you have legal right to access, but doesn't speak to the design considerations that would keep a blackhat from taking control externally via things like buffer overflows and the like. Regardless, I'm still looking, but I think that SELinux might meet B2 if someone paid for it to be analyzed.
"Personally, I like how the major parties filter out the lunatics."
That's part of the problem, no? One person's lunatic is another person's voice of reason.
Ok, I'm confused. Are we arguing the same side of the question? Your link seems to indicate so, because the documentation states exactly what I did, above. To wit:
"Freedom of "Expression"
**In China, as in the United States, there is no constitutional right to freedom of "expression." Rather, both countries' constitutions specify that citizens enjoy the rights to freedom of "speech" and freedom of "publication/the press." ** This website uses the term "freedom of expression" as an umbrella term to encompass both of these rights.
"Freedom of "Speech"
"Freedom of speech" is often used in ** U.S. jurisprudence to refer to non-verbal "expression" (such as flag burning).** However, in the interests of clarity, in the Virtual Academy the term "freedom of speech" refers only to spoken and written expression.'
The two points of emphasis I include here are exactly the point I was attempting to make; to claim there is no constitutional right to 'freedom of expression' is semantically accurate but connotatively misleading, since expressive non-speech activities such as flag burning and flipping people the bird are included by the courts (American Jurisprudence) under the canopy of freedom of speech. I never implied, nor intended to convey, that *every* expressive activity was protected; I agreed that each one would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Just as some literal forms of speech have been ruled 'unprotected under the first amendment', one must expect that some forms of non-speech expression will not be protected under the first amendment. I merely pointed out that 'freedom of expression' is a term used in American Jurisprudence to describe the protections of the First Amendment, and I see nothing here that contradicts that.
Thanks.
Because it's not nit picking; it's absolutely incorrect whether you assume he means 512KiloBytes or 512Kilobits. The actual value is 512 BYTES. No kilo at all. There's no /. bias here unless you are willing to suggest that anyone who requires accurate information is a /.er. I doubt that's what you're trying to imply, eh?
I note that the article doesn't discuss what the second statement was, that supposedly showed their analysis to be incorrect. Were they factual statements, or artificially crafted statements designed to discount the original apprehension of the subject? What is the possibility that the subject had actually already encountered the statement in question and made a decision on it's validity or authenticity, or that the subject had sufficient knowledge of the question to know that it was artificially manufactured (if that was the case).
Second, I would wager a small amount of money that *any* topic that one analyzes and draws a conclusion about then slips onto the back burner to be dealt with via pattern matching rather than critical analysis. Examination of history seems to support this; scientific inertia, political inertia - slow acceptance of new truths. So I suggest that if one were to take a widely known scientific dichotomy, where there are two possible interpretations, that if one applied the same test to people who had analyzed data and drawn conclusions in that aspect, we would see the same brain behavior as we do in politics.
First, I would like to point out that *all* legal cases are decided on a case-by-case basis. I would add that the precedent in first amendment cases discusses a 'freedom of expression' under the Constitution - you can go to the SCUSA website and read the decisions yourself if you're so inclined. The case-by-case part has been, historically, to decide if a given action was indeed a protected form of first amendment expression.
? ideaId=1695
Whoah... "never" is a long, long time, my friend. But just to show you how far we have progressed towards your 'never', here's a fun link:
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php
quote from above article:
"This is partly because they have only recently discovered that it is perfectly legal for them to do so. In a decision in People vs Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss, two activists in another movement, called the Coalition for Topfree Equality, the New York State court of appeals ruled last summer that women had the right to go barechested wherever men were allowed to. This meant, in effect, that they could do so not only when sunbathing in parks or on beaches, but also on the streets or in the subway."
New York thinks that discrimination between the sexes is unconstitutional. Furthermore, spend a little quality time with google and you can find precedent where indecent exposure charges were dismissed based on First Amendment right to expression. I think it's only a matter of time before public nudity falls under that aegis.
from TFA:
... I mean:
"There is a minimum size you can write to or read from the disc. This minimum size is called a "sector," and is usually around 512k. So, unless you really like 512k files, it is very likely that you will end up either wasting space or cutting off the end of the file if your file system doesn't deal with this."
This is clearly not a typo - which is what I was certain I would find when I did RTFA. This guy has a basic, fundamental flaw in his understanding of the very thing he's writing an article about. This is a non-starter, IMO. Combine that with poor sentence structure and bad scansion
"Note: My ibook has a "30 gig" drive. This is bullshit and I'll tell you why: Drives are defined by the binary definition of mega, kilo and giga. For example, a kilobyte is not 1000 bytes, but actually 1024 bytes. However, your HD manufacturer uses the metric definitions, even up to gigabytes. Now I can see you thinking..."But Wait Mr. Mad Penguin Person...Thats patently ridiculous and means they are lying on the box." Yah... "
If I'd written something like that, I'd delete it right away and start from scratch.