The entire reason cops can search your car is that you agree to it when you are issued a driver's license.
Sorry but this is wrong. You do not automatically agree to allow cops to search your vehicle simply because they want to. They must either have your explicit permission or have probable cause. If they have probable cause then they don't have to ask your permission. If they don't, then they either have to get a warrant or your permission before searching.
Probable cause is a gray area of the law but it is real. Without going into all of the detail, read this brief definition. If you refuse to agree to a search, this does not constitute probable cause to go ahead and search anyway (you're not automatically guilty if you refuse to grant permission).
I'm a radical when it comes to privacy these days. I no longer cooperate with all of these intrusions fostered on us by so called "security measures". If they have the authority then you don't have to ask me for permission. If they don't then any evidence will get thrown out as inadmissible.
Cute. To "disclose" literally means to take something that is closed and to reverse the closedness of it. Instead of saying the obvious "open" as you suggest. Don't you just love the English language?
Routinely and automatically. I don't need any help in remembering my ID, password, or credit card number, thank you. And I don't want any company tracking my every move on the net just so they can turn around and sell information about my personal habits, whatever those habits may be.
Here's a challenge for all the companies (and individuals) out there who think it's perfectly acceptable to track and profit from every personal detail you can get your hands on of the people who interact with you. I'll let you track and profit from everything I do if you let me track and profit from everything you do. Complete discloser in both direction. Anything less is unacceptable.
I for one do feel somewhat cheated by the lack of real manned space exploration in the last 25 years. I am one of those guys who used to read Heinlein and Clarke back when it was not popular to do so (we're talking about ancient history here). However, I'm still optimistic about the future. While we haven't been sending any people to explore the Moon or Mars (or other destinations), the technology we need for practical human colonies on the Moon or Mars has been developing and is just around the corner (told you I was an optimist). Materials science is coming up with remarkable advances monthly. Computer capability is advancing daily. Robotics, genomics, data mining, space propulsion, etc., etc. Nanotechnology promises to bring about disruptive breakthroughs in all of these areas within 10 years. These days if you don't read about a major breakthrough in some tech area daily, it's a slow news day.
I think it's right for business to get into the business of near Earth space exploration. Real competition between businesses will produce advances. And business competition will be paid for by those who have money, instead of tax dollars that could be better spent solving some of our real problems on this planet. What we need is a framework for that competition (government regulation or the lack of, tax incentives, public discussion, etc.). NASA should concentrate on away-from-Earth space and on developing new technology, or in other words those things that are too risky for business to tackle.
On one hand, a lawsuit would be helpful in testing the DMCA's reverse engineering rules for their legality in a manner that would not involve a flame war of company against pirate, since the case would be between two well established businesses.
On the other hand, Apple may be afraid to test these waters because if they lose, every hacker and cracker on the planet will get free reign to develop their own reverse engineering project...
That's good news. I'm not bashing Gentoo but until they get their GUI installer out, I am not skilled enough (nor do I have the patience) to deal with their method of setting up Linux. However, I look forward to trying the install again once the GUI is available.
If you can't recover Windows if the Linux experiment messes up your Windows install then I highly reccomend you buy a second hard drive and swap them out (one for Linux, one for Windows). I have accidentally clobbered my Windows install more than once while trying Linux distros, so be careful.
It depends on the search criteria. The initial page doesn't tell you what it's doing. If you use the "Advanced Search" plage, and select for the Vendor, you get:
Linux = 942
Microsoft = 1097
I'm not sure who the Linux vendor is.:)
Then, if you search by remotely executable and high vulnerability, you get:
Linux = 232
Microsoft = 376
If you add "allows admin access" you get:
Linux = 110
Microsoft = 62
So, expect to see all sorts of statistics to prove one way or the other that both Windows and Linux are the more secure system. Should be fun.
One thing that might be interesting is to compare similar products to see who has the most and the worst vulnerabilities (especially if you are about to buy something).
Recently I have been bitching about all of the problems with Linux in general (stuff like inconsistencies in the Windows Manager (primarily Gnome), arbitrary differences between distros for some of the most basic of things like configuring the bootloader, etc). However, to be fair Linux as a system has gotten light years better in the last year. In the last few weeks I have been trying all of the updates that have been coming out. I have tried:
Ubuntu 5.0.4
Fedora Core 4
Mandriva Download Edition 10.1
Gentoo 2005.1
OpenSUSE Linux 10 beta
My opinion is:
Linux is ready now for the enterprise desktop, as long as you can run your mission critical apps. This is because most businesses have their own support people.
Linux is ready for the home desktop IF it supports your hardware AND you don't mind having to go to the command line to install apps that are not supplied by your distro.
On the other hand, if your computer has hardware that is NOT supported by your distro then (if you are a noobie like me) you have just entered Linux Hell (tm).
One thing I wonder about, I have noticed that the same open source tools available through multiple distros all seem to work slightly differently. This may just be a version difference (I don't know cause I didn't compare version IDs) but it seems to be very widespread.
What Linux Needs (tm) to really get established at home (in my humble opinion) is a complete end to end installer for apps and drivers. End to end means that you choose an app to install and the installer also installs any dependent libraries WITHOUT asking you where they are on the internet, and compiles the dependencies from source if it isn't available from your distro already compiled, and it handles the architectural switches (x86 vs. amd64 for example), and it ties the new app into the Windows Manager you are using (such as creating the icon to run the app from the WM menu).
Another Thing That Wouldn't Hurt (tm) is a central repository for links to non-OSS packages, especially drivers. Since most distros don't include proprietary drivers, sometimes it is tough to find them. My ATI graphics card is one such example, my Broadcom wireless networking card is another.
As for myself, I like Ubuntu for the community support, Fedora for the consistency of their distro, and Suse for their YAST2 program, although I haven't as yet decided which distro I will be going with.
To sum up though, Linux is very very close to being on par with Windows. Now if we can just get those pesky hardware drivers nailed down...
This is the SCO logic approach: "The boxes have our name on them, same as fedex.com, so we own them, what's in them, pictures of them, the house that they are in, the street that the house is on, the air that touches them, the whole world, everything. Pay up.
Because this is America, the land of the free to sue anyone for any damn thing you want and home of the bravely take the DMCA as far as it can possibly go...
I used to use Macs exclusively (actually, I used to be a Mac technician back in the 80's and early 90's -- before Mac OS X). I always found that people would argue that the Mac didn't have nearly as much software available for it, even though it had all of the major software packages. However, there was one major lack (the thing I think really made the difference) in that there were almost no popular games available, or they were always very late in being released. As I said when Apple first announced Mac-on-Intel, if it becomes a trivial issue to publish software for both Mac and Windows at the same time (especially games), Windows is in real trouble. Here's hoping:).
Apple could justify more for their OS, for one thing because Mac OS X is FAR superior to XP. Regardless, Max OS X on the same hardware as XP would actually create the first real competition Microsoft has seen in many years (sorry Linux users but it is true, at least for now) and might even mean that Windows price would have to drop. Imagine that!
I agree. People buy Apple because they want lots of good things, one of which is seamless operation, another top of the line hardware. People who steal the OS likely wouldn't fork over the cost of buying Apple hardware anyway, so the theft will NOT hurt Apple's bottom line while it MAY help Apple advertise their system. Given enough pirating, it is conceivable that Apple could eventually switch to selling the OS separately for cheap and have an immediate and significant boost to their market share. Hopefully, we'll get some real numbers in the next 24 months instead of all of this speculation...
Actually, the CNet article was about how easy it was to find personal information in Google (as well as other search engines), but Google's response was not. Google responded with "you're not allowed to do it with my personal information". And Google's response was only possible because of a person's position. Other news have been reported using personal information gathered from Google and Google didn't complain about that. So Google isn't standing up to asshole reporting...Google's CEO Eric Schmidt is pissed and he is in a position to do something about it...unlike you or me.
Executive summary: Google, you're an idiot.
Just for the record, please spell out the double-standard you wish us to apply to Google vs. the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the equipment include any Idaho Potato Batteries (tm)?
The entire reason cops can search your car is that you agree to it when you are issued a driver's license.
Sorry but this is wrong. You do not automatically agree to allow cops to search your vehicle simply because they want to. They must either have your explicit permission or have probable cause. If they have probable cause then they don't have to ask your permission. If they don't, then they either have to get a warrant or your permission before searching.
Probable cause is a gray area of the law but it is real. Without going into all of the detail, read this brief definition. If you refuse to agree to a search, this does not constitute probable cause to go ahead and search anyway (you're not automatically guilty if you refuse to grant permission).
I'm a radical when it comes to privacy these days. I no longer cooperate with all of these intrusions fostered on us by so called "security measures". If they have the authority then you don't have to ask me for permission. If they don't then any evidence will get thrown out as inadmissible.
Short answer, yes.
Oh, sorry, misspelling. Thanks for letting me know.
Cute. To "disclose" literally means to take something that is closed and to reverse the closedness of it. Instead of saying the obvious "open" as you suggest. Don't you just love the English language?
[...]who is deleting cookies? Are you?
Routinely and automatically. I don't need any help in remembering my ID, password, or credit card number, thank you. And I don't want any company tracking my every move on the net just so they can turn around and sell information about my personal habits, whatever those habits may be.
Here's a challenge for all the companies (and individuals) out there who think it's perfectly acceptable to track and profit from every personal detail you can get your hands on of the people who interact with you. I'll let you track and profit from everything I do if you let me track and profit from everything you do. Complete discloser in both direction. Anything less is unacceptable.
A more direct link: A Hoist to the Heavens
I for one do feel somewhat cheated by the lack of real manned space exploration in the last 25 years. I am one of those guys who used to read Heinlein and Clarke back when it was not popular to do so (we're talking about ancient history here). However, I'm still optimistic about the future. While we haven't been sending any people to explore the Moon or Mars (or other destinations), the technology we need for practical human colonies on the Moon or Mars has been developing and is just around the corner (told you I was an optimist). Materials science is coming up with remarkable advances monthly. Computer capability is advancing daily. Robotics, genomics, data mining, space propulsion, etc., etc. Nanotechnology promises to bring about disruptive breakthroughs in all of these areas within 10 years. These days if you don't read about a major breakthrough in some tech area daily, it's a slow news day.
I think it's right for business to get into the business of near Earth space exploration. Real competition between businesses will produce advances. And business competition will be paid for by those who have money, instead of tax dollars that could be better spent solving some of our real problems on this planet. What we need is a framework for that competition (government regulation or the lack of, tax incentives, public discussion, etc.). NASA should concentrate on away-from-Earth space and on developing new technology, or in other words those things that are too risky for business to tackle.
Just for fun, here's a link to one of my favorite (but weird) space launch development efforts.
On one hand, a lawsuit would be helpful in testing the DMCA's reverse engineering rules for their legality in a manner that would not involve a flame war of company against pirate, since the case would be between two well established businesses.
On the other hand, Apple may be afraid to test these waters because if they lose, every hacker and cracker on the planet will get free reign to develop their own reverse engineering project...
What, can someone explain the patent or why you don't get it?
Just kidding...
True. No doubt everyone will create their own way to slice and dice this search engine. You know what the say about statistics...
That's good news. I'm not bashing Gentoo but until they get their GUI installer out, I am not skilled enough (nor do I have the patience) to deal with their method of setting up Linux. However, I look forward to trying the install again once the GUI is available.
If you can't recover Windows if the Linux experiment messes up your Windows install then I highly reccomend you buy a second hard drive and swap them out (one for Linux, one for Windows). I have accidentally clobbered my Windows install more than once while trying Linux distros, so be careful.
It depends on the search criteria. The initial page doesn't tell you what it's doing. If you use the "Advanced Search" plage, and select for the Vendor, you get:
:)
Linux = 942
Microsoft = 1097
I'm not sure who the Linux vendor is.
Then, if you search by remotely executable and high vulnerability, you get:
Linux = 232
Microsoft = 376
If you add "allows admin access" you get:
Linux = 110
Microsoft = 62
So, expect to see all sorts of statistics to prove one way or the other that both Windows and Linux are the more secure system. Should be fun.
One thing that might be interesting is to compare similar products to see who has the most and the worst vulnerabilities (especially if you are about to buy something).
Recently I have been bitching about all of the problems with Linux in general (stuff like inconsistencies in the Windows Manager (primarily Gnome), arbitrary differences between distros for some of the most basic of things like configuring the bootloader, etc). However, to be fair Linux as a system has gotten light years better in the last year. In the last few weeks I have been trying all of the updates that have been coming out. I have tried:
Ubuntu 5.0.4
Fedora Core 4
Mandriva Download Edition 10.1
Gentoo 2005.1
OpenSUSE Linux 10 beta
My opinion is:
Linux is ready now for the enterprise desktop, as long as you can run your mission critical apps. This is because most businesses have their own support people.
Linux is ready for the home desktop IF it supports your hardware AND you don't mind having to go to the command line to install apps that are not supplied by your distro.
On the other hand, if your computer has hardware that is NOT supported by your distro then (if you are a noobie like me) you have just entered Linux Hell (tm).
One thing I wonder about, I have noticed that the same open source tools available through multiple distros all seem to work slightly differently. This may just be a version difference (I don't know cause I didn't compare version IDs) but it seems to be very widespread.
What Linux Needs (tm) to really get established at home (in my humble opinion) is a complete end to end installer for apps and drivers. End to end means that you choose an app to install and the installer also installs any dependent libraries WITHOUT asking you where they are on the internet, and compiles the dependencies from source if it isn't available from your distro already compiled, and it handles the architectural switches (x86 vs. amd64 for example), and it ties the new app into the Windows Manager you are using (such as creating the icon to run the app from the WM menu).
Another Thing That Wouldn't Hurt (tm) is a central repository for links to non-OSS packages, especially drivers. Since most distros don't include proprietary drivers, sometimes it is tough to find them. My ATI graphics card is one such example, my Broadcom wireless networking card is another.
As for myself, I like Ubuntu for the community support, Fedora for the consistency of their distro, and Suse for their YAST2 program, although I haven't as yet decided which distro I will be going with.
To sum up though, Linux is very very close to being on par with Windows. Now if we can just get those pesky hardware drivers nailed down...
Isn't that kind of an oxymoron, a governmental agency going out of business?
This is the SCO logic approach: "The boxes have our name on them, same as fedex.com, so we own them, what's in them, pictures of them, the house that they are in, the street that the house is on, the air that touches them, the whole world, everything. Pay up.
Because this is America, the land of the free to sue anyone for any damn thing you want and home of the bravely take the DMCA as far as it can possibly go...
I used to use Macs exclusively (actually, I used to be a Mac technician back in the 80's and early 90's -- before Mac OS X). I always found that people would argue that the Mac didn't have nearly as much software available for it, even though it had all of the major software packages. However, there was one major lack (the thing I think really made the difference) in that there were almost no popular games available, or they were always very late in being released. As I said when Apple first announced Mac-on-Intel, if it becomes a trivial issue to publish software for both Mac and Windows at the same time (especially games), Windows is in real trouble. Here's hoping :).
Apple could justify more for their OS, for one thing because Mac OS X is FAR superior to XP. Regardless, Max OS X on the same hardware as XP would actually create the first real competition Microsoft has seen in many years (sorry Linux users but it is true, at least for now) and might even mean that Windows price would have to drop. Imagine that!
I agree. People buy Apple because they want lots of good things, one of which is seamless operation, another top of the line hardware. People who steal the OS likely wouldn't fork over the cost of buying Apple hardware anyway, so the theft will NOT hurt Apple's bottom line while it MAY help Apple advertise their system. Given enough pirating, it is conceivable that Apple could eventually switch to selling the OS separately for cheap and have an immediate and significant boost to their market share. Hopefully, we'll get some real numbers in the next 24 months instead of all of this speculation...
One less thing to worry about...
Actually, the CNet article was about how easy it was to find personal information in Google (as well as other search engines), but Google's response was not. Google responded with "you're not allowed to do it with my personal information". And Google's response was only possible because of a person's position. Other news have been reported using personal information gathered from Google and Google didn't complain about that. So Google isn't standing up to asshole reporting...Google's CEO Eric Schmidt is pissed and he is in a position to do something about it...unlike you or me.
Executive summary: Google, you're an idiot. Just for the record, please spell out the double-standard you wish us to apply to Google vs. the rest of the world.
It's not illegal to file a frivolous lawsuit. If that were the case, 95% of the active cases would have to be thrown out...
Won't someone please think of the lawyers...