> Sure there are some rootkits and viruses for linux, but between you and me, how many compared to windows.
and if Linux had the majority of the market share, they would have the majority of the viruses.
Viruses are written for the greatest impact.
Virus can be written for Linux it doesn't mean they'll get anywhere. The security model of Linux/BSD is way superior to Windows. Fact is, if every business desktop and server changed to something other than Windows most virus writers would quit the job because it would be too much pain for too little gain.
Before the age of personal computers the only way for a hacker to play around was using the large, centralized, university mainframes. I'm sure he felt oppressed in that environment.
Nowadays I don't think he is as opposed to the wheel group as back then.
Like somebody mentioned that unix passwords don't even reveal how many characters are there in your password. I think all unix(including linux but not macs) applications should work that way. Even cross-platform browsers like firefox should completely hide passwords (Or just display a symbol indicating the password has been typed).
Compare with 80% of Windows users. You should just assume their system is infected, they write down their passwords on post-its and paste them in the monitor, the clever ones paste it under the keyboard.
They even tell their passwords to their friends and family due social preassure or parental surveillance.
Core windows applications like msn messenger send passwords in clear text through the network.
The kind of protection provided by masked passwords is moot in this context.
Considering the same level of protection can be achieved by physically looking around for bystanders or placing you hand over the monitor makes it further moot.
MacOS... I don't know, the average MacOS user is not as clueless as the randomly chosen Windows user tends to be, but a significant share of them are of the "don't want to know shit outside my specialty" variety, so unmasked passwords still seem a good idea in that platform.
Ok what he is saying is that Google and Amazon aren't enough, we need more of their like, a lot more, to cover every niche.
What he is missing is that Google and Amazon do not, keep the gate, google in particular is only a search engine, *the Internet is the gate*, Google in particular has no intention of hiding niche websites so nobody is getting obscured by it.
Guys, we are missing the important bits. This medicine actually does something, it is not really homeopathic, the homeopathic label was put there either to evade FDA regulations and maybe to sell better too. Neither thing should happen, I don't think homeopathic medicine should not sell better than real medicine but what absolutely should never happen is for a medical product to be able to skip FDA regulations.
I'm against government, law and ISP collusion against Internet privacy. If the ISP sold his identity the blogger should sue his ISP, if the newspaper hacked the ISP the ISP should sue the newspaper. If a Judge orders the ISP to betray the user, law must change.
If the newspaper found out his identity merely by reading his blog I'd say he never was so anonymous to begin with. The newspaper simply completed a job anyone could do on its own.
Some how I don't think that's the way man learned to fly. We probably started with the concept of the wing right away by observation of birds and insects.
The problem is that the economic process of creating art is turned on its head. It should be possible for instance to make a 10 million dollar movie if only the buyers payed for it in advance.
No, people want the content to be made before they pay for it, which is funny since in the current system people can't actually know if a movie is good without paying for it first.
Brand recognition plays a major part in that, the truth is that much of the value in Nintendo comes from the name of Shigeru Miyamoto whether he designed the game or not. What could Shigeru do with his games if he had access to the power of the PS3? Had Shigeru designed his games for the PS3 a Wii version would indeed be a watered down version too.
In other words both positions are not mutually exclusive, Nintendo games are good AND the Wii provides a watered down game experience.
Was that C:\TMP C:\temp C:\WINDOWS\temp C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files... Actually I just can't enumerate them all, and they change from version to version.
Gee you index your temp folders? Do you also Index Program Files?
This is not my best post, I wrote hastily and left lots of details out. The issue is far more complicated than this, but, me an right wing fundamentalist? Give me a break.
My issue is with direct democracy for which I'm a proposer, and how it is dissed by some people in/. as "frightening mob rule"
Wut? As opposed to what? A dictatorship? The idea is that our dear representatives are there to NOT hear our stupid ideas and choose what is best for us.
Shryeah right!
The fact is that every social progress has come about thanks to the "mob" a.k.a. the voters.
Racism is the canonical example of the majority doing the wrong thing. Thanks God we got rid of the KKK in spite the "mob". No wait, the "mob" got rid of the KKK themselves.
Most white people didn't want to have anything to do with the KKK, the KKK was crazy, most white people realized it was wrong, because it was.
The success of the social liberty movement didn't come about from the enlightened elite forcing the matter on the population but from convincing the population to change its government.
ALL social progress comes from changing public opinion not from changing politicians opinion.
Now some people find themselves alienated by their community, they find their community to be racist/homophobic/fundamentalist. This is proof that the "mob" is evil and the government is good? No, it just means this particular "little mob" is in disagreement with the "big mob" that supports the laws that support you. What you need is not to get rid of direct democracy and hold onto your enlightened representatives. What you need is simply to get the "big mob" to protect you from this "little mob".
This is what I mean. I don't believe in the danger of the tiranity of the majority, the majority is not always right, but it is the best we have. You are far more likely to be wronged by the elite few than by the "mob".
Now back to the argument about Internet vigilantes. The main argument is that they are more likely to get violent and not follow due process than the proper authorities.
Of course the proper authorities are violent and also skip due process often, but the argument is that they do it less often. So far, I agree.
I would argue that by virtue of being allowed to be violent, the police needs this checks and balances a lot more than Internet vigilantes, who simply discuss your personal details in the web.
So what if one of this vigilantes actually gets violent? Well some GTA players do shot people but you know how that works, these people would end up shooting someone eventually.
Arguments of this sort I can accept. What I can't accept is arguments of the type "Oh fear the mob!" "What happens when the mob is against you!" "What happens to those who dare to be different!"
Yeah because being "different" is never wrong, right? For some people being different means "torturing helpless creatures", the truth is that as much as I'm in favor of personal liberties there are some kinds of different that I believe are dead wrong and I just won't accept in the name of diversity.
All this crap about phear the mob rule! Tiranity of the majority etc is just rhetoric elitist bullshit!
You think vigilantes are dangerous because they respond to no one? Bullshit, Vigilantes answer to society, and in the case of very large mobs like the internet, the mob *is* society. What makes you think the police is better? Because they answer to no one?
How do you call a government that doesn't listen to the "mob"? A dictatorship.
Besides the "mob" has become much more sophisticated than before, you are talking about pitchforks and torches, this "mob" probably has never hold a pitchfork in their entire lives. We are talking about finding out stupid criminals online and you are talking about lynching, way to be disconnected from the real world.
Another point I forgot to mentions is what I call the "pioneer effect". We reached the moon many years having the technology to wipe out its inhabitants if there were any. It is likely any incoming alien vessel would be of the pioneer type, with just enough resources to reach the planet and maybe make it back but not much more.
Assuming there are no caps to technology, if you assume technology has some limits then as the parent says they are unlikely to have sci-fi movie technology.
For instance everything seems to indicate that FTL travel an communications are really impossible, any alien visitor is likely to "leak" their presence in the form of TV broadcasting millions of years before we can actually contact them.
Another possible cap is that civilizations inevitably destroy themselves at certain technological levels so that any alien visitor is necessarily technologically crippled in someway or otherwise they wouldn't have made it here alive, etc.
There are also limits to the amount of energy that can be extracted from matter so it's unlikely that a single ship can take control of the entire earth (an army could but as what price?).
Humans of 2009 would be eaten alive by the Romans without support from institutions of 2009 providing them with weapons, rations and medicines.
In fact the more technologically advanced you are, the more dependent in your source civilization you are, an alien invasion fleet would not only be technologically advanced, but physically huge, which then forces you to consider the economics of an alien invasion, is the planet even worth the resources necessary to reach it and knock out the natives?
Slashdot Mirror
> Sure there are some rootkits and viruses for linux, but between you and me, how many compared to windows.
and if Linux had the majority of the market share, they would have the majority of the viruses.
Viruses are written for the greatest impact.
Virus can be written for Linux it doesn't mean they'll get anywhere. The security model of Linux/BSD is way superior to Windows. Fact is, if every business desktop and server changed to something other than Windows most virus writers would quit the job because it would be too much pain for too little gain.
I find the oft-repeated idea that not-for-profit works can be exploited at leisure by corporations abhorrent in extreme..
How old is that document?
Before the age of personal computers the only way for a hacker to play around was using the large, centralized, university mainframes. I'm sure he felt oppressed in that environment.
Nowadays I don't think he is as opposed to the wheel group as back then.
And all i can think is what a great House MD episode would that be!
Also that "Greenberg syndrome" sounds nice.
I think it really is depends on context.
Like somebody mentioned that unix passwords don't even reveal how many characters are there in your password. I think all unix(including linux but not macs) applications should work that way. Even cross-platform browsers like firefox should completely hide passwords (Or just display a symbol indicating the password has been typed).
Compare with 80% of Windows users. You should just assume their system is infected, they write down their passwords on post-its and paste them in the monitor, the clever ones paste it under the keyboard.
They even tell their passwords to their friends and family due social preassure or parental surveillance.
Core windows applications like msn messenger send passwords in clear text through the network.
The kind of protection provided by masked passwords is moot in this context.
Considering the same level of protection can be achieved by physically looking around for bystanders or placing you hand over the monitor makes it further moot.
MacOS... I don't know, the average MacOS user is not as clueless as the randomly chosen Windows user tends to be, but a significant share of them are of the "don't want to know shit outside my specialty" variety, so unmasked passwords still seem a good idea in that platform.
Pure science informs experimental science informs design engineers informs process engineers informs manufactures informs patent lawyers informs researchers with C&D forms
Fixed that for you.
Ok what he is saying is that Google and Amazon aren't enough, we need more of their like, a lot more, to cover every niche.
What he is missing is that Google and Amazon do not, keep the gate, google in particular is only a search engine, *the Internet is the gate*, Google in particular has no intention of hiding niche websites so nobody is getting obscured by it.
There's nothing to see here...
He is a Cory, that is his formal title, you could call him Cr. Doctorow
Guys, we are missing the important bits. This medicine actually does something, it is not really homeopathic, the homeopathic label was put there either to evade FDA regulations and maybe to sell better too. Neither thing should happen, I don't think homeopathic medicine should not sell better than real medicine but what absolutely should never happen is for a medical product to be able to skip FDA regulations.
I'm against government, law and ISP collusion against Internet privacy. If the ISP sold his identity the blogger should sue his ISP, if the newspaper hacked the ISP the ISP should sue the newspaper. If a Judge orders the ISP to betray the user, law must change.
If the newspaper found out his identity merely by reading his blog I'd say he never was so anonymous to begin with. The newspaper simply completed a job anyone could do on its own.
The REAL solution, or at least an aid is for individuals to be allowed to fake data and make up multiple identities.
After all, multiple email addresses work wonders towards protecting privacy on line.
Some how I don't think that's the way man learned to fly. We probably started with the concept of the wing right away by observation of birds and insects.
The problem with gattaca is that there was no problem, not a long term one, just a painful, painful transition zone.
The problem is that the economic process of creating art is turned on its head. It should be possible for instance to make a 10 million dollar movie if only the buyers payed for it in advance.
No, people want the content to be made before they pay for it, which is funny since in the current system people can't actually know if a movie is good without paying for it first.
Dammit! I logged in to make that exact joke! And no water is at most 0.2 iphones
Brand recognition plays a major part in that, the truth is that much of the value in Nintendo comes from the name of Shigeru Miyamoto whether he designed the game or not. What could Shigeru do with his games if he had access to the power of the PS3? Had Shigeru designed his games for the PS3 a Wii version would indeed be a watered down version too.
In other words both positions are not mutually exclusive, Nintendo games are good AND the Wii provides a watered down game experience.
What are you talking about? The Colbert module in the ISS? Get over that, Colbert is as good a name for a station module as any.
Was that C:\TMP C:\temp C:\WINDOWS\temp C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files...
Actually I just can't enumerate them all, and they change from version to version.
Gee you index your temp folders? Do you also Index Program Files?
This is not my best post, I wrote hastily and left lots of details out. The issue is far more complicated than this, but, me an right wing fundamentalist? Give me a break.
My issue is with direct democracy for which I'm a proposer, and how it is dissed by some people in /. as "frightening mob rule"
Wut? As opposed to what? A dictatorship? The idea is that our dear representatives are there to NOT hear our stupid ideas and choose what is best for us.
Shryeah right!
The fact is that every social progress has come about thanks to the "mob" a.k.a. the voters.
Racism is the canonical example of the majority doing the wrong thing. Thanks God we got rid of the KKK in spite the "mob". No wait, the "mob" got rid of the KKK themselves.
Most white people didn't want to have anything to do with the KKK, the KKK was crazy, most white people realized it was wrong, because it was.
The success of the social liberty movement didn't come about from the enlightened elite forcing the matter on the population but from convincing the population to change its government.
ALL social progress comes from changing public opinion not from changing politicians opinion.
Now some people find themselves alienated by their community, they find their community to be racist/homophobic/fundamentalist. This is proof that the "mob" is evil and the government is good? No, it just means this particular "little mob" is in disagreement with the "big mob" that supports the laws that support you. What you need is not to get rid of direct democracy and hold onto your enlightened representatives. What you need is simply to get the "big mob" to protect you from this "little mob".
This is what I mean. I don't believe in the danger of the tiranity of the majority, the majority is not always right, but it is the best we have. You are far more likely to be wronged by the elite few than by the "mob".
Now back to the argument about Internet vigilantes. The main argument is that they are more likely to get violent and not follow due process than the proper authorities.
Of course the proper authorities are violent and also skip due process often, but the argument is that they do it less often. So far, I agree.
I would argue that by virtue of being allowed to be violent, the police needs this checks and balances a lot more than Internet vigilantes, who simply discuss your personal details in the web.
So what if one of this vigilantes actually gets violent? Well some GTA players do shot people but you know how that works, these people would end up shooting someone eventually.
Arguments of this sort I can accept. What I can't accept is arguments of the type "Oh fear the mob!" "What happens when the mob is against you!" "What happens to those who dare to be different!"
Yeah because being "different" is never wrong, right? For some people being different means "torturing helpless creatures", the truth is that as much as I'm in favor of personal liberties there are some kinds of different that I believe are dead wrong and I just won't accept in the name of diversity.
Take a look at your /tmp or ~/.thumbnails directories and you will be surprised.
Unless you are Windows user in which case good luck finding your way around your system.
What I'm saying is that statistically speaking you are very, very likely to agree with the mob and may even be part of it.
Bullocks.
All this crap about phear the mob rule! Tiranity of the majority etc is just rhetoric elitist bullshit!
You think vigilantes are dangerous because they respond to no one? Bullshit, Vigilantes answer to society, and in the case of very large mobs like the internet, the mob *is* society. What makes you think the police is better? Because they answer to no one?
How do you call a government that doesn't listen to the "mob"? A dictatorship.
Besides the "mob" has become much more sophisticated than before, you are talking about pitchforks and torches, this "mob" probably has never hold a pitchfork in their entire lives. We are talking about finding out stupid criminals online and you are talking about lynching, way to be disconnected from the real world.
I'm pretty sure he did expect us to notice.
Another point I forgot to mentions is what I call the "pioneer effect". We reached the moon many years having the technology to wipe out its inhabitants if there were any. It is likely any incoming alien vessel would be of the pioneer type, with just enough resources to reach the planet and maybe make it back but not much more.
Assuming there are no caps to technology, if you assume technology has some limits then as the parent says they are unlikely to have sci-fi movie technology.
For instance everything seems to indicate that FTL travel an communications are really impossible, any alien visitor is likely to "leak" their presence in the form of TV broadcasting millions of years before we can actually contact them.
Another possible cap is that civilizations inevitably destroy themselves at certain technological levels so that any alien visitor is necessarily technologically crippled in someway or otherwise they wouldn't have made it here alive, etc.
There are also limits to the amount of energy that can be extracted from matter so it's unlikely that a single ship can take control of the entire earth (an army could but as what price?).
Humans of 2009 would be eaten alive by the Romans without support from institutions of 2009 providing them with weapons, rations and medicines.
In fact the more technologically advanced you are, the more dependent in your source civilization you are, an alien invasion fleet would not only be technologically advanced, but physically huge, which then forces you to consider the economics of an alien invasion, is the planet even worth the resources necessary to reach it and knock out the natives?