Well, and how many of you DO check the source code of every application you install?
I don't and I know that it would be dam easy to make me install an open source spyware.
I just trust that someone in the community will actually read the sourcecode (even if it is just out of curiosity) and post a note on slashdot (or something like this) to get the spyware down in case. But I still think I'm naive here.
However, most of my software comes from my distro and I suppose that the package maintainer checks for spyware. (And is dishonored permanently if ever he, intentionnally or not, adds spyware). Which is less naive but still based more on trust than on knowledge.
Where such a beast (research OS) ever to become a product, would it demonstrate a high level of backwards compatibility?
Well, of course not!
The whole idea of this OS is to replace this OS permission checks by language restrictions. Basicly, they use a language (C# or Java) that encapsulate all memory addresses in references. So : no pointer arithmetics, no manipulation of the system pointer, no using other SIP's data (as we have no reference to it), etc...
The idea is very interesting. Many security bugs come from allowing direct access to the processor and memory. Languages with a VM encapsulate this, but the OS still pays the price in complexity to prevent exploits in "native" code.
Now, this also means that ONLY code written in managed languages will run on this system, and backward compatibility is therefor toast. No C allowed, no assembler, etc...
This also makes it hard to port ideas to mainstream windows, as mainstream windows (and every other major OS) still needs to protect its ressources from direct access.
Microsoft doesnt want OpenDocument, as, if adopted by everyone, it allows competition and may threaten their monopol. Also, as it is written by a commitee, they cannot simply add a new functionality when it would be usefull for them. So they try to kill it, by anouncing publicly that they wont support it.
However, MS also cannot aford not to support it, should it really become a requirement by governement agencies. Therefor, MS has to be able to support it if they cannot kill it.
So they are playing poker : bluffing with the thread of non-support, developping support in secrecy and hoping that the governement wont believe those that call bluff. Looks like a clever (although unethical) strategy to me.
Ah finally. I knew this to and hoped someone would post it and get modded up.
Furthermore, from the article : "and a further study of 20,000 students." Of course, male students have higher IQ than female students. As students have a minimum IQ, (let's say 90, but any number is ok), this cuts off more very stupid males (as there are more) than very stupid females. So, in the end, the average IQ of males rises more due to the cut than the average IQ of females. However, this does in no way allow to say that males in general are more intelligent than females.
I somewhere read that by design males and females have the same mean IQ. Females are better at verbal tasks and males better at logical & spacial tasks and IQ tests are designed to balance this out, so that both sexes have the same mean. However, males still have a higher standard deviation.
Actually, the sequence was : 1. Computer Repair Technician finds something he believes is illegal on your computer. 2. Tech calls the cops
3. Cop comes to see tech 4. Tech shows cop what he found
5. Based on the claims of the tech and the cop the cops apply for and get a warrant 6. Cops search your computer 7. You go to jail, cops profit
Basicly, what EFF is upset about is 3&4, that the cops verified the evidence before getting a warrant.
The analogy is a handyman in your house, fixing the toilet, snooping in your bedroom, finding kiddie porn, calling the cops, who then come visiting to verify it is really kiddie porn, then getting out, applying for a warrant, then coming back and taking the kiddie porn.
Personally, I dont have that much of a problem with the act. However, if this passes through a trial, it might becomes a precedent : police can snoop on your computer without a warrant if theythink they have enough evidence. And this opens up a whole lot of abuses. A whole lot of abuses the introduction of warrants was supposed to fix.
If I was the judge, I would let it pass (as they would have gotten the warrant based on the testimony of the tech alone), but make it clear that they should have gotten the warrant based on the testimony of the tech alone before any police officer looks at it.
To be blatantly honest, we Westerns are the ones being hypocritical and irrational for the most part.
Actually, no society eats everything eatable.
In most of south-eastern Asia, milk and milk products are considered disgusting. Then, there are "holy" (cow in india) or "dirty" (pig for muslims/jews) animals, who aren't considered as food.
And while anthropologists don't know the reason for this, it is an universal reality. Only what foods are rejected vary (and vary largely) between different cultures.
While it was nice to see self-commenting code as the first item, WHAT'S THIS???
* Return: Boolean indicating life or death
*/ function calculateHitPoints(cUser) {
If this function tells me whether the user survives the hit or not, name this function isHitFatal, or something like this. Yes, I'm nitpicking. Because this is supposed to be an exemple of a good comment. And while the comment is good, the function name is not.</rant>
And no, aboriton, marriage, and welfare are not rights.
Hrmpf.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age [...] have the right to marry and to found a family. [...]
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So, marriage and welfare are not only rights, but Human Rights. And abortion is a right in the US too.
Privilege : a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all. [source : Webster 1913]
So, the difference is defined by the law and our culture : if we (in our law) grant it to everyone, it is an universal right, otherwise it is a privilege. And a privilege is still a right, however, not an universal one.
Get your definitions straight.
(Although driving IS a privilege, as it is a right not enjoyed by those without a license.)
Spyware works because Microsoft designed their softwarein such a way that lets it work.
Na, Spyware would work on Linux too.
Basicly, it's a non-viral trojan horse : a piece of software that does something usefull and something unwanted. It works because someone installs it for the good functionality, not knowing about the bad ones. So it's about the user choosing to run untrustworthy code on his system and this is a problem independent of the OS.
Granted, some Spyware uses worm-like propagation and it is MS's fault that simple viewing a website can install a program, but most spyware is actually installed willingly.
For instance, we dont have Linux spyware because: 1) there are not enough Linux desktops to make it interesting 2) currently, most Linux users do not run binary programs from dubious origins
If it is worth $30,000 it is not just some small irrelevant or trivial part....
Who voted this insightful?
$30,000 is a trivial part. $30,000 is at most 4 man-month[1], so it is a part that a team of 8 programmers can write in 2 weeks. Even an medium-sized software project will have tens of man-years and be at least a hundred times more expensive than that.
Of course, $30,000 is a lot for a shrink-wrap, sold to thousands or millions of customers, but the grand-parent spoke of a specialized developpement, done for one customer, meaning that $30,000 are the total developpement cost. And $30,000 as total developpement cost are small.
[1] $90,000 per year for a developper isn't much. Even if the developper gains much less than that, the cost includes not only salary, but room rent, hardware+software costs, cost for the administration, medical & retirement benefits, etc. As a rule of thumb, the cost of an employee is at least double his salary.
I thought standard television was going away, not analog!
Analog is going away too. In Germany, the process of replacing analog over the air TV with DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcasting - Terrestrial) has already begone. In 2003, Berlin was the first area to completly stop analog broadcast.
As DVB-T allows 30 channels in DVD-quality over the air with only a very small reciever, cable & satellite got an interesting contestant.
Therefor you shouldn't run it on a server, as Zone Alarm wont run when noone is logged in. This isn't that much of an issue on a home computer where the user will log in immediatly. However, a server will run most of the time with noone logged in. And I want my firewall to be up then. If you use a software firewall, make sure that it runs as a service.
I once choose Agnitum Outpost as a firewall (the PRO version, because the free one doesn't run as a service) and was pleased with it. However, this was before there was an integrated firewall in Windows, now, I'd just use that.
And, as others already suggested, a dedicated, separated firewall, be it a BSD-Box or specialized hardware.
Well i expect that Bill Gates will probably handle this one personally.
Well, considering that Ballmer handled the city of Munich personally, your comment is far less sarcastic than you might have intented. And Norway is far more important than a single city.
The problem (for MS) is not that Norway is that important. The problem is that it sets a dangereous precedend.
London would be perfect indeed. Besides that, here in Germany it has been played in "real life" some years ago in a city, using public transportation means etc.
More than once, in more than a city. I personally played it once in Frankfurt. A great way to discover a city. Allthough the "game" itself is even harder than the boardgame. If Mr. X doesnt do something stupid (like staying in place for 15 minutes (really happened in another game)), there is no way to catch him.
Suddenly apt-get dist-upgrade didnt do anything good, I had to do an apt-get -f install multiple times until the dependancy stuff was sorted out. In the process, some packages (notably apache and ftpd) were simple de-installed and I had to re-select them manually.
Good for me that it was a server and apache and ftpd were the only important hand-selected packages. I fear for the desktop systems with several dozends of hand-selected packages.
So, I guess it is a good thing that Debian only releases a major update every two years:|
Actually, I think that this is more socially than naturally. I know A LOT of men who find it very pleasant just to speak about problems without trying to find a solution. It makes me feel lighter.
The main problem is this stupid image of "the man" in society, that "a man" has to have the solution to everything. When I speak about a problem without trying to solve it, I risk that other look down on me. (Psychologically, I could say that they just dont want to be reminded that they havent the solution to every problem either, but that's their problem)
Another problem is to find people that actually listen the way I want them to. Men tend to offer solutions, and I dont want solutions, I can find them myself, women tend to offer comfort ("this isn't that bad", "time will solve it") and I dont want comfort, it IS bad, or I wouldnt speak of it. What I'm looking for in a listener is his interest and his capacity to make me feel less alone. And to feel accepted despite (or even because!) the fact that I currently dont have a solution.
Almost all people who I introduced to this "just listen" thing, ended up preferring it to advice and comforting. Men and women along.
(Note : sometimes I also look for advice, and then I say so directly. And I find it much easier to ask for advice than to ask someone to listen. If I ask for advice, I already have figured what to do : namely, ask for advice. If I ask someone to listen, I'm lost.)
Generally, I think that men tend to hide their insecurity in silence, women hide their insecurity by speaking about superficially things. Both to avoid speaking about the insecurity. To avoid showing a fragility, a vulnerability.
And I find speaking about the insecurity difficult, risky, more often than not i'm terrified of being rejected, but in the end very rewarding. And I have found friends who dont reject me for it and I stick with them, as I find it highly comforting to know that I dont have to be perfect the whole time, to always have a solution, in order to keep my friends / girlfriend / family. And many people actually react positivly to fragility, probably because it makes me more "human" in their perception.
And right now, I hesitate to click on the submit button for fear of rejection, especially after Semi-Lagrange said it would be "mentally underdeveloped" to only speak 'to put things on the table'. However, this is how I live my life and I want to combat these gender images (especially the "a real man only talks for to find solutions"... bah).
has "discovered" the obvious and reported it as news.
Well, no. Someone has actually taken the care to devise a scientific experiment to verify an anecdotal legend. Anecdotal evidence has no scientific value beside hinting that such an experiment would be interesting.
There is a HUGE difference between "everybody 'just knows' it is true", and "an experiment showed that there is a statistically significant difference in the resolving of anagrams depending on posture." The first is just a believe, the second, science.
Yes people do proof "obvious" things, hey there is even a proof that 1+1=2, however, it is still important as some anecdotal "truth" are, in fact, plain wrong. (i.e. astrology)
In addition to this, the research offered an explanation (neurotransmitters) for the anecdotal truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, and how many of you DO check the source code of every application you install?
I don't and I know that it would be dam easy to make me install an open source spyware.
I just trust that someone in the community will actually read the sourcecode (even if it is just out of curiosity) and post a note on slashdot (or something like this) to get the spyware down in case. But I still think I'm naive here.
However, most of my software comes from my distro and I suppose that the package maintainer checks for spyware. (And is dishonored permanently if ever he, intentionnally or not, adds spyware). Which is less naive but still based more on trust than on knowledge.
Well, of course not! ...
The whole idea of this OS is to replace this OS permission checks by language restrictions. Basicly, they use a language (C# or Java) that encapsulate all memory addresses in references. So : no pointer arithmetics, no manipulation of the system pointer, no using other SIP's data (as we have no reference to it), etc
The idea is very interesting. Many security bugs come from allowing direct access to the processor and memory. Languages with a VM encapsulate this, but the OS still pays the price in complexity to prevent exploits in "native" code.
Now, this also means that ONLY code written in managed languages will run on this system, and backward compatibility is therefor toast. No C allowed, no assembler, etc ...
This also makes it hard to port ideas to mainstream windows, as mainstream windows (and every other major OS) still needs to protect its ressources from direct access.
Microsoft doesnt want OpenDocument, as, if adopted by everyone, it allows competition and may threaten their monopol. Also, as it is written by a commitee, they cannot simply add a new functionality when it would be usefull for them.
So they try to kill it, by anouncing publicly that they wont support it.
However, MS also cannot aford not to support it, should it really become a requirement by governement agencies. Therefor, MS has to be able to support it if they cannot kill it.
So they are playing poker : bluffing with the thread of non-support, developping support in secrecy and hoping that the governement wont believe those that call bluff. Looks like a clever (although unethical) strategy to me.
Ah finally.
I knew this to and hoped someone would post it and get modded up.
Furthermore, from the article : "and a further study of 20,000 students."
Of course, male students have higher IQ than female students. As students have a minimum IQ, (let's say 90, but any number is ok), this cuts off more very stupid males (as there are more) than very stupid females. So, in the end, the average IQ of males rises more due to the cut than the average IQ of females.
However, this does in no way allow to say that males in general are more intelligent than females.
I somewhere read that by design males and females have the same mean IQ. Females are better at verbal tasks and males better at logical & spacial tasks and IQ tests are designed to balance this out, so that both sexes have the same mean. However, males still have a higher standard deviation.
Yeah, they did.
Actually, the sequence was :
1. Computer Repair Technician finds something he believes is illegal on your computer.
2. Tech calls the cops
3. Cop comes to see tech
4. Tech shows cop what he found
5. Based on the claims of the tech and the cop the cops apply for and get a warrant
6. Cops search your computer
7. You go to jail, cops profit
Basicly, what EFF is upset about is 3&4, that the cops verified the evidence before getting a warrant.
The analogy is a handyman in your house, fixing the toilet, snooping in your bedroom, finding kiddie porn, calling the cops, who then come visiting to verify it is really kiddie porn, then getting out, applying for a warrant, then coming back and taking the kiddie porn.
Personally, I dont have that much of a problem with the act. However, if this passes through a trial, it might becomes a precedent : police can snoop on your computer without a warrant if they think they have enough evidence. And this opens up a whole lot of abuses. A whole lot of abuses the introduction of warrants was supposed to fix.
If I was the judge, I would let it pass (as they would have gotten the warrant based on the testimony of the tech alone), but make it clear that they should have gotten the warrant based on the testimony of the tech alone before any police officer looks at it.
In most of south-eastern Asia, milk and milk products are considered disgusting. Then, there are "holy" (cow in india) or "dirty" (pig for muslims/jews) animals, who aren't considered as food.
And while anthropologists don't know the reason for this, it is an universal reality. Only what foods are rejected vary (and vary largely) between different cultures.
While it was nice to see self-commenting code as the first item, WHAT'S THIS???
* Return: Boolean indicating life or death
*/
function calculateHitPoints(cUser) {
If this function tells me whether the user survives the hit or not, name this function isHitFatal, or something like this.
Yes, I'm nitpicking. Because this is supposed to be an exemple of a good comment. And while the comment is good, the function name is not.</rant>
http://www.uip.nl.nyud.net:8090/Pictures/seren/tra iler2.mov
:)
Works like a Charm
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Privilege : a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all. [source : Webster 1913]
So, the difference is defined by the law and our culture : if we (in our law) grant it to everyone, it is an universal right, otherwise it is a privilege. And a privilege is still a right, however, not an universal one.
Get your definitions straight.
(Although driving IS a privilege, as it is a right not enjoyed by those without a license.)
Although in some area's (at least in Berlin), it is already gone.
Basicly, it's a non-viral trojan horse : a piece of software that does something usefull and something unwanted.
It works because someone installs it for the good functionality, not knowing about the bad ones. So it's about the user choosing to run untrustworthy code on his system and this is a problem independent of the OS.
Granted, some Spyware uses worm-like propagation and it is MS's fault that simple viewing a website can install a program, but most spyware is actually installed willingly.
For instance, we dont have Linux spyware because
1) there are not enough Linux desktops to make it interesting
2) currently, most Linux users do not run binary programs from dubious origins
$30,000 is a trivial part. $30,000 is at most 4 man-month[1], so it is a part that a team of 8 programmers can write in 2 weeks. Even an medium-sized software project will have tens of man-years and be at least a hundred times more expensive than that.
Of course, $30,000 is a lot for a shrink-wrap, sold to thousands or millions of customers, but the grand-parent spoke of a specialized developpement, done for one customer, meaning that $30,000 are the total developpement cost.
And $30,000 as total developpement cost are small.
[1] $90,000 per year for a developper isn't much. Even if the developper gains much less than that, the cost includes not only salary, but room rent, hardware+software costs, cost for the administration, medical & retirement benefits, etc. As a rule of thumb, the cost of an employee is at least double his salary.
As DVB-T allows 30 channels in DVD-quality over the air with only a very small reciever, cable & satellite got an interesting contestant.
Zone Alarm doesnt run as a service.
Therefor you shouldn't run it on a server, as Zone Alarm wont run when noone is logged in. This isn't that much of an issue on a home computer where the user will log in immediatly. However, a server will run most of the time with noone logged in. And I want my firewall to be up then.
If you use a software firewall, make sure that it runs as a service.
I once choose Agnitum Outpost as a firewall (the PRO version, because the free one doesn't run as a service) and was pleased with it.
However, this was before there was an integrated firewall in Windows, now, I'd just use that.
And, as others already suggested, a dedicated, separated firewall, be it a BSD-Box or specialized hardware.
The_Petroleum_Fund_of_Norway : $170 billion
Norway has far more cash in his pockets in this fund alone than Microsoft in total.
And Norway is far more important than a single city.
The problem (for MS) is not that Norway is that important. The problem is that it sets a dangereous precedend.
Norway isn't an OPEC member.
They do, however, have a lot of oil.
Allthough the "game" itself is even harder than the boardgame. If Mr. X doesnt do something stupid (like staying in place for 15 minutes (really happened in another game)), there is no way to catch him.
Well, they did mandate it to not be more expensive. They did not go so far to mandate it to be cheaper.
Nice to know I'm not alone.
:|
Suddenly apt-get dist-upgrade didnt do anything good, I had to do an apt-get -f install multiple times until the dependancy stuff was sorted out. In the process, some packages (notably apache and ftpd) were simple de-installed and I had to re-select them manually.
Good for me that it was a server and apache and ftpd were the only important hand-selected packages. I fear for the desktop systems with several dozends of hand-selected packages.
So, I guess it is a good thing that Debian only releases a major update every two years
Actually, I think that this is more socially than naturally.
... bah).
I know A LOT of men who find it very pleasant just to speak about problems without trying to find a solution. It makes me feel lighter.
The main problem is this stupid image of "the man" in society, that "a man" has to have the solution to everything. When I speak about a problem without trying to solve it, I risk that other look down on me. (Psychologically, I could say that they just dont want to be reminded that they havent the solution to every problem either, but that's their problem)
Another problem is to find people that actually listen the way I want them to. Men tend to offer solutions, and I dont want solutions, I can find them myself, women tend to offer comfort ("this isn't that bad", "time will solve it") and I dont want comfort, it IS bad, or I wouldnt speak of it.
What I'm looking for in a listener is his interest and his capacity to make me feel less alone. And to feel accepted despite (or even because!) the fact that I currently dont have a solution.
Almost all people who I introduced to this "just listen" thing, ended up preferring it to advice and comforting. Men and women along.
(Note : sometimes I also look for advice, and then I say so directly. And I find it much easier to ask for advice than to ask someone to listen. If I ask for advice, I already have figured what to do : namely, ask for advice. If I ask someone to listen, I'm lost.)
Generally, I think that men tend to hide their insecurity in silence, women hide their insecurity by speaking about superficially things. Both to avoid speaking about the insecurity. To avoid showing a fragility, a vulnerability.
And I find speaking about the insecurity difficult, risky, more often than not i'm terrified of being rejected, but in the end very rewarding. And I have found friends who dont reject me for it and I stick with them, as I find it highly comforting to know that I dont have to be perfect the whole time, to always have a solution, in order to keep my friends / girlfriend / family.
And many people actually react positivly to fragility, probably because it makes me more "human" in their perception.
And right now, I hesitate to click on the submit button for fear of rejection, especially after Semi-Lagrange said it would be "mentally underdeveloped" to only speak 'to put things on the table'. However, this is how I live my life and I want to combat these gender images (especially the "a real man only talks for to find solutions"
Literally "grown through".
In the article, it may be translated to "mixed".
However, "eher durchwachsen" is just a very polite way to say "almost, but not always, completly crap".
has "discovered" the obvious and reported it as news.
Well, no. Someone has actually taken the care to devise a scientific experiment to verify an anecdotal legend. Anecdotal evidence has no scientific value beside hinting that such an experiment would be interesting.
There is a HUGE difference between "everybody 'just knows' it is true", and "an experiment showed that there is a statistically significant difference in the resolving of anagrams depending on posture." The first is just a believe, the second, science.
Yes people do proof "obvious" things, hey there is even a proof that 1+1=2, however, it is still important as some anecdotal "truth" are, in fact, plain wrong. (i.e. astrology)
In addition to this, the research offered an explanation (neurotransmitters) for the anecdotal truth.
I was on their website and look what I found in their F.A.Q.
He certainly practice what he preaches.