This is moot as long as this equipment will be exclusive to the US military. An immobile ground based gun platform will not reach any target of interest of the US.
Security is in place to keep out crowds of people who aren't supposed to be there, and they seemed to do well enough at that.
In my opinion this guy earned his way into the conference fair and square. If I were organizing a security conference and someone got past the security undetected then I'd assume they are part of my targeted audience. A booth with badges "If you got this far you get a free pass." would be a fine touch on an event like that.
I'm in Central Europe and there has been complete 4G coverage in major cities before Apple even considered using it in the next iPhone. These days I can get 4G coverage in the outback (and I do need my tubes to be HD in there).
Please don't excuse carriers in the US for not upgrading the infrastructure. They're robbing you blind.
That is spectacular! The scale is just mind-boggling! I can't begin to imagine what would it be like if we were right above it. Thank you for sharing. I think I need to lie down.
This is something I read in a comment under a previous story about LulzSec and it's worth repeating here. Your attitude bears resemblance to a servant saying "Now you done angered the Master, and we'll all get a good whippin'."
I really don't think you can mistake a Galaxy for an iPhone when it has "Samsung" written on it right on the front. Anyone who can't tell the difference between the two, isn't in the market for either of them.
Novell: Compiz, XGL (unmaintaned X server with OpenGL)
Red Hat: PulseAudio, Clutter, DeviceKit, Cheese, gnome-user-share
Notice something about the scopes of each of those projects?
Same thing with Compiz, a compositing window manager developed by David Reeveman of Novell, also rejected despite it being an almost complete drop in replacement for Metacity which is ancient RedHat technology.
Metacity ancient? What do you make of the whole X server then? Should we replace it too?
Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss Compiz as eye-candy because it's far more than that.
It came way to early. It was unusable without proprietary drivers and unstable with.
To this day Compiz has problems with stability on anything but maybe Intel boards.
The necessary groundwork just isn't there yet.
Losing something and using the court system to get it back can be too expensive for individuals or home-based businesses. SSL is cheaper than a lawyer.
Most data is useless and once it's "out" you won't get it back anyway. I'm talking about using self-signed certificates for data that isn't really worth encrypting in the first place but can act as a tripping alarm or honey pot. Granted you're in deep, if you have to resort to this kind of tactic but it's there if you need it.
Security and privacy are two different things. You won't stave off criminals capable of carrying out a MITM with a self-signed certificate. You can, however demonstrate that you intend to keep this session private, just like you would a conversation. If worse comes to worst, you'll have a much easier way of proving ill intent on the part of a misbehaving eavesdropper like an ISP or a shoddy data retention scheme.
A self-signed certificate may be unsafe but it does imply an intent of privacy.
With effort, and sometimes a trivial amount, one can invade on another's privacy. But we've all made a social agreement to respect privacy; all it takes is a humble token, like a window curtain, to remind us of this. The curtain is just cloth, but it does an excellent job of affording us privacy, because it asserts our intent. That way, if we're able to detect it, we can be certain in knowing that our privacy is violated -- otherwise, any access we didn't think to deny (but would regret later) might accidentally intrude upon us -- and with no ill will from the innocent onlooker! How foolish of us, that we didn't draw the curtain when we had the chance!
What if the Pentagon is telling the truth and releasing these documents would cause "serious damage to national security" and people die as a result of your decision?
Experts in a given field can and often feel that their expertise on a narrow topic carries over to the entirety of human knowledge. People listening to those experts fall into the common trap that their confidence always stems from experience.
Let's compare an established de facto standard which is a monstrosity beaten into submission over several years, to an experimental implementations of an unfinished standard. Oh, and lets leave out the fact that the new one is perfectly cross-platform and open while the old one isn't.
I don't know how caching works in W7 but on Linux, if the system has to "turn to disk-based virtual memory to handle tasks" then the memory utilization isn't caused by buffers because buffers are never swapped out to disk. If W7 behaves in a similar manner the it's either a memory leak, system bloat or the caching mechanism is broken.
Incorporating a "split view" in the default file manager, in my opinion, is an overkill and a symptom of feature creep. I realize KDE strives to give the user freedom of customization but sometimes it introduces needless complexity. Managing layouts is not a job of a file manager.
I'm fond of the traditional UNIX mindset: write a program to do one thing, but do it well. If I need two vertical panes with different directories in it then I fire up two file manager windows and use a window manager with tiling. If I'd have to work with a standard WM I'd just install Midnight Commander or an alternative.
But it would be wasteful. The assignment operator is used lot more often in C than the comparison operator. It's only logical to make the former, shorter. There may exist other problem domains which make the inverse true, but they are a niche.
"Maybe it was a birdy bread-bomber from the future," jokes Chris Stephens of the LHC Portal - referring to the well-known wingnut theory that that the mere possibility of the LHC unmasking certain phenomena engenders forces which act backwards through time to sabotage it before this can happen.
This issue isn't exclusive to Fedora. PackageKit is (or was) destined to be the package and update framework for many distributions. Fedora got hit first because it's the distribution which usually had been going for the cutting edge. Fortunately everyone else will be spared the hassle of damage control and setting the developer straight. This whole uproar may inspire a better focus on scrutinizing the whole *Kit approach, which is IMO a good thing.
I'm not sure about the current development structure but I think it would be optimal to get more developer feedback from other distributions on the *Kit framework. This project looks like it really could use more transparency and QA, especially when it's going to be responsible for desktop security across many distributions.
I don't particularly care how UNIX has always worked.
Let's hope that quote won't get him a place in the "famous last words" fortune of UNIX security.
The issue suddenly became much less of a big deal to me. In the end, it comes down to whether you trust the quality of Fedora packages and the security of their signing key. Either you do, in which case this isn't a problem, or you don't, in which case you shouldn't be using Fedora.
Things get complicated when the project's server are physically compromised. I agree that the mechanism is neat and very useful but the developers jumped the gun when they altered the default configuration without notifying anyone. This change wasn't even mentioned in the release notes. That alone raises questions about the project's development process.
Fedora prided itself with default security policy since it had SELinux enabled by default. This change is exactly in the reverse direction.
Hear, hear. Since I've replaced metacity with a simple tiling manager (xmonad) and stuck to one application per workspace, I have one thing less on my mind: arranging the freaking windows in the first place. This has the added benefit of maximizing screen real-estate for each application and every running app is two keystrokes away (Alt + workspace number). It takes some time to get adapt but it's worth it. The manager is a little rough around the edges (for example doesn't work well with GIMP) since it's still experimental but I still feel more productive.
Slashdot Mirror
This is moot as long as this equipment will be exclusive to the US military. An immobile ground based gun platform will not reach any target of interest of the US.
Security is in place to keep out crowds of people who aren't supposed to be there, and they seemed to do well enough at that.
In my opinion this guy earned his way into the conference fair and square. If I were organizing a security conference and someone got past the security undetected then I'd assume they are part of my targeted audience. A booth with badges "If you got this far you get a free pass." would be a fine touch on an event like that.
Yes! I've been asked if I'm alright, and know where I'm at. To the latter, I respond: "Yes. I'm right here!"
If I got a response like that, from a person staring off in the distance I'd only feel reassured and head on my way and fast.
I'm in Central Europe and there has been complete 4G coverage in major cities before Apple even considered using it in the next iPhone. These days I can get 4G coverage in the outback (and I do need my tubes to be HD in there). Please don't excuse carriers in the US for not upgrading the infrastructure. They're robbing you blind.
That is spectacular! The scale is just mind-boggling! I can't begin to imagine what would it be like if we were right above it. Thank you for sharing. I think I need to lie down.
This is something I read in a comment under a previous story about LulzSec and it's worth repeating here. Your attitude bears resemblance to a servant saying "Now you done angered the Master, and we'll all get a good whippin'."
I really don't think you can mistake a Galaxy for an iPhone when it has "Samsung" written on it right on the front. Anyone who can't tell the difference between the two, isn't in the market for either of them.
Notice something about the scopes of each of those projects?
Same thing with Compiz, a compositing window manager developed by David Reeveman of Novell, also rejected despite it being an almost complete drop in replacement for Metacity which is ancient RedHat technology.
Metacity ancient? What do you make of the whole X server then? Should we replace it too? Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss Compiz as eye-candy because it's far more than that. It came way to early. It was unusable without proprietary drivers and unstable with. To this day Compiz has problems with stability on anything but maybe Intel boards. The necessary groundwork just isn't there yet.
Losing something and using the court system to get it back can be too expensive for individuals or home-based businesses. SSL is cheaper than a lawyer.
Most data is useless and once it's "out" you won't get it back anyway. I'm talking about using self-signed certificates for data that isn't really worth encrypting in the first place but can act as a tripping alarm or honey pot. Granted you're in deep, if you have to resort to this kind of tactic but it's there if you need it.
Security and privacy are two different things. You won't stave off criminals capable of carrying out a MITM with a self-signed certificate. You can, however demonstrate that you intend to keep this session private, just like you would a conversation. If worse comes to worst, you'll have a much easier way of proving ill intent on the part of a misbehaving eavesdropper like an ISP or a shoddy data retention scheme.
With effort, and sometimes a trivial amount, one can invade on another's privacy. But we've all made a social agreement to respect privacy; all it takes is a humble token, like a window curtain, to remind us of this. The curtain is just cloth, but it does an excellent job of affording us privacy, because it asserts our intent. That way, if we're able to detect it, we can be certain in knowing that our privacy is violated -- otherwise, any access we didn't think to deny (but would regret later) might accidentally intrude upon us -- and with no ill will from the innocent onlooker! How foolish of us, that we didn't draw the curtain when we had the chance!
There should be a standard for handling names in a database. What's the equivalent of an RFC for database design?
What if the Pentagon is telling the truth and releasing these documents would cause "serious damage to national security" and people die as a result of your decision?
He will be eligible to work there?
Experts in a given field can and often feel that their expertise on a narrow topic carries over to the entirety of human knowledge. People listening to those experts fall into the common trap that their confidence always stems from experience.
Let's compare an established de facto standard which is a monstrosity beaten into submission over several years, to an experimental implementations of an unfinished standard. Oh, and lets leave out the fact that the new one is perfectly cross-platform and open while the old one isn't.
Would a filesystem cache cause the system to swap?
I don't know how caching works in W7 but on Linux, if the system has to "turn to disk-based virtual memory to handle tasks" then the memory utilization isn't caused by buffers because buffers are never swapped out to disk. If W7 behaves in a similar manner the it's either a memory leak, system bloat or the caching mechanism is broken.
Incorporating a "split view" in the default file manager, in my opinion, is an overkill and a symptom of feature creep. I realize KDE strives to give the user freedom of customization but sometimes it introduces needless complexity. Managing layouts is not a job of a file manager.
I'm fond of the traditional UNIX mindset: write a program to do one thing, but do it well. If I need two vertical panes with different directories in it then I fire up two file manager windows and use a window manager with tiling. If I'd have to work with a standard WM I'd just install Midnight Commander or an alternative.
But it would be wasteful. The assignment operator is used lot more often in C than the comparison operator. It's only logical to make the former, shorter. There may exist other problem domains which make the inverse true, but they are a niche.
"Maybe it was a birdy bread-bomber from the future," jokes Chris Stephens of the LHC Portal - referring to the well-known wingnut theory that that the mere possibility of the LHC unmasking certain phenomena engenders forces which act backwards through time to sabotage it before this can happen.
Yep part of me misses those days. I am only 23 and I feel old writing about that kind of thing....the worst part is I don't even have a lawn yet....
No worries, you can get off mine.
This issue isn't exclusive to Fedora. PackageKit is (or was) destined to be the package and update framework for many distributions. Fedora got hit first because it's the distribution which usually had been going for the cutting edge. Fortunately everyone else will be spared the hassle of damage control and setting the developer straight. This whole uproar may inspire a better focus on scrutinizing the whole *Kit approach, which is IMO a good thing.
I'm not sure about the current development structure but I think it would be optimal to get more developer feedback from other distributions on the *Kit framework. This project looks like it really could use more transparency and QA, especially when it's going to be responsible for desktop security across many distributions.
I don't particularly care how UNIX has always worked.
Let's hope that quote won't get him a place in the "famous last words" fortune of UNIX security.
The issue suddenly became much less of a big deal to me. In the end, it comes down to whether you trust the quality of Fedora packages and the security of their signing key. Either you do, in which case this isn't a problem, or you don't, in which case you shouldn't be using Fedora.
Things get complicated when the project's server are physically compromised. I agree that the mechanism is neat and very useful but the developers jumped the gun when they altered the default configuration without notifying anyone. This change wasn't even mentioned in the release notes. That alone raises questions about the project's development process.
Fedora prided itself with default security policy since it had SELinux enabled by default. This change is exactly in the reverse direction.
How about calculus, algebra and discrete mathematics?
Software developers don't need any of that, right?
Hear, hear. Since I've replaced metacity with a simple tiling manager (xmonad) and stuck to one application per workspace, I have one thing less on my mind: arranging the freaking windows in the first place. This has the added benefit of maximizing screen real-estate for each application and every running app is two keystrokes away (Alt + workspace number). It takes some time to get adapt but it's worth it. The manager is a little rough around the edges (for example doesn't work well with GIMP) since it's still experimental but I still feel more productive.
What really bothers me with the GNOME Shell is that the project doesn't have a goal beyond: eye-candy, flat searchable menus and switching "paradigms".