Open source is not Linux. Open source applications such as Firefox, Apache, GIMP, are applications, that happen to run on a variety of operating systems.
Never said open source is Linux. Read my post carefully. I was talking about Gimp, gaim etc which *are* Linux apps. They are coded on GTK. GTK is the premier GUI API in Linux (think win32 in windows). The whole lot of Gnome is based on GTK. Sheeesh...
I've tried it, but i'm not ready for a switch. There's loads of annoying things like my Windows email archives, and things you get used to. I might set up a cheap Linux box at some point. I never did get BitTorrent working properly under Linux either.
I undestand that it's difficult to change habits, but don't be afraid of making the switch. Sure you'll have questions and you might get stuck somewhere, but there lots of friendly forums you can get help from. You don't have to dump windows completely. I'd say keep them for a while, till you are confident in Linux; setup your system to multiboot Windows/Linux.
Wow, that took the downloading and running of a whole two exe or msi files.
Yes, you can get precompiled GTK+ and Gimp for windows, but they are not the latest versions. If you want the latest versions on windows you'd need to compile them yourself.
i'd rather download the binaries, compile it under Linux and then try and fiddle with the dependancies... Of course you also have the check-box at install time, that's a few clicks less then Windows, oh no!
Try "yum install gimp". That's all there is to it. It'll download gimp and install it for you including any dependencies.
Oh sorry, i'll make sure i stop running Firefox, Thunderbird, The GIMP, Apache...
Noone asked you to stop using them. I think it's nice that you find Linux apps better and you use them, even though your OS is windows. My point was if you use mainly Linux apps, why not actually jump to Linux?
And the Gimp is equally FULLY SUPPORTED in Windowze, I can see you are just flamebaiting... ask the people who made the Gimp how much "more" they support The Gimp for windows and for Linux... WTF are you barfing about?... I do not know why am I answering to your comment...
Gimp is "more" supported in windows???!! Did you get that from Microsoft's "Get the facts"? Here's some facts for you windows fanboy, Gimp is built on GTK which is a Linux API. Think Win32 the Linux way. The windows port needs the GTK windows port as well. A GTK app will never feel windows native to you because they're not. The devs were kind enough to port GTK to windows so you get to play with our toys. Thank them and STFU.
For example, in the Calculator comparison, while the Linux ones are on scientific mode, it seems they didnt wanted to show that the Windows calc can also do it.
Uhm, no. That was the basic mode. Have you seen the scientific mode??
In the Instant Messenger comparision, what about opening a messenger windows (in the Windows version) and starting a video or audio conversation, and comparing it to the others (mmm I do not think it is possible to have an audio or video conversation with gaim).
Yes, you can. There's Gaim-vv. Also you could use GnomeMeeting.
The paint program comparison... WTF! comparing paintbrush with The Gimp?? if you tell me that it is because the Gimp is part of the OS, let me tell you that it is NOT, and you CAN install it on Windows too, so no, there is no point comparing them! that was the most biased comparison for me.
Well, I'm sorry but I find it fair. When you install your WinXp system, how do you process images? The only tool you got is MS Paint, unless you want to pay some £500+ for photoshop.
On the other hand, on Linux you got Gimp which is included on your installation, is on par with photoshop and costs nothing.
Sure you could install Gimp on WinXP, but you'd need to compile and install GTK+ and then compile and install Gimp. That's too much for most average users. On Linux it'll be installed without any action from you.
And btw it would be unfair to boost MS WinXP by showing open source programs on it. If you use open-source programs on Windows, why run windows at all?
I know that the idea of making these comparisons is cool, but, again I would like to see them made by a non biased source, this seems a bit biased.
How can you bias a screenshot?? There was no bias at all. You can tell windows has lost their "edge" when you get windows fanboys trying to defend them from simple screenshots!:D And it's good that websites like this are around to show people what they can do with Linux and open-source.
Linux has aspell and ispell. The former is considered better.
Gnome has it's own dictionary, and many apps(like OpenOffice, Abiword etc.) have their own dictionaries as well. On Firefox, you can use the spellbound extension.
I don't know about kde, but I'm sure there's something there too.
What is pain the ass? to check out the 'run as administrator' check box? because that's all it takes to select non-administrator account.
Many apps, will still not work with this hack(I agree with scudsuck, a poor rip-off of sudo).
How is that a fault of the Windows O/S?[that many apps don't work upnprivilidged]
Right now, I'm not sure whether you are a windows fanboy, or a troll.
there is an equal amount of applications (I should say 90%, but I won't) that runs fine with non-admin privileges.
Like what? Ms-Paint? Minesweeper? Get real...
It is a fault of the application vendors that fail to provide support for non-admin accounts. Your argument would be valid if application vendors would be forced to run as admin.
Oh so now you blame vendors for a Microsoft standard practice up until windows 98? Userspace in windows is a bad rip-off of *nix and is a new addition. Windows was never designed with this in mind. Plus, vendors cann't keep up with Microsoft changing things. If they did, they'd be out of business.
And in Windows, you don't need to mount and unmount devices (an archaic concept), so 'sudo' is never needed.
My god, you are indeed clueless. You call mounting an archaic concept??
Suppose you are the sysop in a company doing DTP. You want your users to be able to use the cd-rom to process images but for obvious security reasons, you don't want them to execute stuff off a cd-rom. How do you go about it in windows? Well, you don't. Your options are a) to disable cd-rom access to all users, which isn't feasable since it'll prevent them from doing their work, and b) to allow them cd-rom access and hope they don't do anything mallicious.
However in *nix, using the "archaic" mount as you called it, you can set the cd-rom to automount with the noexec option. The user won't have to do anything more than just putting the cd-rom in the drive and everything will just work(tm). Now though, there is a difference. They cannot execute binaries off the cd-rom and your workstations stay secure. "Archaic"? Get a clue!
even down to issuing 'tickets' for a limited amount of time.
Windows does not have this capability out of the box. If you claim it does, then it's a damn lie.
First of all, how can you claim them to be unnessary? do you know the exact Windows architecture? I can tell you, as a Windows programmer, they are needed.
I definitelly wouldn't want to work with you. You seem clueless about basic security, I can only imagine your code. No wonder most windows apps are like a swiss cheese.
Secondly, IE is not a service, it is an application. Bypassing the fact that you present a buggy application as a core Windows service (which is not), IE is not intergrated into Windows. How many times do you have to be told?
IE is based on the "explorer" service. So does windows explorer and the rest of the OS as far the GUI is concerned. Shut down the "explorer" service and tell me if IE works. Or if anything for that matter on your windows box works. Get a clue before you spew your misinformed rantings.
I have proved all your points wrong. Deal with it.
You proved one thing: you sir, are a clueless troll. That is my last post to you, have a nice day.
Nope: one of the last installation steps is the account creation dialog which allows the person that does the installation to create several accounts, just like Linux. You can choose to run without admin privileges.Nothing breaks if the account is not admin. My XP box is set up like this: my account is admin, and all other members of my family (father and sister) have their own non-admin accounts. They have never complained about anything.
False. As an example, 99% of windows apps will save their settings in the folder they were installed, usually C:/Program files/somefolder. If you run any said app unprivilidged, the app will break, as in will not work. You can only make it work if you give your limited users write permissions into said folder(they already have read permissions). Now, you may gone through this ordeal of identifying problematic apps and adjusting rights accordingly, but the average user certainly cannot do so. Instead they simply choose to let everyone run as an admin.
Now if you claim this is not Microsoft's design fault but it's the said app designers fault, don't forget that before windows 2000, there was no userspace for app settings and this was Microsoft's common practice for years(to have apps saving settings in Program Files), which is carried out till now.
Pure lies. No one can even see some of my files, because I have setup some of the folders non-visible for them, let alone modify them.
Just because you don't set users with admin rights, don't assume that the average user can do that on windows. Most windows users I've met, have set all their users in their PCs as admins. And this is the common practice in windowsland.
But that is not a flaw of the design of Windows, it is just a buggy application.[messenger service]
There is nothing buggy about this service. It does exactly what it was designed to do. To accept messages over UDP on privillidged ports 1021-1026. Spammers are using it daily to popup windows on millions of desktops with their advertising messages. MS Design flaw? Yes.
Again, there is a bug in the software, it has nothing to do with the security model of UPnP.
Did you even read the link I posted on grc.com? There is NO security model as far as UPnP is concerned.
There is a DCOM bug that allows a buffer overflow exploit. Again, not a design flaw!
DCOM is not needed by 99% of windows users. Yet it's on by default. That is a design failure.
How can you claim they are useless, but if you remove'em, things break? they are either useless of useful. They can't be both at the same time.
They are useless, but due to bad design they have to stay on, otherwise windows won't function properly. And remember: the more services you have running, the more you risk a system compromise if a cracker finds a bug in just one of them. You cann't crack what is not running. Unfortunately windows is a cracker's haven.
Pure fud. There is none. My XP box, right now, has 3 accounts: mine, my father's, and my sister's. There is no other account.
Yes, there are. I was talking about the OS specific accounts, not the ones created by you. These accounts are created by windows and are hidden to you. Some of them have SYSTEM privilidges! Go check them out. Imagine what a cracker would do with an account like that.
It's not [IE integrated in windows] ! I don't know why users believe these things!
Where have you been? IE *IS* integrated into windows. MS did it to counter the anti-trust lawsuit. So whether you use IE or not doesn't really matter. Any flaw in IE is a system wide flaw and could lead to a system compromise, even if you're just browsing your files (yes,your file manager uses IE libs and can even render HTML! Try it at home.).
Most probably you have no idea what is a design flaw and what is a bug.
you run everything as an admin. If you try not to, things break. So you leave it as is until the day you'll visit a mallicious webpage and/or run a mallicious app. Or what about your privacy? ANY user on a windows system can read/modify any of your private files because they are all admins!
the messenger service (not MSN messenger) is running and you are subject to spamming delivered directly on your desktop!
UPnP is on by default and wide open to the rest of the world. I haven't met any windows user who needs UPnP and yet it's on by default.
DCOM is again on by default and wide open to the rest of the world. Again, I haven't met any windows user who needs UPnP and yet it's on by default.
there are countless other needless services that although they are useless, if you try to shut them down, things will break! So you end up leaving them running with your machine potentially owned at any moment!
there are countless windows specific accounts and groups in your machine that pose a security risk, but if you try to remove any, your system will break!
Internet Explorer is integrated into Windows. So any flaw in IE results in a OS compromise. That smells like bad design doesn't it? Oh wait...they did it to counter the anti-trust lawsuit. That says something about MS priorities. Profits come first, user security - who cares?
ActiveX. Need I say more?
The above are ALL design flaws! I don't even want to go to application specific stuff and buffer overflows. Many of them unpatched, waiting for someone to exploit your box.
And you know what the most dangerous part is? The false sense of security that windows users get from antivirus, antispyware and that toy, the windows firewall. Or even the new "Security Center" on their control panel, that does nothing apart from falsly comforting windows users they are safe.
I was always confused about that line. Isn't a parsec a measurement of distance, not time? Some super phisics geek wanna help me out here?
That is correct. A parsec is a unit of length. It stands for "parallax of one arc second" and it's 3.26 light-years.
In layman's terms it's basically the largest distance you can move away from the solar system and still be able to barelly distinguish the earth's orbit from the Sun. Any further and you won't be able to do so.
From TFA: "Open source actually builds on a base that works even without any commercial interest [which] is almost always secondary," he says. "The so-called 'big boys' come along only after the project has proven itself to be better than what those same big boys tried to do on their own. So don't fall into the trap of thinking that open source is dependent on the commercial interests. That's nice gravy, but it is gravy."
I totally agree. All the big companies involved with Linux like IMB, HP, Novell, RedHat, etc etc only came into play when Linux was already a successful OS with alot of momentum. The same thing happens with other FOSS projects. All the commercial sponsors come in when the project has proven itself and it's very popular.
So FOSS projects don't depend on commercial sponsorship, though their support certainly helps.
"Nokia Corporation announced today that it allows all its patents to be used in the further development of the Linux Kernel." ...
"With respect to new functionality introduced into future Linux Kernel releases, Nokia reserves the right to declare that the Patent Statement shall not apply."
So basically they are saying they won't sue anyone at the moment but they might change their mind in the future.
I have the bookmarks toolbar, the google toolbar, the yahoo toolbar, the spoofstick toolbar, the netcraft toolbar, the web developer toolbar, the advanced navigation toolbar, and the super duper 1337 toolbar.I wanted some more toolbars, I saw some good ones recently...I got no space left for web browsing, but who needs that when I got my toolbars.
It seems like the GPL was designed for a more perfect world. Unfortunately this is not the case.
Since we cannot get rid of people who will try to benefit off the hard work and good will of others while giving nothing in return, maybe a rewrite of the GPL is in order? To avoid cases like this one in the future.
Maybe GPL'd open source projects should also state explicitly that any modifications to the source should always be made available to the original authors? And within a reasonable timeframe(like a week/month) a derived work is released?
Looks like your right... evidently there is no international agreement at all regarding space weapons. Seems it has largely been a gentlemens agreement.
the 1967 treaty concerns WMD -- not all weapons. Quoth TFA: "no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction."
And just what exactly do you call a tungsten rod that impacts with 7000mph and releases enough energy to vaporise a whole town, if not a weapon of mass destruction?
nuke 'em from orbit...that sure sounds like us.Hell yeah it sounds like us.America fights to win.
+4 insightful???!!!Too bad I don't have any mod points left and I can't mod you down enough.
These weapons, like the "rods of god" are offensive weapons of mass destruction. The international community works hard to reduce the numbers of weapons of mass destruction and what does the US do? They want more!
The current US administration snobbs the united nations, have opted out of several international treaties(currently US citizens and military personnel cannot be brought to justice by an international court for war crimes, because of that), invaded two countries in middle east, included several countries in their target list and said so publicly by naming them an axis of evil, maintain a concentration camp in cuba while not reckognising any rights to prisoners, introduced the "preemptive strike" (as in attack for no reason at all any country which their "experts" think it might pose a minimal threat in the future), and degraded diplomacy to a "either you're with us or against us" level (as in our way or else).
Now, do you feel safe with the US acquiring more weapons of mass destruction? If this administration goes war crazy, which I think they already have, do you applaud the idea of a world war?
As about the nickname "Rods of God", it could be just that, a nickname. But having heard some infamous speaches about good, axis of evil and so on, I'm not so sure...
I recommend you read the book; all this material cann't be presented in a TV show.
Sure, string theory and M-theory has zero predictive powers as of yet, but it won't stay like this forever. Many theories have no predictive powers or no usefull applications when they are in their infancy.
What he praises is a theory that could explain how the universe works...and one that actually makes sense and does away with all the incompatibilities between quantum physics and general relativity.
Early on human history, strength, dexterity, and physical properties were vital for our survival. Not so at present. The most important element of humans currently is our intellect. And it will become more important in the future while our physical properties won't be as important to our survival.
It is possible that we might be able to exist in different forms in the future. After all, everything that we are, even the very sense of existance is a creation of our mind. The carrier of our mind, is our brain which is nothing more than a biological quantum computer (there are people who don't share this view, but I believe it will become clear as we advance enough in quantum computing to create a superinteligence). If we could transfer our mind to other mediums, like a quantum computer, a genetically modified body and so forth, we can basically exist in any form we like. So we'd be able to travel the stars, and survive in the most hostile enviroments. When this happens, our physical form won't be as important to us.
However, we will also realise that diversity is vital for our survival. And just to make sure that we didn't take the wrong path, we'll create autonomous human colonies on various star systems and let these people live and evolve on their own. Obviously we will help them in the begining, but when they are capable of surviving we'll let them on their own devices.
Legends will be told about our existance and how we created their world, but eventually the legends will fade out from their memories and they'll be more depended on science, technology and their own capabilities. Eventually they will reach a point where they speculate about their future just like we do and possibly create their own colonies and travel the stars.
IE lite? You mean less features than IE already has? I think that's called telnet isn't it?
Excellent! Plus...telnet will keep you insecure, in the spirit of IE.
I think there were around 5 different conflicting "string theories".
They were not conflicting, the problem was that each was tackling the same problem from a different mathematical perspective.
There are actually 6 "string" theories:
Type-I, Type-IIA, Type-IIB, Heterotic-O, Heterotic-E and 11-D Supergravity.
He named it "M" theory, but no one calls it that. Everyone just refers to it as string theory.
You cann't really call it string theory cause you got alot more than strings there. You got "strings" of more than 1 dimension, which are called "branes" (think membranes). You can have a 2-brane (a 2 dimensional brane), a 3-brane and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Open source is not Linux. Open source applications such as Firefox, Apache, GIMP, are applications, that happen to run on a variety of operating systems. Never said open source is Linux. Read my post carefully. I was talking about Gimp, gaim etc which *are* Linux apps. They are coded on GTK. GTK is the premier GUI API in Linux (think win32 in windows). The whole lot of Gnome is based on GTK. Sheeesh...
I've tried it, but i'm not ready for a switch. There's loads of annoying things like my Windows email archives, and things you get used to. I might set up a cheap Linux box at some point. I never did get BitTorrent working properly under Linux either.
I undestand that it's difficult to change habits, but don't be afraid of making the switch. Sure you'll have questions and you might get stuck somewhere, but there lots of friendly forums you can get help from. You don't have to dump windows completely. I'd say keep them for a while, till you are confident in Linux; setup your system to multiboot Windows/Linux.
Wow, that took the downloading and running of a whole two exe or msi files.
Yes, you can get precompiled GTK+ and Gimp for windows, but they are not the latest versions. If you want the latest versions on windows you'd need to compile them yourself.
i'd rather download the binaries, compile it under Linux and then try and fiddle with the dependancies... Of course you also have the check-box at install time, that's a few clicks less then Windows, oh no!
Try "yum install gimp". That's all there is to it. It'll download gimp and install it for you including any dependencies.
Oh sorry, i'll make sure i stop running Firefox, Thunderbird, The GIMP, Apache...
Noone asked you to stop using them. I think it's nice that you find Linux apps better and you use them, even though your OS is windows. My point was if you use mainly Linux apps, why not actually jump to Linux?
And the Gimp is equally FULLY SUPPORTED in Windowze, I can see you are just flamebaiting... ask the people who made the Gimp how much "more" they support The Gimp for windows and for Linux... WTF are you barfing about?... I do not know why am I answering to your comment...
Gimp is "more" supported in windows???!! Did you get that from Microsoft's "Get the facts"? Here's some facts for you windows fanboy, Gimp is built on GTK which is a Linux API. Think Win32 the Linux way. The windows port needs the GTK windows port as well. A GTK app will never feel windows native to you because they're not. The devs were kind enough to port GTK to windows so you get to play with our toys. Thank them and STFU.
For example, in the Calculator comparison, while the Linux ones are on scientific mode, it seems they didnt wanted to show that the Windows calc can also do it.
:D
Uhm, no. That was the basic mode. Have you seen the scientific mode??
In the Instant Messenger comparision, what about opening a messenger windows (in the Windows version) and starting a video or audio conversation, and comparing it to the others (mmm I do not think it is possible to have an audio or video conversation with gaim).
Yes, you can. There's Gaim-vv. Also you could use GnomeMeeting.
The paint program comparison... WTF! comparing paintbrush with The Gimp?? if you tell me that it is because the Gimp is part of the OS, let me tell you that it is NOT, and you CAN install it on Windows too, so no, there is no point comparing them! that was the most biased comparison for me.
Well, I'm sorry but I find it fair. When you install your WinXp system, how do you process images? The only tool you got is MS Paint, unless you want to pay some £500+ for photoshop.
On the other hand, on Linux you got Gimp which is included on your installation, is on par with photoshop and costs nothing.
Sure you could install Gimp on WinXP, but you'd need to compile and install GTK+ and then compile and install Gimp. That's too much for most average users. On Linux it'll be installed without any action from you.
And btw it would be unfair to boost MS WinXP by showing open source programs on it. If you use open-source programs on Windows, why run windows at all?
I know that the idea of making these comparisons is cool, but, again I would like to see them made by a non biased source, this seems a bit biased.
How can you bias a screenshot?? There was no bias at all. You can tell windows has lost their "edge" when you get windows fanboys trying to defend them from simple screenshots!
And it's good that websites like this are around to show people what they can do with Linux and open-source.
Linux has aspell and ispell. The former is considered better.
Gnome has it's own dictionary, and many apps(like OpenOffice, Abiword etc.) have their own dictionaries as well. On Firefox, you can use the spellbound extension.
I don't know about kde, but I'm sure there's something there too.
What is pain the ass? to check out the 'run as administrator' check box? because that's all it takes to select non-administrator account.
Many apps, will still not work with this hack(I agree with scudsuck, a poor rip-off of sudo).
How is that a fault of the Windows O/S?[that many apps don't work upnprivilidged]
Right now, I'm not sure whether you are a windows fanboy, or a troll.
there is an equal amount of applications (I should say 90%, but I won't) that runs fine with non-admin privileges.
Like what? Ms-Paint? Minesweeper? Get real...
It is a fault of the application vendors that fail to provide support for non-admin accounts. Your argument would be valid if application vendors would be forced to run as admin.
Oh so now you blame vendors for a Microsoft standard practice up until windows 98? Userspace in windows is a bad rip-off of *nix and is a new addition. Windows was never designed with this in mind. Plus, vendors cann't keep up with Microsoft changing things. If they did, they'd be out of business.
And in Windows, you don't need to mount and unmount devices (an archaic concept), so 'sudo' is never needed.
My god, you are indeed clueless. You call mounting an archaic concept??
Suppose you are the sysop in a company doing DTP. You want your users to be able to use the cd-rom to process images but for obvious security reasons, you don't want them to execute stuff off a cd-rom. How do you go about it in windows? Well, you don't. Your options are a) to disable cd-rom access to all users, which isn't feasable since it'll prevent them from doing their work, and b) to allow them cd-rom access and hope they don't do anything mallicious.
However in *nix, using the "archaic" mount as you called it, you can set the cd-rom to automount with the noexec option. The user won't have to do anything more than just putting the cd-rom in the drive and everything will just work(tm). Now though, there is a difference. They cannot execute binaries off the cd-rom and your workstations stay secure. "Archaic"? Get a clue!
even down to issuing 'tickets' for a limited amount of time.
Windows does not have this capability out of the box. If you claim it does, then it's a damn lie.
First of all, how can you claim them to be unnessary? do you know the exact Windows architecture? I can tell you, as a Windows programmer, they are needed.
I definitelly wouldn't want to work with you. You seem clueless about basic security, I can only imagine your code. No wonder most windows apps are like a swiss cheese.
Secondly, IE is not a service, it is an application. Bypassing the fact that you present a buggy application as a core Windows service (which is not), IE is not intergrated into Windows. How many times do you have to be told?
IE is based on the "explorer" service. So does windows explorer and the rest of the OS as far the GUI is concerned. Shut down the "explorer" service and tell me if IE works. Or if anything for that matter on your windows box works. Get a clue before you spew your misinformed rantings.
I have proved all your points wrong. Deal with it.
You proved one thing: you sir, are a clueless troll. That is my last post to you, have a nice day.
Nope: one of the last installation steps is the account creation dialog which allows the person that does the installation to create several accounts, just like Linux. You can choose to run without admin privileges.Nothing breaks if the account is not admin. My XP box is set up like this: my account is admin, and all other members of my family (father and sister) have their own non-admin accounts. They have never complained about anything.
False. As an example, 99% of windows apps will save their settings in the folder they were installed, usually C:/Program files/somefolder. If you run any said app unprivilidged, the app will break, as in will not work. You can only make it work if you give your limited users write permissions into said folder(they already have read permissions). Now, you may gone through this ordeal of identifying problematic apps and adjusting rights accordingly, but the average user certainly cannot do so. Instead they simply choose to let everyone run as an admin.
Now if you claim this is not Microsoft's design fault but it's the said app designers fault, don't forget that before windows 2000, there was no userspace for app settings and this was Microsoft's common practice for years(to have apps saving settings in Program Files), which is carried out till now.
Pure lies. No one can even see some of my files, because I have setup some of the folders non-visible for them, let alone modify them.
Just because you don't set users with admin rights, don't assume that the average user can do that on windows. Most windows users I've met, have set all their users in their PCs as admins. And this is the common practice in windowsland.
But that is not a flaw of the design of Windows, it is just a buggy application.[messenger service]
There is nothing buggy about this service. It does exactly what it was designed to do. To accept messages over UDP on privillidged ports 1021-1026. Spammers are using it daily to popup windows on millions of desktops with their advertising messages. MS Design flaw? Yes.
Again, there is a bug in the software, it has nothing to do with the security model of UPnP.
Did you even read the link I posted on grc.com? There is NO security model as far as UPnP is concerned.
There is a DCOM bug that allows a buffer overflow exploit. Again, not a design flaw!
DCOM is not needed by 99% of windows users. Yet it's on by default. That is a design failure.
How can you claim they are useless, but if you remove'em, things break? they are either useless of useful. They can't be both at the same time.
They are useless, but due to bad design they have to stay on, otherwise windows won't function properly. And remember: the more services you have running, the more you risk a system compromise if a cracker finds a bug in just one of them. You cann't crack what is not running. Unfortunately windows is a cracker's haven.
Pure fud. There is none. My XP box, right now, has 3 accounts: mine, my father's, and my sister's. There is no other account.
Yes, there are. I was talking about the OS specific accounts, not the ones created by you. These accounts are created by windows and are hidden to you. Some of them have SYSTEM privilidges! Go check them out. Imagine what a cracker would do with an account like that.
It's not [IE integrated in windows] ! I don't know why users believe these things!
Where have you been? IE *IS* integrated into windows. MS did it to counter the anti-trust lawsuit. So whether you use IE or not doesn't really matter. Any flaw in IE is a system wide flaw and could lead to a system compromise, even if you're just browsing your files (yes,your file manager uses IE libs and can even render HTML! Try it at home.).
Most probably you have no idea what is a design flaw and what is a bug.
Enlighten me Einstein!
A 'design flaw' is when the design allo
Out of the box,...
The above are ALL design flaws! I don't even want to go to application specific stuff and buffer overflows. Many of them unpatched, waiting for someone to exploit your box.
And you know what the most dangerous part is? The false sense of security that windows users get from antivirus, antispyware and that toy, the windows firewall. Or even the new "Security Center" on their control panel, that does nothing apart from falsly comforting windows users they are safe.
I was always confused about that line. Isn't a parsec a measurement of distance, not time? Some super phisics geek wanna help me out here?
That is correct. A parsec is a unit of length. It stands for "parallax of one arc second" and it's 3.26 light-years.
In layman's terms it's basically the largest distance you can move away from the solar system and still be able to barelly distinguish the earth's orbit from the Sun. Any further and you won't be able to do so.
From TFA:
"Open source actually builds on a base that works even without any commercial interest [which] is almost always secondary," he says. "The so-called 'big boys' come along only after the project has proven itself to be better than what those same big boys tried to do on their own. So don't fall into the trap of thinking that open source is dependent on the commercial interests. That's nice gravy, but it is gravy."
I totally agree. All the big companies involved with Linux like IMB, HP, Novell, RedHat, etc etc only came into play when Linux was already a successful OS with alot of momentum. The same thing happens with other FOSS projects. All the commercial sponsors come in when the project has proven itself and it's very popular.
So FOSS projects don't depend on commercial sponsorship, though their support certainly helps.
I 've beat you to it by 3 hours. :)
"Nokia Corporation announced today that it allows all its patents to be used in the further development of the Linux Kernel."
...
"With respect to new functionality introduced into future Linux Kernel releases, Nokia reserves the right to declare that the Patent Statement shall not apply."
So basically they are saying they won't sue anyone at the moment but they might change their mind in the future.
I have the bookmarks toolbar, the google toolbar, the yahoo toolbar, the spoofstick toolbar, the netcraft toolbar, the web developer toolbar, the advanced navigation toolbar, and the super duper 1337 toolbar.I wanted some more toolbars, I saw some good ones recently...I got no space left for web browsing, but who needs that when I got my toolbars.
It seems like the GPL was designed for a more perfect world. Unfortunately this is not the case.
Since we cannot get rid of people who will try to benefit off the hard work and good will of others while giving nothing in return, maybe a rewrite of the GPL is in order? To avoid cases like this one in the future.
Maybe GPL'd open source projects should also state explicitly that any modifications to the source should always be made available to the original authors? And within a reasonable timeframe(like a week/month) a derived work is released?
I'm a Firefox user and still use wget when i want to start a download and logoff (wget -b somefile). What's wget got to do with lynx?
Jedi. Jedi. Jedi. Jedi. Jedi. Jedi !!!
Unlikely. While Netbeans is a java IDE, Eclipse can also be used many things not java; eg. as a C/C++ IDE
Looks like your right... evidently there is no international agreement at all regarding space weapons. Seems it has largely been a gentlemens agreement.
huh? you might want to read this
the 1967 treaty concerns WMD -- not all weapons. Quoth TFA: "no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction."
And just what exactly do you call a tungsten rod that impacts with 7000mph and releases enough energy to vaporise a whole town, if not a weapon of mass destruction?
nuke 'em from orbit...that sure sounds like us.Hell yeah it sounds like us.America fights to win.
+4 insightful???!!!Too bad I don't have any mod points left and I can't mod you down enough.
These weapons, like the "rods of god" are offensive weapons of mass destruction. The international community works hard to reduce the numbers of weapons of mass destruction and what does the US do? They want more!
The current US administration snobbs the united nations, have opted out of several international treaties(currently US citizens and military personnel cannot be brought to justice by an international court for war crimes, because of that), invaded two countries in middle east, included several countries in their target list and said so publicly by naming them an axis of evil, maintain a concentration camp in cuba while not reckognising any rights to prisoners, introduced the "preemptive strike" (as in attack for no reason at all any country which their "experts" think it might pose a minimal threat in the future), and degraded diplomacy to a "either you're with us or against us" level (as in our way or else).
Now, do you feel safe with the US acquiring more weapons of mass destruction? If this administration goes war crazy, which I think they already have, do you applaud the idea of a world war?
As about the nickname "Rods of God", it could be just that, a nickname. But having heard some infamous speaches about good, axis of evil and so on, I'm not so sure...
I recommend you read the book; all this material cann't be presented in a TV show.
Sure, string theory and M-theory has zero predictive powers as of yet, but it won't stay like this forever. Many theories have no predictive powers or no usefull applications when they are in their infancy.
What he praises is a theory that could explain how the universe works...and one that actually makes sense and does away with all the incompatibilities between quantum physics and general relativity.
Early on human history, strength, dexterity, and physical properties were vital for our survival. Not so at present. The most important element of humans currently is our intellect. And it will become more important in the future while our physical properties won't be as important to our survival.
;-)
It is possible that we might be able to exist in different forms in the future. After all, everything that we are, even the very sense of existance is a creation of our mind. The carrier of our mind, is our brain which is nothing more than a biological quantum computer (there are people who don't share this view, but I believe it will become clear as we advance enough in quantum computing to create a superinteligence). If we could transfer our mind to other mediums, like a quantum computer, a genetically modified body and so forth, we can basically exist in any form we like. So we'd be able to travel the stars, and survive in the most hostile enviroments. When this happens, our physical form won't be as important to us.
However, we will also realise that diversity is vital for our survival. And just to make sure that we didn't take the wrong path, we'll create autonomous human colonies on various star systems and let these people live and evolve on their own. Obviously we will help them in the begining, but when they are capable of surviving we'll let them on their own devices.
Legends will be told about our existance and how we created their world, but eventually the legends will fade out from their memories and they'll be more depended on science, technology and their own capabilities. Eventually they will reach a point where they speculate about their future just like we do and possibly create their own colonies and travel the stars.
Who knows? Maybe this has already happened.
IE lite? You mean less features than IE already has? I think that's called telnet isn't it? Excellent! Plus...telnet will keep you insecure, in the spirit of IE.
I think there were around 5 different conflicting "string theories".
They were not conflicting, the problem was that each was tackling the same problem from a different mathematical perspective.
There are actually 6 "string" theories:
Type-I, Type-IIA, Type-IIB, Heterotic-O, Heterotic-E and 11-D Supergravity.
He named it "M" theory, but no one calls it that. Everyone just refers to it as string theory.
You cann't really call it string theory cause you got alot more than strings there. You got "strings" of more than 1 dimension, which are called "branes" (think membranes). You can have a 2-brane (a 2 dimensional brane), a 3-brane and so on.