Of course, nothing is going to protect your computer from your own stupidity when opening executables, etc... that's all on the user whether or not they authorize code to run or not.
This is both true and not true. There is great deal that can be done to empower users to make better choices. Most OS's allow a user to run with limited privileges to mitigate what damage can be done by a stupid user. What is really needed is better control of sandboxes and application level privileges, with good defaults and controls for users. Right now it is possible to control what applications can connect to the internet, when, and on what ports. It is not, however, easy enough. Additionally, a user should be able to define what files or directories an application can touch, what resources it can use, what services it can utilize, and what other applications it can interact with. More importantly, these privileges need to have reasonable, and well thought out defaults. For example, if I download "alien blaster 7" from the web, it should be easy for me to select an predefined application level "game-untrusted" that will tell the OS that this game can run, and make files, and change those files, but not touch anything else on the system, nor interact with anything else, nor connect to the internet, without my explicit permission. This granularity, and ease of use should be a feature of every OS. It would make a big dent in spyware and trojan installs.
Before anyone says it, yes I know users are dumb and will click OK to everything without reading it. It is the defaults that will make this worthwhile to clueless users. If 90% of all the software they download runs just fine with restricted permissions, maybe they will pay attention to that 10% that want to talk to outlook, or the internet, or read their word files.
...because those brilliant TV executives really know what shows are best? They want the most popular, most easily targeted, cheapest to produce shows. To them special effects are a minus. Reality TV is pretty much ideal since the actors get paid squat, there is little in the way of writing, no stars, and few production costs. Even if a reality TV show is only half as popular, it still makes them more money. For that matter, is popularity really the best judge of quality? How many classic movies and books tanked when released? How about Cheers? It was the longest running, most popular TV show of all time. It was also cancelled right after the first season, and only had a second season because the network had a dispute with producers of another show, and needed something at the last minute.
TV producers do not know what viewers want, and while they are interested in knowing, it is not their primary concern to make good TV. They just want to make money.
I really and truly hope that this is the model for the future. Fans pay show creators directly and the shows are available online when they are completed. We don't need ads. We don't need crappy ad channels. We don't need other's scheduling our programming times for us. All I want is to watch the shows I want, when I want, without ads or interruptions. I am willing to pay for those shows. Now all we need is faster/cheaper internet and producers willing to take a risk.
P.S. I remember reading some statistics a few years ago that totaled up all the production costs for all the TV shows on the air and on cable, then divided them by the number of people in the U.S. that watch TV. It came to about $4 a month per person, with no ads. There is something to be said for a more direct system.
just like users will manage to fill most of the storage space available (no matter how large that may be), user tasks will manage to fill most of the cpu available (no matter how fast the cpu is).
I'm not sure about this. I am typing this on a laptop with 12 applications running, plus any number of background tasks and services (91 processes). Some of these apps are hugely expensive like Adobe InDesign and Photoshop. Others are programs I never shut off (iCal, iChat, Terminal, Safari, Mail, etc.). Currently my CPU is at about 25%.
One of the reasons I prefer OS X to Windows is the multitasking. Windows always seems to grind to a halt when I do processor intensive tasks and applications seem to suck down way more processor power when just sitting idle. Being able to leave a dozen apps running for a few weeks, without worrying that the UI will slow down, or it will take time to bring Safari to the front is the #1 reason my preference is for Macs. Security is nice, the command line is very nice, system services are shwanky, but it is the multitasking that is really where it is at.
From where I am sitting, things have gotten much better as far as UI responsiveness, CPU use, and power. Programs do more and use more CPU, but the system can manage the available CPU more effectively. Things are faster and better now than 5 or 10 years ago, at least on OS X.
Canadians are quite heavily armed. Lots of rifles up here.
I do not doubt that Canada is a well armed populace that could provide quite a bit of resistance. They are probably the second best chance of defeating the U.S. without blowing up the world, should it come to that. Canada's advantages are much the same as those of the U.S. citizen. Canada is close to the U.S. and citizens could actually reach valid targets. U.S. troops may balk at attacking people with whom they have empathy, many see little cultural difference between themselves and Canadians. Canadians have good quality long rifles and are trained in their use. All of these are reasons why U.S. citizens are a good defense against an oppressive government, and apply to some degree to Canada as well.
Having that phone number to call adds a much wanted security blanket, even if it's only a facade.
My first though on reading this was, "well their must be dozens of security firms that will offer support for such popular tools." I mean surely IBM if no on else will be happy to take your money and answer calls about nmap or snort or ethereal? So I did what anyone would do, and googled a bit. I could not find anyone in 2 minutes of searching. Perhaps my google-fu is weak. Is this really an untapped market? I find it hard to believe that no one has jumped on this. I know most enterprise and government shops like to have their own security team, which may preclude the need for this, but it really seems like their should be a huge mid-sized market just looking for a safety net. Heck if you can sell a 5K or 10K a year support contract for open source tools, and all you need is personnel a phone line and a pretty web/download site it seems like you could make out like a fiend. Hmm, forget I said anything.
Alas, it's not 1997 any more, and while GNUSTEP gets an A for effort, it has no practical application. It's strictly a hobbyist thing.
I disagree. GNUSTEP has its place. That place right now is in the hands of OS X development shops looking to expand into Linux. There are a few hardcore development houses that work strictly on OS X and do things the OS X way. This gives them an additional market with little porting costs (with some inconvenience to the end user, hey Linux user's should be used to that). There are enough UNIX guys on OS X right now that this could actually take off. Time will tell.
I blame this phemomenon for the widespread vilification of the Technical Support industry (setting aside overseas outsourcing for the moment.) The majority of the work of a support technician is not to perform tasks themself, but instead to walk the user through tasks which are quite easy to perform, but often very difficult to understand (and oftentimes with the goal of repairing something that the user themselves broke through the result of their ignorance.) Calling Tech-support makes people feel stupid, so they hate it.
I've noticed exactly the opposite. Pretty much every time I've called tech support, I know more about the problem and possible solutions than the tech support person. For example, the cable company screwed up a router configuration. The problem was obvious to anyone who can use google. Explaining the problem to them, on the other hand was a 5 hour exercise in frustration. Eventually I got a tech on the line who had been instructed by his boss to just do what I told him. I blindly told him character by character what to type into the command line, without ever have seen or used one of the routers in question, and suddenly the problem went away.
My point is, tech support is usually filled with clueless morons who know how to read a script. These are people who insist you reboot your machine every time you change a network setting. "Yeah umm Windows is booting, sure. All done." You literally have to lie to them to get anything done. I think the vilification of the industry is the result of minimum wage customer service employees who don't really know anything, but like to think that they do. They can't fix any real problem, but are condescending to everyone anyway. Thus they annoy clueless people by treating them like idiots, while usually being unable to fix a problem. They annoy advanced users by treating them like idiots, while usually being unable to fix a problem.
Why do most open source programmers always seem to have the tendency to go with oppressive dark UI colours? It's not cool and it's not pretty. It's along the lines of someone creating their first webpage, complete with black background and white text.
Maybe it is because they are more concerned with functionality than form. Black text on white backgrounds are popular because they are more similar to print, which is familiar. White text on a black background is actually easier on the eyes and easier to read, but is less familiar. When dealing with a glowing screen, white text on a black background makes a big difference, especially if you are going to be reading it for a long time.
Cool, styles for web pages and designs are fashion more than engineering. Cool comes and goes and usually is defined as whatever is not what was cool last year, or the year before. Now don't get me wrong, their are real problems with open source UI designs, Windows UI design, and Mac OS UI design. And the colors on some default UI's are not very artistic. Just don't confuse functionality and style. light gray (or pink, light blue, or light yellow) text on a black background is the ideal for usability on a monitor from an engineering perspective.
the construction of roads is too expensive for individuals to pay for
So is the construction of power lines. If there is a market need someone will build them and charge tolls. Please note, I am not advocating this, I just don't see a qualitative difference between Internet access and any other utility. In many places internet is prohibitively expensive. It costs my parents, crazily high amounts for a 28.8 dial up. If the town they live in could provide high speed access for $20 a person it would be a boon to the entire community. If another company wants to compete and provide wireless nothing is stopping them.
f by building a taxpayer subsidized business the government comes into competition with the private sector, then they ought not do it.
You mean the way driveway pavers cannot compete with States and the Fed roads. Driveway pavers could be hired to make roads from everyone's house to where they work, except the government has killed the market for them. Likewise with water, bottled water manufacturers would make a lot more money if cities did not offer water service.
The internet is a service these days. Their should be a government subsidized infrastructure that is open for all companies to provide service across. The U.S. is already falling behind in internet access for a variety of reasons. Mostly though, it is just that companies can make more money by locking you in to one option, and providing for a good chunk of the populace at high prices.
Immigration/customs, entry to high security building with a guard looking on. As I said, needs (competent) human oversight, which none of your examples show.
I provided four real world examples where biometrics are being used and are less secure. You provided two examples where passwords are not currently used and suggested that biometrics would improve things. So let's say your examples use a fingerprint, and you have a guard looking on to make sure no one does anything funny. Everyone walks by puts a finger on a scanner then shoes the guard their passport or ID. If someone already has to have a fake ID or passport, getting fingerprints is likely not going to be hard. But, the biometric is an additional measure. Will that additional measure offset the reduced security caused by the the guards assumption that the scanner will catch all the intrusions?
Grocery store checkout - who cares? Easier to just steal the credit card info directly? Home entry? Probably easier to just break a window.
So your answer to reduced security is "who cares" and to claim other methods are easier? You're off your rocker. Look to a future where that guy at the local bar can grab your fingerprints and then spend 20 minutes in his basement to make a latex overlay. He can now buy groceries or electronics at your expense. Worse yet, you can't cancel your thumb print. You have to make an arrangement with all the stores to not let you use your thumbprints anymore, and then you have to go through the hassle of going through the one remaining "I've been hacked and need to pay cash" line. Compare this to a password for the same task. You type it in, change it when you want, still don't have to carry anything, and you are not stuck going through the last line reserved for suckers.
I'm not saying biometrics are useless, but they are only useful as a tertiary measure for spot checking, or in a highly regimented environment with multiple security levels that are actually enforced carefully. They are a very poor substitute for a password, and will be used as just that. They are currently used as that. Credit cards can be cancelled, passwords can be changed, locks can be re-keyed. Biometrics are fixed, and thus are a poor general security key. I know you think they are cool, and hi-tech, and you want to use them to impress your friends, but please look at them objectively. They are very unsuitable for most uses. They are certain to be misapplied (they are currently).
When have you ever enjoyed the qaulity of government service? Name a government program which has been run efficiently.
Most Federal and State programs are filled with inefficiencies and graft. Some more local programs are, but not all. Counties, cities, and towns generally run some fairly efficient programs, the inefficiency is usually directly related to the size of the organization.
And, what about censorship? Now if an isp censors their users, those users can go to another isp if they care enough.
Cities, counties, states, and the feds all have laws regarding information passed via any electronic means. ISPs are subject to these laws as much as the gov. If my ISP censors or filters or restricts my connection you claim I can go with another. This is not true. They are a local monopoly and the only one that offers service in my area. They own the lines, and it is illegal to install my own and compete.
The whole idea stinks.
The whole idea is treating the internet as a service, the same as telephone, water, or electricity. How many choices of electric companies do you have? Internet is, or soon will be, vital to most people's lives. If a municipality wants to offer it as they do water and sewer, I don't see a problem. At least you can vote to lower rates or replace the system if it is run by a local gov. If it is a monopoly by a big company, they have more power than the local government, and no interest in the public good, only in making money.
I'd rather be gouged by a local gov. than by a big corporation. I'd rather not be gouged at all, but hey, this is America.
Google has the market right now. They have the brains, the experience, the technology, and enough funding. They do not have a monopoly on Desktop Operating Systems. Google will lose this fight.
Someone will inevitably point out MS's failure to dominate with the X-box, or in some other venture. Let me make this clear. If the U.S. Justice system remains bought (as they are now) MS can crush anyone in any market dependent upon the desktop. In order to get to Google 90% of all people use Windows. MS can just build the search functionality into Windows and, so long as it works well enough for the average person, they will not bother to use a different search engine. It does not have to be as good as Google. It can have 10 times the ads. It can rank everything according to who pays the best. It can fail to work in anything but IE. It can shamelessly promote MS with marketing crap. It does not matter. So long as it is "good enough" to actually work for most people and it is built in, it will win.
MS sometimes takes years to get a product "good enough" but they have the time and the money, and most importantly, the monopoly.
The difference is, how much more random is gun violence. When was the last time you heard of innocents killed in a drive by punching???
First, banning guns or passing gun laws does not stop criminals from having guns. That is why Britain's gun crime went up. Passing laws does not change the behavior of criminals. Second, suppose you somehow managed to search the whole planet and remove guns from the hands of either everyone or everyone but the police and military. In the latter case, the police and military would sell guns to criminals at outrageous rates. There is overlap between cops, military, and criminals. In the first case, it would make numbers more important. Who are their more of, criminal gangs or cops? And what about that innocent child killed by a drive by shooting? Won't it have been worth it to save just that one life? Maybe, except they will have been burned alive by a drive by Molotov cocktail, or blown to pieces by a drive by pipe-bombing. Which is going to kill more innocents, do you suppose?
Political opinions based on pholosophies created in the 17th century and codified in the 18th century are no reason at all.
Those wacky philosophies were written by people who had to deal with an oppressive government. They were men of influence and knew first hand exactly what happens when people strive for power. Just because they made their observations hundreds of years ago, does not make it any less true. Power attracts the power hungry. Large, centers of power expand and try to get more power. Governments will have corruption. People will sometimes act for their own interests above that of everyone else. These are all concepts that have proven true again and again. Providing limitations and protections against these occurrences is common sense. Unregistered gun ownership is the final safeguard for when all the others fail, which they inevitably will. Your assertion that a philosophy is invalidated when it reaches a certain, unspecified, age is spurious.
Biometrics work fine when the identifying equipment is in the control of the entity that is granting access, and there is human oversight of the process.
Assuming that there are multiple mechanism, that might be true in some cases. Lets look at the 4 places I have seen biometrics thus far:
Login mechanism to a home PC: this is pretty well just a false sense of security, but since PC's are by and large insecure anyway, this will serve just as well to stop a 4 year old as a password. Should a PC be in a corporate environment, this is a step down from a password.
Access to lockers at a public place: No oversight, still easily bypass-able. Worse than a password.
Grocery store checkout: Supervised by minimum wage clerks, who could not care less. Think of the gummi-bears! Less secure than using a card.
Home security door lock: No oversight.
In all four instances that I have seen biometrics in use, they result in less secure systems than those they replace. What evidence or reason do you have to believe that those who implement biometrics will stop using them for these applications and start using human oversight on all applications? What makes you think that the human oversight will not just rely upon the biometric? What makes you think that a human watching people put their fingerprints on a pad will be able to notice a 1mm film of latex on someone's finger?
Biometrics are here, and making security worse. They will probably continue to be used because they are "cool" and easier to use and because most people don't actually give a rat's ass about security.
I think the best security available right now is biometrics, but I don't know that's been implemented in an affordable, relatively easy-to-use, and generic format.
Please don't fall for the biometric security fallacy. Biometrics are inherently insecure and worse yet are unchangeable. The move towards biometrics is a huge step backwards for security. They are easy, and people will begin to rely upon them. At which point anyone who can crack a database will have access to your unchangeable key. Then you are permanently screwed. Worse yet, you have to bring your biometrics with you everywhere. Ever touch a glass at the bar? There go your fingerprints. Ever taken into custody by the police either in your country or abroad, boom permanently insecure. I just can't wait till doors and cars require them. Lets give criminals motivation to cut off our body parts, what a great idea!
Please rethink biometrics. They fail two tests for a secure key, changeability (revocability) and control. At least you can leave your car keys at home if you go to China, with biometrics you have no choice but to take them with you everywhere and expose them everywhere. Alternately, buy stock in sunglass and glove companies.
Changeable keys are better than unchangeable. If I break up with my girlfriend, I can change the locks to my house. If I think a online site may actually have been a russian mob front, I can change the password on all my other sites. If my fingerprints get lifted from a glass at the bar, I'm fucked forever. Biometrics are a bad idea. If my fingerprints, or DNA, or retina scan are put in one database that is hacked, and we rely upon those biometrics, I'm fucked forever.
Biometrics are easy to use, but unreliable. If they come into common use, they will be relied upon. This will introduce a false sense of security. It's sort of like having a doorman at your building who will look the other way for $5. You feel more secure. Maybe you don't bother to lock your door inside. Then you wake up dead.
One last thing. If some car jacker wants my car, they can jump me in the parking lot and take my keys. They need no real knowledge. They don't even need to know how to hotwire a car. If my car had a biometric key, they could still jump me and take it. I'd just be missing a body part. No thanks.
Amen. Did you see the figures published the other day for U.S. bankruptcies? 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of a medical problem. 75% of those people had medical insurance when the medical problem started. The fact that the system has become this broken is ridiculous.
Sigh. How often do people have to explain this. A biometric makes a poor key. Biometrics are not changeable. Any key that cannot be changed easily is flawed.
If biometrics catch on security will go all to hell. One compromise and it's all over.
I don't like the feds knowing about each gun I own, but it's not that big of a deal, I use them for hunting, not for causing some armed rebellion.
There are two big differences between gun ownership in the U.S. and gun ownership in Canada. The first is that the primary legal reason for gun ownership is to empower the people to remove any corrupt or oppressive government. Canadians do not consider this motive important for the most part because they do not fear their government. Interestingly, many do fear the U.S. government. The U.S. government is a huge threat to the world and it is the duty of U.S. citizens to keep it in check. Guns are protected as a means to that end.
The second big difference is that guns are owned for self defense. For whatever reasons, violent crime including burglary, murder, rape, and robbery are all much bigger problems in the U.S. Canadians do not carry guns for self defense, although they may keep them in their homes. Americans often carry them on their persons. I largely attribute the crime difference to the huge amount of criminalization in the U.S. (25% of young, black men go to prison) and to the poverty problems here. The social norms are different in any case.
Many Americans do hunt, and many politicians would like Americans to think that is the only reason we should own guns. These same politicians have armed bodyguards.
Basically what I am saying is that unregistered gun ownership is both a right and huge responsibility in the U.S. It is not so in Canada. Hopefully you can understand why someone from the U.S. would find gun registration to be a significant lack of freedom. It defeats the main purpose for gun ownership in the U.S.
As far as hate crimes are concerned, I think the legislation is misguided. Make laws against wrongs, not talking about wrongs or encouraging wrongs.
Please note, I am by no means bashing Canada. In general Canada is much better about ensuring civil rights than the U.S. and both restrictive gun laws and hate crime legislation are enacted in many places in the U.S. More practically, the social climate there is more tolerant, educated, and less violent. I admire Canada and enjoy visiting (I always seem to live close to the border). Heck, I'm even dating a Canadian right now:)
The U.K. has fewer guns, stricter laws, and since they have been enacted both murders and assaults with guns and with other weapons such as knives, clubs, and bare hands have gone up.
Violence with guns and violence in general is not mitigated by outlawing guns. It is a social problem. If you want violence to go down in either Canada or the U.S., just legalize drugs and treat them as a health concern. A huge amount of violence is the result of the illegal drug trade. Banning guns just makes law abiding citizens easier targets. Ask Florida what happened when they made concealed pistol licenses available.
it's a chance I'm willing to take, considering that is that the only people we've ever been invaded by are americans
Should the United States turn even more towards totalitarianism how would Canada react? How would the U.S. deal with Canada after a few years of dictatorship, given the U.S.'s military superiority? When newspapers here talk about the radical Canadian atheist government and all the terrorists Canada is intentionally allowing across the border what will happen?
Canada's best defense against another invasion from the south, is the people who live there. Hopefully the U.S. will never be a country that Canada needs to fear invasion from. It is entirely possible that guns in the hands of private citizens, with no record of ownership will be the thing that keeps that from happening.
I would mind very much losing the right to own guns without registration. The Canadian culture is such that they are not as afraid of big governments as we are. Of course their government is much smaller, and less corrupt. Our government has been moving slowly towards a totalitarian state, well since it was created. It takes on more and more power and places more and more restrictions on the people. At some point it will need to be overthrown. Read some of our founding father's writings. You will read the phrase "when the government becomes oppressive." To them it was foregone conclusion that it would, hence all the protections and restrictions they placed on the government. How many of those restrictions are still in place and enforced?
Their may come the day when Canada is very happy that the people of the U.S. have unregistered firearms.
This is not always an option. Also the problem is oversimplified. Companies in the U.S. do business in Canada. They have the obey Canadian laws in these interactions. U.S. laws now force those companies to break Canadian laws and not tell Canada that they are breaking those laws to comply with U.S. law. The result is companies not only break the law in Canada, but have to break a U.S. law to confess. Similarly with Canadian companies who do business in the U.S.
Imagine if Canada passed a law that said they get to put experimental drugs in foods produced by Canadian farmers. The law also forbid them from revealing to anyone this fact. Now Canadian companies that ship to the U.S. are required to obey U.S. health codes. Now all these companies have to break the law in the U.S. and can't reveal it. Would the U.S. complain to the Canadian government about this Canadian law?
The lawsuit will be filed after Longhorn actually comes out in 2007 and will be tied up in court until 2016. Google will at that point be declared illegal after MS gives the current corrupt leader of the U.S. billions in campaign contributions. Europe and Asia will be running Linux at that point and since MS is not allowed to sell windows there until it pays off its 5 jillion dollars in fines, the courts will not bother trying it there.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, nothing is going to protect your computer from your own stupidity when opening executables, etc... that's all on the user whether or not they authorize code to run or not.
This is both true and not true. There is great deal that can be done to empower users to make better choices. Most OS's allow a user to run with limited privileges to mitigate what damage can be done by a stupid user. What is really needed is better control of sandboxes and application level privileges, with good defaults and controls for users. Right now it is possible to control what applications can connect to the internet, when, and on what ports. It is not, however, easy enough. Additionally, a user should be able to define what files or directories an application can touch, what resources it can use, what services it can utilize, and what other applications it can interact with. More importantly, these privileges need to have reasonable, and well thought out defaults. For example, if I download "alien blaster 7" from the web, it should be easy for me to select an predefined application level "game-untrusted" that will tell the OS that this game can run, and make files, and change those files, but not touch anything else on the system, nor interact with anything else, nor connect to the internet, without my explicit permission. This granularity, and ease of use should be a feature of every OS. It would make a big dent in spyware and trojan installs.
Before anyone says it, yes I know users are dumb and will click OK to everything without reading it. It is the defaults that will make this worthwhile to clueless users. If 90% of all the software they download runs just fine with restricted permissions, maybe they will pay attention to that 10% that want to talk to outlook, or the internet, or read their word files.
fan charity to survive... it isn't worth keeping.
...because those brilliant TV executives really know what shows are best? They want the most popular, most easily targeted, cheapest to produce shows. To them special effects are a minus. Reality TV is pretty much ideal since the actors get paid squat, there is little in the way of writing, no stars, and few production costs. Even if a reality TV show is only half as popular, it still makes them more money. For that matter, is popularity really the best judge of quality? How many classic movies and books tanked when released? How about Cheers? It was the longest running, most popular TV show of all time. It was also cancelled right after the first season, and only had a second season because the network had a dispute with producers of another show, and needed something at the last minute.
TV producers do not know what viewers want, and while they are interested in knowing, it is not their primary concern to make good TV. They just want to make money.
I really and truly hope that this is the model for the future. Fans pay show creators directly and the shows are available online when they are completed. We don't need ads. We don't need crappy ad channels. We don't need other's scheduling our programming times for us. All I want is to watch the shows I want, when I want, without ads or interruptions. I am willing to pay for those shows. Now all we need is faster/cheaper internet and producers willing to take a risk.
P.S. I remember reading some statistics a few years ago that totaled up all the production costs for all the TV shows on the air and on cable, then divided them by the number of people in the U.S. that watch TV. It came to about $4 a month per person, with no ads. There is something to be said for a more direct system.
just like users will manage to fill most of the storage space available (no matter how large that may be), user tasks will manage to fill most of the cpu available (no matter how fast the cpu is).
I'm not sure about this. I am typing this on a laptop with 12 applications running, plus any number of background tasks and services (91 processes). Some of these apps are hugely expensive like Adobe InDesign and Photoshop. Others are programs I never shut off (iCal, iChat, Terminal, Safari, Mail, etc.). Currently my CPU is at about 25%.
One of the reasons I prefer OS X to Windows is the multitasking. Windows always seems to grind to a halt when I do processor intensive tasks and applications seem to suck down way more processor power when just sitting idle. Being able to leave a dozen apps running for a few weeks, without worrying that the UI will slow down, or it will take time to bring Safari to the front is the #1 reason my preference is for Macs. Security is nice, the command line is very nice, system services are shwanky, but it is the multitasking that is really where it is at.
From where I am sitting, things have gotten much better as far as UI responsiveness, CPU use, and power. Programs do more and use more CPU, but the system can manage the available CPU more effectively. Things are faster and better now than 5 or 10 years ago, at least on OS X.
Canadians are quite heavily armed. Lots of rifles up here.
I do not doubt that Canada is a well armed populace that could provide quite a bit of resistance. They are probably the second best chance of defeating the U.S. without blowing up the world, should it come to that. Canada's advantages are much the same as those of the U.S. citizen. Canada is close to the U.S. and citizens could actually reach valid targets. U.S. troops may balk at attacking people with whom they have empathy, many see little cultural difference between themselves and Canadians. Canadians have good quality long rifles and are trained in their use. All of these are reasons why U.S. citizens are a good defense against an oppressive government, and apply to some degree to Canada as well.
Having that phone number to call adds a much wanted security blanket, even if it's only a facade.
My first though on reading this was, "well their must be dozens of security firms that will offer support for such popular tools." I mean surely IBM if no on else will be happy to take your money and answer calls about nmap or snort or ethereal? So I did what anyone would do, and googled a bit. I could not find anyone in 2 minutes of searching. Perhaps my google-fu is weak. Is this really an untapped market? I find it hard to believe that no one has jumped on this. I know most enterprise and government shops like to have their own security team, which may preclude the need for this, but it really seems like their should be a huge mid-sized market just looking for a safety net. Heck if you can sell a 5K or 10K a year support contract for open source tools, and all you need is personnel a phone line and a pretty web/download site it seems like you could make out like a fiend. Hmm, forget I said anything.
Alas, it's not 1997 any more, and while GNUSTEP gets an A for effort, it has no practical application. It's strictly a hobbyist thing.
I disagree. GNUSTEP has its place. That place right now is in the hands of OS X development shops looking to expand into Linux. There are a few hardcore development houses that work strictly on OS X and do things the OS X way. This gives them an additional market with little porting costs (with some inconvenience to the end user, hey Linux user's should be used to that). There are enough UNIX guys on OS X right now that this could actually take off. Time will tell.
I blame this phemomenon for the widespread vilification of the Technical Support industry (setting aside overseas outsourcing for the moment.) The majority of the work of a support technician is not to perform tasks themself, but instead to walk the user through tasks which are quite easy to perform, but often very difficult to understand (and oftentimes with the goal of repairing something that the user themselves broke through the result of their ignorance.) Calling Tech-support makes people feel stupid, so they hate it.
I've noticed exactly the opposite. Pretty much every time I've called tech support, I know more about the problem and possible solutions than the tech support person. For example, the cable company screwed up a router configuration. The problem was obvious to anyone who can use google. Explaining the problem to them, on the other hand was a 5 hour exercise in frustration. Eventually I got a tech on the line who had been instructed by his boss to just do what I told him. I blindly told him character by character what to type into the command line, without ever have seen or used one of the routers in question, and suddenly the problem went away.
My point is, tech support is usually filled with clueless morons who know how to read a script. These are people who insist you reboot your machine every time you change a network setting. "Yeah umm Windows is booting, sure. All done." You literally have to lie to them to get anything done. I think the vilification of the industry is the result of minimum wage customer service employees who don't really know anything, but like to think that they do. They can't fix any real problem, but are condescending to everyone anyway. Thus they annoy clueless people by treating them like idiots, while usually being unable to fix a problem. They annoy advanced users by treating them like idiots, while usually being unable to fix a problem.
Why do most open source programmers always seem to have the tendency to go with oppressive dark UI colours? It's not cool and it's not pretty. It's along the lines of someone creating their first webpage, complete with black background and white text.
Maybe it is because they are more concerned with functionality than form. Black text on white backgrounds are popular because they are more similar to print, which is familiar. White text on a black background is actually easier on the eyes and easier to read, but is less familiar. When dealing with a glowing screen, white text on a black background makes a big difference, especially if you are going to be reading it for a long time.
Cool, styles for web pages and designs are fashion more than engineering. Cool comes and goes and usually is defined as whatever is not what was cool last year, or the year before. Now don't get me wrong, their are real problems with open source UI designs, Windows UI design, and Mac OS UI design. And the colors on some default UI's are not very artistic. Just don't confuse functionality and style. light gray (or pink, light blue, or light yellow) text on a black background is the ideal for usability on a monitor from an engineering perspective.
the construction of roads is too expensive for individuals to pay for
So is the construction of power lines. If there is a market need someone will build them and charge tolls. Please note, I am not advocating this, I just don't see a qualitative difference between Internet access and any other utility. In many places internet is prohibitively expensive. It costs my parents, crazily high amounts for a 28.8 dial up. If the town they live in could provide high speed access for $20 a person it would be a boon to the entire community. If another company wants to compete and provide wireless nothing is stopping them.
f by building a taxpayer subsidized business the government comes into competition with the private sector, then they ought not do it.
You mean the way driveway pavers cannot compete with States and the Fed roads. Driveway pavers could be hired to make roads from everyone's house to where they work, except the government has killed the market for them. Likewise with water, bottled water manufacturers would make a lot more money if cities did not offer water service.
The internet is a service these days. Their should be a government subsidized infrastructure that is open for all companies to provide service across. The U.S. is already falling behind in internet access for a variety of reasons. Mostly though, it is just that companies can make more money by locking you in to one option, and providing for a good chunk of the populace at high prices.
Immigration/customs, entry to high security building with a guard looking on. As I said, needs (competent) human oversight, which none of your examples show.
I provided four real world examples where biometrics are being used and are less secure. You provided two examples where passwords are not currently used and suggested that biometrics would improve things. So let's say your examples use a fingerprint, and you have a guard looking on to make sure no one does anything funny. Everyone walks by puts a finger on a scanner then shoes the guard their passport or ID. If someone already has to have a fake ID or passport, getting fingerprints is likely not going to be hard. But, the biometric is an additional measure. Will that additional measure offset the reduced security caused by the the guards assumption that the scanner will catch all the intrusions?
Grocery store checkout - who cares? Easier to just steal the credit card info directly? Home entry? Probably easier to just break a window.
So your answer to reduced security is "who cares" and to claim other methods are easier? You're off your rocker. Look to a future where that guy at the local bar can grab your fingerprints and then spend 20 minutes in his basement to make a latex overlay. He can now buy groceries or electronics at your expense. Worse yet, you can't cancel your thumb print. You have to make an arrangement with all the stores to not let you use your thumbprints anymore, and then you have to go through the hassle of going through the one remaining "I've been hacked and need to pay cash" line. Compare this to a password for the same task. You type it in, change it when you want, still don't have to carry anything, and you are not stuck going through the last line reserved for suckers.
I'm not saying biometrics are useless, but they are only useful as a tertiary measure for spot checking, or in a highly regimented environment with multiple security levels that are actually enforced carefully. They are a very poor substitute for a password, and will be used as just that. They are currently used as that. Credit cards can be cancelled, passwords can be changed, locks can be re-keyed. Biometrics are fixed, and thus are a poor general security key. I know you think they are cool, and hi-tech, and you want to use them to impress your friends, but please look at them objectively. They are very unsuitable for most uses. They are certain to be misapplied (they are currently).
When have you ever enjoyed the qaulity of government service? Name a government program which has been run efficiently.
Most Federal and State programs are filled with inefficiencies and graft. Some more local programs are, but not all. Counties, cities, and towns generally run some fairly efficient programs, the inefficiency is usually directly related to the size of the organization.
And, what about censorship? Now if an isp censors their users, those users can go to another isp if they care enough.
Cities, counties, states, and the feds all have laws regarding information passed via any electronic means. ISPs are subject to these laws as much as the gov. If my ISP censors or filters or restricts my connection you claim I can go with another. This is not true. They are a local monopoly and the only one that offers service in my area. They own the lines, and it is illegal to install my own and compete.
The whole idea stinks.
The whole idea is treating the internet as a service, the same as telephone, water, or electricity. How many choices of electric companies do you have? Internet is, or soon will be, vital to most people's lives. If a municipality wants to offer it as they do water and sewer, I don't see a problem. At least you can vote to lower rates or replace the system if it is run by a local gov. If it is a monopoly by a big company, they have more power than the local government, and no interest in the public good, only in making money.
I'd rather be gouged by a local gov. than by a big corporation. I'd rather not be gouged at all, but hey, this is America.
Google has the market right now. They have the brains, the experience, the technology, and enough funding. They do not have a monopoly on Desktop Operating Systems. Google will lose this fight.
Someone will inevitably point out MS's failure to dominate with the X-box, or in some other venture. Let me make this clear. If the U.S. Justice system remains bought (as they are now) MS can crush anyone in any market dependent upon the desktop. In order to get to Google 90% of all people use Windows. MS can just build the search functionality into Windows and, so long as it works well enough for the average person, they will not bother to use a different search engine. It does not have to be as good as Google. It can have 10 times the ads. It can rank everything according to who pays the best. It can fail to work in anything but IE. It can shamelessly promote MS with marketing crap. It does not matter. So long as it is "good enough" to actually work for most people and it is built in, it will win.
MS sometimes takes years to get a product "good enough" but they have the time and the money, and most importantly, the monopoly.
The difference is, how much more random is gun violence. When was the last time you heard of innocents killed in a drive by punching???
First, banning guns or passing gun laws does not stop criminals from having guns. That is why Britain's gun crime went up. Passing laws does not change the behavior of criminals. Second, suppose you somehow managed to search the whole planet and remove guns from the hands of either everyone or everyone but the police and military. In the latter case, the police and military would sell guns to criminals at outrageous rates. There is overlap between cops, military, and criminals. In the first case, it would make numbers more important. Who are their more of, criminal gangs or cops? And what about that innocent child killed by a drive by shooting? Won't it have been worth it to save just that one life? Maybe, except they will have been burned alive by a drive by Molotov cocktail, or blown to pieces by a drive by pipe-bombing. Which is going to kill more innocents, do you suppose?
Political opinions based on pholosophies created in the 17th century and codified in the 18th century are no reason at all.
Those wacky philosophies were written by people who had to deal with an oppressive government. They were men of influence and knew first hand exactly what happens when people strive for power. Just because they made their observations hundreds of years ago, does not make it any less true. Power attracts the power hungry. Large, centers of power expand and try to get more power. Governments will have corruption. People will sometimes act for their own interests above that of everyone else. These are all concepts that have proven true again and again. Providing limitations and protections against these occurrences is common sense. Unregistered gun ownership is the final safeguard for when all the others fail, which they inevitably will. Your assertion that a philosophy is invalidated when it reaches a certain, unspecified, age is spurious.
Biometrics work fine when the identifying equipment is in the control of the entity that is granting access, and there is human oversight of the process.
Assuming that there are multiple mechanism, that might be true in some cases. Lets look at the 4 places I have seen biometrics thus far:
Login mechanism to a home PC: this is pretty well just a false sense of security, but since PC's are by and large insecure anyway, this will serve just as well to stop a 4 year old as a password. Should a PC be in a corporate environment, this is a step down from a password.
Access to lockers at a public place: No oversight, still easily bypass-able. Worse than a password.
Grocery store checkout: Supervised by minimum wage clerks, who could not care less. Think of the gummi-bears! Less secure than using a card.
Home security door lock: No oversight.
In all four instances that I have seen biometrics in use, they result in less secure systems than those they replace. What evidence or reason do you have to believe that those who implement biometrics will stop using them for these applications and start using human oversight on all applications? What makes you think that the human oversight will not just rely upon the biometric? What makes you think that a human watching people put their fingerprints on a pad will be able to notice a 1mm film of latex on someone's finger?
Biometrics are here, and making security worse. They will probably continue to be used because they are "cool" and easier to use and because most people don't actually give a rat's ass about security.
I think the best security available right now is biometrics, but I don't know that's been implemented in an affordable, relatively easy-to-use, and generic format.
Please don't fall for the biometric security fallacy. Biometrics are inherently insecure and worse yet are unchangeable. The move towards biometrics is a huge step backwards for security. They are easy, and people will begin to rely upon them. At which point anyone who can crack a database will have access to your unchangeable key. Then you are permanently screwed. Worse yet, you have to bring your biometrics with you everywhere. Ever touch a glass at the bar? There go your fingerprints. Ever taken into custody by the police either in your country or abroad, boom permanently insecure. I just can't wait till doors and cars require them. Lets give criminals motivation to cut off our body parts, what a great idea!
Please rethink biometrics. They fail two tests for a secure key, changeability (revocability) and control. At least you can leave your car keys at home if you go to China, with biometrics you have no choice but to take them with you everywhere and expose them everywhere. Alternately, buy stock in sunglass and glove companies.
Use something you have and something you know.
Changeable keys are better than unchangeable. If I break up with my girlfriend, I can change the locks to my house. If I think a online site may actually have been a russian mob front, I can change the password on all my other sites. If my fingerprints get lifted from a glass at the bar, I'm fucked forever. Biometrics are a bad idea. If my fingerprints, or DNA, or retina scan are put in one database that is hacked, and we rely upon those biometrics, I'm fucked forever.
Biometrics are easy to use, but unreliable. If they come into common use, they will be relied upon. This will introduce a false sense of security. It's sort of like having a doorman at your building who will look the other way for $5. You feel more secure. Maybe you don't bother to lock your door inside. Then you wake up dead.
One last thing. If some car jacker wants my car, they can jump me in the parking lot and take my keys. They need no real knowledge. They don't even need to know how to hotwire a car. If my car had a biometric key, they could still jump me and take it. I'd just be missing a body part. No thanks.
lets people who get sick not lose everything
Amen. Did you see the figures published the other day for U.S. bankruptcies? 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of a medical problem. 75% of those people had medical insurance when the medical problem started. The fact that the system has become this broken is ridiculous.
No password length can match a biometric
Sigh. How often do people have to explain this. A biometric makes a poor key. Biometrics are not changeable. Any key that cannot be changed easily is flawed.
If biometrics catch on security will go all to hell. One compromise and it's all over.
I don't like the feds knowing about each gun I own, but it's not that big of a deal, I use them for hunting, not for causing some armed rebellion.
There are two big differences between gun ownership in the U.S. and gun ownership in Canada. The first is that the primary legal reason for gun ownership is to empower the people to remove any corrupt or oppressive government. Canadians do not consider this motive important for the most part because they do not fear their government. Interestingly, many do fear the U.S. government. The U.S. government is a huge threat to the world and it is the duty of U.S. citizens to keep it in check. Guns are protected as a means to that end.
The second big difference is that guns are owned for self defense. For whatever reasons, violent crime including burglary, murder, rape, and robbery are all much bigger problems in the U.S. Canadians do not carry guns for self defense, although they may keep them in their homes. Americans often carry them on their persons. I largely attribute the crime difference to the huge amount of criminalization in the U.S. (25% of young, black men go to prison) and to the poverty problems here. The social norms are different in any case.
Many Americans do hunt, and many politicians would like Americans to think that is the only reason we should own guns. These same politicians have armed bodyguards.
Basically what I am saying is that unregistered gun ownership is both a right and huge responsibility in the U.S. It is not so in Canada. Hopefully you can understand why someone from the U.S. would find gun registration to be a significant lack of freedom. It defeats the main purpose for gun ownership in the U.S.
As far as hate crimes are concerned, I think the legislation is misguided. Make laws against wrongs, not talking about wrongs or encouraging wrongs.
Please note, I am by no means bashing Canada. In general Canada is much better about ensuring civil rights than the U.S. and both restrictive gun laws and hate crime legislation are enacted in many places in the U.S. More practically, the social climate there is more tolerant, educated, and less violent. I admire Canada and enjoy visiting (I always seem to live close to the border). Heck, I'm even dating a Canadian right now :)
Less Guns = less bullets = less killed.
Canada has more guns but fewer gun murders.
The U.K. has fewer guns, stricter laws, and since they have been enacted both murders and assaults with guns and with other weapons such as knives, clubs, and bare hands have gone up.
Violence with guns and violence in general is not mitigated by outlawing guns. It is a social problem. If you want violence to go down in either Canada or the U.S., just legalize drugs and treat them as a health concern. A huge amount of violence is the result of the illegal drug trade. Banning guns just makes law abiding citizens easier targets. Ask Florida what happened when they made concealed pistol licenses available.
it's a chance I'm willing to take, considering that is that the only people we've ever been invaded by are americans
Should the United States turn even more towards totalitarianism how would Canada react? How would the U.S. deal with Canada after a few years of dictatorship, given the U.S.'s military superiority? When newspapers here talk about the radical Canadian atheist government and all the terrorists Canada is intentionally allowing across the border what will happen?
Canada's best defense against another invasion from the south, is the people who live there. Hopefully the U.S. will never be a country that Canada needs to fear invasion from. It is entirely possible that guns in the hands of private citizens, with no record of ownership will be the thing that keeps that from happening.
These are Rights we dont mind losing.
I would mind very much losing the right to own guns without registration. The Canadian culture is such that they are not as afraid of big governments as we are. Of course their government is much smaller, and less corrupt. Our government has been moving slowly towards a totalitarian state, well since it was created. It takes on more and more power and places more and more restrictions on the people. At some point it will need to be overthrown. Read some of our founding father's writings. You will read the phrase "when the government becomes oppressive." To them it was foregone conclusion that it would, hence all the protections and restrictions they placed on the government. How many of those restrictions are still in place and enforced?
Their may come the day when Canada is very happy that the people of the U.S. have unregistered firearms.
Then just don't do business with those firms.
This is not always an option. Also the problem is oversimplified. Companies in the U.S. do business in Canada. They have the obey Canadian laws in these interactions. U.S. laws now force those companies to break Canadian laws and not tell Canada that they are breaking those laws to comply with U.S. law. The result is companies not only break the law in Canada, but have to break a U.S. law to confess. Similarly with Canadian companies who do business in the U.S.
Imagine if Canada passed a law that said they get to put experimental drugs in foods produced by Canadian farmers. The law also forbid them from revealing to anyone this fact. Now Canadian companies that ship to the U.S. are required to obey U.S. health codes. Now all these companies have to break the law in the U.S. and can't reveal it. Would the U.S. complain to the Canadian government about this Canadian law?
Prediction 3
The lawsuit will be filed after Longhorn actually comes out in 2007 and will be tied up in court until 2016. Google will at that point be declared illegal after MS gives the current corrupt leader of the U.S. billions in campaign contributions. Europe and Asia will be running Linux at that point and since MS is not allowed to sell windows there until it pays off its 5 jillion dollars in fines, the courts will not bother trying it there.