If a hacker has write access to/var/logs, he can do a helluva lot more than just monkey with log files. At that point, he's got root access, or something nearly as nasty.
And the reason behind text files is that they are human-readable and human-editable, even if the only editor available is ed. There's a place for binary blobs, but I don't believe that place is configuration. Replicating configuration settings when you're forced to use binary files like the registry can be problematic, whereas I can rebuild functionality on a new *nix machine by simply copying over plain text files, and I've done it on many occasions. I build custom iptables routers, and believe me, the speed at which I can get a new router up and going where I have backups to/etc is a helluva lot faster than anyone will ever get trying to shove binary blobs through Powershell pipes.
That may be, but Windows is still a prime target, and while security features in a scripting language aren't a bad thing, at the end of the day what actually stands between a system and an attacker is the underlying OS. After all, Powrshell is hardly the only interpreter that runs on Windows.
I think Microsoft and its supporters should spend their efforts securing their own system, and stop the marketing-style "yeah, but look at MacOS!" nonsense. As to security, all OSs have vulnerabilities, so comparing who has more and the severity and so forth is just another form of pissing contest.
For myself, I still find Powershell a frankly horrible scripting language, it's only positive feature being that it's the best Windows has, and I'll its outrageously verbose syntax simply because it does do the job, no matter how awkwardly and slowly.
It has nothing to do with anything. It's just a string of sentences strung together, because pseudo-skeptics need to have some sort of response, no matter how idiotic or false the claim.
Seems like a pretty shitty class. I took a Pascal class in high school, and we actually covered some fairly useful techniques like recursion and linked lists. What's more, I really fell in love with Pascal (it was my first real exposure to structured programming, I'd be coding in BASIC for a few years before that). Indeed, more than concrete tools, what the class gave me was a feel for structured programming concepts, and it was a solid bedrock that my later programming was built on. It really was only a short hop and a skip over to OOP programming.
This Administration doesn't know how to tie its collective shoelaces, let alone manage complex files like Iran. In reality, however, the cranking up of Iranian sanctions is more Congress than the White House, and was part of the bargain that entrenched sanctions against Russia against any interference by the White House. Trump supporters should now become more and more aware that Congress is steadily withdrawing powers from the Presidency and boxing the office in, largely because the man occupying the office is so wholly unfit for the job that he simply cannot be trusted. We'll see what happens with the whole "I'll shut down the government if there's no funding for my wall", but either Congress will give Trump some token amount, or it's possible that it may override any veto he tries. The mere fact that the latter is being talked about shows just how little Congress regards the president, and how impotent he's becoming.
Does the right, or is it just a pack of whining alt right snowflakes? You and your I'll are going to find out how little you actually matter as swing voters begin to put pressure on the GOP.
Frankly, I've got the impression that most people don't really give a shit at all. Intrusive policies by either party when they are in power just don't seem to resonate with most people. Yes, such policies offend privacy advocates, civil liberties advocates, libertarians and a good portion of the tech community, but the great unwashed; liberal or conservative, either don't give a shit or in many cases actually seem to think encroachment is worth it (despite the fact that few advocates of increased surveillance seem able or willing to point to concrete benefits).
I think we have to draw a pretty firm line here. While I intensely dislike "no platforming" (although even there it gets fuzzy, as I don't have a problem with a Neo-Nazi being banned from speaking on a campus), I'm not aware of many, if any of these protesters demanding that the State silence their opponents, and so far as I'm aware that is not the position of any mainstream left-leaning to alter the First Amendment.
So when we speak of "limiting free speech", are we talking about various groups wanting to apply social pressure to individuals or groups they view as spreading undesirable speech (by their definition), or are we talking about groups advocating for a constitutional amendment to actual limit or alter the First Amendment's protections? If the latter, then I'd be damned concern, if the former, well, that's their prerogative, and that to is an exercising of free speech.
Exactly. Amazon has bought a brand name as much as anything else, and I'm sure the marketing will be along the lines of "and now you can shop just your like pretentious Yuppie neighbors!" If there's one universal truth, it's that those lower on the economic ladder may bitch about their betters, but if the opportunity comes to buy the same goods and services, they'll ignore the irony and hypocrisy, and jump at the opportunity.
Well, first of all I doubt there are that many "progressives" arguing against free speech. Probably there are about the same number as there are "conservatives" who want to ban flag burning.
But as you can see the problem of "natural rights" is not necessarily cut and dried, and really in many respects it's somewhat irrelevant to their application. Prior to 1865, a slave could have all the natural rights imbued by his creator that he wanted, but it did him absolutely no bloody good, as governments in both Free and Slave states seem ill-prepared or outright hostile to the idea that those rights existed or if they did that anything should be done to protect them.
In the end, it's all down to whether the Powers That Be and the polity accept the existence or application of those liberties. In the US, questions of liberties come down to the Constitution, and fortunately, all the players have thus far decided to allow that document and the jurisprudence surrounding it limit their actions. So again, you're down to a consensus in US society that, like it or hate it, the government is self-limiting in this regard. If the government were to turn to tyranny, or was overthrown and replaced by a tyranny, I'm afraid the notion of "inalieable rights" and a dollar could buy you can of pop.
This is why I reject the notion of Natural Law entirely. It's at best a rather wayward philosophical position, at worst it's just simply a theological position masquerading as a philosophical position. But then again, my belief that sentience imbues an individual with some essential freedoms isn't any better, I'm just glad I live in a society where the vast majority of fellow citizens also happen to agree. If I had been a professional Cambodia in the 1970s or a Jew in Poland during WWII, well, my belief wouldn't have done me the least bit of good.
Holding slaves was a constitutionally protected right up until the Thirteenth Amendment. So here right away we run up against a problem that plagued the Union for the first seven decades of its existence. Was slavery a natural right, or was it a government-created right, and was its abolition the depriving of some group of an inalieable right, or was it simply the retraction of a previously created "government" right?
Obviously, if you had asked an Abolitionist, they would have viewed the right to hold slaves as being a violation of the natural rights that every man gained from his Creator. If you had asked a slave holder, or any defender of slavery, they would have answered that the Negro was inferior and was not the recipient of those same rights that a white man enjoyed; in other words the institution of slavery and the position of the slave was by nature inferior.
So really, the notion of "natural rights" vs "created rights" is a distinction without a difference; a philosophical position (and a very important one at that), but at the end of the day any liberty is ultimately up to the state and/or polity. If a society refuses to recognize the wrongness of slavery (which a significant number of Americans did up until 1865 (and certainly the sentiment long outlasted the legal end of slavery), then whether the slave's natural rights exist at all, or are being violated, is a moot point.
What makes a democracy work is a general agreement among all its citizens that the democratic, legal and social freedoms are expansive. You can, as most people who believe in God are want to do, ascribe those liberties to a Creator, or if you're an atheist like myself, ascribe them to the inherent rights of sentient beings, but in either case, the belief in those liberties is contingent upon the government and the polity coming together to agree that those are indeed rights at all. If a government or a society at some point decides some of those freedoms are no longer to be recognized, or to be outright rejected, and they have the force and will to retract those rights, then it's irrelevant what some mythical Creator wants or does not, and considering that for most, if not all the history of civilization, the bulk of humans have lived under one form of despotism or another, I'd suggest that the nature of liberty is far less certain than the heirs of Locke would like to think.
And yet it is still a shitty fucking language, and DOM is still a wonder of insanity. The relics of past browser incompatibilities still haunt the ecosystem.
WTF does Rust have to do with Javascript? Rust is supposed to be a memory-safe compiled language meant for system development. It's like comparing Algol to Logo.
Thank you. It's useful to remind so-called "originalists" that their readings of the Constitution tend to not be very "originalist" at all, and they pick and choose which portions they deem will be pre-eminent, and which parts they feel they can safely ignore. They don't like the idea of expansive rights (even though the 9th Amendment makes it clear the Framers understood the concept well), because that means people "originalists" don't like suddenly get liberties; and since they don't like the idea of a woman being able to make medical decisions without consulting the relig... er I mean Conservative authorities before going through with her decision, suddenly privacy can't be a right.
But including Linux only covers part of the ground that Java can cover. Java is present on a lot of ecosystems, and the JVM itself was designed from the ground up to be fairly portable. That's why I suspect Java will be around long after Microsoft has moved on from.NET.
I'm looking at Windows 10, and I'm not seeing professionalism. I'm seeing a braindead GUI that is a backwards step from Windows 7, all to capture a market (smart devices) that Microsoft has pretty much all but walked away from.
Slashdot Mirror
If a hacker has write access to /var/logs, he can do a helluva lot more than just monkey with log files. At that point, he's got root access, or something nearly as nasty.
And the reason behind text files is that they are human-readable and human-editable, even if the only editor available is ed. There's a place for binary blobs, but I don't believe that place is configuration. Replicating configuration settings when you're forced to use binary files like the registry can be problematic, whereas I can rebuild functionality on a new *nix machine by simply copying over plain text files, and I've done it on many occasions. I build custom iptables routers, and believe me, the speed at which I can get a new router up and going where I have backups to /etc is a helluva lot faster than anyone will ever get trying to shove binary blobs through Powershell pipes.
Considering the piss poor nature of Windows logging, I'll take even improved logging of events.
That may be, but Windows is still a prime target, and while security features in a scripting language aren't a bad thing, at the end of the day what actually stands between a system and an attacker is the underlying OS. After all, Powrshell is hardly the only interpreter that runs on Windows.
I think Microsoft and its supporters should spend their efforts securing their own system, and stop the marketing-style "yeah, but look at MacOS!" nonsense. As to security, all OSs have vulnerabilities, so comparing who has more and the severity and so forth is just another form of pissing contest.
For myself, I still find Powershell a frankly horrible scripting language, it's only positive feature being that it's the best Windows has, and I'll its outrageously verbose syntax simply because it does do the job, no matter how awkwardly and slowly.
It has nothing to do with anything. It's just a string of sentences strung together, because pseudo-skeptics need to have some sort of response, no matter how idiotic or false the claim.
Diesel emissions have been tied to a considerable number incidents of cancer. This is a crime, and it is a crime that has victims.
So you want to require universities to let White Supremacists speak?
Seems like a pretty shitty class. I took a Pascal class in high school, and we actually covered some fairly useful techniques like recursion and linked lists. What's more, I really fell in love with Pascal (it was my first real exposure to structured programming, I'd be coding in BASIC for a few years before that). Indeed, more than concrete tools, what the class gave me was a feel for structured programming concepts, and it was a solid bedrock that my later programming was built on. It really was only a short hop and a skip over to OOP programming.
Iran represents no more of an existential threat to the US than Pakistan does.
This Administration doesn't know how to tie its collective shoelaces, let alone manage complex files like Iran. In reality, however, the cranking up of Iranian sanctions is more Congress than the White House, and was part of the bargain that entrenched sanctions against Russia against any interference by the White House. Trump supporters should now become more and more aware that Congress is steadily withdrawing powers from the Presidency and boxing the office in, largely because the man occupying the office is so wholly unfit for the job that he simply cannot be trusted. We'll see what happens with the whole "I'll shut down the government if there's no funding for my wall", but either Congress will give Trump some token amount, or it's possible that it may override any veto he tries. The mere fact that the latter is being talked about shows just how little Congress regards the president, and how impotent he's becoming.
Whining little brats who blame everyone else for their inadequacies.
Does the right, or is it just a pack of whining alt right snowflakes? You and your I'll are going to find out how little you actually matter as swing voters begin to put pressure on the GOP.
I tend to agree. Zuckerburg will basically run as a Schwarzenegger-style Republican.
Frankly, I've got the impression that most people don't really give a shit at all. Intrusive policies by either party when they are in power just don't seem to resonate with most people. Yes, such policies offend privacy advocates, civil liberties advocates, libertarians and a good portion of the tech community, but the great unwashed; liberal or conservative, either don't give a shit or in many cases actually seem to think encroachment is worth it (despite the fact that few advocates of increased surveillance seem able or willing to point to concrete benefits).
I think we have to draw a pretty firm line here. While I intensely dislike "no platforming" (although even there it gets fuzzy, as I don't have a problem with a Neo-Nazi being banned from speaking on a campus), I'm not aware of many, if any of these protesters demanding that the State silence their opponents, and so far as I'm aware that is not the position of any mainstream left-leaning to alter the First Amendment.
So when we speak of "limiting free speech", are we talking about various groups wanting to apply social pressure to individuals or groups they view as spreading undesirable speech (by their definition), or are we talking about groups advocating for a constitutional amendment to actual limit or alter the First Amendment's protections? If the latter, then I'd be damned concern, if the former, well, that's their prerogative, and that to is an exercising of free speech.
Exactly. Amazon has bought a brand name as much as anything else, and I'm sure the marketing will be along the lines of "and now you can shop just your like pretentious Yuppie neighbors!" If there's one universal truth, it's that those lower on the economic ladder may bitch about their betters, but if the opportunity comes to buy the same goods and services, they'll ignore the irony and hypocrisy, and jump at the opportunity.
Well, first of all I doubt there are that many "progressives" arguing against free speech. Probably there are about the same number as there are "conservatives" who want to ban flag burning.
But as you can see the problem of "natural rights" is not necessarily cut and dried, and really in many respects it's somewhat irrelevant to their application. Prior to 1865, a slave could have all the natural rights imbued by his creator that he wanted, but it did him absolutely no bloody good, as governments in both Free and Slave states seem ill-prepared or outright hostile to the idea that those rights existed or if they did that anything should be done to protect them.
In the end, it's all down to whether the Powers That Be and the polity accept the existence or application of those liberties. In the US, questions of liberties come down to the Constitution, and fortunately, all the players have thus far decided to allow that document and the jurisprudence surrounding it limit their actions. So again, you're down to a consensus in US society that, like it or hate it, the government is self-limiting in this regard. If the government were to turn to tyranny, or was overthrown and replaced by a tyranny, I'm afraid the notion of "inalieable rights" and a dollar could buy you can of pop.
This is why I reject the notion of Natural Law entirely. It's at best a rather wayward philosophical position, at worst it's just simply a theological position masquerading as a philosophical position. But then again, my belief that sentience imbues an individual with some essential freedoms isn't any better, I'm just glad I live in a society where the vast majority of fellow citizens also happen to agree. If I had been a professional Cambodia in the 1970s or a Jew in Poland during WWII, well, my belief wouldn't have done me the least bit of good.
Holding slaves was a constitutionally protected right up until the Thirteenth Amendment. So here right away we run up against a problem that plagued the Union for the first seven decades of its existence. Was slavery a natural right, or was it a government-created right, and was its abolition the depriving of some group of an inalieable right, or was it simply the retraction of a previously created "government" right?
Obviously, if you had asked an Abolitionist, they would have viewed the right to hold slaves as being a violation of the natural rights that every man gained from his Creator. If you had asked a slave holder, or any defender of slavery, they would have answered that the Negro was inferior and was not the recipient of those same rights that a white man enjoyed; in other words the institution of slavery and the position of the slave was by nature inferior.
So really, the notion of "natural rights" vs "created rights" is a distinction without a difference; a philosophical position (and a very important one at that), but at the end of the day any liberty is ultimately up to the state and/or polity. If a society refuses to recognize the wrongness of slavery (which a significant number of Americans did up until 1865 (and certainly the sentiment long outlasted the legal end of slavery), then whether the slave's natural rights exist at all, or are being violated, is a moot point.
What makes a democracy work is a general agreement among all its citizens that the democratic, legal and social freedoms are expansive. You can, as most people who believe in God are want to do, ascribe those liberties to a Creator, or if you're an atheist like myself, ascribe them to the inherent rights of sentient beings, but in either case, the belief in those liberties is contingent upon the government and the polity coming together to agree that those are indeed rights at all. If a government or a society at some point decides some of those freedoms are no longer to be recognized, or to be outright rejected, and they have the force and will to retract those rights, then it's irrelevant what some mythical Creator wants or does not, and considering that for most, if not all the history of civilization, the bulk of humans have lived under one form of despotism or another, I'd suggest that the nature of liberty is far less certain than the heirs of Locke would like to think.
And yet it is still a shitty fucking language, and DOM is still a wonder of insanity. The relics of past browser incompatibilities still haunt the ecosystem.
WTF does Rust have to do with Javascript? Rust is supposed to be a memory-safe compiled language meant for system development. It's like comparing Algol to Logo.
Thank you. It's useful to remind so-called "originalists" that their readings of the Constitution tend to not be very "originalist" at all, and they pick and choose which portions they deem will be pre-eminent, and which parts they feel they can safely ignore. They don't like the idea of expansive rights (even though the 9th Amendment makes it clear the Framers understood the concept well), because that means people "originalists" don't like suddenly get liberties; and since they don't like the idea of a woman being able to make medical decisions without consulting the relig... er I mean Conservative authorities before going through with her decision, suddenly privacy can't be a right.
And which progressives say that?
But including Linux only covers part of the ground that Java can cover. Java is present on a lot of ecosystems, and the JVM itself was designed from the ground up to be fairly portable. That's why I suspect Java will be around long after Microsoft has moved on from .NET.
Of course, for the vast bulk of the enterprise world, Java is king, so it's not likely to make many waves at all.
If that happened, I'd be switching everything over to some flavor of BSD in the shortest amount of time possible.
I'm looking at Windows 10, and I'm not seeing professionalism. I'm seeing a braindead GUI that is a backwards step from Windows 7, all to capture a market (smart devices) that Microsoft has pretty much all but walked away from.