How hard would it be to have self-reported Congressional district residences? It's just something else to add to a user profile. There could also be an option for not reporting district, not reporting state or for living outside the U.S. Telling you that I grew up in Illinois' 10th Congressional district doesn't exactly point you to my address, and even so, that information needn't be part of the public profile.
If your suggestion is that Mac OS X is not more secure than Windows, you have failed to justify it. If you want to justify it, find vulnerabilities in OS X that are not present in Windows rather than identify vulnerabilities common to the two systems.
In the real world, there's a lot of street cred to be earned by being the first to 0wn a network of Macs, and yet no one - not one single cracker anywhere - seems to be up to the challenge. Gee, what terrific luck on Apple's part!
I bet it's been done before. Scratch that. I've seen it done before. But how many people talk about hacking Macs?
I haven't read much about it or messed around with it much lately - is Windows still at the point where executables labeled as data (say an image or a document) will be run as executables when opened?
With a certain user's unwitting permission, any system can be hit. Social engineering is not a vulnerability that is part of the hardware or software - it's part of the person who uses it.
there aren't going to be many "hackers" who have had access to the OS to learn to make virii
Yeah, 4 percent of the population isn't a whole lot.
and it's also fair to say that most of the 4% of OSX users are in very non-technical fields, and far less likely to be capable of the technical mischief
And I'd say the same for Windows users.
Yet another point would be that there is little motivation to write a OSX virus as you would be targetting a minority
This is the only thing I'd consider a valid point. I'd hack Macs because I've always been around them all the time at school. Most people aren't in such a situation.
Go back and read the GP post again. The reason you can't run the program is that running it requires making a copy of it, which is disallowed by copyright law.
Because we should not have the right to protect ourselves from rogue nations such as N. Korea and Iran. Am I correct?
No, because it's not a productive use of taxpayer dollars. After all this time that missile defense has been a reason for spending, what do we have? Patriot missiles? Bah. They're not all they're cracked up to be.
Because it's perfectly OK to end the life of a premature innocent baby/fetus, but it's NOT ok to end the life of an adult that has committed murder.
If only it were that simple. Those aren't the only effects of those policies. Generally abortionists don't say to themselves, "I wanna kill a baby." They say, "I wish I could handle the baby, but that's not something I can do." Reasons for the difficulty range from biological to socioeconomic. And you have amazing faith in our courts if you think that everyone who goes to death row has committed a capital crime. The only value the death penalty has over life sentences is a potential deterrent value, but if people really expected punishment, they wouldn't commit crimes.
You mean the same terror that is STILL going on to this day? Let me know when the car bombing stops.
He means the 9/11 attacks. Obviously, there is terrorism there and lots of other places, but people wonder... why Iraq?
no child left behind Why is this program so bad? It may not be the best solution, but it's better than nothing.
You're not very informed about its effects are you? The standards for determining what schools are not performing adequately are flawed at best. The solutions it proposes for reforming underperforming schools are generally not beneficial for the students.
What's wrong with promoting a solid foundation of morals, ethics, and devotion to a higher being then him? In fact, the promotion of ANY religion that staves of hubris is a positive to humanity as a whole.
What's wrong with it? The religous bias. Plenty of people who grow up without religious influences behave ethically, and a disturbing number of very religious people don't. Also, why should your religion define for me what is moral if you can't support your religion's validity any better than I can support mine?
We all make choices in life. If you choose to work for a company or for yourself, fine. But don't punish EVERYONE who wishes to devote their time and effort into a business. I'm sorry, but western civilization around the world has chosen to do something other than hunt and gather for himself. Modern civilization could never have flourished in the way it has without capitalism. It would seem even Russia and China acknowledges this FACT!
First, he did not complain that the government is too pro-worker. He complained that it is too pro-executive.
Second, capitalism without proper regulation is a great way to increase the poverty rate, mostly because the suppliers of labor don't control the market for labor nearly as much as suppliers of goods control the market for goods. Regulation isn't inherently evil, expecially when used on goods with highly inelastic demand.
Until we start reversing our trend of cleaning up after ourselves, please don't preach about anti-environmentalism.
I'm going to keep complaining until we do reverse our trend of cleaning up after ourselves. We're getting better, but there are too many people who would rather make a bit more money than clean up after themselves.
you cant disprove it, so there is nothing to say it didnt happen. while extreme, i think that gets my point across.
Unfortunately, it's really too extreme to be of any day-to-day use. There is, of course, no proof that the government is not using this surveillance benevolently; however, I don't trust this administration because it has a history of dishonesty.
Your idea of an inlcusive society is on in which everyone agrees with your Marxist claptrap
Anything other than a two-party system is Marxist?
If your disgust with the United States is so great, then go in front of a consular official, renounce your US citizenship, and get the hell out of the country.
Would you care to finance this migration? I hear lots of people say, "If you don't like it, then leave." That's great for a party where all it costs to leave is a couple dollars worth of gas, but it can easily cost someone several years' pay to leave the country permanently.
Or perhaps I could use your style of rhetoric and call this a fascist claptrap.
The only reason you have the freedom to remain an adolescent throughout your entire life is because better men and woman than you have picked up a weapon and kept the enemy away from your door. ... Have you ever met the people who enlist in the armed forces? That's where you'll find a good number of the men who will be adolescents all their lives. In my experience, the only time when the average soldier acts respectably is when a higher-ranking officer is watching.
If the U.S. is attacked, you will see more people look to help in its defense. People didn't change their personalities after 9/11 before doing what they could to help the recovery. Unfortunately for your all-or-nothing ideology, most people have other obligations in their lives than cannot be cast away so easily.
Remember there are more people that will support the Republic against your sedition and treason than in this deranged echo chamber.
You're funny. In fact, if I hadn't seen your post modded as flamebait, I wouldn't have known whether or not you were actually being serious. But since that seems to be the case, I suggest that you go look up fancy words like "sedition" before you use them. Impeachment is a perfectly legal check on the power of government officials - it's not a rebellion.
"Ifs" mean nothing.
In questions of what would have happened, "ifs" are not only unavaoidable, but important. The question at hand is whether or not Bush would have been in office had the votes been properly counted. Seeing that the answer is an undisputable "no," you have stopped arguing against the answer and have told people not to ask that question.
How can a governement create justice when all it does nothing.
It's not often that I refer to someone as a sophist, but you are well on your way to earning the title for your suggestion that the alternative to watching everybody is watching nobody. No one here has suggested making wiretaps illegal - just keeping the requirement of obtaining a warrant. And, if you really do have justification for your surveillance, why can't you show that to a judge?
That Your its not simgular but a collective your(One of the annying things of the english grammer) which means that the entire nation has that responibility, not just some angry geek with a computer.
Isn't it so easy to use the populace as an excuse to do nothing for each individual?
Hating the current governemnt means that you aren't doing enough to change it. If you can't do that little bit to change it why be here.
Sorry, but most individuals only get one vote and not enough money to influence the election. I imagine (assuming the GP poster was old enough at the time) that he did, in fact, do what he could to try to change the government.
Here's another quote you would do well to consider, although it does not come from any American:
"If there be any in this assmebly, any dear friend of Caesar's, to him I say that Brutus's love for Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. As Caesar loved me, I weep for him. As he was fortunate, I rejoice at it. As he was valiant, I honor him. But, as he was ambitious, I slew him.... Who here is so base that he would be a bondman? If any, speak, for him I have offended."
Have I offended you?
Perhaps you read too much into the text. I think it more likely that you read too little into it. If literal interpretation is all that is necessary and all that was intended, why do we have the Supreme Court?
I've heard that some people read the constitution and see things that aren't there. I never really believed it until now.
If you think that everything the Constitution was intended to do is written in it with incredibly literal wording...
*refrains from flaming*
Is it legal for public schools to punish children for not following a certain religion? Why not? It's not an act of Congress that metes out this punishment, so it's not in violation of the Constitution.
well, now, anyone can put what ever they want in to open source... even backdoors for outside access.
And people can write closed-source apps with the same backdoors. The difference is that open source can be reviewed. As for the copy of the application installed on the computer in question... it's not like backdoor access can be easily written into any compiled program.
i would feel safer as ive gotten screwed (badly) by the local PD before Why is it that you think the government intends to help you as an individual?
oh and people with BPD are more of a threat to themselves than anyone else. Do you, by chance, take the time to read posts before replying to them? Nobody said that people with BPD are a threat to the public - only that if they were for some reason perceived that way (and you will be amazed at people's unwillingness or inability to think logically) such people could easily be targeted.
as for it "[happening] to 'one of them,'" of who are you refering? suspected terrorists? people with insane amounts of encryption without cause? people who build and explode bombs in their backyerd just for fun? or perhaps people who like yell "jihad!" and running into dense crowds. who? Anybody. There is nothing, aside from empty political rhetoric, to suggest that this is only being used on people who truly are a risk to the American general public.
I don't see why you insist that upon reaching middle age people are no longer able to perform complex cognitive tasks. Observing the real world, rather than limiting yourself to speculation, could prove quite useful to you.
Slashdot Mirror
How hard would it be to have self-reported Congressional district residences? It's just something else to add to a user profile. There could also be an option for not reporting district, not reporting state or for living outside the U.S. Telling you that I grew up in Illinois' 10th Congressional district doesn't exactly point you to my address, and even so, that information needn't be part of the public profile.
I smell a dupe2 28230
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/14/1
If your suggestion is that Mac OS X is not more secure than Windows, you have failed to justify it. If you want to justify it, find vulnerabilities in OS X that are not present in Windows rather than identify vulnerabilities common to the two systems.
Proof of concept exploit:a g=zdfd.newsfeed .app file extension. I am not amazed.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5189335.html?t
Feh. It has the
http://daringfireball.net/2004/04/crying_wolf
In the real world, there's a lot of street cred to be earned by being the first to 0wn a network of Macs, and yet no one - not one single cracker anywhere - seems to be up to the challenge. Gee, what terrific luck on Apple's part!
I bet it's been done before. Scratch that. I've seen it done before. But how many people talk about hacking Macs?
I haven't read much about it or messed around with it much lately - is Windows still at the point where executables labeled as data (say an image or a document) will be run as executables when opened?
With a certain user's unwitting permission, any system can be hit. Social engineering is not a vulnerability that is part of the hardware or software - it's part of the person who uses it.
there aren't going to be many "hackers" who have had access to the OS to learn to make virii
Yeah, 4 percent of the population isn't a whole lot.
and it's also fair to say that most of the 4% of OSX users are in very non-technical fields, and far less likely to be capable of the technical mischief
And I'd say the same for Windows users.
Yet another point would be that there is little motivation to write a OSX virus as you would be targetting a minority
This is the only thing I'd consider a valid point. I'd hack Macs because I've always been around them all the time at school. Most people aren't in such a situation.
I have seen links on Apple's wb site to the OpenDarwin project, which is working on Darwine, a port of WINE to OS X. I don't think Apple minds WINE.
Hahaha. Afraid to attach your name to that comment?
Go back and read the GP post again. The reason you can't run the program is that running it requires making a copy of it, which is disallowed by copyright law.
All Apple computers are (good | bad -- circle one) because this happened to me: ____________________________.
Because we should not have the right to protect ourselves from rogue nations such as N. Korea and Iran. Am I correct?
No, because it's not a productive use of taxpayer dollars. After all this time that missile defense has been a reason for spending, what do we have? Patriot missiles? Bah. They're not all they're cracked up to be.
Because it's perfectly OK to end the life of a premature innocent baby/fetus, but it's NOT ok to end the life of an adult that has committed murder.
If only it were that simple. Those aren't the only effects of those policies. Generally abortionists don't say to themselves, "I wanna kill a baby." They say, "I wish I could handle the baby, but that's not something I can do." Reasons for the difficulty range from biological to socioeconomic. And you have amazing faith in our courts if you think that everyone who goes to death row has committed a capital crime. The only value the death penalty has over life sentences is a potential deterrent value, but if people really expected punishment, they wouldn't commit crimes.
You mean the same terror that is STILL going on to this day? Let me know when the car bombing stops.
He means the 9/11 attacks. Obviously, there is terrorism there and lots of other places, but people wonder... why Iraq?
no child left behind Why is this program so bad? It may not be the best solution, but it's better than nothing.
You're not very informed about its effects are you? The standards for determining what schools are not performing adequately are flawed at best. The solutions it proposes for reforming underperforming schools are generally not beneficial for the students.
What's wrong with promoting a solid foundation of morals, ethics, and devotion to a higher being then him? In fact, the promotion of ANY religion that staves of hubris is a positive to humanity as a whole.
What's wrong with it? The religous bias. Plenty of people who grow up without religious influences behave ethically, and a disturbing number of very religious people don't. Also, why should your religion define for me what is moral if you can't support your religion's validity any better than I can support mine?
We all make choices in life. If you choose to work for a company or for yourself, fine. But don't punish EVERYONE who wishes to devote their time and effort into a business. I'm sorry, but western civilization around the world has chosen to do something other than hunt and gather for himself. Modern civilization could never have flourished in the way it has without capitalism. It would seem even Russia and China acknowledges this FACT!
First, he did not complain that the government is too pro-worker. He complained that it is too pro-executive.
Second, capitalism without proper regulation is a great way to increase the poverty rate, mostly because the suppliers of labor don't control the market for labor nearly as much as suppliers of goods control the market for goods. Regulation isn't inherently evil, expecially when used on goods with highly inelastic demand.
Until we start reversing our trend of cleaning up after ourselves, please don't preach about anti-environmentalism.
I'm going to keep complaining until we do reverse our trend of cleaning up after ourselves. We're getting better, but there are too many people who would rather make a bit more money than clean up after themselves.
you cant disprove it, so there is nothing to say it didnt happen. while extreme, i think that gets my point across.
Unfortunately, it's really too extreme to be of any day-to-day use. There is, of course, no proof that the government is not using this surveillance benevolently; however, I don't trust this administration because it has a history of dishonesty.
Your idea of an inlcusive society is on in which everyone agrees with your Marxist claptrap
... Have you ever met the people who enlist in the armed forces? That's where you'll find a good number of the men who will be adolescents all their lives. In my experience, the only time when the average soldier acts respectably is when a higher-ranking officer is watching.
Anything other than a two-party system is Marxist?
If your disgust with the United States is so great, then go in front of a consular official, renounce your US citizenship, and get the hell out of the country.
Would you care to finance this migration? I hear lots of people say, "If you don't like it, then leave." That's great for a party where all it costs to leave is a couple dollars worth of gas, but it can easily cost someone several years' pay to leave the country permanently.
Or perhaps I could use your style of rhetoric and call this a fascist claptrap.
The only reason you have the freedom to remain an adolescent throughout your entire life is because better men and woman than you have picked up a weapon and kept the enemy away from your door.
If the U.S. is attacked, you will see more people look to help in its defense. People didn't change their personalities after 9/11 before doing what they could to help the recovery. Unfortunately for your all-or-nothing ideology, most people have other obligations in their lives than cannot be cast away so easily.
Remember there are more people that will support the Republic against your sedition and treason than in this deranged echo chamber.
You're funny. In fact, if I hadn't seen your post modded as flamebait, I wouldn't have known whether or not you were actually being serious. But since that seems to be the case, I suggest that you go look up fancy words like "sedition" before you use them. Impeachment is a perfectly legal check on the power of government officials - it's not a rebellion.
"Ifs" mean nothing.
In questions of what would have happened, "ifs" are not only unavaoidable, but important. The question at hand is whether or not Bush would have been in office had the votes been properly counted. Seeing that the answer is an undisputable "no," you have stopped arguing against the answer and have told people not to ask that question.
How can a governement create justice when all it does nothing.
It's not often that I refer to someone as a sophist, but you are well on your way to earning the title for your suggestion that the alternative to watching everybody is watching nobody. No one here has suggested making wiretaps illegal - just keeping the requirement of obtaining a warrant. And, if you really do have justification for your surveillance, why can't you show that to a judge?
That Your its not simgular but a collective your(One of the annying things of the english grammer) which means that the entire nation has that responibility, not just some angry geek with a computer.
Isn't it so easy to use the populace as an excuse to do nothing for each individual?
Hating the current governemnt means that you aren't doing enough to change it. If you can't do that little bit to change it why be here.
Sorry, but most individuals only get one vote and not enough money to influence the election. I imagine (assuming the GP poster was old enough at the time) that he did, in fact, do what he could to try to change the government.
Here's another quote you would do well to consider, although it does not come from any American: ... Who here is so base that he would be a bondman? If any, speak, for him I have offended."
"If there be any in this assmebly, any dear friend of Caesar's, to him I say that Brutus's love for Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. As Caesar loved me, I weep for him. As he was fortunate, I rejoice at it. As he was valiant, I honor him. But, as he was ambitious, I slew him.
Have I offended you?
Perhaps you read too much into the text.
I think it more likely that you read too little into it. If literal interpretation is all that is necessary and all that was intended, why do we have the Supreme Court?
I've heard that some people read the constitution and see things that aren't there. I never really believed it until now.
If you think that everything the Constitution was intended to do is written in it with incredibly literal wording...
*refrains from flaming*
Is it legal for public schools to punish children for not following a certain religion? Why not? It's not an act of Congress that metes out this punishment, so it's not in violation of the Constitution.
well, now, anyone can put what ever they want in to open source... even backdoors for outside access.
And people can write closed-source apps with the same backdoors. The difference is that open source can be reviewed. As for the copy of the application installed on the computer in question... it's not like backdoor access can be easily written into any compiled program.
i would feel safer as ive gotten screwed (badly) by the local PD before
Why is it that you think the government intends to help you as an individual?
oh and people with BPD are more of a threat to themselves than anyone else.
Do you, by chance, take the time to read posts before replying to them? Nobody said that people with BPD are a threat to the public - only that if they were for some reason perceived that way (and you will be amazed at people's unwillingness or inability to think logically) such people could easily be targeted.
as for it "[happening] to 'one of them,'" of who are you refering? suspected terrorists? people with insane amounts of encryption without cause? people who build and explode bombs in their backyerd just for fun? or perhaps people who like yell "jihad!" and running into dense crowds. who?
Anybody. There is nothing, aside from empty political rhetoric, to suggest that this is only being used on people who truly are a risk to the American general public.
He obviously doesn't understand what "impeachable offense" means
That's ok. Congress doesn't know either.
I don't see why you insist that upon reaching middle age people are no longer able to perform complex cognitive tasks. Observing the real world, rather than limiting yourself to speculation, could prove quite useful to you.
It's also a very common typo. Look at your keyboard and see that 's' and 'd' are right next to each other.
Some processes/algorithms are simply too complicated for their code to be immediately understandable.