If these graphs are what the article says they are, i.e., system calls made by Apache on Linux vs those made by IIS on Windows, in the course of serving up a web page, then they are maps of logic flow of the Apache and IIS applications (together with the contents of the C and C++ library calls used), not of the OS, and probably reflect very little that is OS specific. So the argument of Windows being more complex than Linux (and therefore "harder to secure") is unsupported by this. It may imply that IIS is more complex than Apache, and I'm sure that that it in fact is. However, of course, the complexity of an application has no necessary correlation to its security.
Good protocol can secure bad encryption more easily than good encryption can help bad protocol.
The Sana Security diagrams show us just how bad the windows internal protocols really are. There is no securing this system with Digital Rights management or any other encryption scheme. Any security method placed on top of a such bad messaging protocols will fail miserably because even if the encryption or other security suite is perfect... windows isn't. And the system will be compromised by drilling down through windows... not through the security system.
'the heck are you talking about??? They're using the exact same protocols: IP, TCP, HTTP, and SSL if the page is encrypted! And what does DRM have to do with serving up a web page??? And most importantly, what exactly do you think these charts have to do with protocols, and how do you figure you would tell a good one from a bad one, especially seeing how they are just a bunch of lines with no labels or other information???
All of these "BitLocker" vulnerabilities aren't actually BitLocker vulnerabilities, they're full-disk-encryption vulnerabilities. They apply just as much to my FreeBSD GBDE protected partition as they do to BitLocker, there's nothing new or even interesting in this article. (The summary "No Real Threat To Decryption" is misleading, because there is nothing about decryption in there.)
Look, buddy, Vista is inadequate in all categories. It's an article of faith. No probing into it with the intellect is allowed. Accept it or leave the church!;-)
If you're being investigated no drive encryption is going to help; if they want access to your system they can just as easily use hardware keyloggers. They'll have the evidence they want long before they let you know you're being investigated.
In practice that would be extremely unusual. Maybe if you're a mafia head, or have ongoing communications with Osama, or something like that -- but in all cases I've heard of, as soon as they can get enough evidence for a warrant, they will go to your house and take your computer and anything else covered by the warrant. If your computer is on and logged in, they will probably just unplug it. They people whose job it is to come take stuff aren't typically what you would call computer experts.
What's more important is that we believe that the feds, NSA, CIA, and other 3 letter agencies have this magic decrypting tech or the knowledge to get into a system without the users being aware of it. They may or may not. The important thing is the ways that the 3 letter agencies would work to get into your computer are the same as if the mafia, other criminals, or spy ware was trying to get into your computer or decrypt without your knowledge.
3-Letter Agencies? Er, you mean like the FDA and the EPA and the FAA and the Small Business Administration might all have super-secret decryption keys for my computer, but I can safely disregard the Defense Information Systems Agency?
It is important not to confuse this report with science. It is also important in general not to confuse the claims and opinions of scientists with science. This report contains claims and charactorizations. I suppose a lot of the data in this report probably comes from scientific studies, but as they are not cited (anywhere that I can find), they can't be confirmed or disconfirmed, or even put into context. The gist of the report are completely subjective charactorizations about various horrible things being "likely" or "very likely" to increase, or to be attributable to human actions. In other words the gist of the report is handwaving nonsense. Scientists don't have Special Knowledge not available to the rest of us. They are not soothsayers, priests or magicians. Even if they were, there were more politicians working on this report than scientists.
One thing of note from the report, which I can independently confirm:
Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5C higher than present[...]
Since the last interglacial period peaked out at 4 to 6m higher seas, and 3 to 5 C higher temperatures, then in the absense of evidence suggesting we should peak elsewhere, we should assume that the global climate will max out at similar levels, apart from any human infulence. (After that happens, maybe the IPCC can tell the politicians how to make new laws to encourage greenhouse gasses emission, to somehow keep the next ice age from coming along and killing us all.)
Sometimes, things are far easier to predict in aggregate than they are individually... Furthermore, I'll remind you that the data for global climate change extends into thousands of years. It's not unreasonable to expect an accurate extrapolation for the next fifty or one-hundred years from that.
If they were claiming to predict climate change for the next hundred years based upon an extrapolation from the last ten thousand years of data, that would be an entirely different thing. What they claim is to predict drastic changes from new processes that have occurred in the last 50 years, or 100 years. There is simply no data to test any model that a person comes up with for this. Without testing, it is not a scientific prediction, merely conjecture. As one climatologist said, models are good for increasing understanding of how systems work -- what they cannot do is decrease the uncertainty about future behavior.
That is why it is difficult to rebut claims of global warming -- there is no data to rebut it with, because it is a theory in the absence of data. People don't want to hear, 'we don't know enough to say that.' They just say well, it MIGHT be true. But anything might be true. There is no evidence to offer as proof that the claims in the IPCC report are more likely than a simple linear extrapolation of the changes over the last 100 years. I would suspect that an objective quantitative analysis, if one were possible, would show the latter to be much more likely.
In the abscence of the capability to analyse the science itself, it help to know where the funding comes from....Knowledge of funding is part of the mechanism by which the non-scientist protects him or herself against junk science.
In the abscence of the capability to analyse the science itself, you have no chance of forming any worthwhile judgement of the science -- no matter what you know about the funding.
The only possible way around this is if you put your faith in a particular scientist of exceptional credibility who has the ability to make an objective analysis of it. But then it is still just faith.
The scientific method relies upon hypothesis and testing, then publishing and interpreting the results of that testing and it is reviewed by peers. If you are only paid when the results of your testing indicate a particular item, which may or may not be true, you have direct motivation to break the scientific process... In the case of global warming, you're starting with an answer "global warming is not man made" (result) and trying to find a reason. Sure there are lots of potential reasons why this might be the case, but none of them are science because you did not follow the scientific method.
We're talking about global warming; no science need get involved.;] There is no science in the report that they want to rebut, no indication that any of the conclusions in it were arrived at by the scientific process. In fact we know the opposite was true. They were sitting around arguing, "let's say we're 90% certain." "No, let's say 95%" "Let's say it's a 'virtual certainty,' that will really get policy makers moving." This is the furthest thing from science one can imagine. Why should a rebutal essay by any more scientific?
The point is that you are giving so called scientists a financial motivation for making one conclusion over another. This is nothing like your OSS bounty comparison.
No you are paying for an essay, not for science. It's an essay to argue against the "policymaker's guide" written by the IPCC, which is also not science. The IPCC report is nothing but a list of conclusions. No evidence is provided. There are no footnotes pointing to studies or scientific papers. It is just claims. None of this should matter, because the conclusions of scientists shouldn't be the deciding thing... in a rational world. Only the science should matter -- the evidence, the provable. As long as people are going to put "consensus of experts," real or imagined, above actual science, there will be no rational decisions made, so you may as well let the highest bidder win.
Is it still altruism if you do something to advance the colony? What if it is because you identify the colony as an extension of yourself?....If you identify yourself as part of a group then actions to benefit that group are merely selfishness on another level.
No one identifies AS MUCH with the group than they do with their actual selves. (unless they've been brainwashed by a cult or something) So If you sacrifice of yourself for the benefit of the group, it IS altruism, even if you identify also with the group. The marine who was just awarded the medal of honor for throwing himself on a grenade, saving his unit at the cost of his life, did not do it out of self-interest.
Furthermore, in a general sense, helping others is merely promote self interest. Say you are nice to people at the office and help them out whenever possible. When you take these actions there may not be a specific self interest in mind at the moment but you are aware that you are building goodwill toward yourself that may benefit you when you in turn need help.
Yeah, well, that's why a certain person once said said, "when you give a lunch or a dinner, don't invite your frineds, your brothers, your relatives, or your rich neighbors, because they might invite you back, and you would be repaid. Rather, when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lamed, the blind."
People without ethics that take other people's rights into account, or with canned ethics based on apocalyptic religious bullshit like G. W. Bush, those people are the problem.
That's funny, G.W.Bush speaks very openly about his religion, yet I've never heard him speak a thing about the apocalypse. You seem to be under the influence of the anti-Bush propaganda machine.
I suppose this is founded on the idea that no corporation or government has any right to keep secrets. So people should engage in (in their words) "principled leaking" to "lead us to a better future". Freakin progressive morons. And since it's supposedly uncensorable, I suppose it won't be any trouble for those so inclined to leak secrets regarding construction of nuclear and biological weapons. I, for one, would be interested in finding Al Gore's home phone number and leaking that.
Actually, I think it's a pretty good indication that almost anyone who understands science and the scientific method knows that this is a real problem. I find it odd that you think this somehow indicates a vast scientific conspiracy.
It's not a scientific conspiracy, it's a political conspiracy, from which scientists are not immune. A typical physisist knows nothing about the body of evidence in climate science. If he feels compelled to weigh in on the subject and form a conclusion without having studied it, there is something other than science compelling him to do so (I'm not saying men with guns, I'm saying groupthink, peer pressure, political presure.)
(Furthermore, in my personal experience, I have found that scientists (especially good ones) tend to think very well about their own field of study that they devote their thinking to, and very poorly about nearly everything else.)
Why the party that campaigns on lowering taxes and refusing to ratify Kyoto hates the world's children has yet to be determined
The party that hates the world's children... oh you mean last group of people in the Western world who are against dismembering children in the womb?
You can't kill them before they are born or they wouldn't be able to pay for for all of the tax cuts or pay though the long term fallout from other disasterous thining from the RW.
Doh! I've been exposed! The real reason I don't want children dismembered in the womb is because I need them to be born so that they can pay for my tax cuts! "Pay for my tax cuts," of course, means to not be given the money that liberals want the government to tax from me. So I need them to be here so that they can not recieve my money, so that the government lets me keep it. See? It all makes sense. *head explodes*
Sort of like the headlines last summer of the new research showing that increased CO2 makes poison ivy grow faster! (of course it also makes things like corn, flowers, and trees grow faster, but somehow someone forgot to publish research on that)
Actually, this hurricane season was so calm because of El Nino, which is ironically much of the cause of the warm winter we've been having. The article never stated that global warming was the entire cause of the warm weather this year, but it certainly factors into it...
My underlying point is that I find it incredibly intellectually arrogant to think we can predict the severity of hurricane seasons based upon our incredibly simplistic (compared to the actual phenomena) models of climate. So I suggest that my "theory", based upon the evidence of 2006, that global warming stops hurricanes, is at least as good (if not vastly superior) to the theory that global warming makes hurricanes more severe.
If you do just a little bit of research, you will very quickly find scientific evidence that the earth is warming at an alarming rate.
This is either a completely absurd claim, or else some kind of application of scientific method to hyperbole that I have yet to master. (In other words, since "an alarming rate" is not a quantifiable standard, how can you claim scientific evidence that shows that the earth is warming at that rate?)
The entire point with global warming is, that while naturally occuring changes do happen, they don't treaten us because we can adapt over the long periods of time the change is happening, but with global warming the paradox is that 40-50 years is FAST even compared to human standards, because 40-50 years mean reorganizing the economy on large scale, which can't be done if the issue of GW is ignored in the sense of doing nothing about it.
But naturally occuring changes in the climate have not been slow. They've often been much faster than 40-50 yesrs. And they do threaten us -- and every other large species. I believe that the species will survive anything, but if an ice age comes along, anything like the previous four or so, it will kill at least 99.9% of us.
Personally, I never subscribe to the "we can't possibly understand it" argument. That also explains my deeply atheistic beliefs.
I also believe that there is nothing that cannot be understood. That also accounts for my deeply religious beliefs. However, like Socrates and Confucious taught, I believe that no progress in understanding can be made until we come to grasp the enormity of what we do not know compared to what we do know. Moreover, the wiser we become, the greater we see that enormity to be.
Let's say that instead of climate change, a large meteor was headed for the planet in, say, 2029. Would we argue for twenty years over whether mankind's radio emissions (or whatever) caused the meteor to near the earth or would we try to think up ways of doing something about it?
The problem with that analogy is that if a meteor was going to hit us, we would know that that was a bad thing. Right now, the political position is that global warming is a "bad thing". That is mirrored by the posts here, such as yours, frame it as some catastrophic problem. I think that is completely wrong. Increased CO2 means increased crop yields, and a greater global potential for food production. More importantly, global warming means more fresh water availability, and less drought. (Politicians and media claim the opposite, but it's a simple scientific fact.) Most importantly, it means a possible protection against the cyclical ice age phenomenon, which would be a genuine global catastrophe.
The claim that the current climate change may not be man-made always sounds funny to me. I've never heard a scientist over here (germany) claim that in recent years. One difference between the current change and previous changes is that it affects both hemispheres, whereas previous changes (ice-ages, for example) seem to have affected either the southern or the northern hemisphere.
The ice ages were global events of dramatically colder climates. The glaciation was most dramatic in the northern hemisphere, but it was a global phenomenon. The global climate has been in a state of flux for as long as it has existed.
This is something to keep in mind with the current global warming debate. The evidence suggests that human burning of carbon fuels is a big part of the problem. A strong majority of Scientists across multiple disciplines are convinced we need to do something about it. But they could be wrong.
Yes, but when scientists "across multiple disciplines" are all weighing in on what the right conclusion should be on a question of climate science, that's a pretty good indication that something other than science is going on.
i want to remark that we have better technology now, so China needn't pollute as much as we did, and go straight to windpower/solarpower instead of using coal.
Except that window power and solar power impact the climate directly, instead of indirectly like fosil fuels.... and they take heat out of the climate, which is a lot more dangerous than adding heat.
Slashdot Mirror
If these graphs are what the article says they are, i.e., system calls made by Apache on Linux vs those made by IIS on Windows, in the course of serving up a web page, then they are maps of logic flow of the Apache and IIS applications (together with the contents of the C and C++ library calls used), not of the OS, and probably reflect very little that is OS specific. So the argument of Windows being more complex than Linux (and therefore "harder to secure") is unsupported by this. It may imply that IIS is more complex than Apache, and I'm sure that that it in fact is. However, of course, the complexity of an application has no necessary correlation to its security.
One thing of note from the report, which I can independently confirm: Since the last interglacial period peaked out at 4 to 6m higher seas, and 3 to 5 C higher temperatures, then in the absense of evidence suggesting we should peak elsewhere, we should assume that the global climate will max out at similar levels, apart from any human infulence. (After that happens, maybe the IPCC can tell the politicians how to make new laws to encourage greenhouse gasses emission, to somehow keep the next ice age from coming along and killing us all.)
That is why it is difficult to rebut claims of global warming -- there is no data to rebut it with, because it is a theory in the absence of data. People don't want to hear, 'we don't know enough to say that.' They just say well, it MIGHT be true. But anything might be true. There is no evidence to offer as proof that the claims in the IPCC report are more likely than a simple linear extrapolation of the changes over the last 100 years. I would suspect that an objective quantitative analysis, if one were possible, would show the latter to be much more likely.
The only possible way around this is if you put your faith in a particular scientist of exceptional credibility who has the ability to make an objective analysis of it. But then it is still just faith.
I use something that does pretty much all that stuff, except it's free. It's called CleverKeys, and you can download it at dictionary.com.
No one identifies AS MUCH with the group than they do with their actual selves. (unless they've been brainwashed by a cult or something) So If you sacrifice of yourself for the benefit of the group, it IS altruism, even if you identify also with the group. The marine who was just awarded the medal of honor for throwing himself on a grenade, saving his unit at the cost of his life, did not do it out of self-interest.
Yeah, well, that's why a certain person once said said, "when you give a lunch or a dinner, don't invite your frineds, your brothers, your relatives, or your rich neighbors, because they might invite you back, and you would be repaid. Rather, when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lamed, the blind."
That's funny, G.W.Bush speaks very openly about his religion, yet I've never heard him speak a thing about the apocalypse. You seem to be under the influence of the anti-Bush propaganda machine.
I suppose this is founded on the idea that no corporation or government has any right to keep secrets. So people should engage in (in their words) "principled leaking" to "lead us to a better future". Freakin progressive morons. And since it's supposedly uncensorable, I suppose it won't be any trouble for those so inclined to leak secrets regarding construction of nuclear and biological weapons. I, for one, would be interested in finding Al Gore's home phone number and leaking that.
It's not a scientific conspiracy, it's a political conspiracy, from which scientists are not immune. A typical physisist knows nothing about the body of evidence in climate science. If he feels compelled to weigh in on the subject and form a conclusion without having studied it, there is something other than science compelling him to do so (I'm not saying men with guns, I'm saying groupthink, peer pressure, political presure.)
(Furthermore, in my personal experience, I have found that scientists (especially good ones) tend to think very well about their own field of study that they devote their thinking to, and very poorly about nearly everything else.)
Doh! I've been exposed! The real reason I don't want children dismembered in the womb is because I need them to be born so that they can pay for my tax cuts! "Pay for my tax cuts," of course, means to not be given the money that liberals want the government to tax from me. So I need them to be here so that they can not recieve my money, so that the government lets me keep it. See? It all makes sense. *head explodes*
Sort of like the headlines last summer of the new research showing that increased CO2 makes poison ivy grow faster! (of course it also makes things like corn, flowers, and trees grow faster, but somehow someone forgot to publish research on that)
My underlying point is that I find it incredibly intellectually arrogant to think we can predict the severity of hurricane seasons based upon our incredibly simplistic (compared to the actual phenomena) models of climate. So I suggest that my "theory", based upon the evidence of 2006, that global warming stops hurricanes, is at least as good (if not vastly superior) to the theory that global warming makes hurricanes more severe.
This is either a completely absurd claim, or else some kind of application of scientific method to hyperbole that I have yet to master. (In other words, since "an alarming rate" is not a quantifiable standard, how can you claim scientific evidence that shows that the earth is warming at that rate?)
The warmest year ever => no major hurricanes in the U.S. Hmmmm...
But naturally occuring changes in the climate have not been slow. They've often been much faster than 40-50 yesrs. And they do threaten us -- and every other large species. I believe that the species will survive anything, but if an ice age comes along, anything like the previous four or so, it will kill at least 99.9% of us.
I also believe that there is nothing that cannot be understood. That also accounts for my deeply religious beliefs. However, like Socrates and Confucious taught, I believe that no progress in understanding can be made until we come to grasp the enormity of what we do not know compared to what we do know. Moreover, the wiser we become, the greater we see that enormity to be.
The problem with that analogy is that if a meteor was going to hit us, we would know that that was a bad thing. Right now, the political position is that global warming is a "bad thing". That is mirrored by the posts here, such as yours, frame it as some catastrophic problem. I think that is completely wrong. Increased CO2 means increased crop yields, and a greater global potential for food production. More importantly, global warming means more fresh water availability, and less drought. (Politicians and media claim the opposite, but it's a simple scientific fact.) Most importantly, it means a possible protection against the cyclical ice age phenomenon, which would be a genuine global catastrophe.
Well, I'll grant you that it's creepy. It's also completely full of s---. Now read "Climate of Fear".
The ice ages were global events of dramatically colder climates. The glaciation was most dramatic in the northern hemisphere, but it was a global phenomenon. The global climate has been in a state of flux for as long as it has existed.
The party that hates the world's children... oh you mean last group of people in the Western world who are against dismembering children in the womb?
Yes, but when scientists "across multiple disciplines" are all weighing in on what the right conclusion should be on a question of climate science, that's a pretty good indication that something other than science is going on.
Except that window power and solar power impact the climate directly, instead of indirectly like fosil fuels.... and they take heat out of the climate, which is a lot more dangerous than adding heat.