I understand that stupid people are going to be stupid. But that doesn't mean that Apple should just give up. The vunerability here is a result of a poorly done interface. The user though this was an image when it was actually an executable file. In an ideal world that should never happen. I understand, if a user downloads an app an runs it, well he deserves what he gets. But when he screws up a system because the interface 'lied' to him and he thought the app was an image, that is a vulnerability.
Your probably right about Apple not getting a cent, but they are getting publicity and a small amount of mindshare from the hacker (and computer criminal/warez) crowd. I think that in the end they don't really mind it as long it's keep at a minimum. Remember, one of the key reasons DOS (and later Windows) grew to be so popular back in the day was because it was so easy to pirated. Microsoft owes it's monopoly to copyright infringers.
The reason Apple is working to prevent stuff like this is because it will look really bad if they don't and some people will probably start thinking that OSX should work on a regular PC.
3) Evolution itself has plenty of room for a valid new theology based on the idea that God would WANT life to be free of God's direct design. This is known as "liberation theology" and though many Catholics disdain it, it's perfectly plausible.
Yes and no. I personally don't see too much of a problem with evolution (a least at some level) and what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures; however, I do have a problem with liberal theology (liberation theology is something quite different). The problem is that they go an jump in bed with all the latest hypothesese, and then draw the wildest conclusions. This kind of behaviour is fine for scientists, it's their job; but when your trying to put together a theology that is sound and othodox, it won't do at all. Personally I think that the Roman Catholic Church are being quite prudent.
Stop trying to marry religion and science, you'll end up lossing both.
The question then would be why? Windows 2000 is probably more stable than XP, if for no other reason than the fact that it's been available longer. Unless you being blackmailed by a "you must buy XP with our computers" I don't see any advantage in an environment like ours.
The particular number 666 is probably not literal. In mythology and apocaliptic literature, numbers are often meant to have a more figurative significance. You'll notice the large number occurances of the numbers 7, 6, 12, and 40 in the pentatuch and babylonian mythology. You'll also note that in other numbering system, the number would appear differantly. I don't know how they counted in that area at that time, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the decimal system.
As far as the right hand or forehead. That could be figurative too (although it's quite less likely). I'm not a Bible Scholar though, much less an expert on the Revelation, so I'll stop while I'm ahead.
If any webapps are complex enough to require a TCP connection, they should really become an application instead.
There are several advantages to having an application on the web. First, it tends to be more portable. This is at least the way it is supposed to be — the reality is quite ugly, but I believe it is gettting better. Second, it doesn't require any installation, it can be run right from the browser. Finnally, HTML, DOM, etc. provide a nice high level language. Unfortunatly the browsers <cough>IE</cough> have poor and buggy implementations.
Web Applications is for just that, Web Applications. This is not stuff you should be planning to use on your web page or anything like that, for that there's XHTML 2 and CSS 3, (and DOM Level 3 for really cool stuff).
Mabye all the functionality you want, but not all the functionality that Iwant. That said, it is a pretty nice browser and one that I'd definitly recommend.
Yes, and they also have they're own cron thing too (I can't remember what it's called but it works fine). The main problem I find with the security on 2000 and XP machines is that it is too complex. It's not that bad when I just own my own machine with 1 user and I don't really care about security because I own use windows for gaming, but at my school network with AD and 2 to 3 hundred users, it's terrible (poorly written windows apps don't help either). The way Unix does privilages and such is pretty much the simplest possible way to do that and still have the ability. Add on top of that, the fact that there's no half decent shell, and I'm not too happy. (and don't get me started about the whole AD and RID stuff that borked the permissions on our bussiness server).
Another problem, which is only slightly Microsofts fault is that few users understand the rational behind a multiuser system. There are a lot of people who apparently "need" access to particular things they have no bussiness with. Since we're just techies we pretty much have to go with whatever they tell us. Then they come back asking what happened to their files when any of 3 dozen people could of done whatever they wanted to them.
Not at all. IANAL, but I know there a few reasons a EULA breaks contract law.
You are not asked to agree to it until after the contract is already settled! That's a pretty big one. If I buy a buldozer from you, you can't then afterwards you say "and yeah, you can't use it on the western half of the city because that might interfere with my business". The contract is alreay done.
It would be pretty hard to argue that users understood the agreement anyways. Seeing from the way that most people just click-check-click-click througth those things I doubt many of them have ever actually read a EULA.
It could easily fall under the catagory of coersion. Most users don't really have a choice anyways. If you don't like the EULA for MS Windows your options are 'Yes' (I'll lie, but nobody cares about these things anyways) or 'No' (A job cleaning toilets at a gas station is starting to look good now).
Finally, the GPL (and I think most open source licences) is not a EULA in the normal sense, It does not require the End User to agree to anything. It's only for developers and publishers.
No, that's not true at all. It is not your right to be able to edit the Wikipedia, it is a privilage. The admins giveth and the admins taketh away. If the wikipedia was government owned that might be different. I don't see anything wrong with banning spammers and vandilizers.
If you can write a binary called 'la', why wouldn't you just write it as 'ls' in the first place.
I thing the GP's comments were naive, but this actually does make a bit sense. If a lazy and/or severly mentaly challenged admin had '.' in their $PATH it would probably be after/bin which would mean typing 'ls' would still execute/bin/ls, wereas using 'la' would probably end up executing./la
The most common desktop *nix, probably. But I'd wager that if your count the server rooms as well, you will get different results. It also depends on how strictly you define a platform.
Corporations (and even some individuals) need strict control of their private data.
DRM does not help you retain strict control of your private data. It helps others retain strict control of your private data! Retaining control of your data is just basic security (chmod 600 $file or w/e), it's been practiced for ages and the only thing DRM can do is compromise it.
NFS has a backronym: No Fucking Security. So yes you right, it is too simple.
I've found that SSH works great for file sharing though. It's secure, simple enough, and definitly reliable. Just make sure you disable root logins and have proper security on your own box.
If you want to share stuff anonymously, there's another protocol called HTTP. I've found Apache handles it fairly well. Also there's FTP, but might be a bit more complicated.
Sex was never (in and of itself), it's a wonderful thing. It's lust and infidelity that are considered wrong.
On the other hand, I do think that sex in the wester culture is *way* overrated. I mean let's compare sexual desires to another carnal desire: eating chocolate. Then take something like a striptease (an act were people pay money to watch a women undress her clothes). It would be as if people were going into a theatre and paying money to see the wrappers slowly taken off of a chocloate bar!
not exactly, because web browsers have traditionally also been able to use other protocols like HTTPS, FTP and probably a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. Nevertheless, displaying the raw url can lead to homographic attacks sometimes.
This doesn't apply to education, but particularly for the mile run, one factor is the number of people. For example if you select the best 10 atheletes out of 1000 people, your going to tend to get worse results than if you take the best 10 out of 1 million. The world population has increased, but more importantly our ability to comunicate. So if some guy in Zimbabwe can run the mile at lighning speeds, we can record it now, whereas 100 years ago he probably would have just been a local legend.
The only difference between a dedicated computer and a router is the amount of stuff the computer has running on it. If you can setup a pretty stripped down system (Smoothwall is great for this), there won't be much difference. Plus the linux box gives you the power to do whatever you want. This may not be important in a regular house, but I administer a network at school and Smoothwall+Squid+ClamAV+Dansguardian makes a killer combination.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that stupid people are going to be stupid. But that doesn't mean that Apple should just give up. The vunerability here is a result of a poorly done interface. The user though this was an image when it was actually an executable file. In an ideal world that should never happen. I understand, if a user downloads an app an runs it, well he deserves what he gets. But when he screws up a system because the interface 'lied' to him and he thought the app was an image, that is a vulnerability.
Yes, but most of those install trojans you your own computer.
http://gentooexperimental.org/nt/
What's a beige box? I know what it is among the phreaking crowd (a linemans handset), but that's obviously not what your talking about.
Your probably right about Apple not getting a cent, but they are getting publicity and a small amount of mindshare from the hacker (and computer criminal/warez) crowd. I think that in the end they don't really mind it as long it's keep at a minimum. Remember, one of the key reasons DOS (and later Windows) grew to be so popular back in the day was because it was so easy to pirated. Microsoft owes it's monopoly to copyright infringers.
The reason Apple is working to prevent stuff like this is because it will look really bad if they don't and some people will probably start thinking that OSX should work on a regular PC.
Yes and no. I personally don't see too much of a problem with evolution (a least at some level) and what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures; however, I do have a problem with liberal theology (liberation theology is something quite different). The problem is that they go an jump in bed with all the latest hypothesese, and then draw the wildest conclusions. This kind of behaviour is fine for scientists, it's their job; but when your trying to put together a theology that is sound and othodox, it won't do at all. Personally I think that the Roman Catholic Church are being quite prudent.
Stop trying to marry religion and science, you'll end up lossing both.
The question then would be why? Windows 2000 is probably more stable than XP, if for no other reason than the fact that it's been available longer. Unless you being blackmailed by a "you must buy XP with our computers" I don't see any advantage in an environment like ours.
The particular number 666 is probably not literal. In mythology and apocaliptic literature, numbers are often meant to have a more figurative significance. You'll notice the large number occurances of the numbers 7, 6, 12, and 40 in the pentatuch and babylonian mythology. You'll also note that in other numbering system, the number would appear differantly. I don't know how they counted in that area at that time, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the decimal system.
As far as the right hand or forehead. That could be figurative too (although it's quite less likely). I'm not a Bible Scholar though, much less an expert on the Revelation, so I'll stop while I'm ahead.
There are several advantages to having an application on the web. First, it tends to be more portable. This is at least the way it is supposed to be — the reality is quite ugly, but I believe it is gettting better. Second, it doesn't require any installation, it can be run right from the browser. Finnally, HTML, DOM, etc. provide a nice high level language. Unfortunatly the browsers <cough>IE</cough> have poor and buggy implementations.
Web Applications is for just that, Web Applications. This is not stuff you should be planning to use on your web page or anything like that, for that there's XHTML 2 and CSS 3, (and DOM Level 3 for really cool stuff).
Yes, and I believe e18 is planing to have it too. I can't wait :)
Mabye all the functionality you want, but not all the functionality that Iwant. That said, it is a pretty nice browser and one that I'd definitly recommend.
Yes, and they also have they're own cron thing too (I can't remember what it's called but it works fine). The main problem I find with the security on 2000 and XP machines is that it is too complex. It's not that bad when I just own my own machine with 1 user and I don't really care about security because I own use windows for gaming, but at my school network with AD and 2 to 3 hundred users, it's terrible (poorly written windows apps don't help either). The way Unix does privilages and such is pretty much the simplest possible way to do that and still have the ability. Add on top of that, the fact that there's no half decent shell, and I'm not too happy. (and don't get me started about the whole AD and RID stuff that borked the permissions on our bussiness server).
Another problem, which is only slightly Microsofts fault is that few users understand the rational behind a multiuser system. There are a lot of people who apparently "need" access to particular things they have no bussiness with. Since we're just techies we pretty much have to go with whatever they tell us. Then they come back asking what happened to their files when any of 3 dozen people could of done whatever they wanted to them.
Not at all. IANAL, but I know there a few reasons a EULA breaks contract law.
Finally, the GPL (and I think most open source licences) is not a EULA in the normal sense, It does not require the End User to agree to anything. It's only for developers and publishers.
No, that's not true at all. It is not your right to be able to edit the Wikipedia, it is a privilage. The admins giveth and the admins taketh away. If the wikipedia was government owned that might be different. I don't see anything wrong with banning spammers and vandilizers.
and 2006 is the year of the Linux Desktop :P
I thing the GP's comments were naive, but this actually does make a bit sense. If a lazy and/or severly mentaly challenged admin had '.' in their $PATH it would probably be after /bin which would mean typing 'ls' would still execute /bin/ls, wereas using 'la' would probably end up executing ./la
The most common desktop *nix, probably. But I'd wager that if your count the server rooms as well, you will get different results. It also depends on how strictly you define a platform.
DRM does not help you retain strict control of your private data. It helps others retain strict control of your private data! Retaining control of your data is just basic security (chmod 600 $file or w/e), it's been practiced for ages and the only thing DRM can do is compromise it.
NFS has a backronym: No Fucking Security. So yes you right, it is too simple.
I've found that SSH works great for file sharing though. It's secure, simple enough, and definitly reliable. Just make sure you disable root logins and have proper security on your own box.
If you want to share stuff anonymously, there's another protocol called HTTP. I've found Apache handles it fairly well. Also there's FTP, but might be a bit more complicated.
They did :)
Sex was never (in and of itself), it's a wonderful thing. It's lust and infidelity that are considered wrong.
On the other hand, I do think that sex in the wester culture is *way* overrated. I mean let's compare sexual desires to another carnal desire: eating chocolate. Then take something like a striptease (an act were people pay money to watch a women undress her clothes). It would be as if people were going into a theatre and paying money to see the wrappers slowly taken off of a chocloate bar!
not exactly, because web browsers have traditionally also been able to use other protocols like HTTPS, FTP and probably a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. Nevertheless, displaying the raw url can lead to homographic attacks sometimes.
This doesn't apply to education, but particularly for the mile run, one factor is the number of people. For example if you select the best 10 atheletes out of 1000 people, your going to tend to get worse results than if you take the best 10 out of 1 million. The world population has increased, but more importantly our ability to comunicate. So if some guy in Zimbabwe can run the mile at lighning speeds, we can record it now, whereas 100 years ago he probably would have just been a local legend.
The only difference between a dedicated computer and a router is the amount of stuff the computer has running on it. If you can setup a pretty stripped down system (Smoothwall is great for this), there won't be much difference. Plus the linux box gives you the power to do whatever you want. This may not be important in a regular house, but I administer a network at school and Smoothwall+Squid+ClamAV+Dansguardian makes a killer combination.
Nice thoughts, but experience tells me it's alot easier said than done. IE is a horrible thing.