. Accidents are caused by bad driving on the part of the "at fault" party, and to a lesser extent on the part of the injured party as well. Accidents are caused by driving inappropriately for *all* conditions at any given moment (including automotive and pedestrian traffc, weather, and many more factors). high speed can make an accident worse, but the accident is primarily caused by the driver's inability to drive well.
And yet obscurity is a valuable tool in security. Absolutely it should not be the only tool - but discarding it completely is like saying we should discard firewalls because firewalls can't stop all attack vectors. They are all tools, and none is sufficient security on its own - but many different tools used in conjunction can make for a formidable defense.
Something that I jut saw this weekend as I've been getting into biulding more complex applications for the BlackBerry PlayBook- the qnx playbook os seems so far to follow a model very similar to what you suggest. Each application can view only its own filespace by default which mirrors the structure of theuser's space but only contains data originating from the app itself. Nobody else can access that data. Secondarily the app can request permissions at install time to access shared document space - but if granted it's only viewable to the application under its own directory structure (it seems like there is some kind of virtual link mapped in the kernel, but I'm not yet positive. In other words the system gives apps permission based access to shared files, but does so in a way that prevents access to any file not in the specific space designated as "shared"; and ensures that each app can only access content mapped to its own private filespace.
I'm still researching the specifics but this does look very promising.
As an intellectually honest fiscal right winger who tries not to be an asshole most of the time (and succeeds some of the time) I couldn't agree with you more. That was well said.
So you're saying that when someone uses the sidewalk in front of your house, that confers to you the right to know where they came from and where they're going? What about the road in front of your house, does the same logic apply? If not, you might want to take a look at the validity of your arguments. I could agree as far as saying that you have the right to know how many people walk in front of your house, or drive there, or fly over it. But that's as far as it goes.
This. By default you are given generic information about the access an app will require before you install it. You must approve it in order to install it. You do not get any specific information about what the app will do with the info. Once you approve it you gain no further insight about what the access is used for or even when it's used.
OP is missing the point with the firewall suggestion. It is not reasonable that someone should have to go to tjose lengths to secure a device, especially a modern device more or less built on top of the last 50 years of security lessons. That kind of security should be an integral part of the platform.
I was really surprised that Android got this wrong
You speak of context being important, and I couldn't agree more. But I have to wonder why you're ignoring context in this scenario.
I made my comment here, on slashdot. One one fell stroke, we have limited ourselves to a maximum subset of the world's atheists: those who read slashdot.
But it actually does even more than that: when you look at the content of my comment, you [hopefully] figured I didn't mean a *real* crucifixion, but a written one (because we're in the context of an online discussion forum). So applying the context of a signature to comments made on the slashdot forums, we are looking at people who meet the following criteria:
Are strong atheists
Have INternet access
Read English or have access to good translation software
Read Slashdot
Were reading slashdot during that particular window of time during which my signature contained the atheist/religious remarks.
Had signatures enabled during that window.
Reply to comments they read on slashdot, and were doing so during that time window.
Reply to comments based on contents of their signatures , and were doing so during that time window.
Saw my signature on a comment and replied to it
As you can see, "the atheists" in context refers to an extremely narrow and well-defined subset of the atheist population.
On the other hand, I could be wrong. It could be that you really read my comment and it triggered this sequence of thoughts:
Wow, all of the world's atheists collaborated and tried to crucify this guy? That's really weird, why would atheists crucify anyone? That's a very religious thing to do, given the history of crucifixion and its close association with religion over the last couple thousand years. They probably assumed he was religious due to the signature he's referring to, and thought that if the world's atheists came together to crucify somebody it would show a fine sense of irony that would be appreciated by thePowerOfGrayskull. But wait --- how the hell did they all fit? There are a LOT of atheists in the world, and it would be really inefficient to try to crucify somebody with THAT many people involved. . Hmm, I'll be that's why the crucifixion was only "nearly" -- they couldn't all FIT in one place! Where did I leave my shoes? Shit I'm running late again, I need to read less slashdot!
I kind of doubt it though. I suspect that you understood exactly what was implied by context; and are only trying (and failing) to make a technical point now in order to be difficult.
Your technical point is valid: without context, I would have been referring to a whole shitload of atheists and then some. But there is *always* context to a spoken or written statement. Choosing to be selectively blind to that context just makes you look recalcitrant.
I've gotten about four or five replies now, each essentially saying what GP said. I can only assume that conversation with these individuals must get very tedious indeed. Since they seem unable to interpret statements within a context, it is apparent that context must be spelled out for each individual segment of a conversation.
You or I might say, "I bought milk from the store."
These worthies would instead say, "I walked to Angelo's Market on the corner of Fifth and Vine in the city of Philadelphia in the country of United States, in North America, on Earth, in the Solar system. Upon my arrival I selected a single one gallon container of cow's milk. I removed it from the refrigerator and walked to the cashier, whereupon I paid for it using a $5 and receive $1.01 in change."
So when you were reading my original statement, you actually and honestly thought I meant "All of the atheists that read Slashdot damned near crucified me for it"?
Of course you didn't - given the context that would be illogical and rather foolish to boot. If you strip the statement of conversational context, of course you can interpret it as you described -- but an equally valid interpretation is that "the atheists" refers to the subset of the group by which I was "nearly cruficified". Once you put it in context, the second interpretation becomes the only valid interpretation, given the size of the Slashdot readership base.
Your reference to "filled the hole" illustrates this point. *in context* it is clear that I would have expected them to fill all of the hole, even though they would be technically correct to half-fill the hole.
I imagine "the atheists damn near crucified" you because the kind of illogical contortions you have to make to get to a statement like yours is the same kind of thinking that leads to most theistic beliefs.
It follows logically that because I exhibit this kind of thinking (by your definition), it is quite likely that I have theistic beliefs? I've not anywhere discussed my metaphysical beliefs or lack thereof. I say this only to point out that you're reading an awful lot of information into a single sentence. (If I'm misinterpreting your intention with that remark, then oops-- my bad. I just can't see why else you'd make it.)
Anyway: the only illogical contortions I've seen are those I described above, in this same reply. To reiterate: logically, it is clear in the context of the conversation that I could not have meant "every atheist Slashdot reader" and most therefore have been referring to "all of those atheistic slashdot readers who interacted with my on the subject". Both are valid interpretations outside of context; but in context only one is logical.
Or a reference to the subset who took the action I was referring to. Or when you read my comment did youhonestly think that my meaning was "each and every atheist that reads slashdot"? While you are correct in that this could have been my meaning, I am also correct in stating that the explanation I gave above is the more reasonable meaning by far.
Fortunately, your authoritative tone isn't sufficient to make your statement factual. While I agree that it could be interpreted with the implied meaning you and GP state, I do not see that as a reasonable assumption. I emphasize reasonable here, as it would not be reasonable to think that i intended to say "the entire subset of the slashdot readership who are atheists damned near crucified me".
"Sure mv is shorter. But why not offer an 'easy' path for those who don't have the shortened commands memorized? Is it really so hard to ignore the "to". It helps people interact with the computer more naturally and it takes an extra 1 second to type. It takes me more than a second to remember mv.
But what if your two files are named "move" and "to"? Then you'd have:
I wrote an article expressing a similar view a couple months back. It goes beyond having an opinion (as one reply to you claims). People express a vitriolic hatred for brands that are "opposed" to their brand (as well as for the people who use them) . It is as strong or stronger than the support they show for their own brand. Similarly otherwise logical people will be blind to flaws in their product - until those flaws have been fixed, at which point it becomes another point to demonstrate the superiority of their brand. (and they seem to miss the irony in this since the typical response to criticism before the feature is available is "who needs anyway?").
It's not apple or android or ford or chevy or intel or amd - -it's identification with any brand.
I have no doubt that it involves the same parts of the brain as religion. But let's not confuse someone who uses and likes a brand with the same type of response as the religious one. I think that most people - those who do not spend time contributing to what amounts to online fan clubs - just get what suits them and use it without thinking about it too much; and it's unlikely that you'll see the same level or type of response in them.
That is very true and underscores another major flaw in how we think about security. Root/admin access is not needed to steal a user's data, or even to install a bit thqt runs on user login. Sure it limits damage to the *computer* but it does almost nothing to protect the *user*. And since most home computers are typically used by one primary person... uac and even linux's equivalents don't really offer much protection at all (this aside from the fact that users self trai n to ignore them anyway.)
I don't see the contradiction. Maid opens door. Maid props door open. Some time later as specified in her story the door would close. The amount of time is wha t becomes important. It's only useless (but not contradictory) if they both specified the same amount of time- because then even assuming that duration open was captured it wouldn't reveal anything.
What does this have to do with the operating system at all? People will always click to see the cute bunny. Until you find a way to stop them, malware downloads will persist.
I would say that UAC is to blame, since you get promoted to install or update any software. Since you obviously want the software, of course you're going to authorize it. This has the unfortunate effect of rendering UAC useless - people get used to allowing every time it asks, because they need to in order to complete the task at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
. Accidents are caused by bad driving on the part of the "at fault" party, and to a lesser extent on the part of the injured party as well. Accidents are caused by driving inappropriately for *all* conditions at any given moment (including automotive and pedestrian traffc, weather, and many more factors). high speed can make an accident worse, but the accident is primarily caused by the driver's inability to drive well.
And yet obscurity is a valuable tool in security. Absolutely it should not be the only tool - but discarding it completely is like saying we should discard firewalls because firewalls can't stop all attack vectors. They are all tools, and none is sufficient security on its own - but many different tools used in conjunction can make for a formidable defense.
Only those manufactured by Rhetorical Devices Inc.
I'm still researching the specifics but this does look very promising.
As an intellectually honest fiscal right winger who tries not to be an asshole most of the time (and succeeds some of the time) I couldn't agree with you more. That was well said.
So you're saying that when someone uses the sidewalk in front of your house, that confers to you the right to know where they came from and where they're going? What about the road in front of your house, does the same logic apply? If not, you might want to take a look at the validity of your arguments. I could agree as far as saying that you have the right to know how many people walk in front of your house, or drive there, or fly over it. But that's as far as it goes.
OP is missing the point with the firewall suggestion. It is not reasonable that someone should have to go to tjose lengths to secure a device, especially a modern device more or less built on top of the last 50 years of security lessons. That kind of security should be an integral part of the platform.
I was really surprised that Android got this wrong
But it actually does even more than that: when you look at the content of my comment, you [hopefully] figured I didn't mean a *real* crucifixion, but a written one (because we're in the context of an online discussion forum). So applying the context of a signature to comments made on the slashdot forums, we are looking at people who meet the following criteria:
As you can see, "the atheists" in context refers to an extremely narrow and well-defined subset of the atheist population.
On the other hand, I could be wrong. It could be that you really read my comment and it triggered this sequence of thoughts:
Wow, all of the world's atheists collaborated and tried to crucify this guy? That's really weird, why would atheists crucify anyone? That's a very religious thing to do, given the history of crucifixion and its close association with religion over the last couple thousand years. They probably assumed he was religious due to the signature he's referring to, and thought that if the world's atheists came together to crucify somebody it would show a fine sense of irony that would be appreciated by thePowerOfGrayskull. But wait --- how the hell did they all fit? There are a LOT of atheists in the world, and it would be really inefficient to try to crucify somebody with THAT many people involved. . Hmm, I'll be that's why the crucifixion was only "nearly" -- they couldn't all FIT in one place! Where did I leave my shoes? Shit I'm running late again, I need to read less slashdot!
I kind of doubt it though. I suspect that you understood exactly what was implied by context; and are only trying (and failing) to make a technical point now in order to be difficult.
Your technical point is valid: without context, I would have been referring to a whole shitload of atheists and then some. But there is *always* context to a spoken or written statement. Choosing to be selectively blind to that context just makes you look recalcitrant.
You or I might say, "I bought milk from the store."
These worthies would instead say, "I walked to Angelo's Market on the corner of Fifth and Vine in the city of Philadelphia in the country of United States, in North America, on Earth, in the Solar system. Upon my arrival I selected a single one gallon container of cow's milk. I removed it from the refrigerator and walked to the cashier, whereupon I paid for it using a $5 and receive $1.01 in change."
Of course you didn't - given the context that would be illogical and rather foolish to boot. If you strip the statement of conversational context, of course you can interpret it as you described -- but an equally valid interpretation is that "the atheists" refers to the subset of the group by which I was "nearly cruficified". Once you put it in context, the second interpretation becomes the only valid interpretation, given the size of the Slashdot readership base.
Your reference to "filled the hole" illustrates this point. *in context* it is clear that I would have expected them to fill all of the hole, even though they would be technically correct to half-fill the hole.
I imagine "the atheists damn near crucified" you because the kind of illogical contortions you have to make to get to a statement like yours is the same kind of thinking that leads to most theistic beliefs.
It follows logically that because I exhibit this kind of thinking (by your definition), it is quite likely that I have theistic beliefs? I've not anywhere discussed my metaphysical beliefs or lack thereof. I say this only to point out that you're reading an awful lot of information into a single sentence. (If I'm misinterpreting your intention with that remark, then oops-- my bad. I just can't see why else you'd make it.)
Anyway: the only illogical contortions I've seen are those I described above, in this same reply. To reiterate: logically, it is clear in the context of the conversation that I could not have meant "every atheist Slashdot reader" and most therefore have been referring to "all of those atheistic slashdot readers who interacted with my on the subject". Both are valid interpretations outside of context; but in context only one is logical.
Or a reference to the subset who took the action I was referring to. Or when you read my comment did youhonestly think that my meaning was "each and every atheist that reads slashdot"? While you are correct in that this could have been my meaning, I am also correct in stating that the explanation I gave above is the more reasonable meaning by far.
Fortunately, your authoritative tone isn't sufficient to make your statement factual. While I agree that it could be interpreted with the implied meaning you and GP state, I do not see that as a reasonable assumption. I emphasize reasonable here, as it would not be reasonable to think that i intended to say "the entire subset of the slashdot readership who are atheists damned near crucified me".
"Sure mv is shorter. But why not offer an 'easy' path for those who don't have the shortened commands memorized? Is it really so hard to ignore the "to". It helps people interact with the computer more naturally and it takes an extra 1 second to type. It takes me more than a second to remember mv.
But what if your two files are named "move" and "to"? Then you'd have :
And that would just be confusing.
At first read I thought you wrote "I don't need pipe bars looking like big boobs" and started looking for the download link.
Posting anonymously for reasons that should be obvious.
Yes. Too much weed has made you paranoid ;)
I don't see where I said "all of the atheists". "The atheists" can mean two or two hundred. It's rather purposefully ambiguous.
I have no doubt that it involves the same parts of the brain as religion. But let's not confuse someone who uses and likes a brand with the same type of response as the religious one. I think that most people - those who do not spend time contributing to what amounts to online fan clubs - just get what suits them and use it without thinking about it too much; and it's unlikely that you'll see the same level or type of response in them.
Careful! I had a sig very much like that for a time. The atheists damned near crucified me for it.
That is very true and underscores another major flaw in how we think about security. Root/admin access is not needed to steal a user's data, or even to install a bit thqt runs on user login. Sure it limits damage to the *computer* but it does almost nothing to protect the *user*. And since most home computers are typically used by one primary person... uac and even linux's equivalents don't really offer much protection at all (this aside from the fact that users self trai n to ignore them anyway.)
indeed, it makes you wonder if he didn't plan this ahead of time with the intent of framing those he claims are framing him.
I don't see the contradiction. Maid opens door. Maid props door open. Some time later as specified in her story the door would close. The amount of time is wha t becomes important. It's only useless (but not contradictory) if they both specified the same amount of time- because then even assuming that duration open was captured it wouldn't reveal anything.
Primarily to give the paranoid something to chew on. Also to spy on us.
What does this have to do with the operating system at all? People will always click to see the cute bunny. Until you find a way to stop them, malware downloads will persist.
I would say that UAC is to blame, since you get promoted to install or update any software. Since you obviously want the software, of course you're going to authorize it. This has the unfortunate effect of rendering UAC useless - people get used to allowing every time it asks, because they need to in order to complete the task at hand.
Well - that depends on the project. Each one has its own arbitrary naming standards. I mean, we are talking about "Version 1.99 of Grub 2"...