That goes to the point raised by the previous poster (directly above); but - to paraphrase my reply to that... given the declining level of expertise required to do this kind of work (at least by current standards), "janitors" may be closer to the truth than "professionals" in many cases.
Is that incorrect? I know this won't be popular here of all places but... computers have advanced in the last 30 years. Most problems can be resolved by following simple decision trees. True, in-depth understanding of how they do what they do is no longer a requirement in order to maintain them. This means that the level of intelligence required is not as high as it once was (case in point: geek squad)
Given this, it really seems to me that IT/support is headed in this direction... and that this isn't necessarily incorrect.
the point is, you shouldn't just kill the man. you should kill his name. and you can only do this with a trial. the chance of that ever actually happening though is unfortunately very small, but it would be wonderful if osama bin laden were alive, in custody, and ready to be tried for his crimes
How do you think a trial would do this? Even though such a trial would be 100% by the books, with no room for error, do you think those who follow him would believe that it was anything other than rigged from the start?
let him speak freely even. so you can slay his thinking directly on the stand. that's way more important than killing the man: killing his ideology
The problem with attacking ideology is that it's a lot like attacking religion. Believers won't hear a word, no matter how logical and persuasive your case may be. And non-believers don't need convincing in the first place.
This movie was as simple and transparent as it gets. It was great eye candy, making the retelling a tired story worth the price of admission. Accept it for that, and try not to read too much into it.
but she said the measures "are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere."
This just makes it too easy.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
Why should they open up everything? They're open in areas that aren't their primary business. That doesn't mean that in order to claim openness, they suddenly must give away the technology behind their core business. Open takes many forms: it can be a matter of publishing source code (as they do for many products) or interoperability specs (as they also do). The fact that they remain closed about other areas does not affect how and where they *are* open.
The problem is that it's not a fundamentally bad idea. Just like you want people to be able to verify the places they're connecting to in a reliable fashion, ensuring that only trusted software can run is on the surface a very good idea -- for example this behavior on the blackberry platform is (IMO) a good part of the reason why you don't hear of much malware for Blackberry. Without access to the Blackberry-specific components, you're very limited in the damage you can do. And without a signed key from RIM, you can't get access to those components as a developer.
The problem is in the ways in which it will be abused, chief among them being as you described.
Sure, indie's do, but look at what happened to 3D Realms too, and they even financed lots from their own past revenue
What happened to 3d realms had nothing to do with their lack of publisher, and everything to do with management's lack of discipline and concrete vision. That being said, this is something that can plague a lot of companies run by developers -- a lack of project management skills. However, a publisher seems like an expensive way of hiring a project manager with a backbone...
Today most doctors seem utterly incapable of not only telling a cause from effect, but also of looking systemically at more than one symptom at a time.
I largely agree with you, but in this case I've found that seeing a DO instead of an MD makes all the difference. The DOs I've seen ask questions beyond the narrow focus of the symptom(s) at hand, and will draw their conclusions based on this broader spectrum of data. MDs tend to move directly into treating the specific symptoms as you describe.
I would be very curious to see an experiment with an alternate model: Instead of having patients see real, MD, doctors over video conferencing, what about having patients see, in person, cheaper nurse/tech types, who would be supported by a mixture of diagnostic software and teleconference with doctors?
That's becoming more and more the trend lateley - and in my own experience, it's a turn for the worse. Previously, I'd schedule an appointment (in a triple-booked slot) with an MD/DO, get five minutes of his time during which he didn't really listen to what I said, order 15 different tests, then come back with a hasty diagnosis.
Then I was required to schedule my appts with a PA. She would give me 15 minutes of time during which I was actually heard, order 30 different tests, confer with the physician, then come back with the wrong hasty diagnosis
Now that they'v edecided this is the Way to Go, I schedule an appointment in a triple-booked slot with a PA, get 5 minutes of her time during which she doesn't really listen to what I say, orders 15 different tests, then comes back with the wrong hasty diagnosis.
i missed the part where this is supposed to help the patient.
As far as sneaky malware installing software - yes and no. By always requiring a password, you're only training the user to enter the password whenever they're prompted. That means when the theoretical malware goes to install something, the user is *still* going to install it. The password is not a prevention -- the only possible way to prevent it from occurring is via education, not training the user to ignore one more thing. It's the old "dancing bunnies" problem.
So, Single User, no one ever touches your system besides you?* Locally or remotely?
Yes, and for this system it's only locally. For my server it's remotely and by several people - which is why I have no objections to this restriction on the server.
That's what I'm getting at -- this is not a feature, it's a restriction. It may be a restriction for valid reasons - but those reasons are not valid in every circumstance; and for a large number of desktop users, it's not valid in most circumstances.
So, yeah, maybe make it configurable, but then your laziness degrades the quality and safety of the entire Internet.
How so? How is my installing a signed package, or changing my hardware settings without first putting in an extra password a risk to anyone or anything?
I'm not, in this case, talking about running my desktop as root (another discussion for another time), but the ability to change the configuration of my own computer without jumping through even one small hoop.
It's one teensy tiny password. How damn lazy can you get?
That's my call to make, isn't it? We say linux is all about choice... but we mean it's all about choice as long as that choice doesn't conflict with our idea of how computing "should be" done.
I agree, but why not differentiate? It's a pointless waste of time for me to have to provide a password on my laptop every time I want to try out new software.
I'm not saying that it's got no place -- clearly if you have a multiple user system, then you only want to right people installing software. But when you don't... it's just one more hurdle on the road to usability.
Nice way to spin Fedora finally addressing this security issue, dude.
How is it a security flaw for the owner of a single-user system to be able to install signed packages maintained by the distribution, without having to jump through extra hoops?
The most annoying bit is that Wikipedia has latched onto this... it had nothing to do with Wikipedia... but was in fact "WikiHow", completely independent.
From what it sounds like (looking at the comment timeline) , the article itself originally said Wikipedia...then was corrected to say Wikihow. I don't know that this was a case of Wikipedia trying to get credit so much as the journalist getting his facts wrong.
That does complicate things a bit. Especially since most large products are almost never developed all in one company. Still, there's a growing movement towards cooperation in handling of patents across national borders.
Aside from the fact that the company is a Berkley spin-off that was created purely to market this product and is very friendly towards open source.
That's not really relevant is it? They're friendly to open source today. Do you think that good will can be relied upon forever? Or that they won't sell the IP or the company itself? I'd rather see something done about the ridiculously broad patent than see this claim further legitimized.
Slashdot Mirror
Its creators are super-geniuses who have solved a fiendishly hard AI problem that has been baffling the smartest brains in MT research for decades.
... while limited to the locally available resources and processing power of a cell phone.
That goes to the point raised by the previous poster (directly above); but - to paraphrase my reply to that ... given the declining level of expertise required to do this kind of work (at least by current standards), "janitors" may be closer to the truth than "professionals" in many cases.
Given this, it really seems to me that IT/support is headed in this direction... and that this isn't necessarily incorrect.
the point is, you shouldn't just kill the man. you should kill his name. and you can only do this with a trial. the chance of that ever actually happening though is unfortunately very small, but it would be wonderful if osama bin laden were alive, in custody, and ready to be tried for his crimes
How do you think a trial would do this? Even though such a trial would be 100% by the books, with no room for error, do you think those who follow him would believe that it was anything other than rigged from the start?
let him speak freely even. so you can slay his thinking directly on the stand. that's way more important than killing the man: killing his ideology
The problem with attacking ideology is that it's a lot like attacking religion. Believers won't hear a word, no matter how logical and persuasive your case may be. And non-believers don't need convincing in the first place.
This movie was as simple and transparent as it gets. It was great eye candy, making the retelling a tired story worth the price of admission. Accept it for that, and try not to read too much into it.
but she said the measures "are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere."
This just makes it too easy.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
No he spent 20 minutes in the toilet possibly preparing for the explosion
I see what you did there.
Why should they open up everything? They're open in areas that aren't their primary business. That doesn't mean that in order to claim openness, they suddenly must give away the technology behind their core business. Open takes many forms: it can be a matter of publishing source code (as they do for many products) or interoperability specs (as they also do). The fact that they remain closed about other areas does not affect how and where they *are* open.
Well, show me the way
To the next signal bar
Oh, don't ask why
Oh, don't ask why
Show me the way
To the next signal bar
Oh, don't ask why
Oh, don't ask why
For if we don't find
The next signal bar
I tell you we must die
I tell you we must die
I tell you, I tell you
I tell you we must die
The problem is in the ways in which it will be abused, chief among them being as you described.
Sure, indie's do, but look at what happened to 3D Realms too, and they even financed lots from their own past revenue
What happened to 3d realms had nothing to do with their lack of publisher, and everything to do with management's lack of discipline and concrete vision. That being said, this is something that can plague a lot of companies run by developers -- a lack of project management skills. However, a publisher seems like an expensive way of hiring a project manager with a backbone...
Today most doctors seem utterly incapable of not only telling a cause from effect, but also of looking systemically at more than one symptom at a time.
I largely agree with you, but in this case I've found that seeing a DO instead of an MD makes all the difference. The DOs I've seen ask questions beyond the narrow focus of the symptom(s) at hand, and will draw their conclusions based on this broader spectrum of data. MDs tend to move directly into treating the specific symptoms as you describe.
I would be very curious to see an experiment with an alternate model: Instead of having patients see real, MD, doctors over video conferencing, what about having patients see, in person, cheaper nurse/tech types, who would be supported by a mixture of diagnostic software and teleconference with doctors?
That's becoming more and more the trend lateley - and in my own experience, it's a turn for the worse. Previously, I'd schedule an appointment (in a triple-booked slot) with an MD/DO, get five minutes of his time during which he didn't really listen to what I said, order 15 different tests, then come back with a hasty diagnosis.
Then I was required to schedule my appts with a PA. She would give me 15 minutes of time during which I was actually heard, order 30 different tests, confer with the physician, then come back with the wrong hasty diagnosis
Now that they'v edecided this is the Way to Go, I schedule an appointment in a triple-booked slot with a PA, get 5 minutes of her time during which she doesn't really listen to what I say, orders 15 different tests, then comes back with the wrong hasty diagnosis.
i missed the part where this is supposed to help the patient.
If the carriers don't update, most users will if it's possible -
I think you confuse "most users" with "the relatively small subset of users that post articles, blog entries, and comments"
As far as sneaky malware installing software - yes and no. By always requiring a password, you're only training the user to enter the password whenever they're prompted. That means when the theoretical malware goes to install something, the user is *still* going to install it. The password is not a prevention -- the only possible way to prevent it from occurring is via education, not training the user to ignore one more thing. It's the old "dancing bunnies" problem.
So, Single User, no one ever touches your system besides you?* Locally or remotely?
Yes, and for this system it's only locally. For my server it's remotely and by several people - which is why I have no objections to this restriction on the server.
That's what I'm getting at -- this is not a feature, it's a restriction. It may be a restriction for valid reasons - but those reasons are not valid in every circumstance; and for a large number of desktop users, it's not valid in most circumstances.
So, yeah, maybe make it configurable, but then your laziness degrades the quality and safety of the entire Internet.
How so? How is my installing a signed package, or changing my hardware settings without first putting in an extra password a risk to anyone or anything?
I'm not, in this case, talking about running my desktop as root (another discussion for another time), but the ability to change the configuration of my own computer without jumping through even one small hoop.
It's one teensy tiny password. How damn lazy can you get?
That's my call to make, isn't it? We say linux is all about choice... but we mean it's all about choice as long as that choice doesn't conflict with our idea of how computing "should be" done.
I'm not saying that it's got no place -- clearly if you have a multiple user system, then you only want to right people installing software. But when you don't... it's just one more hurdle on the road to usability.
Let me put it a better way - requiring a password to install software is no more useful than windows UAC on a single-user system.
Nice way to spin Fedora finally addressing this security issue, dude.
How is it a security flaw for the owner of a single-user system to be able to install signed packages maintained by the distribution, without having to jump through extra hoops?
The most annoying bit is that Wikipedia has latched onto this... it had nothing to do with Wikipedia... but was in fact "WikiHow", completely independent.
From what it sounds like (looking at the comment timeline) , the article itself originally said Wikipedia ...then was corrected to say Wikihow. I don't know that this was a case of Wikipedia trying to get credit so much as the journalist getting his facts wrong.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
Head... exploding... you evil.. bastard...
Well sure, if you wanna get out of the theoretical and into the specifics... ;)
I don't see any favicon - perhaps a browser bug where it's keeping the favicon of the previously opened tab?
That does complicate things a bit. Especially since most large products are almost never developed all in one company. Still, there's a growing movement towards cooperation in handling of patents across national borders.
Aside from the fact that the company is a Berkley spin-off that was created purely to market this product and is very friendly towards open source.
That's not really relevant is it? They're friendly to open source today. Do you think that good will can be relied upon forever? Or that they won't sell the IP or the company itself? I'd rather see something done about the ridiculously broad patent than see this claim further legitimized.