Example: All users, at DoD installation that I was a contractor on a desktop migration, where given local Admin permissions on their Workstations and Laptops
Let me guess, you're one of those people who goes bonkers every time your IDS detects a port scan, right?
Users can get admin access to both their workstations and their laptops anyway. The only good reason I can think of to not give them admin access is to keep them from accidentally breaking something, if they're extremely un-tech-savvy. On the other hand, tech-savvy users are more likely to use some rootkit to get admin access, so they're less likely to break something that way if they're given admin access. In neither case does information security against the user have anything to do with the decision, however.
No kidding. I might buy an obscure proprietary operating system for $30 if it came with source code. But without source code, why bother?
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if they had someone in management who didn't understand the differences between "source-available" and "open-source" (since they seem to have confused "proprietary" vs. "commercial")
Other people will believe a brand new OS used by just a few geeks to be less exploitable on the security side; which in a way is true.
Less exploited? Perhaps. Less exploitable? Not likely, unless it was designed by competent people to be that way. Security holes can exist and be exploitable whether or not people are aware of them.
If it's LGPL you can distribute the rest of your app as closed source, as long as you provide the LGPL license and provide the source of the LGPL'd component(s) in some way for at least three years (you're even allowed to charge a reasonable fee for providing it under the terms of the license).
And you have to make it possible to link your commercial app to modified versions of the LGPL'd library. A dynamic linker usually takes care of that, although you have to be more careful in embedded systems where there is no such thing.
Now, some of these could do with an explanation. Quantum foam probably can't be observed directly (as yet) but it must radiate for the same reason black holes must radiate - the laws of thermodynamics don't provide for exceptions.
Or maybe the 'laws' of thermodynamics are inaccurate.
Yeah, it's the utterly bogus arguments offered in support of their religious beliefs that makes it wrong.
No. If I start spouting utterly bogus arguments in favour of general relativity, that doesn't make it wrong. Rather, my arguments have no effect whatsoever on the truth of general relativity. However, in the absence of convincing arguments in support of a particular set of beliefs, holding those beliefs is no more rational than holding any other arbitrary (or randomly-generated) beliefs. This was the point behind the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" movement.
On the other hand, certain beliefs can be useful in particular circumstances. For example, believing Newtonian physics for the purpose of building a bridge can be convenient. The problems occur when we attempt to make use of certain beliefs in inappropriate contexts.
My understanding is that working on string theory (or even pure mathematics) contributes to science, and people who do so can (loosely speaking) be called scientists, but string theory itself is not scientific.
It also happens to be philosophy -- possibly mathematics -- rather than science.
The only way (that I know about) to prove "all X have Y" in science is to enumerate all X, which typically isn't possible in the physical world, and even if you do that, you still haven't proved that "all X must necessarily have Y".
Well, you forgot one other thing about science: If my science says that a "cat" by definition has a tail, then these things you call "cats without tails" aren't actually "cats" at all, but something else, perhaps yet to be named.
I have no idea why I felt the need to bring that up.
That's actually an interesting point. If "cats", by definition, always have tails, then the statement "all cats have tails" is simply an arbitrary definition of "cat", rather than a useful scientific theory.
Unless a document is digitally signed, ANY format (proprietary or open) is editable.
If you want to be pedantic, those formats are editable too. Perhaps the signature probably won't validate (unless you don't mind waiting a little while), though.
It's like sending out a survey ("Question: Do you think that forcing all of your citizens to send between $80-300 USD each to Redmond, Washington, USA is a good idea?") but without having to do all the paperwork.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're a professional graphics artist, The GIMP's interface isn't really that bad.
Here.
Let me guess, you're one of those people who goes bonkers every time your IDS detects a port scan, right?
Users can get admin access to both their workstations and their laptops anyway. The only good reason I can think of to not give them admin access is to keep them from accidentally breaking something, if they're extremely un-tech-savvy. On the other hand, tech-savvy users are more likely to use some rootkit to get admin access, so they're less likely to break something that way if they're given admin access. In neither case does information security against the user have anything to do with the decision, however.
... especially if it's a laptop.
Oh, it probably was . . . with DES . . . in ECB mode . . . with the key 00000000 . . .
No kidding. I might buy an obscure proprietary operating system for $30 if it came with source code. But without source code, why bother?
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if they had someone in management who didn't understand the differences between "source-available" and "open-source" (since they seem to have confused "proprietary" vs. "commercial")
Less exploited? Perhaps. Less exploitable? Not likely, unless it was designed by competent people to be that way. Security holes can exist and be exploitable whether or not people are aware of them.
And you have to make it possible to link your commercial app to modified versions of the LGPL'd library. A dynamic linker usually takes care of that, although you have to be more careful in embedded systems where there is no such thing.
Apparently the effect of a bunch of guys with clipboards watching people from across the room was deemed negligible...
To keep you from thinking about the software's "poor" quality.
Yes, but it's not a useful scientific theory.
Tell me a method for enumerating all cats in the real world. You can't? That was the point.
You haven't refuted the claim that you purport to refute.
So, you went into math because of a girl, and you think it was a good decision?
Or maybe the 'laws' of thermodynamics are inaccurate.
No. If I start spouting utterly bogus arguments in favour of general relativity, that doesn't make it wrong. Rather, my arguments have no effect whatsoever on the truth of general relativity. However, in the absence of convincing arguments in support of a particular set of beliefs, holding those beliefs is no more rational than holding any other arbitrary (or randomly-generated) beliefs. This was the point behind the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" movement.
On the other hand, certain beliefs can be useful in particular circumstances. For example, believing Newtonian physics for the purpose of building a bridge can be convenient. The problems occur when we attempt to make use of certain beliefs in inappropriate contexts.
My understanding is that working on string theory (or even pure mathematics) contributes to science, and people who do so can (loosely speaking) be called scientists, but string theory itself is not scientific.
I think even hypotheses are testable. Better words might include "notion" or "idea".
It also happens to be philosophy -- possibly mathematics -- rather than science.
The only way (that I know about) to prove "all X have Y" in science is to enumerate all X, which typically isn't possible in the physical world, and even if you do that, you still haven't proved that "all X must necessarily have Y".
... buddy.
That's actually an interesting point. If "cats", by definition, always have tails, then the statement "all cats have tails" is simply an arbitrary definition of "cat", rather than a useful scientific theory.
If you want to be pedantic, those formats are editable too. Perhaps the signature probably won't validate (unless you don't mind waiting a little while), though.
What format would this survey be distributed in?
Netscape complained about Microsoft's integrated browser. That doesn't mean HTML is proprietary.
Ever looked at the sources to any modern C compiler?
lIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIIllIlll
rnmrnmrnmrnmmrnrnmmrn
vvvvwvwvwvvvwvwvwwwvwv