But if you love the subject, whether or not you make money is irrelevant. I've got a blog, and I've never made a penny from it, nor do I expect to make a penny from it. That doesn't make any difference to whether or not I will continue to blog, which was Tablizer's point.
If you take to the streets in ones and twos, it is extremely easy for the powers that be to pick you off as you pop up. However, if you can get a group of a thousand together, it's a lot harder for the powers that be to make them all disappear without anyone else asking questions. For example, we still talk about Tienanmen Square today.
I was once told it's never a good idea to argue with a moron because someone listening in might not be able to tell the difference. However, here goes anyway.
So... you blame windows for your lack of balls and inability to stand up to your wife?
Ahhh, the irony of an Anoymous Coward starting his post with an attack on my backbone...that's pretty funny, actually. In response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
RE: Your quicken problem: Are you too stupid to do a google search? It is simple to fix this by giving specific permissions to a non-admin user for Intuit registry keys...
And do this for every one of how many programs that operate this way? That's just idiotic. How about using software that wasn't designed with boneheaded permissions requirements in the first place?
Either way, not a windows problem, it is Intuit's crappy design.
That's probably true, but this type of design seems to be endemic with Windows software. OTOH, I don't recall ever running into similar problems with Mac, FreeBSD or Linux software I've used -- unless it was something that truly needed superuser access. Even in those cases, for example NMap, the software will still run with limited functionality for users without sudo/root access.
RE: Your kids: Why do they even have admin access? Stop giving them the password. Stand up for yourself and lay down some rules.
You want me to take marriage advice from an A/C on/.? Yagoddabekiddinme. Yeah, I could "lay down some rules" but IME, being a jerk about things rarely makes anything better. So I give her advice. If she ignores my advice, I work on her computer when I get a chance; it's not a priority. Like everthing else in a marriage, this solution is a compromise.
Trying to keep her Windows computers functioning is a bit of a PITA, but overall, she's worth it. Not even a question, there:)
I guess that means I really don't have anything to complain about after all... However, in light of this thread, I couldn't help but notice your/. sig!
A computer worm that spreads through low security networks, memory sticks, and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to users blitheringly stupid enough [today.com] to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design.
But, but but...that's just because there are more Windows computers in use than Mac and Linux combined!
Insightful. I'll have to think about this for a while, and find a way to start putting this into practice. If I could offer one suggestion though...:
If the user's religious, invent satanic hackers.
The concept of satanic hackers seems over the top -- the threat just doesn't sound real enough. However, the threat of spammers relaying porn spam through their PCs is plausible enough to motivate a lot of religious users. If porn spam isn't distasteful enough, then ask "what if it's rape porn? kiddie porn?" That should do the trick.
It's just human nature, nothing to get upset about. The idea is basically this: is it more trouble to learn how to use a computer properly or to get it fixed when, on occasion, it stops doing what you need it to do?
Maybe. But it starts to get really tiresome when it's your spouse you are talking about (so the work is pro bono, and you *can't* just say no when they ask for help), they insist on using an OS that you don't like to administer (Windows), they insist on using software that requires admin privileges to run (Quicken, for example), they ignore your advice about having the kids use their own non-admin privileged accounts to play on-line games, etc., but they still blame you when *once AGAIN* the computer doesn't "just work" (because there are so many viruses on the machine that it takes 45 minutes just to start Task Manager).
No, I wouldn't -- I'd take the one with no security and bring my own "security"
I'm old enough to remember walking through metal detectors with metal objects in my pockets (thus knowing that the metal detectors were off), and not being the least bit concerned about it.
And I strongly disagree that post 9/11 security theatre is a REASONABLE precaution.
Sorry -- the new 2.0/. screwed up what I saw as the direct parent of your comment. What I saw:
Yup, airport security is part of a trend known as "Security Theater". Get the proles to feel secure by making a show of it and then act surprised when the 1 in 10,000,000 event happens with or without the show.
Flight 93 showed that, post 9/11, passengers on airlines will no longer be passive victims, but will take an active role in their own security. Therefore, I submit that increased "security" measures actually make airlines less secure by depriving passengers of ways of defending themselves (and the airplane itself) from those who have ill intent.
Unfortunately, that isn't the comment you were replying to, and Flight 93 doesn't have a lot to do with security vs. the war on drugs. Sorry -- I withdraw my comment.
Of course it doesn't prevent the case where I hide C4 in my colon (don't laugh, you can hide enough there to cause some major damage), but that one would be kinda hard to prevent.
And that is precisely why so many of us think the new scanners are such a bad freaking idea. It is embarrassing and humiliating, and in the end (no pun intended), you didn't really solve anything with this technology, did you?
I'd fly it, and not just because I'm annoyed beyond words at security theatre. I'd honestly feel far, far safer on an airplane when I knew my fellow passengers were (also) packing than on an airplane where I know the only people carrying weapons intend them for harm.
Maybe I'm more cynical than you, but I think the truth is far more sinister. You started well:
What does a politician or government agency benefit by people feeling more secure? Nothing. Scared people are more easily manipulated.
That's the real reason. Government wants to keep you scared of the terrorist boogeyman. As long as the average citizen ranks terrorism as a real, perceivable threat, then the government can continue to do whatever it wants, and we'll applaud their efforts to "keep us safe."
With all due respect, "this is less degrading than the previous degrading search" isn't a very good justification for continuing what is quite simply an abuse of power. I'd really like to see stats on how many terrorists the random full pat-downs have discovered.
All of which is somewhat beside the point since I doubt that we'll be given the option, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you love the subject, whether or not you make money is irrelevant. I've got a blog, and I've never made a penny from it, nor do I expect to make a penny from it. That doesn't make any difference to whether or not I will continue to blog, which was Tablizer's point.
Point taken.
Exactly.
If you take to the streets in ones and twos, it is extremely easy for the powers that be to pick you off as you pop up. However, if you can get a group of a thousand together, it's a lot harder for the powers that be to make them all disappear without anyone else asking questions. For example, we still talk about Tienanmen Square today.
As PP said..."Oh wait this is Slashdot...nevermind."
I mean, c'mon -- actually reading the post? Understanding what it says before commenting? You must be new here!
"Froo-its of the dev-il" evil?
So... you blame windows for your lack of balls and inability to stand up to your wife?
Ahhh, the irony of an Anoymous Coward starting his post with an attack on my backbone...that's pretty funny, actually. In response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
RE: Your quicken problem: Are you too stupid to do a google search? It is simple to fix this by giving specific permissions to a non-admin user for Intuit registry keys...
And do this for every one of how many programs that operate this way? That's just idiotic. How about using software that wasn't designed with boneheaded permissions requirements in the first place?
Either way, not a windows problem, it is Intuit's crappy design.
That's probably true, but this type of design seems to be endemic with Windows software. OTOH, I don't recall ever running into similar problems with Mac, FreeBSD or Linux software I've used -- unless it was something that truly needed superuser access. Even in those cases, for example NMap, the software will still run with limited functionality for users without sudo/root access.
RE: Your kids: Why do they even have admin access? Stop giving them the password. Stand up for yourself and lay down some rules.
You want me to take marriage advice from an A/C on /.? Yagoddabekiddinme. Yeah, I could "lay down some rules" but IME, being a jerk about things rarely makes anything better. So I give her advice. If she ignores my advice, I work on her computer when I get a chance; it's not a priority. Like everthing else in a marriage, this solution is a compromise.
Take her to school and pick her up afterwards yourself?
Trying to keep her Windows computers functioning is a bit of a PITA, but overall, she's worth it. Not even a question, there :)
/. sig!
I guess that means I really don't have anything to complain about after all... However, in light of this thread, I couldn't help but notice your
A computer worm that spreads through low security networks, memory sticks, and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to users blitheringly stupid enough [today.com] to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design.
But, but but...that's just because there are more Windows computers in use than Mac and Linux combined!
If the user's religious, invent satanic hackers.
The concept of satanic hackers seems over the top -- the threat just doesn't sound real enough. However, the threat of spammers relaying porn spam through their PCs is plausible enough to motivate a lot of religious users. If porn spam isn't distasteful enough, then ask "what if it's rape porn? kiddie porn?" That should do the trick.
It's just human nature, nothing to get upset about. The idea is basically this: is it more trouble to learn how to use a computer properly or to get it fixed when, on occasion, it stops doing what you need it to do?
Maybe. But it starts to get really tiresome when it's your spouse you are talking about (so the work is pro bono, and you *can't* just say no when they ask for help), they insist on using an OS that you don't like to administer (Windows), they insist on using software that requires admin privileges to run (Quicken, for example), they ignore your advice about having the kids use their own non-admin privileged accounts to play on-line games, etc., but they still blame you when *once AGAIN* the computer doesn't "just work" (because there are so many viruses on the machine that it takes 45 minutes just to start Task Manager).
No, I wouldn't -- I'd take the one with no security and bring my own "security"
I'm old enough to remember walking through metal detectors with metal objects in my pockets (thus knowing that the metal detectors were off), and not being the least bit concerned about it.
And I strongly disagree that post 9/11 security theatre is a REASONABLE precaution.
Yup, airport security is part of a trend known as "Security Theater". Get the proles to feel secure by making a show of it and then act surprised when the 1 in 10,000,000 event happens with or without the show.
Flight 93 showed that, post 9/11, passengers on airlines will no longer be passive victims, but will take an active role in their own security. Therefore, I submit that increased "security" measures actually make airlines less secure by depriving passengers of ways of defending themselves (and the airplane itself) from those who have ill intent.
Unfortunately, that isn't the comment you were replying to, and Flight 93 doesn't have a lot to do with security vs. the war on drugs. Sorry -- I withdraw my comment.
Nah, the government will just bail them out like the banks and auto industries...sigh.
I just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard, you insensitive clod! :D
You are reasoning clearly and logically. What are you doing on /. ???
...and can always back out.
Can you? I've never tested the proposition, but I suspect you would invite lots of extra scrutiny if you tried.
You can always tell your doctor "no."
What would you do to add additional security without making people bunch up?
Stop security checks entirely and actually encourage people to bring their preferred weapon of self-defense, perhaps?
Of course it doesn't prevent the case where I hide C4 in my colon (don't laugh, you can hide enough there to cause some major damage), but that one would be kinda hard to prevent.
And that is precisely why so many of us think the new scanners are such a bad freaking idea. It is embarrassing and humiliating, and in the end (no pun intended), you didn't really solve anything with this technology, did you?
Well said. Wish I had mod points.
I'd fly it, and not just because I'm annoyed beyond words at security theatre. I'd honestly feel far, far safer on an airplane when I knew my fellow passengers were (also) packing than on an airplane where I know the only people carrying weapons intend them for harm.
Who in their right mind modded this insightful?!?!?
Here's a start for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
If you'd like more data, you can google Flight 93...[:rolls eyes:]
What does a politician or government agency benefit by people feeling more secure? Nothing. Scared people are more easily manipulated.
That's the real reason. Government wants to keep you scared of the terrorist boogeyman. As long as the average citizen ranks terrorism as a real, perceivable threat, then the government can continue to do whatever it wants, and we'll applaud their efforts to "keep us safe."
CYA isn't even an afterthought, IMHO.
With all due respect, "this is less degrading than the previous degrading search" isn't a very good justification for continuing what is quite simply an abuse of power. I'd really like to see stats on how many terrorists the random full pat-downs have discovered.
All of which is somewhat beside the point since I doubt that we'll be given the option, anyway.