That looks more like a commercial machine to me. Does anyone see anything that marks it as a military version? Military equipment usually comes with manuals labeled "Machine, Cypher, Field, Mark 5.4.3.12.a" not "Enigma".
Well, and "Shock and Awe" is probably the commercial version of "Military Op. Foxtrot Bravo 5.2.5.3.5.25.a [classified]".
Must be a really slow news day to bring back this ancient argument.
Well I wanna reverse that argument: it's actually bad that.. most Linux distros are binary/source compatible, since it means the demand for preserving compatibility will kill Linux chances of reinventing itself, the way Window is bound to do with.NET and Vienna (where Win32 will run in a sandbox and the primary programming model will be.NET).
Wait... I want to know: why are any of you actually posting this nonsense? What's the goal? I'm genuinely interested.
Keep in mind: if you reply with just more random insults and garbage I'll ignore it. If you spam my Slashdot account, I'll just change it. So only bother if you want to say something sensible.
The best sign of a bad argument is when someone resorts to insults.
The best sign of a bad argument is flawed logic and poorly checked facts. It's not about presentation but substance, the thing you lack. I didn't even read what you wrote past that first sentence, first get right all things you got wrong so far. But I won't care again anyway.
As I expected, you're full of it. None of this regards *signature forging*. It's about bypassing the signature *checking*, and Rutkowska never demoed her dangerous concept afterwards (vaporware?), citing it needs months of work before it's really undetectable (and they demanding someone pay her for months of work, no one did).
I'll admit that those above are related largely to Vista, but the concept of driver signing started in Win2000 and each release did manage to add more to the original notion.
Is it always very hard for you to admit truth?
Uhm... people are actually *using* Vista? Okay, that's sarcasm mostly, but I think it's pretty clear that a strong and dominant portion of the population are resistant to Vista for the moment and will continue to be resistant, I predict, until no other options are available.
Pathetic. No, you idiot*, I've not been talking about Vista, I've been talking about Windows 3.11 all this time!
1. It has been shown that the signature can and has been forged 2. Unsigned drivers are still installable with only a warning given to the user at install time and the user has little to no choice but to install the unsigned driver if they wish to make use of whatever it is they are using.
1. Prove it. What you're saying is absurd, if signatures where that easy to forge, the whole e-commerce industry would be falling apart (and not only).
2. That's the case with XP. Vista doesn't allow *at all* unsigned kernel drivers to be installed. The user has no choice but.. well, he has no choice. He won't install the driver.
The issue is that with free software, the user gets more power, so a 500 seat installation can improve or fix their software, while the same can't be said with MS voume deals (at a 500 seat installation). There is money to be lost when you don't have a feature that you need.
The user gets more power? No, especially in the case of OOo versus MS Office, the user gets much less power, and much less compatibility.
The *developer* gets more *potential* power in an on open source project. But a business that needs a good office suite can't care less.
And now Microsoft are locking Windows down for that very reason, so that you need to sign ring-0 code (eliminated random garage Joe-s randomly writing kernel mode code).
Linux can't do that since everything is open. Bummer.
Doing things in closed-source proprietary drivers and calling the operating system useless is a bit disingenious - but something an MS shill or Apple fanboy would do.
Maybe an MS shill or Apple fanboy or [insert tired cliche here] would call Linux useless. Good thing I didn't.
Would a Linux fanboy bend my words to fit his black-and-white world?
A big "Thank You!" to Samsung for demonstrating that propriatory code is inherently less secure than open source, if only because you can (could) get away with insecure code.
A big "Thank You!" to you for the most of the world hating Linux.
Something possibly bad about Linux! I don't have time to analyze what happened, so I'll just shoot some of my best knee-jerk responses:
1. Because they're not open source! You see how only binary stuff is bad in Linux! 2. Samsung did it to undermine Linux! 3. Good, it shows someone cares and possibly uses Samsung's Linux drivers!
All of the above proves conclusively how great Linux is.
Wow! I had no idea a famous Hollywood screenwriter was posting on Slashdot! So tell me - how's the work on the latest Star Trek sequel going?
Doing great, actually. We're shooting last scene now, but it's pivotal to the plot: we put all old Star Trek episodes in a pile in the middle of the screen, and the everyone in the new cast takes turn peeing on it.
The `Free' in `Free Software' is quite uncorrelated to `free as in free beer' freeness.
On the other hand, it is directly related to the fact that you can pay a developer to add the feature you want.
That you find something laughable in what you quote only shows that you do not understand what you are talking about.
A company doesn't care about abstract philosophy. If it's more expensive to use Free Software than it is to use Commercial Software, they will just do that. You can pay a developer to write an MS Office plugin just as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The language is a bit vague, but calling this a defeat of the Fifth Amendment is overly hyperbolic.
Let's calm down a bit, eh?
Like frogs in slowly warming up water, you'll get boiled without a single kick or move.
It's not about how it starts, it's how it progresses. It always does, because we're ever calm.
How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better?
:(
The only solution would be some sort magical free CPU cycles over-unity processor. Steorn is working on it.
For the last freakin' time: Your mom is loose, you are just a loser can you finally get it right!!??!?!?!!
Your evil
Check this out: the first like 10 posts in this article are +5 Funny.
Slashdot: the place where death threats are funny!
That looks more like a commercial machine to me. Does anyone see anything that marks it as a military version? Military equipment usually comes with manuals labeled "Machine, Cypher, Field, Mark 5.4.3.12.a" not "Enigma".
Well, and "Shock and Awe" is probably the commercial version of "Military Op. Foxtrot Bravo 5.2.5.3.5.25.a [classified]".
The military are artistic guys in nature.
I think she was more open to the paranormal every season. She believed in aliens in season 5.
Of course she did, mexican aliens. But it took 5 seasons to convince her they exist, she's kinda hard like that.
But I'm sure it must be free energy in there somewhere! Man, imo gonna start a company based on this.
- Sean McCarthy, Steorn CEO
Must be a really slow news day to bring back this ancient argument.
.NET and Vienna (where Win32 will run in a sandbox and the primary programming model will be .NET).
Well I wanna reverse that argument: it's actually bad that.. most Linux distros are binary/source compatible, since it means the demand for preserving compatibility will kill Linux chances of reinventing itself, the way Window is bound to do with
Man, I'm good! Almost believed myself.
So next time Windows fails to start, you'll know why!
Because... I didn't install it?
Wait... I want to know: why are any of you actually posting this nonsense? What's the goal? I'm genuinely interested.
Keep in mind: if you reply with just more random insults and garbage I'll ignore it. If you spam my Slashdot account, I'll just change it. So only bother if you want to say something sensible.
The best sign of a bad argument is when someone resorts to insults.
The best sign of a bad argument is flawed logic and poorly checked facts. It's not about presentation but substance, the thing you lack. I didn't even read what you wrote past that first sentence, first get right all things you got wrong so far. But I won't care again anyway.
What exactly makes it a "hacker's dream"?
Well, hackers are poor and... well... That's Slashdot, you and your reasoning.
Must I prove it? Well, okay. go here:
As I expected, you're full of it. None of this regards *signature forging*. It's about bypassing the signature *checking*, and Rutkowska never demoed her dangerous concept afterwards (vaporware?), citing it needs months of work before it's really undetectable (and they demanding someone pay her for months of work, no one did).
I'll admit that those above are related largely to Vista, but the concept of driver signing started in Win2000 and each release did manage to add more to the original notion.
Is it always very hard for you to admit truth?
Uhm... people are actually *using* Vista? Okay, that's sarcasm mostly, but I think it's pretty clear that a strong and dominant portion of the population are resistant to Vista for the moment and will continue to be resistant, I predict, until no other options are available.
Pathetic. No, you idiot*, I've not been talking about Vista, I've been talking about Windows 3.11 all this time!
* Not meant as insult, just observation.
1. It has been shown that the signature can and has been forged
2. Unsigned drivers are still installable with only a warning given to the user at install time and the user has little to no choice but to install the unsigned driver if they wish to make use of whatever it is they are using.
1. Prove it. What you're saying is absurd, if signatures where that easy to forge, the whole e-commerce industry would be falling apart (and not only).
2. That's the case with XP. Vista doesn't allow *at all* unsigned kernel drivers to be installed. The user has no choice but.. well, he has no choice. He won't install the driver.
The issue is that with free software, the user gets more power, so a 500 seat installation can improve or fix their software, while the same can't be said with MS voume deals (at a 500 seat installation). There is money to be lost when you don't have a feature that you need.
The user gets more power? No, especially in the case of OOo versus MS Office, the user gets much less power, and much less compatibility.
The *developer* gets more *potential* power in an on open source project. But a business that needs a good office suite can't care less.
And now Microsoft are locking Windows down for that very reason, so that you need to sign ring-0 code (eliminated random garage Joe-s randomly writing kernel mode code).
Linux can't do that since everything is open. Bummer.
It was stupid when programmers did it under Windows and it is stupid when they do it now under Linux. It has nothing to do with popularity!
The stupid population flocks to popular things. I mean, look at Slashdot before it was popular, and see the all the garbage it has now.
Doing things in closed-source proprietary drivers and calling the operating system useless is a bit disingenious - but something an MS shill or Apple fanboy would do.
Maybe an MS shill or Apple fanboy or [insert tired cliche here] would call Linux useless. Good thing I didn't.
Would a Linux fanboy bend my words to fit his black-and-white world?
This particular incident cannot be protested enough. If this sort of thing becomes common, End-user Linux will become as corrupted as Windows.
Your point is, Linux is good because only select people use it for select few apps. That's why Mac is good as well.
I suppose this is an example of a self-defeating prophecy: it's secure/stable, so use it! But if many use it, it's no longer secure/stable.
A big "Thank You!" to Samsung for demonstrating that propriatory code is inherently less secure than open source, if only because you can (could) get away with insecure code.
A big "Thank You!" to you for the most of the world hating Linux.
"Major Security Hole In Samsung Linux Drivers"
Something possibly bad about Linux! I don't have time to analyze what happened, so I'll just shoot some of my best knee-jerk responses:
1. Because they're not open source! You see how only binary stuff is bad in Linux!
2. Samsung did it to undermine Linux!
3. Good, it shows someone cares and possibly uses Samsung's Linux drivers!
All of the above proves conclusively how great Linux is.
I had to backup to the original post, I still have no clue where you got that idea from.
work on it, you'll figure it out eventually...
Wow! I had no idea a famous Hollywood screenwriter was posting on Slashdot! So tell me - how's the work on the latest Star Trek sequel going?
Doing great, actually. We're shooting last scene now, but it's pivotal to the plot: we put all old Star Trek episodes in a pile in the middle of the screen, and the everyone in the new cast takes turn peeing on it.
That's a good point.
Wait, you regularly draw pictures of your kid from photos for fun at work & parties ?
Wait, you do parties in a sound studio and then master professionally the recordings into a song?
I can't imagine anyone paying someone a few hundred dollars to do somthing most people do for fun at work or at parties.
I can't imagine someone paying someone a few hundred dollars to draw a picture of my kid based on a photo I already have either.
But I did it.
The `Free' in `Free Software' is quite uncorrelated to `free as in free beer' freeness.
On the other hand, it is directly related to the fact that you can pay a developer to add the feature you want.
That you find something laughable in what you quote only shows that you do not understand what you are talking about.
A company doesn't care about abstract philosophy. If it's more expensive to use Free Software than it is to use Commercial Software, they will just do that. You can pay a developer to write an MS Office plugin just as well.