Black then white are all I see in my infancy. Red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me, lets me see there is so much more and beckons me to look through to these infinite possibilities. As below, so above and beyond, I imagine drawn outside the lines of reason. Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
There have been about as many Beatles releases in the last decade or so as there were in their career. With worldwide distribution. To not have heard of the Beatles is to have been completely absent from Earth.
Actually, that's not really accurate. I live in a city and I'm not filthy rich so most of my fuel (food) is shipped. As a very rough guess, I'd say I get a few thousand miles per gallon.
Unwanted yeasts and bacteria can get easily out of hand. And being that this particular yeast strain might thrive in environments different from those of modern yeasts, it could very well grow more populous in the intervening period between brews. And if it's that disruptive to brewing, who's to say how it would impact the rest of life around it. Now apply that to 'other multimillion-year-old spores, seeds, and other "deep freeze"-states of living creatures'.
Evolution doesn't reward "better" anything except "better suited to particular circumstances." That could be wildly unpredictable for species that fell by the wayside, as it's not always predictable how they fell by the wayside in the first place.
Any species with a dependence on another will die off when that other species does, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better suited to species that have thrived since that time.
"DOS/Win3 effectively had no security, Win95/98 was abysmal."
Classic MacOS effectively had no security. It had basically no permission scheme besides hiding some things in the Finder. It was not a multiuser environment and only hackishly implemented any kind of login scheme in later versions (I believe it may have been in MacOS 8.6, but probably 9).
"That anything could be worse from a security standpoint (especially an OS that seemed to have quite a loyal and happy following) comes as a surprise."
Well, they weren't targeted by hackers. So no surprise there. And frankly, not every Mac user was satisfied with classic MacOS. It could be extremely unstable, even moreso than Win9x in some circumstances, and an app crashing almost consistently brought the whole system down.
"never heard Apple pull ActiveX-like architectural stunts for example."
Well, here's one. Users could install extensions to the OS without any privilege escalation (there was no privilege system at all) and the extensions could operate on any and every app.
"do you have any decent pointers to articles that give an overview on classic MacOS security issues?"
Do this: look for any pointers or articles detailing classic MacOS security features. There probably aren't any.
'You are right. I should have written something like "also in a wrong line of reasoning".'
You clearly didn't even understand the line of reasoning in the first place. It wasn't wrong, and your response to it was, at best, off-topic.
"And on MacOS: no, I did not misunderstand."
Yes. You did. I was not talking about the quality of security on classic MacOS or the improvements made to it. I was talking about the fact that, despite being inferior, classic MacOS was not targeted for that; it was ignored because it was such a small target relative to the larger target. Which is exactly contrary to your statement that "criminals would most certainly go for the 1% of the 'market', if that part were using an inferior operating system". The history of classic MacOS quite clearly demonstrates otherwise.
"For most end-users it meant that their new Mac was more secure than their old Mac."
Which has exactly nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not a less secure OS (classic MacOS) would be targeted despite its relatively small marketshare (it wouldn't and wasn't).
"I hope you get my drift"
I do, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.
"I was trying to make clear that it is very hard to state things like [A1 will be M1 when Z1] so far outside of the realm mathematics and logic. In a complex world as ours it is very hard to predict what is going to happen. Should have been more clear there, sorry."
The problem is that you started a post with "following that line of reasoning" and proceeded to follow a completely different line of reasoning. The premise of the post to which you replied was that the effort is basically equal. You can dispute the premise, but you can't ditch the premise and try to apply the argument without it.
"Well, one could argue that a lot of effort was indeed put into making MacOS more secure."
No, you misunderstand. Rephrased: Oh, bull. That's why so much effort was expended on exploiting classic MacOS, right?
"Ditching its core for a *nix core for instance."
Thereby making it no longer classic MacOS.
"Yes, but also there is available knowledge, risks, effect, etc. Cracking ibm.com is far higher profile than cracking aunt Ann's site. Quite complex."
I'd just be repeating myself to respond to this in any depth. See above.
"Following that line of reasoning, criminals do not target people with the top 1% income, because they go for the 99%."
You're not following that line of reasoning at all. The top 1% of the population, by wealth, has, last I checked, about 40% of the wealth (in the US). Go down another couple percents in the population-by-wealth and you've got closer to 75% of the wealth. So, all other things being equal, it makes the most sense to focus theft energies on the top few percent-by-wealth of the population.
That's where the analogy falls apart again, though, because all other things are not equal. In the computer-marketshare scenario, the premise is that it's roughly the same amount of effort required to target (Linux|Mac|what have you) as to target Windows. That isn't anywhere near true of people and their wealth. The most vulnerable are the poor and the lower middle class. They have less access to self protection, and are far disproportionately targeted by "amoral and criminal types".
Amusingly (if you find these sorts of things amusing), those "amoral and criminal types" who target them for abuse and exploitation include a lot of unusual suspects like the police, their employers, the state. Folks more likely to be in the top few percent-by-wealth of the population.
"Just like you left out that criminals would most certainly go for the 1% of the 'market', if that part were using an inferior operating system, in terms of security."
Oh, bull. That's why so much effort was expended on classic MacOS, right?
"Also, folowing your line of reasoning, a lot more Apache servers should have been compromised that IIS servers."
"You seem to think that the law and the judges applying it are blind to the differences between a kid who defames someone and an employee who does a public good."
No, actually, I like "the freedom to say anything that comes to mind, while fully accepting the concequences of what is said". But if the consequences are legal, it isn't freedom. If the consequences are, rather, a social shit storm, so be it.
"I don't see this as an injustice. In fact, I'm siding with the judge on this one. I don't think that the right to free speech is violated here. This case falls under libel and/or slander."
Laws against libel and slander violate free speech, and are unjust.
"While it may feel wrong when interpreted as the school 'supressing' the student's right to free speech, it makes more sense when it's a case of the school protecting its staff and students from the wreckless, provoking behaviour of one student."
Of course, that same approach could be used for the circumstances I was pointing out would become victim of this precedent:
While it may feel wrong when interpreted as the corporation suppressing the whistleblower's right to free speech, it makes more sense when it's a case of the corporation protecting its staff and employees from the reckless, provoking behavior of one employee.
Calling out an authority figure is always provocative and considered reckless. It takes years, sometimes decades, for people who rock the boat to get respect instead of condemnation. If ever.
"In addition, I don't see this as a deterrant to whistleblowers, because they actually have evidence to back up their claims. With evidence, it cannot be libel."
I wonder what kind of evidence this girl could have provided, besides further claims from other students?
Anyway, libel and slander should be protected speech. At the very least we should stop referring to restricted speech as "free". Orwell would be proud.
"I think if the student had a case, she's impeded it."
Of course, the standard refrain is that any time anyone behaves in any kind of way besides using the system as they're told, they've "impeded their case". This applies to anything from satirical art (which I'd consider this myspace stunt) to civil disobedience (I wonder where civil rights law would be today if it weren't for illegal sit ins, bus occupations, road blocking and so on).
Go figure.
"If he turns out to be a pedophile, we'll read about it here!"
Amusingly, thanks to the kid who "impeded her own case".
"Seriously, the kid showed a blattant disregard for authority."
You say that like it's a bad thing. And in the context of discussing the potential crimes of an authority figure, that is extremely troubling.
"Given the circumstances, there is no way that the kid would ever have a healthy relationship with the school administration ever again, no one would trust her and no one would respect her."
How long has it been since you've been in school? I never made fake myspace pages or any other shenanigans and I never had a healthy relationship with school administration. They never trusted or respected me. Such is the nature of authority.
Slashdot Mirror
Some 12-string string sets double 3 and octave 3.
Black
then
white are
all I see
in my infancy.
Red and yellow then came to be,
reaching out to me,
lets me see
there is
so
much
more and
beckons me
to look through to these
infinite possibilities.
As below, so above and beyond, I imagine
drawn outside the lines of reason.
Push the envelope.
Watch it bend.
Beatles... Led Zeppelin... Aerowhat?
There have been about as many Beatles releases in the last decade or so as there were in their career. With worldwide distribution. To not have heard of the Beatles is to have been completely absent from Earth.
Whoever moderated this thread are clearly philistines.
Are you seriously bragging about recognizing poo-eating stories?
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/060403-11.htm
I found a bunch more citing the same study, but could find no other comprehensive studies.
Actually, that's not really accurate. I live in a city and I'm not filthy rich so most of my fuel (food) is shipped. As a very rough guess, I'd say I get a few thousand miles per gallon.
I get infinite miles per gallon on my bike. Shrug.
Too bad about the amount of fuel required to produce your hybrid.
I've noticed I get less tired if I walk rather than sit.
Neutral is when you pedal backwards.
Unwanted yeasts and bacteria can get easily out of hand. And being that this particular yeast strain might thrive in environments different from those of modern yeasts, it could very well grow more populous in the intervening period between brews. And if it's that disruptive to brewing, who's to say how it would impact the rest of life around it. Now apply that to 'other multimillion-year-old spores, seeds, and other "deep freeze"-states of living creatures'.
Evolution doesn't reward "better" anything except "better suited to particular circumstances." That could be wildly unpredictable for species that fell by the wayside, as it's not always predictable how they fell by the wayside in the first place.
Any species with a dependence on another will die off when that other species does, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better suited to species that have thrived since that time.
"DOS/Win3 effectively had no security, Win95/98 was abysmal."
Classic MacOS effectively had no security. It had basically no permission scheme besides hiding some things in the Finder. It was not a multiuser environment and only hackishly implemented any kind of login scheme in later versions (I believe it may have been in MacOS 8.6, but probably 9).
"That anything could be worse from a security standpoint (especially an OS that seemed to have quite a loyal and happy following) comes as a surprise."
Well, they weren't targeted by hackers. So no surprise there. And frankly, not every Mac user was satisfied with classic MacOS. It could be extremely unstable, even moreso than Win9x in some circumstances, and an app crashing almost consistently brought the whole system down.
"never heard Apple pull ActiveX-like architectural stunts for example."
Well, here's one. Users could install extensions to the OS without any privilege escalation (there was no privilege system at all) and the extensions could operate on any and every app.
"do you have any decent pointers to articles that give an overview on classic MacOS security issues?"
Do this: look for any pointers or articles detailing classic MacOS security features. There probably aren't any.
'You are right. I should have written something like "also in a wrong line of reasoning".'
You clearly didn't even understand the line of reasoning in the first place. It wasn't wrong, and your response to it was, at best, off-topic.
"And on MacOS: no, I did not misunderstand."
Yes. You did. I was not talking about the quality of security on classic MacOS or the improvements made to it. I was talking about the fact that, despite being inferior, classic MacOS was not targeted for that; it was ignored because it was such a small target relative to the larger target. Which is exactly contrary to your statement that "criminals would most certainly go for the 1% of the 'market', if that part were using an inferior operating system". The history of classic MacOS quite clearly demonstrates otherwise.
"For most end-users it meant that their new Mac was more secure than their old Mac."
Which has exactly nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not a less secure OS (classic MacOS) would be targeted despite its relatively small marketshare (it wouldn't and wasn't).
"I hope you get my drift"
I do, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.
"I was trying to make clear that it is very hard to state things like [A1 will be M1 when Z1] so far outside of the realm mathematics and logic. In a complex world as ours it is very hard to predict what is going to happen. Should have been more clear there, sorry."
The problem is that you started a post with "following that line of reasoning" and proceeded to follow a completely different line of reasoning. The premise of the post to which you replied was that the effort is basically equal. You can dispute the premise, but you can't ditch the premise and try to apply the argument without it.
"Well, one could argue that a lot of effort was indeed put into making MacOS more secure."
No, you misunderstand. Rephrased: Oh, bull. That's why so much effort was expended on exploiting classic MacOS, right?
"Ditching its core for a *nix core for instance."
Thereby making it no longer classic MacOS.
"Yes, but also there is available knowledge, risks, effect, etc. Cracking ibm.com is far higher profile than cracking aunt Ann's site. Quite complex."
I'd just be repeating myself to respond to this in any depth. See above.
"Following that line of reasoning, criminals do not target people with the top 1% income, because they go for the 99%."
You're not following that line of reasoning at all. The top 1% of the population, by wealth, has, last I checked, about 40% of the wealth (in the US). Go down another couple percents in the population-by-wealth and you've got closer to 75% of the wealth. So, all other things being equal, it makes the most sense to focus theft energies on the top few percent-by-wealth of the population.
That's where the analogy falls apart again, though, because all other things are not equal. In the computer-marketshare scenario, the premise is that it's roughly the same amount of effort required to target (Linux|Mac|what have you) as to target Windows. That isn't anywhere near true of people and their wealth. The most vulnerable are the poor and the lower middle class. They have less access to self protection, and are far disproportionately targeted by "amoral and criminal types".
Amusingly (if you find these sorts of things amusing), those "amoral and criminal types" who target them for abuse and exploitation include a lot of unusual suspects like the police, their employers, the state. Folks more likely to be in the top few percent-by-wealth of the population.
"Just like you left out that criminals would most certainly go for the 1% of the 'market', if that part were using an inferior operating system, in terms of security."
Oh, bull. That's why so much effort was expended on classic MacOS, right?
"Also, folowing your line of reasoning, a lot more Apache servers should have been compromised that IIS servers."
Only assuming roughly equivalent effort required.
But it won't be able to compete with DDR-SMARM.
"You seem to think that the law and the judges applying it are blind to the differences between a kid who defames someone and an employee who does a public good."
Yep.
"Judges aren't idiots."
Some aren't. Some clearly are.
Huh?
No, actually, I like "the freedom to say anything that comes to mind, while fully accepting the concequences of what is said". But if the consequences are legal, it isn't freedom. If the consequences are, rather, a social shit storm, so be it.
"I don't see this as an injustice. In fact, I'm siding with the judge on this one. I don't think that the right to free speech is violated here. This case falls under libel and/or slander."
Laws against libel and slander violate free speech, and are unjust.
"While it may feel wrong when interpreted as the school 'supressing' the student's right to free speech, it makes more sense when it's a case of the school protecting its staff and students from the wreckless, provoking behaviour of one student."
Of course, that same approach could be used for the circumstances I was pointing out would become victim of this precedent:
While it may feel wrong when interpreted as the corporation suppressing the whistleblower's right to free speech, it makes more sense when it's a case of the corporation protecting its staff and employees from the reckless, provoking behavior of one employee.
Calling out an authority figure is always provocative and considered reckless. It takes years, sometimes decades, for people who rock the boat to get respect instead of condemnation. If ever.
"In addition, I don't see this as a deterrant to whistleblowers, because they actually have evidence to back up their claims. With evidence, it cannot be libel."
I wonder what kind of evidence this girl could have provided, besides further claims from other students?
Anyway, libel and slander should be protected speech. At the very least we should stop referring to restricted speech as "free". Orwell would be proud.
"I think if the student had a case, she's impeded it."
Of course, the standard refrain is that any time anyone behaves in any kind of way besides using the system as they're told, they've "impeded their case". This applies to anything from satirical art (which I'd consider this myspace stunt) to civil disobedience (I wonder where civil rights law would be today if it weren't for illegal sit ins, bus occupations, road blocking and so on).
Go figure.
"If he turns out to be a pedophile, we'll read about it here!"
Amusingly, thanks to the kid who "impeded her own case".
"Seriously, the kid showed a blattant disregard for authority."
You say that like it's a bad thing. And in the context of discussing the potential crimes of an authority figure, that is extremely troubling.
"Given the circumstances, there is no way that the kid would ever have a healthy relationship with the school administration ever again, no one would trust her and no one would respect her."
How long has it been since you've been in school? I never made fake myspace pages or any other shenanigans and I never had a healthy relationship with school administration. They never trusted or respected me. Such is the nature of authority.
But the corporate scenario equivalent is not public mockery it's whistleblowing.