Thanks for the suggestion. I'm probably going to get a new computer in part with my "economic stimulus check" and will definitely be putting an Ubuntu partition on there.
Way to change the subject. The matter at hand is the necessity of compiling programs by hand when a package installer isn't available. The GP said that there isn't really any excuse for not having a package installer in this day and age, and implied that in order to get up to speed with the rest of the world (read, MS and Apple), package installers are necessary. I was agreeing with him.
Last I checked the government uses terrorism (search and seizure laws) to finance their law enforcement operations. Hell, the CIA slings drugs to finance their operations too. I'm so sick and tired of this terrorism crap. All of this legislation is trying to address the symptoms of the problem and nobody wants to get to the root of it.
I guess we all pick our poisons. I've never had a box compromised in fifteen plus years and I've been running vendor supplied installation programs all along. Sometimes I think Linux users like going through the make/install process simply because it lets them feel involved with what is going on.
I think you're trying to be funny? I know it can seem like you say it is at times. The technical publishing industry is there so that people don't have to bug their friends or go "learn it" themselves. For every person out there who can "just do it" because it's "so simple", there are ten or hundred who don't really have any clue how to get the job done.
Thank you for saying this. I've been using computers since DOS 3.3 so I'm comfortable with the command line, but other than a short tryst with Slackware in the early 1990s I haven't really gotten into Linux. I'm sure that once you've done/configure make and install enough times it is fairly intuitive. However coming from a world where all that was required to get a program to install was to run the associated.com or.exe file, it seems pretty cryptic and clunky to have to feed source into gcc and wait for the system to compile your program for you. And if it fails to compile... oh boy... I don't have the patience for that crap anymore. I'll go back to what works and wait another year to see if the "Year of the Linux desktop" has finally arrived or not.;)
This entire subject is flamebait. Anyone who has actually worked in corporate IT knows that this is a STUPID idea. Of course this is Slashdot so you will get a lot of replies from developers and the like who want access to their own workstations. For the other 98% of the work force that uses computers, it is a bad idea to make the responsible. The large majority of corporate employees out there don't want the responsibility. They don't have the knowledge it takes to keep their computers up to date and running successfully. That is what IT is for. They do the grunt work to keep the enterprise running so that the secretaries can word process, so the financial types can play with Excel and so that everyone can use their custom applications to connect to the databases.
The place where letting users take care of their own workstations comes apart is when things go wrong. If everyone is installing their own programs you will never know what is causing the problem. As soon as it breaks the user who installed it, "Didn't do anything wrong, it just stopped working" and then the IT guy is supporting an application that he didn't install and doesn't use.
I'm of the opinion that if a user really NEEDS a piece of software becauase it is SO IMPORTANT TO THEIR JOB, then they can take the necessary steps to bring it to the attention of IT and wait a week or two for IT to evaluate it. I've yet to work in an IT department where REASONABLE requests were turned down.
The flip side of the coin is that if you let users have whatever you went, you end up with Kazaa/Limewire and a buttload of IM clients installed all over the network, along with Skype, browser toolbars, and who knows what kind of malware. Then you start getting calls from VP X who doesn't have program Y that cubicle monkey Z used to create the file. You have one department using some stupid third party plug-in for Office that nobody else in the company has and 'YOU HAVE TO UPDATE EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW' because they are working on some "IMPORTANT DEADLINE" that absolutely requires someone to have the plug-in.
This article should be relabelled, "Do I really have to do my job, or can I just quit and let the users do it for me?"
But seriously, a License to hack anything domestic and foreign with total immunity as long at it's primarily against the enemy would be totally cool, I think a lot of us who had to give up the black hat because we have kids and just can't afford to go to prison, would be all over this.
I completely agree. A lot of people stopped walking along the path that they were walking after age 18 because what they thought was, "Pretty damn cool." the government and law enforcement agencies thought was, "A federal felony punishable by time in prison." I was never into hacking System 75 and Audix because I wanted to take down companies... I just thought it was cool to give my friends free voicemail boxes on the end of a 1-800 number that they could access from anywhere. I never got into cloning cell phones because I wanted to eavesdrop on people and steal secrets, that was just a byproduct of the knowledge acquired by knowing how to do it.
This is a bit off topic, but there is a huge problem when it comes to creative/curious people and our legal system. I figured out in my late teens that the legal system is setup to protect stupid people from themselves. It is set to "level the playing field" to the absolute lowest common demoniator and punish anyone who exercises their natural, human instinct to push the boundries. It has been common knowledge for a couple of decades at this point that the government was presented with the "problem" of computer security. They had the option to either help to make systems secure by passing legislation to mandate good practices and levy fines against those who didn't follow them, or they could simply jack up the penalities for messing with the systems. It's obvious which route they took. Systems aren't much more secure than they have ever been and anyone with any inclination to figure them out and poke around at the holes is scared to do so for fear of ending up buried under huge fines and/or incarcerated in Federal prison.
On a related note, I wonder if the military would build their own botnet from scratch.
Of course, just think about all of the contracting money to be made there!!! Why use off the shelf, already proven code when you can recreate the wheel and employ lots of PHB's to oversee the operation?
You're right that the military isn't going to get the best hackers. The NSA will. The educational system isn't the real problem. The best hackers have always been those who had a knack for it and lived and breathed the systems that they enjoyed playing with. Because for the best hackers, hacking is playing. It isn't a job, it isn't a career, it's a hobby that they enjoy. The education system could turn out "computer security professionals", but they will only be as effective as their last class. There simply aren't many people out there with the mental facilities required to be really good at hacking. All the guys I knew weren't wired right. They'd only sleep four hours a night, and had insanely accurate memories.. or they were seriously into drugs, everything from speed and coke to LSD and mushrooms. That's why the end up at the NSA. They can be compartmentalized and their idiosyncrocies can be overlooked. Those people would never make it in a military environment with a rigid chain of command.
I would hazard to guess that the reason that China is able to keep its black hats at bay is the ability of their government to make you disappear in the middle of the night and wake up the next day in a labor camp if they even suspect you of compromising government systems.
That may be the case, but more likely the Chinese government just puts them to work. The same thing happens here in the US. There were a couple of guys who went to the LA 2600 meetings in the early 1990s who got visits from the government. The conversation always went along the lines of, "Stop doing what you're doing or we're going to arrest you. Or if you want to continue doing what you're doing, come work for us." Those who didn't stop ended up dealing with the FBI. Those who took the offer ended up working with the NSA.
How about we broaden the scope beyond the last ten years and look at our actions since World War II. There have been lots of ugly operations going on in Central and South America. Then there was that whole arming bin Laden to bring down the Soviet Union. Don't forget arming that Hussein guy to fight a proxy war for us against the Iranian's after they overthrew the puppet we put in place in the 1950s in an attempt to secure access to their oil supplies.
This idea has come up many times in the past. The stumbling block always seems to come down to the matter of computer trespass, or unauthorized access to a computer. Even if you are doing it with the best intentions, you are still breaking the law to do it.
It doesn't matter WHAT you do, it is HOW you do it. When it comes to women, you'd be wasting your time trying to engage them in the merits of whatever the new technology is. All that you need to communicate is that you are competent and proficient with computers. Leave it at that and move the conversation on.
To put it another way, women are attracted to men (or in some cases other women) who are in control of their lives and are excelling at whatever they do. They are attracted to confidence and self esteem. When you're talking to people, figure out what they are about. When it comes to having conversations with women, invite them to prove that they are worth your time. Remember, you have what they want... money, success, stability, whatever. If you don't have that, spend your time working on yourself and getting your own life straight. In the long run you will attract the best women that way.
The other side of the coin are the "hot" girls and the douche bags who get them. That is a whole realm of society and psychology that you're better off staying away from. Those hot girls are insecure and for the most part are attention seeking stimulation junkies. The douche bags get them because they go straight for the girls and give the girls the stimulus that their ADHD brains needs. I'm talking about girls in their twenties. Most of them aren't looking for anything long term yet and all they are about is partying and having a good time. That entitles lots of drinking for most, drugs for some and more or less complete, self centered narcicissm as they judge themselves against their peers based on how much attention they can get.
I have the confidence to walk up and introduce myself; I just don't know how to have conversations. For me everything boils down to problem solving, so if someone asks me a question my answers tend toward closure. My "goal" is to solve the conversation (ie. find its ending).
I suppose I could just change my goal to trying to see how long I can just keep talking on and on about nothing. You know, like women.;)
I bet that you do know how to have conversations, you simply aren't comfortable having the kind of conversations that you imagine men have with women that lead to women having sex with the men they are talking to. It has been my experience that women are the hunters and men are the prey. The more attractive the woman, the more choices she has. Men have to do things to gain attention (either by dressing and behaving a certain way, or by initiating the conversation). The woman then decides how far the interaction is going to go.
You might consider a new way to consider conversations. Women aren't really interested in what you are talking about as much as they are interested in HOW you are talking and carrying yourself. Are you confident? Can you speak clearly? Are you focused on the subject at hand? Do you communicate a sense of purpose and is your conversation going anywhere? Is your conversation engaging? Are there opportunities there? Are your providing something for the person you are speaking with to become a part of?
Conversation is an art. Women like cunning linguists. Women like challenges. They like being stimulated. They will test you and put out hoops for you to jump through. Turn the tables on them. Make them prove that they are worth YOUR time. After spending a decade dealing with women, I finally figured out that focusing on women is a waste of time. Focus on what you are into. Do whatever furthers yourself and makes you a better person. Women are drawn to focus and confidence. Like attracts like.
If you look at seduction like a game, you are going to attract women who are playing games. If you realize that attracting worth while women is simply a by product of living a happy successful life, you will do much better when it comes to getting laid.
I agree with you. My impression was hesitant and a bit nervous about the whole situation. I only watched about the first five minutes of it and fast forwarded through the rest. Maybe she got better later in the movie?
I used to be in the same category. I spent a lot of my life trying to engage everyone around me in a friendly manner simply because I thought that it is a good way to go through life. I still believe that, but I have figured out that "Hello" is usually the second part of the equation. The first part is eye contact and body language. If you haven't engaged and gained approval on that non-verbal level first then the "Hello" can be a little bit creepy.
Here's an antecdotal story for you. I setup an XP SP2 laptop with nothing more than Windows Defender and Symantec AV corporate 10.2 and automatic updates for your typical early twenty-something girl who lives on Myspace, four different IM programs and Kazaa/LimeWire. She's the kind of person who clicks on everything that her friends send her and who forwards annoying emails all day long. (I added her to my block list and told her to call me if she needs anything.) She called me about a computer problem for the first time in two years. I figured that her laptop was completely owned by all sorts of malware. Nope. The "problem" was that she ran out of space on her C: drive because she filled it up with pictures and mp3s, despite the fact that I told her to store it all on her D: drive (which still had 80+ GB free).
You're going on about anecdotes versus data and you're backing this up with... a report from a conference saying that ONE hack has been done.
CAD comes to mind. Pretty much that involves engineering drawings. AutoCAD, SolidWorks, etc. Also those damn "designers" with their stupid 600+ meg Photoshop and InDesign files definitely benefit from gigabit speeds. I even have a client in the waste management business that runs an ancient COBOL application that pulls data from the server down to the local workstation to generate reports. That application also benefitted significantly from gigabit speeds.
You're right about the ideal solution for a more secure browser. I think the "problem" is that people are used to a dynamically rich web experience and the challenge then becomes to provide that experience for them as safely as possible. The internet was much safer when I first got onto it. We didn't have web browsers.... just gopher and lynx. Yet ironically enough my first access to telnet came through a misconfigured gopher process that I could kill with a ^Z and get to the telnet prompt. I guess exploits have always been there and the browsers have never been 100% secure.
So since he was talking metaphorically the message wasn't conveyed? I'm having trouble with this one. How is saying that we reap what we sow different from saying that our bad foreign policy is coming back to bite us in the ass?
Got any recent examples? Maybe since the Nixon/Kennedy election when television and the mass media really started influencing and shaping the outcomes of the elections?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought rich gay men were exclusively drawn to Apple products.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm probably going to get a new computer in part with my "economic stimulus check" and will definitely be putting an Ubuntu partition on there.
Way to change the subject. The matter at hand is the necessity of compiling programs by hand when a package installer isn't available. The GP said that there isn't really any excuse for not having a package installer in this day and age, and implied that in order to get up to speed with the rest of the world (read, MS and Apple), package installers are necessary. I was agreeing with him.
Last I checked the government uses terrorism (search and seizure laws) to finance their law enforcement operations. Hell, the CIA slings drugs to finance their operations too. I'm so sick and tired of this terrorism crap. All of this legislation is trying to address the symptoms of the problem and nobody wants to get to the root of it.
I guess we all pick our poisons. I've never had a box compromised in fifteen plus years and I've been running vendor supplied installation programs all along. Sometimes I think Linux users like going through the make/install process simply because it lets them feel involved with what is going on.
I think you're trying to be funny? I know it can seem like you say it is at times. The technical publishing industry is there so that people don't have to bug their friends or go "learn it" themselves. For every person out there who can "just do it" because it's "so simple", there are ten or hundred who don't really have any clue how to get the job done.
Thank you for saying this. I've been using computers since DOS 3.3 so I'm comfortable with the command line, but other than a short tryst with Slackware in the early 1990s I haven't really gotten into Linux. I'm sure that once you've done /configure make and install enough times it is fairly intuitive. However coming from a world where all that was required to get a program to install was to run the associated .com or .exe file, it seems pretty cryptic and clunky to have to feed source into gcc and wait for the system to compile your program for you. And if it fails to compile... oh boy... I don't have the patience for that crap anymore. I'll go back to what works and wait another year to see if the "Year of the Linux desktop" has finally arrived or not. ;)
The place where letting users take care of their own workstations comes apart is when things go wrong. If everyone is installing their own programs you will never know what is causing the problem. As soon as it breaks the user who installed it, "Didn't do anything wrong, it just stopped working" and then the IT guy is supporting an application that he didn't install and doesn't use.
I'm of the opinion that if a user really NEEDS a piece of software becauase it is SO IMPORTANT TO THEIR JOB, then they can take the necessary steps to bring it to the attention of IT and wait a week or two for IT to evaluate it. I've yet to work in an IT department where REASONABLE requests were turned down.
The flip side of the coin is that if you let users have whatever you went, you end up with Kazaa/Limewire and a buttload of IM clients installed all over the network, along with Skype, browser toolbars, and who knows what kind of malware. Then you start getting calls from VP X who doesn't have program Y that cubicle monkey Z used to create the file. You have one department using some stupid third party plug-in for Office that nobody else in the company has and 'YOU HAVE TO UPDATE EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW' because they are working on some "IMPORTANT DEADLINE" that absolutely requires someone to have the plug-in.
This article should be relabelled, "Do I really have to do my job, or can I just quit and let the users do it for me?"
* * * - No route to host.
I completely agree. A lot of people stopped walking along the path that they were walking after age 18 because what they thought was, "Pretty damn cool." the government and law enforcement agencies thought was, "A federal felony punishable by time in prison." I was never into hacking System 75 and Audix because I wanted to take down companies... I just thought it was cool to give my friends free voicemail boxes on the end of a 1-800 number that they could access from anywhere. I never got into cloning cell phones because I wanted to eavesdrop on people and steal secrets, that was just a byproduct of the knowledge acquired by knowing how to do it.
This is a bit off topic, but there is a huge problem when it comes to creative/curious people and our legal system. I figured out in my late teens that the legal system is setup to protect stupid people from themselves. It is set to "level the playing field" to the absolute lowest common demoniator and punish anyone who exercises their natural, human instinct to push the boundries. It has been common knowledge for a couple of decades at this point that the government was presented with the "problem" of computer security. They had the option to either help to make systems secure by passing legislation to mandate good practices and levy fines against those who didn't follow them, or they could simply jack up the penalities for messing with the systems. It's obvious which route they took. Systems aren't much more secure than they have ever been and anyone with any inclination to figure them out and poke around at the holes is scared to do so for fear of ending up buried under huge fines and/or incarcerated in Federal prison.
Of course, just think about all of the contracting money to be made there!!! Why use off the shelf, already proven code when you can recreate the wheel and employ lots of PHB's to oversee the operation?
You're right that the military isn't going to get the best hackers. The NSA will. The educational system isn't the real problem. The best hackers have always been those who had a knack for it and lived and breathed the systems that they enjoyed playing with. Because for the best hackers, hacking is playing. It isn't a job, it isn't a career, it's a hobby that they enjoy. The education system could turn out "computer security professionals", but they will only be as effective as their last class. There simply aren't many people out there with the mental facilities required to be really good at hacking. All the guys I knew weren't wired right. They'd only sleep four hours a night, and had insanely accurate memories.. or they were seriously into drugs, everything from speed and coke to LSD and mushrooms. That's why the end up at the NSA. They can be compartmentalized and their idiosyncrocies can be overlooked. Those people would never make it in a military environment with a rigid chain of command.
That may be the case, but more likely the Chinese government just puts them to work. The same thing happens here in the US. There were a couple of guys who went to the LA 2600 meetings in the early 1990s who got visits from the government. The conversation always went along the lines of, "Stop doing what you're doing or we're going to arrest you. Or if you want to continue doing what you're doing, come work for us." Those who didn't stop ended up dealing with the FBI. Those who took the offer ended up working with the NSA.
How about we broaden the scope beyond the last ten years and look at our actions since World War II. There have been lots of ugly operations going on in Central and South America. Then there was that whole arming bin Laden to bring down the Soviet Union. Don't forget arming that Hussein guy to fight a proxy war for us against the Iranian's after they overthrew the puppet we put in place in the 1950s in an attempt to secure access to their oil supplies.
Wake me up when cyber is a prefix for 'ware' and they're ready to wire up my reflex system and replace my eyes. I'll get on board with that program.
This idea has come up many times in the past. The stumbling block always seems to come down to the matter of computer trespass, or unauthorized access to a computer. Even if you are doing it with the best intentions, you are still breaking the law to do it.
To put it another way, women are attracted to men (or in some cases other women) who are in control of their lives and are excelling at whatever they do. They are attracted to confidence and self esteem. When you're talking to people, figure out what they are about. When it comes to having conversations with women, invite them to prove that they are worth your time. Remember, you have what they want... money, success, stability, whatever. If you don't have that, spend your time working on yourself and getting your own life straight. In the long run you will attract the best women that way.
The other side of the coin are the "hot" girls and the douche bags who get them. That is a whole realm of society and psychology that you're better off staying away from. Those hot girls are insecure and for the most part are attention seeking stimulation junkies. The douche bags get them because they go straight for the girls and give the girls the stimulus that their ADHD brains needs. I'm talking about girls in their twenties. Most of them aren't looking for anything long term yet and all they are about is partying and having a good time. That entitles lots of drinking for most, drugs for some and more or less complete, self centered narcicissm as they judge themselves against their peers based on how much attention they can get.
I suppose I could just change my goal to trying to see how long I can just keep talking on and on about nothing. You know, like women. ;)
I bet that you do know how to have conversations, you simply aren't comfortable having the kind of conversations that you imagine men have with women that lead to women having sex with the men they are talking to. It has been my experience that women are the hunters and men are the prey. The more attractive the woman, the more choices she has. Men have to do things to gain attention (either by dressing and behaving a certain way, or by initiating the conversation). The woman then decides how far the interaction is going to go.
You might consider a new way to consider conversations. Women aren't really interested in what you are talking about as much as they are interested in HOW you are talking and carrying yourself. Are you confident? Can you speak clearly? Are you focused on the subject at hand? Do you communicate a sense of purpose and is your conversation going anywhere? Is your conversation engaging? Are there opportunities there? Are your providing something for the person you are speaking with to become a part of?
Conversation is an art. Women like cunning linguists. Women like challenges. They like being stimulated. They will test you and put out hoops for you to jump through. Turn the tables on them. Make them prove that they are worth YOUR time. After spending a decade dealing with women, I finally figured out that focusing on women is a waste of time. Focus on what you are into. Do whatever furthers yourself and makes you a better person. Women are drawn to focus and confidence. Like attracts like.
If you look at seduction like a game, you are going to attract women who are playing games. If you realize that attracting worth while women is simply a by product of living a happy successful life, you will do much better when it comes to getting laid.
I agree with you. My impression was hesitant and a bit nervous about the whole situation. I only watched about the first five minutes of it and fast forwarded through the rest. Maybe she got better later in the movie?
I used to be in the same category. I spent a lot of my life trying to engage everyone around me in a friendly manner simply because I thought that it is a good way to go through life. I still believe that, but I have figured out that "Hello" is usually the second part of the equation. The first part is eye contact and body language. If you haven't engaged and gained approval on that non-verbal level first then the "Hello" can be a little bit creepy.
You're going on about anecdotes versus data and you're backing this up with... a report from a conference saying that ONE hack has been done.
I trade you ONE antecdote for ONE hack.
CAD comes to mind. Pretty much that involves engineering drawings. AutoCAD, SolidWorks, etc. Also those damn "designers" with their stupid 600+ meg Photoshop and InDesign files definitely benefit from gigabit speeds. I even have a client in the waste management business that runs an ancient COBOL application that pulls data from the server down to the local workstation to generate reports. That application also benefitted significantly from gigabit speeds.
You're right about the ideal solution for a more secure browser. I think the "problem" is that people are used to a dynamically rich web experience and the challenge then becomes to provide that experience for them as safely as possible. The internet was much safer when I first got onto it. We didn't have web browsers.... just gopher and lynx. Yet ironically enough my first access to telnet came through a misconfigured gopher process that I could kill with a ^Z and get to the telnet prompt. I guess exploits have always been there and the browsers have never been 100% secure.
So since he was talking metaphorically the message wasn't conveyed? I'm having trouble with this one. How is saying that we reap what we sow different from saying that our bad foreign policy is coming back to bite us in the ass?
Got any recent examples? Maybe since the Nixon/Kennedy election when television and the mass media really started influencing and shaping the outcomes of the elections?