Not really equivalent
Cramming a given dose of radiation into a shorter period of time doesn't allow for any capacity the brain may have for repairing the damage caused by the same dose given at a lower level over a longer period.
40557 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"a limited, admin-granted selection of commands with elevated privileges"
It depends on the circumstances.
If you're thinking of a large installation with a large admin team sliced up so each user can only do limited tasks then that provides a use case for the Ubuntu arrangement.
But Ubuntu is a popular desk-top system. If someone discovers that fred's ordinary password is fl1nst0ne then any time they come across his desk-top unattended they can install their favourite key-logger or whatever. In such a system a 2 factor authentication scheme would be better. Having a single password for logon & sudo is just a single factor used twice. And that's not 2 factor.
"I've never seen a distro that configured it the other way around by default"
That's how I'm using Debian 7 right now.
"normal users can normally not set the clock and need sudo first to set it"
The actual bug report (follow the mailing list link in the article) starts off with the statement that "Under unity and cinnamon, it is possible for a user to turn off network-syncronized time and then change the time on the system." The implication is that this is possible for an unprivileged user. If so then this certainly is a bug. Not only does it enable the privilege escalation that the bug report goes on to describer, it makes one wonder if the code underlying this enables other functions that should be impossible for an unprivileged user.
I can't say I was ever happy with the Ubuntu version of sudo. It uses the user's own password to gain superuser access providing the user is in the sudoers list. An unprivileged user who learns such a password instantly gets admin access. It's always seemed preferable to me that a second password, that of root, should be needed.
"What?, an Android environment where you easily drag .apks onto the phone is bad for MS?...wasn't this about making the consumer's life easier?"
I think there's a clue in the article: "While it is possible that the app could just work, it is likely that some customization will be needed."
I don't think having consumers do the customisation would be making their lives easier. Even if there's a long MS tradition of having them do user testing of even numbered releases ;)
"He, most politically incorrectly, simply notes that there's a sizeable gypsy population and they do it all for us without anyone having to pay council tax."
Not quite the same thing but when we lived in High Wycombe there was a thriving, and clearly approved, trading operation going on at the local dump. As soon as you opened the car boot whatever you were taking there would be removed & checked for anything possibly saleable (it was wise to make sure you didn't have anything in there that you weren't intending to dump).
After we'd subsequently moved to Huddersfield (Labour controlled council, obviously against anything resembling private enterprise) and saw an item in the local paper about someone being prosecute for removing stuff from the skips. I wonder which council had the greatest land-fill per head.
@ Neil Barnes
I was a bit further up country in Ben Shaws territory. But in the early 60s I was off to University & we had a bar in halls so empties didn't come into it. Clearly memory is playing me false (it does these days ;) as to date but the principle still applies: once the recycling costs exceed those of replacement nobody's interested.
...that strong encryption software is out there in the wild and has been for the last couple of decades? Yes, you can ban in in commercial products & put everyone's banking transactions at risk. No, you can't ban criminal organisations from rolling their own applications using technology that's already available to them.
Criminal organisations are criminal because they're already doing illegal things. They're not going to stop doing illegal things because you make encryption illegal.
I've changed ISP twice due to the original companies being bought up by other companies who were either cr@p or whom I didn't trust. The first time round I had ISP-provided email so I had to find another provider which, of course, meant changing my email address. Now I have separate email providers & ISP. That means less upheaval when changing ISP if that were to be needed again.
If I were to keep data on someone else's computer I'd apply the same approach: why have the hassle of migrating data because the ISP loses its ISP competence? Come to that, why have the hassle of changing ISP because they lose their competence to manage storage?
If such a system were devised and mandated for appliances on sale in the US, UK or wherever what good would it do? The complaints tell us that there are unbreakable cyphers already out there. So if I were a criminal wanting to communicate with my organisation what would I do?
1. Rent a server somewhere out of reach.
2. One of the unbreakable cyphers to encrypt the message with a suitable key (see below).
3. Wrap the encrypted message up as data within a decryption program to make a file which will self-decrypt once supplied with the key (cf self-unzipping files) and post to the server. For extra points make the file install a selection of nasty malware if supplied with the wrong key.
4. Organisation members download, supply they key, read the message & then delete.
5. The key would be some innocent looking message gleaned from the net by some agreed method. For instance if the intended recipient were a British Muslim of Pakistani origin the key might be taken from a forum specialising in Pakistani cricket. The sender would select some suitably long post, find a comment to it and post a reply under an agreed handle. The key wouldn't be anything the sender wrote but a perfectly innocent message some distance removed. If the recipient were in IT the key could be the first page of Dabbsie's weekly offering.
The recipients would need to exercise some communications discipline, downloading from open wifi, downloading key & message from separate access points etc.
Maybe the scheme is already in use with amanfrommars's posts as they key. It would explain a lot.
The significant point is that encryption technology is generally available. Constraining commercial products to use something broken doesn't inhibit its use by those who want to be secure. Making its use illegal would have no effect. If you're already doing illegal things are you really going to be put off by having your communication channels made illegal? The only people who will be affected are the innocent users of commercial products who will have their privacy invaded.
"In the 1960s the UK computer industry had no IT graduates to recruit. So they took all-comers - from "A" Level to PhD in all subjects."
And not necessarily the '60s either. In the mid-'80s my team at one point consisted of a botanist, a geologist, a zoologist and a CS graduate who I think would have preferred to have been an astronomer.
"they're the ones who can afford to buy shares"
<Sigh> How many times do we have to say this? Do you have a company or private pension? Do you have life insurance? Then directly or not you're a shareholder. Unless you're without these benefits then instead of saying "the ones who can afford to buy shares" or the like, say "me". When you do that, does it sound any different?
Yes, I know there are people who are likely to come along and say they're fed up with comments like this but it needs to be repeated until it sinks in.
"Anyone with a legal background willing to have a go at that one?"
IANAL but as ever the devil is in the detail. A quick look at Webcheck shows an E&W company Rackspace Ltd. Who owns this? Are all the officers of the company UK citizens? What is the legal relationship with the US company? Are the agreements which create that relationship with the US company under English law? Do the agreements forbid handing over customers' data to anyone except the customers unless ordered to do so by an English court?
These are the sort of questions that any customer's legal department should be asking of any hosting company with whom they are thinking of doing business.
"I think it's more that the vast majority just buy what OEMs install."
And that's probably part of the problem. If the customer doesn't like what the OEM installs then they're less likely to buy. If MS only allow the OEM to install what the customer doesn't want then we see a slump in both PC & MS sales. MS blames the PC sales slump for their own low sales but to some extent that slump might be a thing of their own making.
I think in this case the manufacturers are in the right. They sold a product that handled specific services - it didn't provide the services. You might just as well complain about the manufacturer of an analogue TV that stopped working when analogue was switched off. Having said that, would I have bought a smart TV? No. The smarts here are provided by MythTV.
"what they can do is largely controlled by various international treaties"
I think this is part of the Microsoft problem. I read somewhere that international treaties are only binding on the Federal govt & not on individual states. It was a local prosecutor who decided to try to cut corners & bypass the access already provided for by international treaty.
I'd guess that by now any incriminating material in Hotmail/etc mailboxes will have been long deleted by anyone except the spectacularly ill-informed or those already in custody. It seems likely that continuing the case is either an attempt to establish legal precedent or a legal willy-waving.
" if a senior guy from the parent company, say Twitter (US) comes to Ireland and tells an IT guy working at Twitter (Ireland)"
As per my reply to Vimes, the international operation would have to be a separate operation. So if the senior guy from Twitter (US) isn't wearing his visitor's badge the IT guy simply calls security to get him escorted from the building. Because a visitor would be his only possible status.
"Is that even possible?"
Irish citizens set up an Irish company called, e.g. Twitter International. TI operates rest-of-the-world Twitter as a franchise from US Twitter. The franchise agreement is made in Ireland under Irish law The terms of service specifically exclude any acts which would be illegal under Irish law (assuming that even needs to be said).
"Surely Twitter would either work as a single system with US users conversing with non-US users, in which case non-US data is available to US systems or it would operate as a separate service?"
As things stand now I doubt the system operates from a single data centre. Providing a seamless service between multiple servers is something they must have a good enough handle on already. Anything which goes between US & non-US subscribers could presumably be accessed via the US subscribers' accounts but then you wouldn't expect anything to prevent that. Purely rest-of-the-world traffic would be out-of-bounds as would any personal data held on non-US account holders including those conversing with US subscribers.
Perhaps the solution is a rather drastic one. Take the patient to the bank, introduce them to a customer service (sic) person, tell them you've an urgent appointment elsewhere but to give you a call once they've sorted out whatever it is. I think that PDQ they'd work out a procedure to enable them to accept you as the patient's representative.
"I can hire developers anywhere in the world, but I have to find them. How do I know that somebody in ToadSuck Ak is any good? Unless they are the inventor of Python/Ruby/etc then I am comparing them to somebody in India charging $1/hour on Elancer."
If you're considering recruiting on the basis of whether someone was the original dev of a big project you're probably doing it wrong. Firstly as there are very few of them they're not likely to be available. Secondly, they may not be the current project leads; they may not even have been involved with the project very long. Thirdly, and most importantly, you're overlooking the fact that any open source developer's contributions are a portfolio that you, personally, can review. You can actually make a comparison between the ToadSuck developer and the $1/hour Indian if they've contributed to open source projects.
"By coming to work in the valley they have proven to me they are good because they were hired by %BIG NAME%," so your main recruitment technique is poaching? Then if %BIG NAME%s start using remote developers you'll start poaching those once you've realised that that's how things are going.
"or simply have proved that they can earn enough to pay rent here." Actually all they may have proved is that they've managed, by fair means or foul, enough stake money to rent a pad there and hope to get hired. Whether they can actually stay hired is unproven.
"all accountants are equally good-enough, or I can judge how good they are easily." So you go by your judgement for the skill of accountants but not developers if you depend on someone else having hired them first?
"Firms in the same trade end up setting up alongside each other simply because it's more convenient to do so. That's where all the skilled workers you're going to poach are, after all."
The corollary of that being that that's where all the firms who are going to poach all your skilled workers are so you have to get together with them to set up anti-poaching agreements.
Where physical work is concerned there may still be a rationale for clustering. If you have a non-ferrous metalwork plant you need to be in a place where there's a concentration of skilled staff to operate it and conversely if you're a skilled operator you need to be in a place where there are firms with plant needing operators. But where the plant is mostly laptops that the skilled staff can afford to own and a server which can be located anywhere & rented then "where" resolves to "any place with an internet connection".
The consequence is that a dispersed workforce has demonstrated the ability to collaborate produce major operating systems and other substantial S/W. Maybe for many types of creative work the clustering concept is already dead, it just hasn't lain down yet.