Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:not a Holy war (Score 1) 89

by Anon-Admin (#47724631) Attached to: Microsoft Lobby Denies the State of Chile Access To Free Software

Free software can be problematic also.

For one, serious use isn't free...enterprise use requires growing or renting expertise. Many of the major stuff, such as Mozilla, are supported by groups that actually do at least in part require funding.

They dont need expertise in windows? Both require someone to make it work.

For another, all open licenses are not the same - can matter depending on what one intends to do

True, but no one reads the Microsoft Licensing agreement. If legal ever did read it they would not allow the software to be installed. I know because I did a search and replace on the word Microsoft in their licensing agreement and then submitted it to legal. Legal put a stop to the install because we could not agree to the licensing terms of the software. They were surprised when I let them know it was Microsoft and eventually allowed the install.

Yet another, sometimes unintended consequences like Heartbleed are included equally 'free' yea right.

Ill take heartbleed security issue with the SSL cryptography over the millions of windows viruses any day.

Then there are things like shooter games and windows vs linux.

I really dont care which. Windows has it's uses as does Linux. Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

Finally, some of the commercial stuff works well in some respects,; Chrome is not bad on security although personally I do not like it's approach to customizations and store aps (Chrome is not exactly free it's part of the driving forward of the Googlezillan Empire)

You are right, some of the commercial apps are great and well worth the $$ you pay for them. However, the decision should be made on a technical level by the IT people who know what they are doing and not by a politician who can not even spell IT.

Also, some political entities, being supposedly sovereign, actually support intellectual property in the sense that Windows or Nvidia or HP drivers are not penetrable by ordinary mortals, but at least most of the time developed in a coherent manner. I myself prefer the idea that inventors/investors/first movers will do at least as well without DMCA, but not everyone agrees.

But laws saying what software can be used or dictating the OS to use is just stupid. That is not a matter for government it is a matter that should be decided by the IT departments in government. Laws saying that the data storage formats have to be open and available for review would be good but that does not appear to be what is going on here.

Comment: Re:Publicly Funded Governments (Score 1) 89

by Anon-Admin (#47724493) Attached to: Microsoft Lobby Denies the State of Chile Access To Free Software

Wait, GNOME3 does not play nice in a virtual environment so you are left with Microsoft??? where did that come from?

Dont use Gnome3, I never use a gui on a server but if you are making a terminal server as you say then use any of the other WM's From KDE to FVWM, there are lots of WM choices and you are not just stuck with the default. Well with linux you are not stuck with the default, cant say the same for Windows.


Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 141

by Anon-Admin (#47716261) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

So your argument is that if you are in public you do not have an "expectation of privacy"? There is no such statement in the 4th amendment and no exception for public interest. I find it funny that you said "require consensual searches" If it is required it is not consensual!

You are wrong, you can refuse to be searched when walking down the street, you can refuse to allow a cop to search your car when you are pulled over. Your right is to be secure in your PERSONS, PAPERS, and EFFECTS. That includes your shoes, luggage, and your clothing. What you are doing is justifying a trade of others rights on the believe that it will bring you some security. Now, your next point will be a cop stopping you and patting you down on the street being legal. It is only legal when there is a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a criminal activity. Getting on a plane is not a criminal activity.

BTW, There were guns on planes prior to the 1970's Hijackings did not start tell they banned them. Go figure.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 141

by Anon-Admin (#47716163) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

My argument is that they are government agents bound by the restrictions of the constitution. The reason that it is not an issue with private security is because it can be a contractual stipulation of purchase.

Just like being searched on the way out of a store is voluntary and you can simply decline, where as being searched on the way out of Sam's or Cosco is a stipulation of the contract and can not be declined without giving up your purchase and membership.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 4, Insightful) 141

by Anon-Admin (#47714601) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

Yes, it is. The 4th amendment says

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They are not getting warrants, there is no probable cause unless getting on a plane is probable cause to believe you are going to destroy it. There is no Oath or affirmation and no description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

People do not seem to realize that your rights are given to you by your creator and the constitution only reaffirms that and states that the government can not violate those rights. It does not give you the rights and does not say anything about permission to violate because you enter a store, airport, car, train station, or the bathroom of your own house.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do this, if they wanted it to be Constitutional they could have created an amendment that allowed the acceptation, voted on it, ratified it amongst the states, and then enforced it. Instead they ignored the Constitution, threw the existing law of the land out the window and the government did as they pleased. It is wrong, it is a violation of law, and a violation of the Constitution!

BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport. The second they put Government Security Agents (TSA) in place it became unconstitutional.

And now I bet I am on the no-fly list for this post. Another unconstitutional action the government takes.

Comment: Re:Weak != Bad (Score 1) 115

by Anon-Admin (#47371769) Attached to: Investor Tim Draper Announces He Won Silk Road Bitcoin Auction

Bitcoin Instability?

Several years ago I bought $150 of bitcoin @ $0.50 a coin. Figured I would get some for the novelty.

Last year I sold a few off and bought 12.5 acres of land, right now I could sell some more and pay off my house.

Sure they have gone up and down, but in the long run they have gone up.

The bogosity meter just pegged.