This reminds me of a Grigori Perelman quote (the guy who turned down the Fields Medal and the Millennium Prize on principal):
"There are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.”
Apple not only "tolerates" walled-gardens, they build them and encourage others to do so. That is enough reason to not use a Mac.
This is why I stopped releasing source code. Idiots who want 15 mins of fame and constant attention but cannot create, so they consume what others create.
You own the copyright. The declaration is an option. If you have been financially damaged by this, then you have legal recourse, but you must be able to prove damages with a dollar figure.
Be sure to push your DNS through the OpenSSH tunnel too, or they'll see your client's DNS requests. Here is a very short write-up on safe web browsing while on untrusted networks: http://16systems.com/OpenBSD/untrusted.pdf
Forensic guys want to take images of the storage devices. They use tools such as dcfldd or purpose-built devices (Tableu) to do this. They'll then analyze the images and probably never touch the guy's hardware again. It will sit in a evidence room for eons. They could return the hardware as soon as they've done the imaging, but I've never seen that happen. Use whole disk encryption everywhere :)
Most who are fairly paid, valued and treated as human beings won't "walk out". If they like the area and have friends and family close by and they are respected by the company, they will stay.
Disrespect them (low pay, no pay raises, no down time, 80 hour weeks all the time, uncertain/unstable company, etc) and they will leave.
These scanners are pretty much worthless. They are written by script kiddies for accountants who pretend they know something about IT when most of them have never administered a system.
Does anyone worry about the built-in Law Enforcement Access systems that the cloud services have? Bruce Schneier wrote an essay (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hackin...) describing why that was bad and how it played into the Chinese hack of gmail. I hate to be a wet blanket, but just can't help to wonder, how many people stop and think of their privacy and the privacy of their corporate data, or do they just rush, following the herd over this particular cliff?
Some desktops apps should not be in the cloud. Letting the cloud generate your passwords is a bad idea. Complexity kills and the cloud ain't simple. Who has outsourced what to where?
100 years ago they were predicting that the world would starve to death because of the industrial revolution. "All the people are moving off the farms, who will grow food to feed us? We will all starve to death. More and more babies are being born. The sky is falling!!!" They did not count on technology increasing food production and making it more efficient. Today, food is so plentiful and convenient that we're all too fat.
To hell with economists and meteorologists too. Both groups attempt to predict the unpredictable. Why believe anything they say... ever?
It's easy... rather than the Ctrl+A key sequence that you use in screen, use Ctrl+B in tmux. And to reattach, rather than screen -r, tmux attach does the trick. That's 90% of the usability difference.
After this, can we still make fun of C++? I use it daily and love it. Sure, it takes someone with a brain to use it, but once you learn C++, nothing else comes close for speed and expressiveness... seems FaceBook just verified that. So while people who cannot code in C++ will still talk about it as if they know it, it continues to kick ass in solving real-world computing problems
If the processors are responsible, then they were doing it right before the acronym PCI ever existed. To become compliant costs money (audits, quarterly scans, self-assessments, etc.) but it's not that expensive and it's what they are in business to do. If the processor is not compliant, no one will do business with them ("Hey, look, we store your clients' CC numbers in an unencrypted DB... come do business with us!"). The cost, you as a merchant pays, is based on risk and volume. Online (non person to person) transactions are the most risky, so percentage-wise they'll always cost more... PCI or no PCI.
Speaking as someone who deals with this on a daily basis, I say not true. PCI is common sense written down into an "industry standard". You don't have to do it, it's not a law. But if you want to continue to accept CCs, then you should comply. Compliance is as easy as redirecting all of your CC work to a processor that is PCI compliant. So long as youyourself do not store, transmit or process the card data, you can worry about your business and forget about PCI and it won't cost any more money.
Linux is notorious for that sort of thing. Look at the Linux Documentation Project. The installation how to was written in 1999 and has not been updated since. I use Debian and know enough about it from use over the years to do most anything, but when I have to have an OS with top-notch documentation, I turn to OpenBSD or FreeBSD. Both of these projects blow Linux documentation out of the water. Very high-quality and accurate. Their man pages are awesome.
Add or remove RAM (basically change the amount) clear NV memory three times (you'll hear the dong 3 times) and that will clear the OpenFirmware password... at least on older PPC Mac Minis.
You mean simple things. The preamble to the GPL is longer than the entire ISC license... by like 5 times. GCC is like 100 times more complex than PCC. BSD folks like simple, secure things.
I think in C++... if you want to be sure the method/function does not alter the data globally and speed is not a concern, then pass by copy. If you want the method to alter the data globally, then pass by reference. If you want speed, but don't want alteration then pass by const reference.
Because it does not try to keep up with the fast-paced, complex flaws of Rich Internet Apps written by people who have no knowledge of information security and are only interested in getting attention for themselves and their shitty start-up.
I use both. The only big difference? Besides the license? Screen uses 'Ctrl+A' while tmux uses 'Ctrl+B' and screen -r (to reattach) is replaced by tmux attach. That's it, for me at least. tmux seems to have a lot more features, but I only use 10% of them.