Hmm. While the description matches Windows the same logic applies for Linux. If you choose to do cross-file system symlinks to the hidden file system.

Like the old joke says .. “Don’t do that, then”.

One interesting possibility for this is the Facebook system. It has been so successful because it allows an interaction system that resembles real life social interactions. One can control somewhat who gets to see what detail of one’s persona, so people are willing to share thoughts and ideas more readily.

It also has a number of tools for collaboration built in which arerather intuitive to use.

It also has an open API for add-ons that allows great flexibility for what data types it handles.

I have heard rumours that Facebook is about to open source its basic software, so it might be something one could use internally for collaboration.

Bill Royds
wgr2ca@yahoo.ca

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you….

On my machine Mozilla Thunderbird an Mozilla Firefox are the big culprits

The Linux 2.6.21 kernel introduces the so called tickless-idle feature. This feature allows the processor to be really idle for long periods of time, rather than having to wake up every millisecond for the timer tick.

So, if you want to tune your Linux box for ultimate power efficiency, enable the tickless-idle feature in your kernel. It will help, but you also need to find out what programs are causing the machine to wake-up.

>>”Tom has a genuine understanding of cyber-safety issues being a digital native and having suffered such cyber-issues as computer addiction,” Senator Conroy said.

I think he understands about all those internet tubes.

There is something to be said for focusing on macular degeneration for an individual who is otherwise generally healthy but whose eyesight is going. But I think that is your point. One could say the same thing
about this American obsession with the death of 5000 on 9/11, when “Modifiable behavioral risk factors are leading causes of mortality in the United States.” and leads to the death of a million each year. (1238
JAMA, March 10, 2004 Vol 291, No. 10)

I think I’ve become cynical. I do what I do, because it is a requirement. I do try to improve security postures, but it is not in the way that clients expect nor is it what they requested. Such is the way of business.

I think Schneier’s (legitimate) point is that, on average, built-in security is more effective than add-on security. But it is also more expensive and less convenient. Built-in security will never be a high priority until people start dying in large numbers because of computer security breaches.

Security needs to “Become part of Everyone’s DNA”, part of the corporate culture, part of the way we do things. Our schools need to begin teaching or at least do a better job of teaching ethics and good computer security practices beginning already at kindergarten or before (by parents).

Our youth are the ones that still have the potential to learn that a difficult password to guess does not mean it has to be difficult to remember or that it does not have to be painful to change it periodically. Good security and practices can become habit and natural, part of what is done becuase it is right, not because some legislater said we shoudl do it.

Instilling good security habits and practices starting very young and reinforced throughout their schooling will make it possible for networks, applications, databases, systems, etc.. to be delivered that are secure because that is how you build them as part of the design and implementation life cycle, not needing to add the security in after they have been delivered and are in production. When you build a network it would no longer need to be built as a “secure network” because they are already one and the same thing because that is the natural way to build them. We don’t have secure network and insecure networks we have networks.

This will take time, but will need to one day get started. We will have to have a few Romper Room graduates build some networks before “Security will begin to be part of our DNA” not something you add on just enought new controls because some legislation said we have to.

Ken

Three other examples; the Apple ][, whose design features were mostly replicated in the PC, and in the motoring world, the Model T and the original Mini. Look at the reef “ecosystems” that grew up around their bare bones. Look at the D.I.Y. industry and home furnishing and decorating.

Is the balance skewed? Possibly, but so long as the market is “open” and customers have alternatives they will send a financial message to the manufacturers. That’s what the market is about and why monopolies and oligopolies are considered an ‘evil’ by economists.

Is capitalism blatent? Of course. What makes you think its possible for it not to be?

– AJA

“I always used to think the security industry existed to make people scared and then sell them something to protect them from what they were afraid of. But now I think it exists because of what people are prepared to buy,” he said, adding that investment in security products tends to be reactive to a problem a company has already suffered, making security a “fire extinguisher industry.”

Your iPod analogy is wrong because the third-party add-on industry that has developed around the iPod has to do with _extending_ functionality of the product. Not revert it to something it should have been in the first place.

The security industry feeds the manufacturers who feed the security indtustry, etc. The manufacturers don’t have to make products secure because an entire industry sits at the ready to pounce on the new products and do it for them.
There is not sufficient incentive to make secure applications or products.

I liken it more to Microsoft’s recent statements about the Vista release, boasting about how many jobs and how many billions of revenue the new OS will create. Or rather, will _need_ to create just to keep it functional.

By the same token if I throw garbage on the street you could argue that I’m creating jobs for more garbage collectors, but what Schneier says is that enough is enough.

I actually agree with your basic premise, but it is a matter of degree. Right now the balance is _too_ skewed between what is a good, open model that will provide incentives for third-party spin-off security industries, and what is just blatant rape of capitalism — people making money for no other reason than manufacturers being unwilling to provide a quality product.

And quoting H2G2 might earn you geek points, but your article is still wrong

37% say poverty, 33% say Over populated family 10% poll for Government policy failure, 6% weak law to protect, 2% say parent’s unemployment and 1% say high education and living cost. You too join the poll and give your valuable opinion. Say what you feel the cause; Add your poll what and who is responsible for the child labour.
A concern of child labour exists from poverty. We have to understand as why children go to work. If parents don’t send their children to work I am sure factories will not be able to consume them. Why poor parents feel children as their assets who will earn money for their home? Are they forced by their parents to go to work? If yes why?
An appeal to International society International socieities and organisation need to understand real porblems behind child labour and come forward to solutions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!