Slashdot Mirror
How Long is Too Long to Update?
StWaldo asks: "I'm sure everyone knows the story about the life expectancy of an fresh, un-updated PC, once it's connected to the internet. What about a PC which just hasn't been updated in a while? I've been deployed in Iraq for the last 9 months, and haven't been able to hook up my laptop to the internet to get updates (I do HAVE access, just can't hook up a personal laptop, gov't only). Before I deployed, I would update my software (system, anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware, etc) regularly, but as I get closer to coming back to the States and my broadband connection, I'm beginning to wonder what the life expectancy of my PC will be. What's the lifecycle of a security exploit, hack, virus, etc - between discovery/release, propagation, and extinction (or a state approaching extinction)?"
seriously, instead of fretting over updates and upgrades, why not consider just a world of web only services for everything from email to word processing, excel-like spreadsheets, calendaring, media management and so on? there's a gigantic write up on a breed of ajax related tools (all free excluding one) broken into two parts at these two links: part 1 is http://digbig.com/4fptq and part 2 is http://digbig.com/4fptr NOTE: these should all be easily accessible, though i'm not sure of where you're at physically when looking for access and so you may experience restrictions (specific to a few middle eastern countries, just got pinged by a chum in UAE who can't get to tons of sites right now)
enjoy life, and Gmail.pro
When using an article to refer to a noun, you use "A" if the word starts with a consonant and "an" if a vowel. FYI.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
While the GP was being a major jerk by posting that, your contention that military action in Iraq preserves the rights of Americans is higly pretentious. You don't even know if the GP was an American.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
While it's pointless to argue the degrees of separation between one US military action in particular, and one individual person's right to say something, you're missing the point.
Not only that, but you're missing one huge point here: slashdot is an *American site*.
Think slashdot would survive as-is in, say, China, or Iran, or countless other nations, including many in the mideast?
Didn't think so.
The point is that whether you personally agree or not with the current US administration's strategy in Iraq, the US and its might is generally aimed at preserving the rights we hold dear. And along with that is the lifestyle that contributes to the power the United States has; power which is needed to protect our national status, or interests, our allies, and economy, and, ultimately, our rights.
This isn't to say that every action is "right" by everyone's opinion and standards, and this isn't to say that you personally have to agree with it. This also isn't to say that people acting in the name of the United States haven't done terrible things. But if you believe the United States doesn't work, *overall*, as a force for good in this world, then we see two very different pictures. And yes, I'm aware of just about every single anecdote about some US evil you could trot out here to "prove" me wrong. Trust me. But that's what's called "not seeing the forest for the trees". If you want to cherry pick things the US has done wrong and ignore any positive influence, by all means, be my guest. That, too, is your protected right.
People can sit there and talk about how the US is going down some totalitarian path or about how Bush is the biggest danger the world has ever faced and a bunch of other Orwellian-style hyperbole, but the fact is, it's not true. And the "path" people think the US is going down isn't actually indicative of any real substantive change: it's more indicative of the fact that we have a free flow of information that can keep us awash in every single thing the US does the globe over instantly. Nothing has changed, but our access to the information.
Of course, some people will ALWAYS be anti-US, anti-military, anti-authority, anti-police, anti-capitalism, anti-corporate, anti-Christian, and anti-everything else, and the beauty is that they can do that in the US without fear of retribution[1].
[1] Converting to radical Islam, changing your name, traveling to Afghanistan to train alongside the Taliban and Wahabbists in terrorist training camps, maintaining direct ties with known terrorists and terror funding groups, and then planning and openly declaring intentions to detonate a radiological dirty bomb in downtown Chicago does not constitute "dissent".
The majority of the world disagrees with you on this. Heck, the majority of the world, according to polls, would rather have *China* of all countries dominating world affairs than America - that's how sick of our international policy they are. Agree or disagree with their stance, this is what the world views. They do *not* see the US as a "positive influence" as a whole.
Yes. And this is reflects an "anyone but the US" mentality. Similar to the "anyone but Bush" mentality in the last US election. And wishing that *China* were in charge, as it were, of world affairs isn't reflective of anything but the wholesale ignorance of the person or entity that wishes it.
Name an political issue - odds are, the US stance has changed. Bracketted taxation policy? Changed. Global warming stance? Changed. Containment vs. invasion? Partially changed (sorry people, Clinton was no angel there! Just not as wide-scale). Abortion? Changed. Gay rights? Changed. Social services? Changed. Military funding? Changed. Nuclear weapons development? Changed. Need I keep on going? American policy, domestic and foreign, has radically shifted in the past decade.
Decade? Well, I don't know who would have been responsible for it then, unless you're one of those people who think the Democrats and Republicans are just as bad as each other (and that's fine if you are; just making a statement).
And you and I have an extremely different view of what "radically shifted" means. The shifts in the last "decade", or any recent timeframe, whatever you believe them to be, are no different than any shifts that have occurred over the lifetime of the country. I realize you *think* they're far more drastic (at the hands of religious fundamentalists and conservatives, no doubt, since we've never had those in this country before!), but they're not. And any individual, specific, marked policy changes have a hell of a lot more context than you're giving them here.
Bracketted taxation? I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here, but this could serve as a reminder. The difference is even more dramatic today.
Global warming? How has the global warming stance "changed"? Are we now for it? And before you say "well, they're certainly not against it", I'd remind you that smacks of the same ignorance some would paint a "you're either with us or against us" statement. The stance on global warming is simple and straightforward: we will not sacrifice beyond a certain threshold of negative economic impact as long as other nations, like the ever-popular China, are exempted from large portions of international guidelines.
Abortion? Just because a jurist believes that abortion isn't strictly and explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution (and I personally have no earthly idea how it could be) doesn't automatically make abortion "illegal". Roe v Wade is such a charged topic, but it is Constitutionally shaky, and has been ever since it was ruled. It was a horrid bastardization of the Court's role, taking the easy way out on a question that doesn't have easy answers. While I am not anti-abortion, I don't call myself "pro-choice". Because no matter how much someone would claim it, it's not only and exclusively about the "rights" of the woman.
Gay rights? How have they changed? Do gays have less rights because some ridiculous local and state legislatures pass resolutions defining marriage as exactly what it is, namely, the union of a man and a woman? How have any rights been rolled back? From a strictly legal perspective, gays have the same "rights" as any person: they can marry a person of the opposite sex. But the problem is that the state never should have been involved in "marriage" in the first place, between any two persons. Legal union? Yes. Civil union? Sure. Whatever they want to call it. And no, the gay marriage issue is nothing like the interracial marriage issue. Interracial marriage was a civil rights issue. Gay marriage is attempting t