You make an excellent point.
Pro Linux, as I am, I still do not feel that we can afford to be complacent about the malware issue. The reason that Linux is largely unaffected is that it is not very widely used, especially by the sort of numpties that get tempted by exciting new screensavers baring trojans.
If/when we succeed in bringing Linux to the masses, this layer of protection will be torn away. I hope and believe that Linux is more secure by design and the same is probably true of many of the apps that are popular in Linux distros - you won't find ActiveX cheerfully opeing the door to anyone. However nobody should be ignoring malware with the excuse that Linux is immune.
The reason linux is largely unaffected is because it was designed better than its unworking counterpart. Weather or not it is installed on more machines matters not, as the default user does not have administrator privileges (root) while M$ does.
I like the way you are going with this.
This will hurt poor people. This will help companies like Wal-Marx sell loads of cheap (presumably made in china) Digital sets at the last minute while creating all sorts of unneeded discards of CRTs.
they hate black people. No, say it like this: "Black people are good, but money is better." I'm sure AT&T would agree that it's true and non-offensive. I mean, they must agree with my views since they're letting me post this comment (like so many other unfortunates, I have a 12. address). Nope. They pretty much just hate black people.
See, I am not so sure about that.
While I hate that people can put up Phishing sites, I don't want the government to have any more control over us than it already has.
Also, how would they enforce it? That would be a big strain on taxpayers, much like "The War On Drugs."
Why support more government regulation?
"if that were so (and the wiki pages on economics suggest it's not possible) then it would suggest that you could sell music CDs for $10K each..."
Only the K-Fed CDs.
Slashdot Mirror
Will it run linux?
Not to be a contradictory ninny, but wouldn't cutting down on the head count create more delays? When was Vista supposed to launch? When did it?
Two words: Population Control
Pro Linux, as I am, I still do not feel that we can afford to be complacent about the malware issue. The reason that Linux is largely unaffected is that it is not very widely used, especially by the sort of numpties that get tempted by exciting new screensavers baring trojans.
If/when we succeed in bringing Linux to the masses, this layer of protection will be torn away. I hope and believe that Linux is more secure by design and the same is probably true of many of the apps that are popular in Linux distros - you won't find ActiveX cheerfully opeing the door to anyone. However nobody should be ignoring malware with the excuse that Linux is immune.
The reason linux is largely unaffected is because it was designed better than its unworking counterpart. Weather or not it is installed on more machines matters not, as the default user does not have administrator privileges (root) while M$ does.
(myspace reference)
November 5th is coming up! Time and place, pal!
To put things in perspective, 99% of PCs in the world CAN run Linux.
And so can 99% of the toasters...
I like the way you are going with this. This will hurt poor people. This will help companies like Wal-Marx sell loads of cheap (presumably made in china) Digital sets at the last minute while creating all sorts of unneeded discards of CRTs.
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=610
Didn't Microsoft do something similar with MSN messenger? I seem to remember not being able to use the F bomb in my Display Name...
What use is the background check if you cannot detect crazy women in your employ?
My chances of Reproduction.
See, I used to simulate the flu all the time... I have found that it was quite useful, until my parents caught on.
I am ashamed that a Government would shame itself by acting like the USA.
They pay you higher so as to keep you quiet about the sodomy.
Good point.
Umm... The article isn't much better.
See, I am not so sure about that. While I hate that people can put up Phishing sites, I don't want the government to have any more control over us than it already has. Also, how would they enforce it? That would be a big strain on taxpayers, much like "The War On Drugs." Why support more government regulation?
"if that were so (and the wiki pages on economics suggest it's not possible) then it would suggest that you could sell music CDs for $10K each..." Only the K-Fed CDs.