There is a line that I draw somewhere between privacy and doing what's necessary in the interests of security, and this solution is on the wrong side of that line by a mile. If their security strategy requires rendering my body sans clothing, they aren't doing their job properly.
Actually, people have been saying "One day, OS-X will have enough users that malware authors will target it the way they target Windows". That hasn't happened yet, but OS-X marketshare is trending upwards, so it might still happen.
That "more users" argument holds next to zero weight. It's nothing more than a cheap finger-pointing excuse, attempting to deflect the excessive number of vulnerabilities and exploits as being related to the number of users of a particular system. I'm sure we've all heard the expression 'correlation is not causation'. Well, that's probably true in this case too. To anybody who actually think the argument is valid, I would ask this: what kind of person do you think writes viruses?
If you don't think about it too hard, perhaps you will think they want to cause as much damage as possible, which is where the popularity argument comes in. That is true, but this kind of attitude stems from an apparent need to prove their skills to themselves and to others. Wouldn't it be reasonable, then, to say that this type of person would want to be able to say "look at me, I made the first really widespread severely destructive Mac/Linux/BSD/ virus ever!". Now wouldn't that be something!
This doesn't work for everything. Take my computer for example; everyone who uses Vista thinks that's what it's running. Little do they know I've been using Mojave for months!
As opposed to "But...but...but...the Scientist says...."???
None of us have this kind of information first hand, as we're just not that old. On some level, we're all just taking someone else's word for it.
Right, because a book which was written, translated, revised, forked, burnt, re-translated, lost, found, omitted from, and appended to through the centuries/millennia by many different unknown people is equally as credible as the smart, educated people who spend a lifetime studying these fields and have all of today's technology at their disposal...?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a line that I draw somewhere between privacy and doing what's necessary in the interests of security, and this solution is on the wrong side of that line by a mile. If their security strategy requires rendering my body sans clothing, they aren't doing their job properly.
Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
Actually, people have been saying "One day, OS-X will have enough users that malware authors will target it the way they target Windows". That hasn't happened yet, but OS-X marketshare is trending upwards, so it might still happen.
That "more users" argument holds next to zero weight. It's nothing more than a cheap finger-pointing excuse, attempting to deflect the excessive number of vulnerabilities and exploits as being related to the number of users of a particular system. I'm sure we've all heard the expression 'correlation is not causation'. Well, that's probably true in this case too. To anybody who actually think the argument is valid, I would ask this: what kind of person do you think writes viruses?
...still waiting, though.
If you don't think about it too hard, perhaps you will think they want to cause as much damage as possible, which is where the popularity argument comes in. That is true, but this kind of attitude stems from an apparent need to prove their skills to themselves and to others. Wouldn't it be reasonable, then, to say that this type of person would want to be able to say "look at me, I made the first really widespread severely destructive Mac/Linux/BSD/ virus ever!". Now wouldn't that be something!
This doesn't work for everything. Take my computer for example; everyone who uses Vista thinks that's what it's running.
Little do they know I've been using Mojave for months!
I heard that use of Windows Se7en is the primary cause of a certain mental disorder.
The new terms will of course be retroactive, and will cover everyone who has downloaded Google Chrome since it was launched.
As opposed to "But...but...but...the Scientist says...."???
None of us have this kind of information first hand, as we're just not that old. On some level, we're all just taking someone else's word for it.
Right, because a book which was written, translated, revised, forked, burnt, re-translated, lost, found, omitted from, and appended to through the centuries/millennia by many different unknown people is equally as credible as the smart, educated people who spend a lifetime studying these fields and have all of today's technology at their disposal...?