I've been running Windows for approx 10 years with no AV installed and no viruses. I scan every 4-8 weeks and nothing's ever come up. I uninstalled my AV after a couple of years with no viruses and it's never been a problem since.
My teenage sister had AV installed, and approx 45786456749 bits of malware come up on her machine every time I checked it out.
I honestly don't think most AV actually does anything. A VM running Ubuntu to do any browsing is probably a better idea than AV software.
you're missing the point. They don't want you to control what you can see on the interwebs. They want them to control what you can see on the interwebs.
I thought it was good advice, for the audience it was intended for, namely code monkeys.
I'm in the entrepreneurial business and I don't sign NDA's unless there's money at stake, for pretty much the same reasons. I reckon I hear around 50 'great ideas for a business if someone like you can just write the code' every year, and if I had to sign an NDA for each one after a couple of years I'd never be able to develop anything.
If they've got the money in the room, but the cheque depends on an NDA, then I'll sign:)
As Eric Ries pointed out; the startup's greatest enemy is obscurity not IP theft. People won't steal your great idea until you've put the sweat in to make the business model work, and by that point the idea is pretty obvious and it's the technical details that needs protecting. But there are better tools than an NDA to protect those.
That just doesn't stack with my observations of the same debate, so either we're reading a different debate or we're both applying cognitive bias. I read the alarmist sites and just see political spin supported by bad computer modelling, and can't understand why intelligent people would give any credence to this drivel.
The oil industry is not spending any of its fortune on anti-AGW propaganda, nor is anyone else. The recent Heartland Institute 'controversy' showed this really clearly.
There is no well-funded industry opposition to AGW policy, it's all shoestring blogs. There is vast amounts of government funding available for pro-AGW propaganda though. WUWT is probably the leading 'voice' in anti-AGW opinion, or one of them, and he receives no funding from industry for his blog at all. Compare and contrast with the various multi-billion dollar projects from governments and NGO's to shift public opinion towards AGW, and it's a very lopsided picture.
Yes, there is an intellectually serious debate on AGW. That's a simple fact. You either aren't keeping up with both sides of the argument, or are deliberately choosing to ignore any anti-AGW arguments.
A man is in desperate financial trouble and prays to God that he'll win the lottery. He doesn't win the lottery, and his creditors are chasing him, so he goes back to church and prays all day for God to let him win the lottery. He doesn't win the lottery, and his creditors are chasing him, so he goes back to church and prays all week for God to let him win the lottery. He doesn't win the lottery, and in his despair cries out that God has forsaken him. Suddenly the clouds part and the heavenly choir forms up, and the Divine Light shines forth, and God's voice says unto him: 'for My sake meet Me halfway and buy a ticket willya?'
If the climate was going to change in a way that was bad for humans, but for natural reasons. We would still need to adapt to the change, or lessen it if possible. If the climate changes because we changed it, we still need to adapt to the change or lessen it if possible.
Agreed, but this is where the cause becomes important, because if it's natural (and not caused by CO2) then reducing our output of CO2 is not going to lessen the change, so spending any money doing that is counter-productive (as opposed to, for instance, raising the standard of living in developing countries so they reduce their birth rate and eventual resource usage, which is going to be beneficial regardless of the causes of climate change).
Thank You. At my university, over 99% of the CS majors were male by senior year (97% freshman year). Females aren't applying to the programs, so they cannot be considered for the jobs.
This is typical male arrogance. Females are shut out of tech carees by this structural patriarcy and you blame us women? This is bull. It's the fault of the males. Females are more capable, have higher grades and better language skills as well as possess much stronger social abilities. Females are better employees in every way. Males knows this deep down and discriminate against women to protect their own failed selves.
More progressive countries have much stronger anti-discrimination laws than the US. I would like to point to Sweden for the best practice. Here nearly 80% of college graduates are female, and the dominance is rising. This is the future, little boy.
If it is the future, and I can see where it might be, then aren't 'the males' right to attempt to protect their working areas? If the future is so clearly female-dominated that men are reduced to 20% or less of the workforce, then that's bad, right? We need to stop that from happening because society needs to be equal, not a patriarchy or a matriarchy.
Facts: - scientists count birds, find twice as many as previous counts/expectations (TFA doesn't say whether the original estimates were counts or just estimates)
So if they found twice as many birds as they previously counted/estimated, and climate change has been going on for 20/50/200 years, surely the penguins are in fact benefiting from climate change?
Seems logical to me. They live in a extreme environment, climate change will make it less extreme, therefore they should benefit. There must be something on the planet that benefits from it getting warmer after all, and penguins would seem to be a logical candidate.
But that would go against the media message that climate change is universally bad for everything. *sigh*.
This is useful science, it's a new tool for actually counting animal populations as opposed to guessing their populations by estimating the amount of habitat they have to live in. It'd be great if we could just have the science, reported with no spin or political message, just 'hey science fans, here's something new!'....but science is now a political tool, so no, every serving of facts now wrapped in a handy hygienic message so you know what to think!
Yeah, I think we need this. How to be an information connoisseur, to only graze on the finest primary sources and most reliable interpretations, and how to discern between frank exchanges of well-informed opinion and political posturing.
However, it doesn't fit with activism. Data is neutral. A lot of the data is going to disagree with any given political position, and having the guts to hold true to the empirical data and not the model is something that we're having a problem with as a science culture.
It might have actually come to the point where you can't be an activist and hold a data-neutral position. Activism always exaggerates the threat, never plays it straight, whichever side it's on.
What I find weird is that everyone seems so eager to pre-judge this, and almost no-one seems to have any faith in the trial process.
There's no-one here saying 'let's wait and see what the court decides after hearing the evidence', everyone presumes guilt or innocence based on whatever political position they favour.
So...let's wait and see what the court decides after hearing the evidence. They get to examine all of it, with strict safeguards around bias, contamination by outside opinions, racial balance, everything.
Patents don't prevent you from using a technology, they prevent you from using a technology royalty free.
...unless the patent owner refuses to grant you a licence at any price, which is entirely within their rights.
for some patents, in some circumstances, when specified by government or courts, you can force a patent holder to grant licences, but otherwise it's entirely up to the patent holder whether they let you use 'their' technology and at what price.
You're going to need to adjust your business model a lot over the next few years until you iron out all the wrinkles (or even drastically change it). No business model survives contact with the market unchanged. Even if you're copying another software business's model, your product will be different which will affect your implementation of that model. Open-sourcing your code cuts down the available choices for your business model, maybe not by much, maybe by a lot, depending on your market.
Even if your customers won't just grab your code and compile it, there's the chance that a 'competitor' will grab your code and offer your product to their customers.
Copyright laws (and licence agreements based on them) can protect you, but only if you can afford to go to court. Small businesses cannot afford to go to court, so don't rely on licences to prevent bad people from ripping your code.
However, your customer base may require your code to be open-source before they'll buy it. If so, you'll have to go with that.
The biggest threat to a new software product is obscurity not piracy, so if open-sourcing your code will help you promote your product it's probably worth doing.
So my advice would be to keep it closed until you're happy that opening it won't completely screw up your business, either because your business is doing well and you can take the risk, or because it's going badly and you've nothing to lose.
Actually that wasn't the one that convinced me. I also read that as an unfortunate use of words taken out of context.
There wasn't one individual email that got me, except possibly 'read me harry.txt' (I'm a code monkey and reading this brought on an attack of the screaming ab-dabs as I totally empathised with the author trying to recreate someone else's shitty results with a pile of shitty data. Realising that he was engaged in writing one of the vaunted climate models that form the basis of all the predictions was a key turning point for me).
The general tone of the email conversations; that evidence needed to be deleted, that journal editors needed to be managed, that 'message' was important for public pronouncements, that data must be kept from knowledgeable sceptics (McIntyre especially), was what convinced me. This is not a group of neutral scientists engaged in pure research with the aim of advancing mankind's knowledge of the environment. This is a bunch of people with an agenda and a willingness to bend or break the rules to get that agenda advanced.
The 'smoking gun' for me was the collaborative efforts of the group to avoid FOI requests and delete data and audit trails, which they're very very clear about in the emails. There're no context mistake here; they did not want their data being looked at by anyone else, and they categorically stated that they would prefer to destroy their data than see it used by someone else to challenge their results. That's not science, and any claims of scientific objectivity and impartiality are destroyed by that.
I've read a big enough sample of those emails, they were what convinced me that something was definitely not right and converted me from a believer to a sceptic. And while any number of committees have come to a politically acceptable verdict, the evidence is there in black and white for you to read. I strongly suggest you do just that before believing that these people are not manipulating their results.
Yet there are emails on public record and confirmed as being authentic from members of the climate science community to each other that show they are engaging in exactly the kind of behaviour you attribute (with no evidence) to other scientists.
And fame, fortune, and the ability to shape human political decision-making isn't a horse in the race? Billions and billions of dollars have been spent on climate science over the last twenty years, how does a tobacco scientist have a horse in the race that a climate scientist doesn't?
And in our current situation, we SHOULD be borrowing/printing, and spending. The economy is underperforming, people are unemployed, and have been for some time. When the economy is healthy again (as it was during the latter Clinton years) we can run surpluses and balance the budget.
All of which works fine while oil is traded in dollars, because you don't get the inflation problems other countries following the same strategy would get. The dollar inflates against other commodities (gold/silver, if their markets weren't being buggered about with) but can't inflate as much as it 'should' because everyone has to use dollars to buy oil so there's a constant background demand for dollars.
Should another source of energy pop up, let's call it 'solar' for the sake of argument, that could threaten the world's use of oil, then the dollar would be in massively more trouble than it is now, because the world would probably not be buying dollars to buy their solar (they'd probably be buying renminbi). Thus the dollar would be free to go to whatever price the market felt like assigning to it.
So, yeah...from a purely nationalist point of view, I can understand the desire to not go into massive debt to build the solar market up.
There's motivation and motivation. I've been struggling with this one myself.
The difference between the amount of work required to survive and the amount of work required to make the business a magnificent success is pretty large, and it's a nice smooth gradient so there's nothing really stopping me from slacking off a bit. No boss looking over my shoulder, customer deadlines are manageable and the relationships are good so there's plenty of leeway. It's really down to how much I want to press my own nose up against the grindstone. I love my work but the temptation to reply to a/. post instead of getting on with implementing the next feature is hard to resist;)
So yeah, I'm not 'implicitly motivated', and fucking myself was an option that I pursued vigorously for a while but ultimately didn't get the job done. I have work that needs to get done in order to get paid, but the timescales are flexible. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is. Or maybe it is that simple and I'm self-sabotaging. Without the feedback of co-workers (and a boss) it's hard to say.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been running Windows for approx 10 years with no AV installed and no viruses. I scan every 4-8 weeks and nothing's ever come up. I uninstalled my AV after a couple of years with no viruses and it's never been a problem since.
My teenage sister had AV installed, and approx 45786456749 bits of malware come up on her machine every time I checked it out.
I honestly don't think most AV actually does anything. A VM running Ubuntu to do any browsing is probably a better idea than AV software.
you're missing the point. They don't want you to control what you can see on the interwebs. They want them to control what you can see on the interwebs.
That's the point. They're ineffective at the moment because the Internet is uncontrolled. So the Internet must be controlled.
I completely agree. It is a messed-up culture that lets its children watch people brutally murder each other but not gently screw each other.
I blame the christian church's poisonous use of sex as a weapon of population mind control. We should not feel guilty about having sex!
I thought it was good advice, for the audience it was intended for, namely code monkeys.
I'm in the entrepreneurial business and I don't sign NDA's unless there's money at stake, for pretty much the same reasons. I reckon I hear around 50 'great ideas for a business if someone like you can just write the code' every year, and if I had to sign an NDA for each one after a couple of years I'd never be able to develop anything.
If they've got the money in the room, but the cheque depends on an NDA, then I'll sign :)
As Eric Ries pointed out; the startup's greatest enemy is obscurity not IP theft. People won't steal your great idea until you've put the sweat in to make the business model work, and by that point the idea is pretty obvious and it's the technical details that needs protecting. But there are better tools than an NDA to protect those.
That just doesn't stack with my observations of the same debate, so either we're reading a different debate or we're both applying cognitive bias. I read the alarmist sites and just see political spin supported by bad computer modelling, and can't understand why intelligent people would give any credence to this drivel.
actually, the money's all the other way.
The oil industry is not spending any of its fortune on anti-AGW propaganda, nor is anyone else. The recent Heartland Institute 'controversy' showed this really clearly.
There is no well-funded industry opposition to AGW policy, it's all shoestring blogs. There is vast amounts of government funding available for pro-AGW propaganda though.
WUWT is probably the leading 'voice' in anti-AGW opinion, or one of them, and he receives no funding from industry for his blog at all.
Compare and contrast with the various multi-billion dollar projects from governments and NGO's to shift public opinion towards AGW, and it's a very lopsided picture.
Yes, there is an intellectually serious debate on AGW. That's a simple fact.
You either aren't keeping up with both sides of the argument, or are deliberately choosing to ignore any anti-AGW arguments.
I heard a variant of this...
A man is in desperate financial trouble and prays to God that he'll win the lottery.
He doesn't win the lottery, and his creditors are chasing him, so he goes back to church and prays all day for God to let him win the lottery.
He doesn't win the lottery, and his creditors are chasing him, so he goes back to church and prays all week for God to let him win the lottery.
He doesn't win the lottery, and in his despair cries out that God has forsaken him.
Suddenly the clouds part and the heavenly choir forms up, and the Divine Light shines forth, and God's voice says unto him:
'for My sake meet Me halfway and buy a ticket willya?'
If the climate was going to change in a way that was bad for humans, but for natural reasons. We would still need to adapt to the change, or lessen it if possible. If the climate changes because we changed it, we still need to adapt to the change or lessen it if possible.
Agreed, but this is where the cause becomes important, because if it's natural (and not caused by CO2) then reducing our output of CO2 is not going to lessen the change, so spending any money doing that is counter-productive (as opposed to, for instance, raising the standard of living in developing countries so they reduce their birth rate and eventual resource usage, which is going to be beneficial regardless of the causes of climate change).
Thank You. At my university, over 99% of the CS majors were male by senior year (97% freshman year). Females aren't applying to the programs, so they cannot be considered for the jobs.
This is typical male arrogance. Females are shut out of tech carees by this structural patriarcy and you blame us women? This is bull. It's the fault of the males. Females are more capable, have higher grades and better language skills as well as possess much stronger social abilities. Females are better employees in every way. Males knows this deep down and discriminate against women to protect their own failed selves.
More progressive countries have much stronger anti-discrimination laws than the US. I would like to point to Sweden for the best practice. Here nearly 80% of college graduates are female, and the dominance is rising. This is the future, little boy.
If it is the future, and I can see where it might be, then aren't 'the males' right to attempt to protect their working areas?
If the future is so clearly female-dominated that men are reduced to 20% or less of the workforce, then that's bad, right? We need to stop that from happening because society needs to be equal, not a patriarchy or a matriarchy.
You gotta love the spin on this.
Facts:
- scientists count birds, find twice as many as previous counts/expectations (TFA doesn't say whether the original estimates were counts or just estimates)
So if they found twice as many birds as they previously counted/estimated, and climate change has been going on for 20/50/200 years, surely the penguins are in fact benefiting from climate change?
Seems logical to me. They live in a extreme environment, climate change will make it less extreme, therefore they should benefit. There must be something on the planet that benefits from it getting warmer after all, and penguins would seem to be a logical candidate.
But that would go against the media message that climate change is universally bad for everything. *sigh*.
This is useful science, it's a new tool for actually counting animal populations as opposed to guessing their populations by estimating the amount of habitat they have to live in. It'd be great if we could just have the science, reported with no spin or political message, just 'hey science fans, here's something new!'. ...but science is now a political tool, so no, every serving of facts now wrapped in a handy hygienic message so you know what to think!
Yeah, I think we need this. How to be an information connoisseur, to only graze on the finest primary sources and most reliable interpretations, and how to discern between frank exchanges of well-informed opinion and political posturing.
However, it doesn't fit with activism. Data is neutral. A lot of the data is going to disagree with any given political position, and having the guts to hold true to the empirical data and not the model is something that we're having a problem with as a science culture.
It might have actually come to the point where you can't be an activist and hold a data-neutral position. Activism always exaggerates the threat, never plays it straight, whichever side it's on.
This is the thing that worries me. That this will be a replacement for asphalt, not a temporary patch to let them put the asphalt in better.
It's cheaper, it'll last until the next election, what's the issue?
What I find weird is that everyone seems so eager to pre-judge this, and almost no-one seems to have any faith in the trial process.
There's no-one here saying 'let's wait and see what the court decides after hearing the evidence', everyone presumes guilt or innocence based on whatever political position they favour.
So...let's wait and see what the court decides after hearing the evidence. They get to examine all of it, with strict safeguards around bias, contamination by outside opinions, racial balance, everything.
I vote 'News for Nerds' XOR 'Stuff that Matters' then we only get tech or trivia.
really? there's still command-line-only dinosaurs out there?
wow... I thought everyone had felt the penny drop by now
Patents don't prevent you from using a technology, they prevent you from using a technology royalty free.
...unless the patent owner refuses to grant you a licence at any price, which is entirely within their rights.
for some patents, in some circumstances, when specified by government or courts, you can force a patent holder to grant licences, but otherwise it's entirely up to the patent holder whether they let you use 'their' technology and at what price.
You're going to need to adjust your business model a lot over the next few years until you iron out all the wrinkles (or even drastically change it). No business model survives contact with the market unchanged. Even if you're copying another software business's model, your product will be different which will affect your implementation of that model.
Open-sourcing your code cuts down the available choices for your business model, maybe not by much, maybe by a lot, depending on your market.
Even if your customers won't just grab your code and compile it, there's the chance that a 'competitor' will grab your code and offer your product to their customers.
Copyright laws (and licence agreements based on them) can protect you, but only if you can afford to go to court. Small businesses cannot afford to go to court, so don't rely on licences to prevent bad people from ripping your code.
However, your customer base may require your code to be open-source before they'll buy it. If so, you'll have to go with that.
The biggest threat to a new software product is obscurity not piracy, so if open-sourcing your code will help you promote your product it's probably worth doing.
So my advice would be to keep it closed until you're happy that opening it won't completely screw up your business, either because your business is doing well and you can take the risk, or because it's going badly and you've nothing to lose.
Actually that wasn't the one that convinced me. I also read that as an unfortunate use of words taken out of context.
There wasn't one individual email that got me, except possibly 'read me harry.txt' (I'm a code monkey and reading this brought on an attack of the screaming ab-dabs as I totally empathised with the author trying to recreate someone else's shitty results with a pile of shitty data. Realising that he was engaged in writing one of the vaunted climate models that form the basis of all the predictions was a key turning point for me).
The general tone of the email conversations; that evidence needed to be deleted, that journal editors needed to be managed, that 'message' was important for public pronouncements, that data must be kept from knowledgeable sceptics (McIntyre especially), was what convinced me. This is not a group of neutral scientists engaged in pure research with the aim of advancing mankind's knowledge of the environment. This is a bunch of people with an agenda and a willingness to bend or break the rules to get that agenda advanced.
The 'smoking gun' for me was the collaborative efforts of the group to avoid FOI requests and delete data and audit trails, which they're very very clear about in the emails. There're no context mistake here; they did not want their data being looked at by anyone else, and they categorically stated that they would prefer to destroy their data than see it used by someone else to challenge their results. That's not science, and any claims of scientific objectivity and impartiality are destroyed by that.
I've read a big enough sample of those emails, they were what convinced me that something was definitely not right and converted me from a believer to a sceptic.
And while any number of committees have come to a politically acceptable verdict, the evidence is there in black and white for you to read. I strongly suggest you do just that before believing that these people are not manipulating their results.
Yet there are emails on public record and confirmed as being authentic from members of the climate science community to each other that show they are engaging in exactly the kind of behaviour you attribute (with no evidence) to other scientists.
And fame, fortune, and the ability to shape human political decision-making isn't a horse in the race? Billions and billions of dollars have been spent on climate science over the last twenty years, how does a tobacco scientist have a horse in the race that a climate scientist doesn't?
So you're a denialist then... you deny scientific evidence based on nothing more than your political prejudices.
After all, exactly the same arguments hold for climate "scientists" (your bunny ears) altering their data, but I assume you choose to believe them.
And in our current situation, we SHOULD be borrowing/printing, and spending. The economy is underperforming, people are unemployed, and have been for some time. When the economy is healthy again (as it was during the latter Clinton years) we can run surpluses and balance the budget.
All of which works fine while oil is traded in dollars, because you don't get the inflation problems other countries following the same strategy would get. The dollar inflates against other commodities (gold/silver, if their markets weren't being buggered about with) but can't inflate as much as it 'should' because everyone has to use dollars to buy oil so there's a constant background demand for dollars.
Should another source of energy pop up, let's call it 'solar' for the sake of argument, that could threaten the world's use of oil, then the dollar would be in massively more trouble than it is now, because the world would probably not be buying dollars to buy their solar (they'd probably be buying renminbi). Thus the dollar would be free to go to whatever price the market felt like assigning to it.
So, yeah...from a purely nationalist point of view, I can understand the desire to not go into massive debt to build the solar market up.
There's motivation and motivation. I've been struggling with this one myself.
The difference between the amount of work required to survive and the amount of work required to make the business a magnificent success is pretty large, and it's a nice smooth gradient so there's nothing really stopping me from slacking off a bit. No boss looking over my shoulder, customer deadlines are manageable and the relationships are good so there's plenty of leeway. /. post instead of getting on with implementing the next feature is hard to resist ;)
It's really down to how much I want to press my own nose up against the grindstone. I love my work but the temptation to reply to a
So yeah, I'm not 'implicitly motivated', and fucking myself was an option that I pursued vigorously for a while but ultimately didn't get the job done. I have work that needs to get done in order to get paid, but the timescales are flexible. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is. Or maybe it is that simple and I'm self-sabotaging. Without the feedback of co-workers (and a boss) it's hard to say.