I think, ultimately, that the internet will never be cleaned up. It is very idealistic to think there are a finite number of hackers and that their methods will not become more and more sophisticated as time goes by.
The kind of "cleaned up" internet that these companies talk about requires STRICT regulation and STRICT monitoring. It is very apparent, from just the audience that posts on Slashdot, that regulation is the exact opposite of what people want.
As far as the approach, the idea of a proactive anti-virus is novel, but I think the idea of recruiting novices to help hunt expert hackers is ludicrous. All it would take is a couple of reprisals from the hackers to permanently deter the said novice from going after a hacker.
He's not saying the future shouldn't have conflict, he's saying that future doesn't need to always emphasize how horrible EVERYTHING will turn out to be.
That's why people like Star Trek movies, they have conflict, but at the same time, they point out that the future can be bright, technology can be helpful, people can be happy and life is worth living.
Back to the main topic, corridors - they are cheap for filming. That probably influenced the reason to use them more than a necessity in "Sci-Fi" films. I recommend Cube if you'd like to see the minimalist set (hint: it's a cube and not a corridor).
I don't think this is really that outlandish. Considering that the Obama administration has recently appointed new chairs for the Internet or the number of posts, on Slashdot alone, that talk about how internet security is the new method for waging wars, what about this is surprising people?
No one likes the idea of losing freedoms during peace times, but the second something terrible happens, people will throw it away for a blanket.
Let's face it, the majority of people out there have no idea how a computer works. It is essentially magic to them. They don't know what a "Zombie" computer is or that they are possibly assisting in a DDOS attack. The government may need to act and unfortunately they won't be able to discern who is a good computer user and who is not, so everyone is going to get cut.
This is probably just the beginning of a downward spiral. Soon, the government will be spouting off propaganda about how Western Civilization seems to be the country's downfall.
OR this could just be a big move to recruit more soccer players... probably not.
I think you're missing the point. Releasing the source code for a piece of software can have more impact than analyzing how to defeat it.
In this particular case, releasing methods for breaching firewalls and infecting computers can create problems for a MYRIAD of software developers. Not to mention that it might help people trying to develop their own hazardous software.
I think the community all to often associates "Open Source" with all that is good and shiny without fully analyzing the repercussions of publishing the code. Think about it, if Windows, for some unknown reason, suddenly decided to go Open Source, there would be ABSOLUTE MAYHEM. Caps for emphasis.
I guess he's trying to vindicate himself by publishing the source code, but the reality is that there is a risk some idiot out there is going to misuse this information.
Unfortunately, porting games these days is almost necessary considering the recent economy and downward spiral of the gaming environment.
That being said, it makes sense that some of the ports are poorly done â" a company is only going to put effort into a product they expect to do well. For example, an ultraviolent game would not, or should not expect to do particularly well in the Wii environment given the restrictions of the console (lower graphics) and the demographics of the people who use the said console.
Thus, I would expect the total effort on the developer and QA side would be focused on the platform where it WILL perform well and is why we have disparagements between platforms.
I tend to agree - I thought this movie was terrible.
It wasn't the production value or the acting, it was the general theme and overall distaste that the movie left in my mouth after witnessing a poor social commentary on how Humans are terrible.
First of all, if there were alien visitors on this planet, you really think that countries in the world would allow a slum to develop considering how important their presence could be? No. That should be enough to say the movie does not hold water in the sense of important allegory or self-realization.
I'm not going to tell you not to see the movie because I know there are people out there who want to see gore and destruction (which is why there are so many movies about the end of the world). But if you do see it, just realize you're not going to see it for a plot.
Slashdot Mirror
I think, ultimately, that the internet will never be cleaned up. It is very idealistic to think there are a finite number of hackers and that their methods will not become more and more sophisticated as time goes by.
The kind of "cleaned up" internet that these companies talk about requires STRICT regulation and STRICT monitoring. It is very apparent, from just the audience that posts on Slashdot, that regulation is the exact opposite of what people want.
As far as the approach, the idea of a proactive anti-virus is novel, but I think the idea of recruiting novices to help hunt expert hackers is ludicrous. All it would take is a couple of reprisals from the hackers to permanently deter the said novice from going after a hacker.
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
He's not saying the future shouldn't have conflict, he's saying that future doesn't need to always emphasize how horrible EVERYTHING will turn out to be.
That's why people like Star Trek movies, they have conflict, but at the same time, they point out that the future can be bright, technology can be helpful, people can be happy and life is worth living.
Back to the main topic, corridors - they are cheap for filming. That probably influenced the reason to use them more than a necessity in "Sci-Fi" films. I recommend Cube if you'd like to see the minimalist set (hint: it's a cube and not a corridor).
The sun don't shine.
I don't think this is really that outlandish. Considering that the Obama administration has recently appointed new chairs for the Internet or the number of posts, on Slashdot alone, that talk about how internet security is the new method for waging wars, what about this is surprising people?
No one likes the idea of losing freedoms during peace times, but the second something terrible happens, people will throw it away for a blanket.
Let's face it, the majority of people out there have no idea how a computer works. It is essentially magic to them. They don't know what a "Zombie" computer is or that they are possibly assisting in a DDOS attack. The government may need to act and unfortunately they won't be able to discern who is a good computer user and who is not, so everyone is going to get cut.
This is probably just the beginning of a downward spiral. Soon, the government will be spouting off propaganda about how Western Civilization seems to be the country's downfall.
OR this could just be a big move to recruit more soccer players... probably not.
I think you're missing the point. Releasing the source code for a piece of software can have more impact than analyzing how to defeat it.
In this particular case, releasing methods for breaching firewalls and infecting computers can create problems for a MYRIAD of software developers. Not to mention that it might help people trying to develop their own hazardous software.
I think the community all to often associates "Open Source" with all that is good and shiny without fully analyzing the repercussions of publishing the code. Think about it, if Windows, for some unknown reason, suddenly decided to go Open Source, there would be ABSOLUTE MAYHEM. Caps for emphasis.
Government supported malware...
I guess he's trying to vindicate himself by publishing the source code, but the reality is that there is a risk some idiot out there is going to misuse this information.
Seriously, do we want open source malware?
Unfortunately, porting games these days is almost necessary considering the recent economy and downward spiral of the gaming environment.
That being said, it makes sense that some of the ports are poorly done â" a company is only going to put effort into a product they expect to do well. For example, an ultraviolent game would not, or should not expect to do particularly well in the Wii environment given the restrictions of the console (lower graphics) and the demographics of the people who use the said console.
Thus, I would expect the total effort on the developer and QA side would be focused on the platform where it WILL perform well and is why we have disparagements between platforms.
I tend to agree - I thought this movie was terrible.
It wasn't the production value or the acting, it was the general theme and overall distaste that the movie left in my mouth after witnessing a poor social commentary on how Humans are terrible.
First of all, if there were alien visitors on this planet, you really think that countries in the world would allow a slum to develop considering how important their presence could be? No. That should be enough to say the movie does not hold water in the sense of important allegory or self-realization.
I'm not going to tell you not to see the movie because I know there are people out there who want to see gore and destruction (which is why there are so many movies about the end of the world). But if you do see it, just realize you're not going to see it for a plot.