Those are pre-installed factory set devices. If you can't have some level of trust between your device and the factory then you're screwed anyway regardless of the OS. If you install a hardrive with a root kit preinstalled in it you're screwed. No one is going to say, oh shit well the hard drive shouldn't have auto discovered.
It's not just Windows users that want things to just work when they're plugged in. If I have a photo frame or iPod and I plug it in I want it to work. There is going to be code executed on those devices so they function. It's not an end users fault nor the OSs fault if someone has gone in an pre-configured the system so that malware is fully functional.
My point is, and I do think it still stands, troll mod or not, that when malware is installed at the factory it doesn't matter what OS you run. The majority market share OS, at this point, happens to be Windows, but if it was OSX or linux or anything else, those users would be screwed as well; and that people resting on the pillar of SUDO for security are in for a rude awakening.
You have to be shitting me right? These posts are exactly why I wish this was the year of the linux desktop. If linux had a majority of the desktop market don't think for one moment that it wouldn't see targeted attacks. The source of the malware is banking on the widest user base. They don't give one shit what OS you're running. If the user base numbers were reversed it would be linux malware on those devices not windows.
Actually he can. The article's statement is not a well formed argument or hypothesis. It is an anecdotal opinion. Obvious anecdote can be easily countered with another obvious anecdote. These aren't logical statements leading to a conclusion.
The article is interesting. The irrelevant point of illegal hunting is not. How is the readership supposed to take the author, and editor seriously when they throw a bunch of dramatic spin in with the main point. The article itself has merit and stands on its own.
Or maybe I'm just out to lunch and we all need more spin.
No, they shouldn't give fine money to AMD. That would open the door to even more government corruption than is already present. If AMD wants recompense they can sue Intel.
What should happen, though, is that the manufacturers and retailers that colluded with Intel should also see a hefty fine. Discouragement comes from burning people at both ends.
They didn't just want a country where the church didn't affect the state, but also where the state didn't affect the church. It had been an ugly muddle in both directions.
Do you really want to pay for perfect? There are risks associated with anything and buying perfect costs a hell of a lot of money.
This is an issue that is more complicated that should developers be held liable for perfection. Is it good enough to work reliably in most cases? Was there a malicious or negligent intent to box and bunch of schlock? There are a lot of good questions that could be asked here when trying to define the responsibility and accountability of development companies.
The market for proprietary software and the community for open source software does function pretty good for weeding out the crapware.
Obvious troll isn't so obvious this time.
I know it's cool to throw out a bunch of spin now, but it's just not true.
Look the 1.1 spec is just that and if Microsoft is implementing it properly then the problem is with the spec. I have always had some (large or small) problems opening ODF between different applications. That includes OpenOffice, MS Office, KWord, and Abiword. That points to a spec and implementation problem. I'm not going to blame any one of those project or vendors for that.
Speak for yourself. I don't know who this "most of us" are you're speaking for but I'm not in that.
I'm happy with the Win 7 RC. It performs just as well as the beta and is stable for me. There have been a few small improvements and it feels pretty polished to me.
Windows 7 can burn an ISO. The problem is solved and we will no longer have to listen to this tiring argument.
Both the Ubuntu and Windows 7 sites explain where to go for burning tools, although the Ubuntu information is a bit more buried than it used to be.
It's not like anyone who doesn't know what an ISO is can't figure out how to download ImgBurn or some other utility anyway.
This is it exactly. There are many systems that use their own bastardized version of HL7 (the medical file format).
There needs to be an open, easily accessible standard for recording and storing health information. Before this can happen the way we describe and reference medications, immunizations, problems, and procedures also need to be standardized. It does no good to standardize a record format when the information it contains is inconsistent and changes depending on regions and vendors.
The US health care system needs complete standardization starting from the top down not just with health records and insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are pre-installed factory set devices. If you can't have some level of trust between your device and the factory then you're screwed anyway regardless of the OS. If you install a hardrive with a root kit preinstalled in it you're screwed. No one is going to say, oh shit well the hard drive shouldn't have auto discovered.
It's not just Windows users that want things to just work when they're plugged in. If I have a photo frame or iPod and I plug it in I want it to work. There is going to be code executed on those devices so they function. It's not an end users fault nor the OSs fault if someone has gone in an pre-configured the system so that malware is fully functional.
My point is, and I do think it still stands, troll mod or not, that when malware is installed at the factory it doesn't matter what OS you run. The majority market share OS, at this point, happens to be Windows, but if it was OSX or linux or anything else, those users would be screwed as well; and that people resting on the pillar of SUDO for security are in for a rude awakening.
You have to be shitting me right? These posts are exactly why I wish this was the year of the linux desktop. If linux had a majority of the desktop market don't think for one moment that it wouldn't see targeted attacks. The source of the malware is banking on the widest user base. They don't give one shit what OS you're running. If the user base numbers were reversed it would be linux malware on those devices not windows.
Yes, because having Linux preinstalled with malware and having to deal with that would be much more user friendly.
If someone has installed keyloggers and rootkits on you Linux box it will be no easier or more friendly to deal with than any other OS or system.
Actually he can. The article's statement is not a well formed argument or hypothesis. It is an anecdotal opinion. Obvious anecdote can be easily countered with another obvious anecdote. These aren't logical statements leading to a conclusion.
The article is interesting. The irrelevant point of illegal hunting is not. How is the readership supposed to take the author, and editor seriously when they throw a bunch of dramatic spin in with the main point. The article itself has merit and stands on its own.
Or maybe I'm just out to lunch and we all need more spin.
No, they shouldn't give fine money to AMD. That would open the door to even more government corruption than is already present. If AMD wants recompense they can sue Intel.
What should happen, though, is that the manufacturers and retailers that colluded with Intel should also see a hefty fine. Discouragement comes from burning people at both ends.
They didn't just want a country where the church didn't affect the state, but also where the state didn't affect the church. It had been an ugly muddle in both directions.
Do you really want to pay for perfect? There are risks associated with anything and buying perfect costs a hell of a lot of money.
This is an issue that is more complicated that should developers be held liable for perfection. Is it good enough to work reliably in most cases? Was there a malicious or negligent intent to box and bunch of schlock? There are a lot of good questions that could be asked here when trying to define the responsibility and accountability of development companies.
The market for proprietary software and the community for open source software does function pretty good for weeding out the crapware.
Obvious troll isn't so obvious this time. I know it's cool to throw out a bunch of spin now, but it's just not true.
Look the 1.1 spec is just that and if Microsoft is implementing it properly then the problem is with the spec. I have always had some (large or small) problems opening ODF between different applications. That includes OpenOffice, MS Office, KWord, and Abiword. That points to a spec and implementation problem. I'm not going to blame any one of those project or vendors for that.
Speak for yourself. I don't know who this "most of us" are you're speaking for but I'm not in that.
I'm happy with the Win 7 RC. It performs just as well as the beta and is stable for me. There have been a few small improvements and it feels pretty polished to me.
Windows 7 can burn an ISO. The problem is solved and we will no longer have to listen to this tiring argument. Both the Ubuntu and Windows 7 sites explain where to go for burning tools, although the Ubuntu information is a bit more buried than it used to be. It's not like anyone who doesn't know what an ISO is can't figure out how to download ImgBurn or some other utility anyway.
This is it exactly. There are many systems that use their own bastardized version of HL7 (the medical file format).
There needs to be an open, easily accessible standard for recording and storing health information. Before this can happen the way we describe and reference medications, immunizations, problems, and procedures also need to be standardized. It does no good to standardize a record format when the information it contains is inconsistent and changes depending on regions and vendors.
The US health care system needs complete standardization starting from the top down not just with health records and insurance.