I was not comparing market segment share, I was comparing it to what could be a reasonable lifespan for it to be updated. Cars invented a hundred or so years ago aren't really supported anymore... The tech industry moves faster than the automative industry, so the time scale is obviously shorter. The fact that there are still a lot of people on XP isn't Microsoft's problem.
But if any vulnerabilities in the underlying operating system are discovered, it can easily be the case that certain types of infections may be able to mask their presence from the antivirus software unless a version of the antivirus software that can detect and prevent such infections happens to already be installed and running at the time the infection first tries to take place, and even if the antivirus is updated to the most recent version, a machine that has already been compromised can potentially prevent anything else from detecting it until the vulnerability in the operating system itself is fixed (which in XP's case will be never)
There's two problems with what you've pointed out.
First of all, there are astonishingly few people out there that are still using XP that have "real knowledge" about computer operation and safety.
Secondly, if a vulnerability exists in the underlying operating system, no amount of knowledge will protect you from it short of keeping your computer offline until every threat that might infect your system can be detected as it comes in (which you can not ever be certain of, unless you wrote your operating system yourself, since it is not infrequent that particular threats are not really discovered as a problem until after one or more exploits with it have already occurred)
Most experts with real knowledge about computer safety realize that XP without security updates is a time-bomb with a fuse of unknown length... and will just avoid it completely.
They aren't saying to fix it.... they are saying to replace it.
Because if an exploit is discovered any time after today, it will not ever be fixed, so it's all but a forgone certainty that machines that are running XP today will eventually develop an infection that they will never be able to get rid of (and in some cases, ever be able to even detect).
Not the only one, but the final one. XP systems will continue to work as they always have... but any exploits which are discovered after today will not be patched. It may be possible for antivirus and anti-malware companies to address the issues as they come up, but depending on the type of exploit, if it is the underlying operating system itself that is vulnerable, it can potentially render itself as undetectable to something like a virus and malware scanner unless you happen to have a version of the scanner installed and running which can detect that particular virus or malware at the time that it first attempts to cause infection. Without the ability to update the underlying system itself after an infection has occurred, the infection would remain forever undetected, and will only worsen as it tries to spread. Additionally, keeping such antivirus software resident on your computer and perpetually running in the background consumes resources... and as the list of exploits and fixes that it detects continues to grow, the software would require more and more time and resources to do its job, potentially diminishing the chance that an infection might be detected in the first place, and also reducing the usefulness of one's computer.
In some cases, ISP's can detect computers that are infected with malware, and have been known to disconnect such systems from their network, and will make an attempt to contact the subscriber directly .
I expect that within a year or so, there will be only a sliver of XP boxes remaining that utilize or require a regular internet connection.
It slides like a deadbolt and is used to "unlock" the phone, so it is functionally similar to a deadbolt.
Such deadbolt predate the iphone by over a hundred years. Apple, it seemed, was hell-bent on copying well known ideas that people are already extremely familiar with in real life, virtualize them, and then would go and try to claim that *THEY* invented them.
I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent in the first place.
It's an intuitive action for unlocking because it mimics the motion of using a sliding deadbolt... which i'd suggest counts as both obvious *and* prior art.
He created our decision making abilities, but he does not determine what we will decide to do. In fact, despite the fact that he foreknows it...he does not determine them for us. And if God were to do anything other than allow the consequences of our choices to be met out, then he would not be respecting the free will that he gave us.
I believe that human beings would not, as I said above, be particularly inclined to create a race of free willed beings, even if we knew for certaiin that they would not ever pose any threat to us. We would either create them without a free will, or else would create them to live in a consequence-free environment, or somehow limit what we think are the bad consequences, which would ultimately defeat the purpose of giving them free will in the first place.
The difference is that the mugger isn't God. As creator, God has as much right to ask obedience.from us as a book author has a right to say what happens to the characters within their creations. The difference between a book author and God, however, is that God doesn't make the choices on our behalf, but actually gives us a choice in what we do... and our ends are determined from that.
Also, if a mugger is threatening you outside an ATM, what is to be gained by following their command? They could just as easily hurt you even if you did everything that they asked.... and why would you think that a person who was willing to resort to physical violence and robbery would somehow be above lying about what they are going to do? In actuality, they are equally free to change their minds and not do anything to you at all even if you do not do what they ask.
A parent might have the means to help their grown child out of debt, but might refuse to assist in any financial capacity in order that their child might develop a firmer sense of fiscal responsibility. themselves. Their refusal to address the immediate issue of the debt isn't out of malice... it's actually out of love.
With God, freedom of choice is infinitely more important than the consequences of disobedience... the consequences for a wrong choice must still be met, however, or else it invalidates the choice in the first place.
The code was always public knowledge.. the bug itself was still unknown until its discovery last month. With closed source, the only way to find a bug is by seeing it happen in a live running instance, while with open source bugs can also be discovered by individuals through inspection of the code itself.
Also, with open source, a programmer or programming team can effect the necessary fixes themselves if they are unsatisfied with the speed of the software development team, while with closed source, absolutely everyone must wait for the software's dev team to address the issue.
My situation is the opposite... I don't like beer, but my wife does. Conversely, however, she dislikes the taste that beer gives to something when it is used as marinade... she'd rather just eat the meat and drink the beer.
Knowing is not the same thing as controlling. God knew what the outcome would be, but the alternative was to create us without a free will... even if only because we would not be presented with the opportunity to choose to things that are wrong.
Can a child who is kept in a fenced yard when they cannot reach a gate mechanisms take any credit at all for staying in the yard of their own volition? The result might be that the child will stay in the yard, which may very well be a desirable thing, but the child still wouldn't be the one making that choice. The point of free will is to give each individual personal accountability for their actions.
This suggests to me that God places a higher value on the merits of freely made choices than we generally do... we tend to look only at the outcome of a choice, and if the ends are undesirable, then we do not take that road, while God seems to evaluate every choice that is made along the way.
In a nutshell, with us, the ends can justify the means, but with God, the means must justify themselves... and somehow, at the end of it all, be worth more than whatever undesirable stuff happens as well, even if as a direct consequence.
Entrapment is where the person who may enforce the law tries to get you to think that the law is something other than what it really is, and then holds you guilty when you break that law. It wasn't God telling them it was okay to eat from that tree.
And again, the only alternative to not allowing such a thing to happen would have been to not give them any choice at all, which effectively takes away their free will.
As I said, God' choice is probably not the same as what any human being would have made in the same position... I suspect any one of us would have seen the consequences of disobedience as not worth any alleged merits of free will (particularly since, being in God's position, we would know the outcome of the whole thing anyways), and would have instead preferred to make a race of highly advanced robots.
I've tried quite a few.... never found one that I liked. Not saying that none could ever possibly exist that I'd find palatable, but I imagine that any that do are probably really exotic and cost an impractical amount to use for something like marinade.
This bug was fixed the same day that it became public knowledge. Unless the bug was discovered by the internal team, this will never be case with closed source.
The difference is that with closed source, the only exploits that are discovered by third parties and get fixed are those that have already been exploited, and already resulted in vulnerable systems.
With open source, exploits can potentially be discovered and reported by other parties *before* the exploit has actually ever been used, meaning that a fix is available at the same time that the exploit becomes public knowledge, and anyone who updates as soon as such an exploit becomes known has a higher level of confidence that their system will have not yet been compromised. The very fact that open source may also make it easier for a third party to find a way to exploit a previously unknown vulnerability also makes it easier for a third party to take action that will lead to the issue being corrected.
With open source, such critical bugs can and actually *will* be fixed, a sufficiently technically competent individual could even do so themselves, where with closed source, absolutely everyone is at the whim of the development team's schedule.
There is more merit in a person doing the right thing when they actually have the opportunity to do the wrong thing.
That Adam and Eve may have done the wrong thing and brought down what may arguably amount to a curse upon all of nature supposedly does not diminish the merit of even a single person who, despite being tempted to do wrong when the opportunity presents itself, makes a deliberate choice to do the right thing instead.
That said, I cannot imagine that any person would have made the same choice God did.... we probably would have considered the consequences of disobedience to be greater than the significance or importance of free will, and most likely would have preferred to create a race of robots who can only do what they are told because the choice to do something other than what they are told would not be presented to them.
They can probably charge however much they want for it and call it anything they like.... they just have to be up front about the charges that are actually incurred... saying that you pay no rental fee while still paying something every month called a "service fee" is misleading and potentially fraudulent.
It could be a coincidence, but as your story leaves the name of what you googled conspicuously absent, you've conveniently made it impractical for anyone to even attempt to prove or disprove a causative factor in this regard. This tactic is a staple used by conspiracy theorists everywhere and is often indicative of something that isn't logically sustainable from an objective standpoint if all the facts were actually revealed.
I'm suggesting that regardless of how right their agenda might be, trying to manipulate people by boycotting something like a person's preference of web browser, which has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying agenda is what is wrong.
If it's wrong to treat people as inferior because they are gay, then why should it be okay to treat people as inferior because of their personally held opinions on being gay? Whether or not you or I agree with such a stance is immaterial... a person should feel free to have the right to express what they think. If his opinion on homosexuality had extended to who the company would hire, for example, then that issue could be dealt with using legal means, and there would be no need to call for a boycott anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
If it had that feature, the resemblance would be much more striking.
I was not comparing market segment share, I was comparing it to what could be a reasonable lifespan for it to be updated. Cars invented a hundred or so years ago aren't really supported anymore... The tech industry moves faster than the automative industry, so the time scale is obviously shorter. The fact that there are still a lot of people on XP isn't Microsoft's problem.
Yes, but in the latest versions of windows they will eventually be fixed, making disinfection actually possible.
Not a bad comparison.... if your car was one that was originally built, oh... say almost a hundred years ago or so.
But if any vulnerabilities in the underlying operating system are discovered, it can easily be the case that certain types of infections may be able to mask their presence from the antivirus software unless a version of the antivirus software that can detect and prevent such infections happens to already be installed and running at the time the infection first tries to take place, and even if the antivirus is updated to the most recent version, a machine that has already been compromised can potentially prevent anything else from detecting it until the vulnerability in the operating system itself is fixed (which in XP's case will be never)
First of all, there are astonishingly few people out there that are still using XP that have "real knowledge" about computer operation and safety.
Secondly, if a vulnerability exists in the underlying operating system, no amount of knowledge will protect you from it short of keeping your computer offline until every threat that might infect your system can be detected as it comes in (which you can not ever be certain of, unless you wrote your operating system yourself, since it is not infrequent that particular threats are not really discovered as a problem until after one or more exploits with it have already occurred)
Most experts with real knowledge about computer safety realize that XP without security updates is a time-bomb with a fuse of unknown length... and will just avoid it completely.
They aren't saying to fix it.... they are saying to replace it.
Because if an exploit is discovered any time after today, it will not ever be fixed, so it's all but a forgone certainty that machines that are running XP today will eventually develop an infection that they will never be able to get rid of (and in some cases, ever be able to even detect).
Not the only one, but the final one. XP systems will continue to work as they always have... but any exploits which are discovered after today will not be patched. It may be possible for antivirus and anti-malware companies to address the issues as they come up, but depending on the type of exploit, if it is the underlying operating system itself that is vulnerable, it can potentially render itself as undetectable to something like a virus and malware scanner unless you happen to have a version of the scanner installed and running which can detect that particular virus or malware at the time that it first attempts to cause infection. Without the ability to update the underlying system itself after an infection has occurred, the infection would remain forever undetected, and will only worsen as it tries to spread. Additionally, keeping such antivirus software resident on your computer and perpetually running in the background consumes resources... and as the list of exploits and fixes that it detects continues to grow, the software would require more and more time and resources to do its job, potentially diminishing the chance that an infection might be detected in the first place, and also reducing the usefulness of one's computer.
In some cases, ISP's can detect computers that are infected with malware, and have been known to disconnect such systems from their network, and will make an attempt to contact the subscriber directly .
I expect that within a year or so, there will be only a sliver of XP boxes remaining that utilize or require a regular internet connection.
It slides like a deadbolt and is used to "unlock" the phone, so it is functionally similar to a deadbolt.
Such deadbolt predate the iphone by over a hundred years. Apple, it seemed, was hell-bent on copying well known ideas that people are already extremely familiar with in real life, virtualize them, and then would go and try to claim that *THEY* invented them.
I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent in the first place.
It's an intuitive action for unlocking because it mimics the motion of using a sliding deadbolt... which i'd suggest counts as both obvious *and* prior art.
He created our decision making abilities, but he does not determine what we will decide to do. In fact, despite the fact that he foreknows it...he does not determine them for us. And if God were to do anything other than allow the consequences of our choices to be met out, then he would not be respecting the free will that he gave us.
I believe that human beings would not, as I said above, be particularly inclined to create a race of free willed beings, even if we knew for certaiin that they would not ever pose any threat to us. We would either create them without a free will, or else would create them to live in a consequence-free environment, or somehow limit what we think are the bad consequences, which would ultimately defeat the purpose of giving them free will in the first place.
But then again, we're not God.
The difference is that the mugger isn't God. As creator, God has as much right to ask obedience.from us as a book author has a right to say what happens to the characters within their creations. The difference between a book author and God, however, is that God doesn't make the choices on our behalf, but actually gives us a choice in what we do... and our ends are determined from that.
Also, if a mugger is threatening you outside an ATM, what is to be gained by following their command? They could just as easily hurt you even if you did everything that they asked.... and why would you think that a person who was willing to resort to physical violence and robbery would somehow be above lying about what they are going to do? In actuality, they are equally free to change their minds and not do anything to you at all even if you do not do what they ask.
A parent might have the means to help their grown child out of debt, but might refuse to assist in any financial capacity in order that their child might develop a firmer sense of fiscal responsibility. themselves. Their refusal to address the immediate issue of the debt isn't out of malice... it's actually out of love.
With God, freedom of choice is infinitely more important than the consequences of disobedience... the consequences for a wrong choice must still be met, however, or else it invalidates the choice in the first place.
The code was always public knowledge.. the bug itself was still unknown until its discovery last month. With closed source, the only way to find a bug is by seeing it happen in a live running instance, while with open source bugs can also be discovered by individuals through inspection of the code itself.
Also, with open source, a programmer or programming team can effect the necessary fixes themselves if they are unsatisfied with the speed of the software development team, while with closed source, absolutely everyone must wait for the software's dev team to address the issue.
My situation is the opposite... I don't like beer, but my wife does. Conversely, however, she dislikes the taste that beer gives to something when it is used as marinade... she'd rather just eat the meat and drink the beer.
Knowing is not the same thing as controlling. God knew what the outcome would be, but the alternative was to create us without a free will... even if only because we would not be presented with the opportunity to choose to things that are wrong.
Can a child who is kept in a fenced yard when they cannot reach a gate mechanisms take any credit at all for staying in the yard of their own volition? The result might be that the child will stay in the yard, which may very well be a desirable thing, but the child still wouldn't be the one making that choice. The point of free will is to give each individual personal accountability for their actions.
This suggests to me that God places a higher value on the merits of freely made choices than we generally do... we tend to look only at the outcome of a choice, and if the ends are undesirable, then we do not take that road, while God seems to evaluate every choice that is made along the way.
In a nutshell, with us, the ends can justify the means, but with God, the means must justify themselves... and somehow, at the end of it all, be worth more than whatever undesirable stuff happens as well, even if as a direct consequence.
Entrapment is where the person who may enforce the law tries to get you to think that the law is something other than what it really is, and then holds you guilty when you break that law. It wasn't God telling them it was okay to eat from that tree.
And again, the only alternative to not allowing such a thing to happen would have been to not give them any choice at all, which effectively takes away their free will.
As I said, God' choice is probably not the same as what any human being would have made in the same position... I suspect any one of us would have seen the consequences of disobedience as not worth any alleged merits of free will (particularly since, being in God's position, we would know the outcome of the whole thing anyways), and would have instead preferred to make a race of highly advanced robots.
I've tried quite a few.... never found one that I liked. Not saying that none could ever possibly exist that I'd find palatable, but I imagine that any that do are probably really exotic and cost an impractical amount to use for something like marinade.
EIght years is better than never.
This bug was fixed the same day that it became public knowledge. Unless the bug was discovered by the internal team, this will never be case with closed source.
Apologies if asking sounds like blasphemy, but it's still an honest question.
The difference is that with closed source, the only exploits that are discovered by third parties and get fixed are those that have already been exploited, and already resulted in vulnerable systems.
With open source, exploits can potentially be discovered and reported by other parties *before* the exploit has actually ever been used, meaning that a fix is available at the same time that the exploit becomes public knowledge, and anyone who updates as soon as such an exploit becomes known has a higher level of confidence that their system will have not yet been compromised. The very fact that open source may also make it easier for a third party to find a way to exploit a previously unknown vulnerability also makes it easier for a third party to take action that will lead to the issue being corrected.
With open source, such critical bugs can and actually *will* be fixed, a sufficiently technically competent individual could even do so themselves, where with closed source, absolutely everyone is at the whim of the development team's schedule.
Two words: free will.
There is more merit in a person doing the right thing when they actually have the opportunity to do the wrong thing.
That Adam and Eve may have done the wrong thing and brought down what may arguably amount to a curse upon all of nature supposedly does not diminish the merit of even a single person who, despite being tempted to do wrong when the opportunity presents itself, makes a deliberate choice to do the right thing instead.
That said, I cannot imagine that any person would have made the same choice God did.... we probably would have considered the consequences of disobedience to be greater than the significance or importance of free will, and most likely would have preferred to create a race of robots who can only do what they are told because the choice to do something other than what they are told would not be presented to them.
They can probably charge however much they want for it and call it anything they like.... they just have to be up front about the charges that are actually incurred... saying that you pay no rental fee while still paying something every month called a "service fee" is misleading and potentially fraudulent.
It could be a coincidence, but as your story leaves the name of what you googled conspicuously absent, you've conveniently made it impractical for anyone to even attempt to prove or disprove a causative factor in this regard. This tactic is a staple used by conspiracy theorists everywhere and is often indicative of something that isn't logically sustainable from an objective standpoint if all the facts were actually revealed.
I'm suggesting that regardless of how right their agenda might be, trying to manipulate people by boycotting something like a person's preference of web browser, which has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying agenda is what is wrong.
If it's wrong to treat people as inferior because they are gay, then why should it be okay to treat people as inferior because of their personally held opinions on being gay? Whether or not you or I agree with such a stance is immaterial... a person should feel free to have the right to express what they think. If his opinion on homosexuality had extended to who the company would hire, for example, then that issue could be dealt with using legal means, and there would be no need to call for a boycott anyways.