Virtual machines? Flash disks?
I never use the same computer twice!
But...who are we hiding from? I support efforts to maintain privacy, and I admire it as a thought experiment, but what's the scenario we're defending against here? All of this sounds like extreme overkill if you're hiding porn from your mom. If you're trying to hide from advertisers, governments, etc, then I think that your bigger worry is not your home machine, but everything out there in our marvelously complicated ecosystem of an internet.
As I'm hit and fall into the pit of lava, the safety overrides fail and suddenly, yeah, my peripherals are trying their best to get me up to a thousand degrees C.
THIS is why I continue to play Nethack.
The controller suddenly welds itself to your hand!
Do you want your possessions identified?
Eventually you have to determine an acceptable level of risk and do something though. Some people think the risk of action is higher than the risk of inaction. Personally, I'm hardly qualified to make that judgment call, I can just speculate.
In the meantime, we can certainly take action to minimize further damage. It's definitely possible to slow global warming without abandoning industrialization, and I've heard lots of ideas toward that end, some clever, some patently absurd.
Hmm. Of all 1,880 imperiled species in the United States, 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their impact combined with other forces. (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html) Seems our meddling (by introducing a species, which then became an invasive species) caused a few more problems than we anticipated. Are you sure you now want to just blindly attempt to make changes to climate? Shouldn't we pause to determine if what we do could cause MORE problems then what is currently happening?
That lady and germs, is the internet's famous logical fallacy, the strawman.;)
I stated that Global Warming is a problem no matter what the cause, and that we may want to pursue solutions. I did not state that we should BLINDLY implement fixes.
If we presume that the environment is ours to do with as we please, then aren't we as guilty of those who caused the destruction of the environment in the first place?
Only if you don't see a distinction between "manipulate" and "recklessly endanger."
Of course, we might not be able to stop it if it's anthropogenic either.
I choose to believe that we have enormous tools and resources at our disposal, and could achieve quite significant change if we wanted to. Modern science is pretty damn impressive.
Strictly speaking it is possible to affect the climate globally, whether or not you think it's realistic. And at this point, we'd better be seriously considering trying. Best that current trends not continue.
Does it matter if it's anthropogenic?
I'm against a hot world with rising seas, melting ice caps and global drought. I'm against all of the other terrible nastiness associated with it. I don't give a damn who we blame, but let's find a way to halt/fix it, shall we?
"Who cares
The aging gamers who enjoyed the magnovox or gleco vision wont be around much longer so what's the point in preserving shitting games? I know that they must feel nastalgia for these cause i just bought a sega collection disk for my 360 but i could careless if the games on that disk are gone in the future cause there will be way better games. Frankly its a waste of time to emulate all this simple games like pong or those super super garbage rpgs. Ya for nonresponsive controls and pixelated graphics!!!"
Although that's a legitimate concern, and relates to my suspicion that Open Source is a bit of a red herring here, I don't think it's always true. I work for an institution that has both outsourced and done in house QA on open source projects before implementing them. Some of the larger Open Source projects have had extremely extensive QA work done and have great community support for it. And of course, some do not.
I'm a big fan of FOSS, but I've got my QA methodology hat on right now.
Opening up the source code isn't providing better Quality Assurance coverage, it's just getting more eyes on the code, and at best a bunch of User Acceptance Testing. (Though clearly not with pace makers, I doubt people are going to line up for that Beta test. Unless maybe Blizzard claims it's part of their next big MMO.)
This could be as much an argument for higher standards of quality assurance as for open source software. In face, hell, I can see companies opening up the source to reduce their liability and cut the costs of their own QA.
That's a whole lot of confusions, based on one case study.
I'm not saying they're wrong, just that we need more data for these findings to be convincing. I'm always dubious of analysts selling opinions as facts. This is editorial, not news.
And?
People use highways for illegal things. They use their homes for illegal things. Hell, they probably use government buildings for illegal things.
Cracking down on freedoms in the name of a minority of miscreants is never a good thing.
...it's gone the way of advances.
Christ, who gets an advance these days?
We've all but guaranteed ourselves a generation of desperate, sloppy writers who never have time to edit, and pump out as many snappy titles as they can hoping for hits.
The paper is being forced to reduce costs. They're doing what a capitalist market demands they do, squeezing every dollar of income they can out of their workers.
Truckers get to roll their rigs, shipping yards get to drop crates, and writers get to burn out. Same problem, similar results; but hey, at least there's one advantage to being behind a desk -- less risk of immediate physical injury.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather hear about a flaw like this after the fact frankly. I don't think an unpatched exploit needs the kind of publicity that /. would get it.
But it does wink suggestively at it.
A crowd sourced approach to the problem?
I spilled water into a power bar back in 95 and achieved exactly the same effect!
What's the difference between "malicious" and "beneficial", when it comes to software?
Malware isn't defined by what it does. It's defined by deception and lack of consent, and only by deception and lack of consent.
This is an extremely important sentiment and it can not be repeated enough.
I mean, as long as your wife/girlfriend can't track your porno sites with ease you're fine.
If your wife/girlfriend is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire though... might want to find a different 'hobby'.
Then it's back to an old suitcase under the work bench in the garage.
Virtual machines? Flash disks? I never use the same computer twice! But...who are we hiding from? I support efforts to maintain privacy, and I admire it as a thought experiment, but what's the scenario we're defending against here? All of this sounds like extreme overkill if you're hiding porn from your mom. If you're trying to hide from advertisers, governments, etc, then I think that your bigger worry is not your home machine, but everything out there in our marvelously complicated ecosystem of an internet.
As I'm hit and fall into the pit of lava, the safety overrides fail and suddenly, yeah, my peripherals are trying their best to get me up to a thousand degrees C. THIS is why I continue to play Nethack.
The controller suddenly welds itself to your hand! Do you want your possessions identified?
Eventually you have to determine an acceptable level of risk and do something though. Some people think the risk of action is higher than the risk of inaction. Personally, I'm hardly qualified to make that judgment call, I can just speculate. In the meantime, we can certainly take action to minimize further damage. It's definitely possible to slow global warming without abandoning industrialization, and I've heard lots of ideas toward that end, some clever, some patently absurd.
Hmm. Of all 1,880 imperiled species in the United States, 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their impact combined with other forces. (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html) Seems our meddling (by introducing a species, which then became an invasive species) caused a few more problems than we anticipated. Are you sure you now want to just blindly attempt to make changes to climate? Shouldn't we pause to determine if what we do could cause MORE problems then what is currently happening?
That lady and germs, is the internet's famous logical fallacy, the strawman. ;)
I stated that Global Warming is a problem no matter what the cause, and that we may want to pursue solutions. I did not state that we should BLINDLY implement fixes.
If we presume that the environment is ours to do with as we please, then aren't we as guilty of those who caused the destruction of the environment in the first place?
Only if you don't see a distinction between "manipulate" and "recklessly endanger."
Of course, we might not be able to stop it if it's anthropogenic either. I choose to believe that we have enormous tools and resources at our disposal, and could achieve quite significant change if we wanted to. Modern science is pretty damn impressive. Strictly speaking it is possible to affect the climate globally, whether or not you think it's realistic. And at this point, we'd better be seriously considering trying. Best that current trends not continue.
Does it matter if it's anthropogenic? I'm against a hot world with rising seas, melting ice caps and global drought. I'm against all of the other terrible nastiness associated with it. I don't give a damn who we blame, but let's find a way to halt/fix it, shall we?
I submit this comment from the article as proof:
"Who cares The aging gamers who enjoyed the magnovox or gleco vision wont be around much longer so what's the point in preserving shitting games? I know that they must feel nastalgia for these cause i just bought a sega collection disk for my 360 but i could careless if the games on that disk are gone in the future cause there will be way better games. Frankly its a waste of time to emulate all this simple games like pong or those super super garbage rpgs. Ya for nonresponsive controls and pixelated graphics!!!"
But they don't remain teenagers forever. ;)
Although that's a legitimate concern, and relates to my suspicion that Open Source is a bit of a red herring here, I don't think it's always true. I work for an institution that has both outsourced and done in house QA on open source projects before implementing them. Some of the larger Open Source projects have had extremely extensive QA work done and have great community support for it. And of course, some do not.
I'm a big fan of FOSS, but I've got my QA methodology hat on right now. Opening up the source code isn't providing better Quality Assurance coverage, it's just getting more eyes on the code, and at best a bunch of User Acceptance Testing. (Though clearly not with pace makers, I doubt people are going to line up for that Beta test. Unless maybe Blizzard claims it's part of their next big MMO.) This could be as much an argument for higher standards of quality assurance as for open source software. In face, hell, I can see companies opening up the source to reduce their liability and cut the costs of their own QA.
What would the legality of this be? I RTFA and am still unclear, yet it seems that a lot hinges on this question.
Being socially deficient doesn't make you incapable of determining right and wrong,
...that's reserved for lawyers and elected politicians.
They still can't find enough skilled applicants for their "Cyberwarrior" squad!
That's a whole lot of confusions, based on one case study. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that we need more data for these findings to be convincing. I'm always dubious of analysts selling opinions as facts. This is editorial, not news.
And? People use highways for illegal things. They use their homes for illegal things. Hell, they probably use government buildings for illegal things. Cracking down on freedoms in the name of a minority of miscreants is never a good thing.
...it's gone the way of advances. Christ, who gets an advance these days? We've all but guaranteed ourselves a generation of desperate, sloppy writers who never have time to edit, and pump out as many snappy titles as they can hoping for hits.
Conversely, the lack of investigative journalists is making the newspapers obsolete. They're being strangled by economics.
The paper is being forced to reduce costs. They're doing what a capitalist market demands they do, squeezing every dollar of income they can out of their workers. Truckers get to roll their rigs, shipping yards get to drop crates, and writers get to burn out. Same problem, similar results; but hey, at least there's one advantage to being behind a desk -- less risk of immediate physical injury.
As a fan of 80s cyberpunk, I think the name "cyber-warrior" is a keeper. ;)