Not to mention the fact that the "100% security" we've been sold is about 90% "security theater" whose ineffectiveness is used to justify reducing the liberty even further.
I'm no doctor, but I've read a lot on this subject (mainly in order to debate loony antivaxers) and from what I understand, it's safer for a couple of unvaccinated kids to go to school with a bunch more vaccinated kids, because of herd immunity. If the unvaccinated kid is in a large population of vaccinated kids, they're much less likely to contract whatever the disease is from contact with other students, however if they were to attend school with a large population of similarly unvaccinated kids, they'd face a greater threat by virtue of the fact that there is a higher percentage of the people they come into daily contact with being vulnerable to the disease.
You might have had a point somewhere in there, but I'm afraid I wasn't able to see it through all the ad hominem attacks. You seem (just based on your verbiage) to have a serious problem with "intellectuals" or anyone with a college degree for that matter. Also, when you start your statements with an original and witty zinger like "libtards" you pretty much shut down anyone who you might be trying to convince with your arguments. Instead of talking down to people, how about you make your points, supply actual evidence, and let people sort out the merits of your argument sans personal attacks. But, I guess that wouldn't be as much fun as talking down to "intellectuals" and painting them to be stupid. I don't know you from Adam, but you seem (again, based on your verbiage) to be the sort that would knock the books out of a "nerd's" hands in school just to enjoy watching them scramble to pick them up...
You seem to have a pretty myopic view on what a smartphone is capable of. I use mine daily on my commute for music, attached to the line input of my stereo. Just because you link a smartphone to a car's entertainment system doesn't mean you have to text with it. Moreover, those that text while driving aren't waiting for some hot shit infotainment system in their car to do it, they're just using their phone to do so already.
Mostly because it's a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. A schoolhouse shooter usually bags more kills than were generated at Benghazi, yet we've been beat over the head with that stupid word for a year and a half now. The only news channel making a stink about it is Fox, and that's only because they're trying to hang an albatross around Obama's neck.
Polymorphism (changing a couple bits of the code in the malware, changing the hash signature of the file) is a big factor, negating MD5 or CRC based detections. Broader detections based on heuristics have a higher incidence of false positives, which consumers naturally bitch about. An AV company has to walk a fine line between being overly aggressive and not aggressive enough. Couple these factors with an increasingly technically illiterate user base, and a malware development community that is especially adept at social engineering, and you've got a recipe for disaster. The number one class of threat we dealt with when I worked for an AV company 6 months ago was the so-called "rogue AV" malware which are almost always extremely polymorphic. Those can be delivered by what is known as a "drive by download" which can come from something like a banner ad on a legitimate site, so you can't even protect yourself by staying away from the shady side of the internet. Also, since the banner ads rotate, and it's difficult to guarantee that you'll get the same ad twice, it's hard as hell to track your infection vector in order to get samples to even build a workable detection. That said, I think some protection is better than none. A bulletproof vest may only protect 50% of my body area, but if I were a cop, I'll be damned if I wouldn't wear one. In the end, user education is the only real way to stop malware.
A fine theory, but while your logic is sound this is an emotional issue and people rarely apply logic when their emotions get involved. Case in point, the exposure of a woman's private information all because she's trying to sell a safer gun. Also, you cite the reasonable behavior of gun owners in Arizona. This may be entirely accurate, I have no experience with gun owners in Arizona to base any opinion on, but I do have experience interacting with Georgia gun owners. A number are perfectly sane. Some are truly frightening.
Because the government (despite all of the rhetoric about the 2nd amendment being the citizenry's only defense against tyranny) has bigger guns, tanks, fighter jets, bombers, drones, and such. Only an idiot would bring a handgun to that fight.
I would imagine the same people that think it's ok to destroy the life of someone trying to come up with a technology that allows the option of a safer gun would have no qualms about destroying the life of someone who would prevent them from packing heat while they knock back a pitcher or six of budweiser...
... terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.
So he's including "haters" in among the terrorists and "rapers" and carjackers and drug cartels... I guess you have the right to use lethal force against someone who talks shit about you now?
I believe someone above mentioned that if one wants gun control in their state/community, then they can work to institute it, and if they can't do so in their community they should move away. Wouldn't the same hold true with the New Jersey situation? If the gun owners don't like the restrictions that living in New Jersey places on owning a firearm, they can move away. Why do I only hear that advocated as a solution for "someone else"? What's good for the geese is good for the gander.
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, I find it hard to take anyone seriously that thinks the Occupy movement was astroturfing, but the Tea party wasn't...
BSOD... Blue Smoke Of Death
I'm prayin' for tidal waves...
Not to mention the fact that the "100% security" we've been sold is about 90% "security theater" whose ineffectiveness is used to justify reducing the liberty even further.
As my dad was fond of telling me when I first got my license... "You can't outrun a radio son..."
Perhaps shock and awe is more appropriate?
I'm no doctor, but I've read a lot on this subject (mainly in order to debate loony antivaxers) and from what I understand, it's safer for a couple of unvaccinated kids to go to school with a bunch more vaccinated kids, because of herd immunity. If the unvaccinated kid is in a large population of vaccinated kids, they're much less likely to contract whatever the disease is from contact with other students, however if they were to attend school with a large population of similarly unvaccinated kids, they'd face a greater threat by virtue of the fact that there is a higher percentage of the people they come into daily contact with being vulnerable to the disease.
I see somebody's word of the day calendar was set to socialist conspiracy theory...
We might be able to attribute this one to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... ...
Apparently, as an American, I'm a fat lying war criminal... Funny, I don't recall doing any war criminalling...
News flash, you're both black...
You might have had a point somewhere in there, but I'm afraid I wasn't able to see it through all the ad hominem attacks. You seem (just based on your verbiage) to have a serious problem with "intellectuals" or anyone with a college degree for that matter. Also, when you start your statements with an original and witty zinger like "libtards" you pretty much shut down anyone who you might be trying to convince with your arguments. Instead of talking down to people, how about you make your points, supply actual evidence, and let people sort out the merits of your argument sans personal attacks. But, I guess that wouldn't be as much fun as talking down to "intellectuals" and painting them to be stupid. I don't know you from Adam, but you seem (again, based on your verbiage) to be the sort that would knock the books out of a "nerd's" hands in school just to enjoy watching them scramble to pick them up...
Plastic surgery...
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
I, for one, would watch that...
You seem to have a pretty myopic view on what a smartphone is capable of. I use mine daily on my commute for music, attached to the line input of my stereo. Just because you link a smartphone to a car's entertainment system doesn't mean you have to text with it. Moreover, those that text while driving aren't waiting for some hot shit infotainment system in their car to do it, they're just using their phone to do so already.
Mostly because it's a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. A schoolhouse shooter usually bags more kills than were generated at Benghazi, yet we've been beat over the head with that stupid word for a year and a half now. The only news channel making a stink about it is Fox, and that's only because they're trying to hang an albatross around Obama's neck.
I've heard the Nazis liked their meat well done... Aaaaaand Godwinned
Polymorphism (changing a couple bits of the code in the malware, changing the hash signature of the file) is a big factor, negating MD5 or CRC based detections. Broader detections based on heuristics have a higher incidence of false positives, which consumers naturally bitch about. An AV company has to walk a fine line between being overly aggressive and not aggressive enough. Couple these factors with an increasingly technically illiterate user base, and a malware development community that is especially adept at social engineering, and you've got a recipe for disaster. The number one class of threat we dealt with when I worked for an AV company 6 months ago was the so-called "rogue AV" malware which are almost always extremely polymorphic. Those can be delivered by what is known as a "drive by download" which can come from something like a banner ad on a legitimate site, so you can't even protect yourself by staying away from the shady side of the internet. Also, since the banner ads rotate, and it's difficult to guarantee that you'll get the same ad twice, it's hard as hell to track your infection vector in order to get samples to even build a workable detection. That said, I think some protection is better than none. A bulletproof vest may only protect 50% of my body area, but if I were a cop, I'll be damned if I wouldn't wear one. In the end, user education is the only real way to stop malware.
A fine theory, but while your logic is sound this is an emotional issue and people rarely apply logic when their emotions get involved. Case in point, the exposure of a woman's private information all because she's trying to sell a safer gun. Also, you cite the reasonable behavior of gun owners in Arizona. This may be entirely accurate, I have no experience with gun owners in Arizona to base any opinion on, but I do have experience interacting with Georgia gun owners. A number are perfectly sane. Some are truly frightening.
Exactly what I thought of when I read Archtech's post...
Because the government (despite all of the rhetoric about the 2nd amendment being the citizenry's only defense against tyranny) has bigger guns, tanks, fighter jets, bombers, drones, and such. Only an idiot would bring a handgun to that fight.
I would imagine the same people that think it's ok to destroy the life of someone trying to come up with a technology that allows the option of a safer gun would have no qualms about destroying the life of someone who would prevent them from packing heat while they knock back a pitcher or six of budweiser...
... terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.
So he's including "haters" in among the terrorists and "rapers" and carjackers and drug cartels... I guess you have the right to use lethal force against someone who talks shit about you now?
I believe someone above mentioned that if one wants gun control in their state/community, then they can work to institute it, and if they can't do so in their community they should move away. Wouldn't the same hold true with the New Jersey situation? If the gun owners don't like the restrictions that living in New Jersey places on owning a firearm, they can move away. Why do I only hear that advocated as a solution for "someone else"? What's good for the geese is good for the gander.