If they somehow manage to steal exclusively from millionaires, and if they don't keep a dime for themselves, and if they do it in such a way that it doesn't cause headaches for the charities involved, then fine. More power to them.
So in your perfect world any person who has managed to accumulate 1 million dollars or more deserves to be stolen from. They have too much money in your view. If you had spent decades working, saving, taking risks so that you could retire I suspect your myopic view would be a little different.
This is the problem with socialistic thinking. Where is the cutoff point? By whose judgement are we to determine what is enough wealth? Where is the incentive to be a productive member of society when too much success by someone's arbitrary measure warrants government fines? And don't give me any of Alfie Khan's academic "intrinsic motivation" BS. This is the real world and without tangible incentives to individuals society will cease to progress.
So once a person's digitized identifier (e.g. fingerprint) is compromised, that's it... no way to change the input formerly known as a password, ever. Sounds like a great idea.
Here are Charlie Miller and Dino Dai Zovi's responses to the very question of which is more secure, Windows 7 or Mac OS X. These are Apple security researchers. It is the second question in the interview:
The summary: Mac is only safer from browser attacks than Windows because there is less malware written for it. That is, security through obscurity. But Mac is less safe from targeted attacks.
I am always surprised to hear people claim that somehow Mac is magically more secure. It does nothing but reveal their ignorance.
NaCl's intended niche is as a method of allowing Web applications to execute complex algorithms at native speed. Picture 3D modeling for scientific applications, for example, or running complex graphic transformations in a Web-based paint program.
It is raw C/C++. It is platform-independent. Its limitation is the processor architecture. Binaries must be compiled for each architecture. The only similarity between this and ActiveX is that you are running a compiled binary.
IMO it is a dead end unless other browsers follow suit and allow compatibility with these modules, or Chrome takes a larger market share, possibly in the mobile space. Otherwise it will be difficult to convince the execs, directors, managers, etc. that it makes economic sense to produce yet another browser plug-in.
On the other hand it could make Chrome more of a specialty browser used in certain communities where you can't get the same functionality from other browsers for performance reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, you know nobody in their right mind will ever buy a tablet.
Sent from my iPad
If they somehow manage to steal exclusively from millionaires, and if they don't keep a dime for themselves, and if they do it in such a way that it doesn't cause headaches for the charities involved, then fine. More power to them.
So in your perfect world any person who has managed to accumulate 1 million dollars or more deserves to be stolen from. They have too much money in your view. If you had spent decades working, saving, taking risks so that you could retire I suspect your myopic view would be a little different.
This is the problem with socialistic thinking. Where is the cutoff point? By whose judgement are we to determine what is enough wealth? Where is the incentive to be a productive member of society when too much success by someone's arbitrary measure warrants government fines? And don't give me any of Alfie Khan's academic "intrinsic motivation" BS. This is the real world and without tangible incentives to individuals society will cease to progress.
I'll step down from my soapbox now.
Like the Intel processors in most PCs are smuggled into China.
So THAT'S what happened to my processor!
So once a person's digitized identifier (e.g. fingerprint) is compromised, that's it... no way to change the input formerly known as a password, ever. Sounds like a great idea.
Experts argue that humans should cut off their arms, as they are much worse than legs when used for tasks such as walking and running.
Here are Charlie Miller and Dino Dai Zovi's responses to the very question of which is more secure, Windows 7 or Mac OS X. These are Apple security researchers. It is the second question in the interview:
http://www.h-online.com/security/features/Hackers-versus-Apple-1202598.html
The summary: Mac is only safer from browser attacks than Windows because there is less malware written for it. That is, security through obscurity. But Mac is less safe from targeted attacks.
I am always surprised to hear people claim that somehow Mac is magically more secure. It does nothing but reveal their ignorance.
From TFA:
NaCl's intended niche is as a method of allowing Web applications to execute complex algorithms at native speed. Picture 3D modeling for scientific applications, for example, or running complex graphic transformations in a Web-based paint program.
It is raw C/C++. It is platform-independent. Its limitation is the processor architecture. Binaries must be compiled for each architecture. The only similarity between this and ActiveX is that you are running a compiled binary.
IMO it is a dead end unless other browsers follow suit and allow compatibility with these modules, or Chrome takes a larger market share, possibly in the mobile space. Otherwise it will be difficult to convince the execs, directors, managers, etc. that it makes economic sense to produce yet another browser plug-in.
On the other hand it could make Chrome more of a specialty browser used in certain communities where you can't get the same functionality from other browsers for performance reasons.
Ridiculous. The negative side of China's rise to power is not the color of their skin, but the dismissal of human rights by their federal government.