Yeah, life-critical systems, e.g. aircraft control systems, are often developed with that kind of formal specification.
But you have to be able to write the mathematical specification to begin with. I don't see how that's even possible for a mainstream operating system, or for any process that interacts heavily with the user for that matter.
That list could be more comprehensive, fair enough. Indeed it's good practice to run PDF/Flash only when necessary. And of course any necessary services must be carefully configured - e.g. old SQL Server installations come to mind, where the default administrative account was "sa" with a blank password.
I don't mean "use Linux", which has already been suggested a number of times, predictably. I mean no antivirus installed whatsoever, and do the following:
- Before you run any binaries and otherwise infectable files you download, run them through an online antivirus (e.g. ESET).
- In Explorer, don't generate thumbnails.
- services.msc and disable everything you don't need
- Run a firewall. Even a basic one will do.
- Don't use IE or Outlook.
That's how I roll, and I know for a fact I haven't had a virus for about a decade. I'm absolutely positive the machine isn't in a botnet or anything of that sort because I regularly monitor my traffic in the router. If I had a virus I almost certainly wouldn't be able to browse to ESET online or any other antivirus site. Finally ESET online also scans the RAM.
Of all the people/things you mention, the one that's actually a bit similar to Hitler is PVV - amusing how you don't include it in your list of things that are Hitler.
When I worked as a consultant for a software company I had to log every break I took, no matter how short, for billing purposes. While that sucks, it's understandable. But one didn't have to log "bathroom". One just logged "personal" and that could be a private call, coffee, bathroom, fresh air, whatever. Requiring the employee to log bathroom breaks strikes me as a totally unacceptable violation of privacy.
One of the banks I deal with has adopted the "SMS to phone" approach, with no possibility to opt out, which I find a terrible idea. It must be so much fun when your battery or signal is out or the phone is lost/broken and you have to close those stocks urgently, make that urgent wire transfer, etc. Bonus points if this happens when you're abroad, with no possibility to go to a brick-and-mortar branch.
Another bank, which I also work with, uses RSA tokens - I much prefer that; it is real security.
Uhm... Wrong. It was hugely profitable in a short term for the Spanish who commissioned it. The largest GDP in the world 350 years that? Well, I can only guess you're talking about the USA... which of course makes all the sense in the world because we all know Columbus was an Anglo American.
Because those resistance groups have been so successful...? By "successful" I don't necessarily mean they managed to overthrow the government (which hasn't happened in many of those cases), but above all, that they gained liberties and removed injustices and they did so without massive loss of lives and impoverishment.
I can't imagine the Chinese people taking up arms against government. Despite murderous acts committed by their governments, the Chinese culture is one of peace.
But let's suppose a scenario where the people had guns and they had risen against government... my guess is yes, they would still have a single-party regime (by the way, it's not really Communism except in name): even more people would have been killed and they would have failed to improve matters, considering most of the army didn't and doesn't side with the oppressed.
First, a large fraction of the armed forces will not fire on American citizens. Some will, sure, but not most.
A tank will probably not fire on unarmed people.
On the other hand, it is not so unlikely for a tank to panic and start firing if it gets surrounded by a thousands-strong mob of people armed to their teeth.
In modern times, successful resistance movements have typically been non-violent - e.g. Gandhi, Luther-King, Rosa Parks...
My point, and I thought the context made it clear, was that you do not need an antivirus as long as you take just a few precautions. Run a firewall, avoid random executables, disable useless services (and have strong passwords for those that aren't useless) and patch up vulnerabilities regularly. Precautions that should be taken for any computer online.
If you don't notice a system hog, so much the better for you. I personally don't appreciate pop-ups telling me to update the anti-virus database and icons cluttering the taskbar.
Hm. "OS X contains powerful defenses to help keep your Mac safe from PC viruses and other malware without the hassle of constant alerts and sweeps." May not contain any outright lie but it is highly misleading and it gives Joe Sixpack a false sense of security. If I get an alert, it can't be anything too bad.
A virus copies itself on its own, but the initial infection might happen by running it manually (that's how many old DOS viruses operated).
Setting aside the fact that Macs are PCs and not all PCs run Windows... I run regularly both a Linux desktop and a Windows desktop. What "PC" users need is a tiny, just a tiny bit of education (admittedly many don't have it). I've gotten exactly zero viruses on linux and two viruses on Windows: on one occasion, I ran a random binary while drunk. On the other occasion I was not running a firewall - something that *every* computer online needs - your Mac runs one by default, I suppose you know; have no doubt it may get blasted without one (Sasser-style net worms have happened in the *nix world). The precautions I've always taken are pretty much the same I take on Linux: make sure a firewall is running, do not run random binaries (or PDFs, or DOC/XLS/PPTs, for that matter) from the net, and back in the day, don't use IE (admittedly you can't even do that on Linux). And definitely don't run an antivirus to hog the system - which has to be *disabled* on Win7 and that's a bit annoying.
Apple and some of its fans do tout Mac OS X as being somehow immune to malware in general, not just viruses.
As for viruses, this one indeed seems not to be a virus (unless it proceeds to replicate after launching - a piece of malware can be both a virus and a trojan), but any device that can run an arbitrary program can run a virus.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, life-critical systems, e.g. aircraft control systems, are often developed with that kind of formal specification.
But you have to be able to write the mathematical specification to begin with. I don't see how that's even possible for a mainstream operating system, or for any process that interacts heavily with the user for that matter.
That list could be more comprehensive, fair enough. Indeed it's good practice to run PDF/Flash only when necessary. And of course any necessary services must be carefully configured - e.g. old SQL Server installations come to mind, where the default administrative account was "sa" with a blank password.
I don't mean "use Linux", which has already been suggested a number of times, predictably. I mean no antivirus installed whatsoever, and do the following:
- Before you run any binaries and otherwise infectable files you download, run them through an online antivirus (e.g. ESET).
- In Explorer, don't generate thumbnails.
- services.msc and disable everything you don't need
- Run a firewall. Even a basic one will do.
- Don't use IE or Outlook.
That's how I roll, and I know for a fact I haven't had a virus for about a decade. I'm absolutely positive the machine isn't in a botnet or anything of that sort because I regularly monitor my traffic in the router. If I had a virus I almost certainly wouldn't be able to browse to ESET online or any other antivirus site. Finally ESET online also scans the RAM.
Of all the people/things you mention, the one that's actually a bit similar to Hitler is PVV - amusing how you don't include it in your list of things that are Hitler.
Exactly. Google couldn't get Facebook to play, so they took it upon themselves to provide a better user experience.
Is that the new way to say "violate users' privacy even further"? Gotta love the euphemism.
When I worked as a consultant for a software company I had to log every break I took, no matter how short, for billing purposes. While that sucks, it's understandable. But one didn't have to log "bathroom". One just logged "personal" and that could be a private call, coffee, bathroom, fresh air, whatever. Requiring the employee to log bathroom breaks strikes me as a totally unacceptable violation of privacy.
No thanks, the lack of an SD slot is NOT one of its good features.
People can buy and sell copyright just like corporations. But one thing is the content and another thing is the copyright.
(FWIW, I agree with GP.)
Really? I thought all patents were public by definition? A trade secret is something else.
One of the banks I deal with has adopted the "SMS to phone" approach, with no possibility to opt out, which I find a terrible idea. It must be so much fun when your battery or signal is out or the phone is lost/broken and you have to close those stocks urgently, make that urgent wire transfer, etc. Bonus points if this happens when you're abroad, with no possibility to go to a brick-and-mortar branch. Another bank, which I also work with, uses RSA tokens - I much prefer that; it is real security.
The vodka project doesn't look like it should require a lot of financial resources though.
Eurolines runs services from tip to tip of the continent, e.g. Southern Spain - Hamburg, 3000 km.
Next time they ask about my Rolex, I know what to answer! It's not fake, it's a real watch with fraudulent information on it (the brand)!
Uhm... Wrong. It was hugely profitable in a short term for the Spanish who commissioned it. The largest GDP in the world 350 years that? Well, I can only guess you're talking about the USA... which of course makes all the sense in the world because we all know Columbus was an Anglo American.
Baltasar Garzón
Because those resistance groups have been so successful...? By "successful" I don't necessarily mean they managed to overthrow the government (which hasn't happened in many of those cases), but above all, that they gained liberties and removed injustices and they did so without massive loss of lives and impoverishment.
I can't imagine the Chinese people taking up arms against government. Despite murderous acts committed by their governments, the Chinese culture is one of peace.
But let's suppose a scenario where the people had guns and they had risen against government... my guess is yes, they would still have a single-party regime (by the way, it's not really Communism except in name): even more people would have been killed and they would have failed to improve matters, considering most of the army didn't and doesn't side with the oppressed.
First, a large fraction of the armed forces will not fire on American citizens. Some will, sure, but not most.
A tank will probably not fire on unarmed people.
On the other hand, it is not so unlikely for a tank to panic and start firing if it gets surrounded by a thousands-strong mob of people armed to their teeth.
In modern times, successful resistance movements have typically been non-violent - e.g. Gandhi, Luther-King, Rosa Parks...
Probably not many Canadians.
But with a few seconds of research you'll find that many Latin Americans, especially of Indian descent, do call themselves "the true Americans".
It must suck to be sexually rejected AND lack hands.
When the people who live their yearn for the good old days of queuing for potatoes and strict censorship you know nothing ever changed.
Okay, and now a translation from that into English?
I didn't mean you have to disable the antivirus.
My point, and I thought the context made it clear, was that you do not need an antivirus as long as you take just a few precautions. Run a firewall, avoid random executables, disable useless services (and have strong passwords for those that aren't useless) and patch up vulnerabilities regularly. Precautions that should be taken for any computer online.
If you don't notice a system hog, so much the better for you. I personally don't appreciate pop-ups telling me to update the anti-virus database and icons cluttering the taskbar.
A virus copies itself on its own, but the initial infection might happen by running it manually (that's how many old DOS viruses operated).
Setting aside the fact that Macs are PCs and not all PCs run Windows... I run regularly both a Linux desktop and a Windows desktop. What "PC" users need is a tiny, just a tiny bit of education (admittedly many don't have it). I've gotten exactly zero viruses on linux and two viruses on Windows: on one occasion, I ran a random binary while drunk. On the other occasion I was not running a firewall - something that *every* computer online needs - your Mac runs one by default, I suppose you know; have no doubt it may get blasted without one (Sasser-style net worms have happened in the *nix world). The precautions I've always taken are pretty much the same I take on Linux: make sure a firewall is running, do not run random binaries (or PDFs, or DOC/XLS/PPTs, for that matter) from the net, and back in the day, don't use IE (admittedly you can't even do that on Linux). And definitely don't run an antivirus to hog the system - which has to be *disabled* on Win7 and that's a bit annoying.
Apple and some of its fans do tout Mac OS X as being somehow immune to malware in general, not just viruses.
As for viruses, this one indeed seems not to be a virus (unless it proceeds to replicate after launching - a piece of malware can be both a virus and a trojan), but any device that can run an arbitrary program can run a virus.
Got an agenda?
Yes! To get Dr Bob to join this thread with one of his "insights". Paging Dr Bob... Come on...