The pirating of legally-free software never ceases to amuse me...I know the licence is for a "paid" version of the program, but still, for personal users, the "free" version is more than sufficient.
Replace "personal users" with "people possessing common sense."
The #1 reason I avoid pirated software is because more often than not, they contain malware and viruses. Now, isn't pirating an anti-virus program that has a free version readily available more than a little self-defeating?
The Nexus 1 didn't even need any hacking to root it, as I understand it.
I'd go for that if I could, but I'm on Verizon and have no intentions of switching. The most important thing to me is reception for calls; I'd trade all the gadgetry in the world for a phone that would simply work when I need it to.
I would recommend not using a smartphone. Some people forget that's an option. To certain people it'd be equivalent to a death sentence; after all, your head might explode if you don't check your Facebook wall for more than five minutes...
Show me a phone that will let me run make install on the Android OS code and I might be impressed with its open-source capabilities. But as day after day go by I hear about more and more phones with ever-increasing lockout features that prevent almost everyone from getting root access to their phones. Why do they devote so much time and effort to this? My money says they have something to hide.
Maybe you think they're violating that? I find that unlikely, as they would be breaking the law pretty blatantly.
That's what lawyers are for. They'll find ways to get around whatever legal restrictions are in place. I know that Google isn't the only one capable of doing devious things with my data, they just have a very poor track record when it comes to their customers' privacy.
Would you use a cell phone OS made by an advertising company? I only have a lowly call-and-text phone, but if I were buying a smartphone I'd avoid Android like the plague. I don't care how open their app development is; I want to know they're not mining my text messages and emails....
I think what's worth equal amount of attention (and probably harder to get real data on) is the willingness to accept new code for the kernel, and how it relates to the same willingness on the part of the distros to accept new code. I'm not a C programmer, so I can only speculate about this, but I'd imagine that you'd have to cry pretty loudly in order to get code you've written accepted into the Linux Kernel project, just as the same would probably have to do the same for some of the major corporate-backed distros to accept new code. By contrast, I'm pretty sure that if you contribute a bugfix to Arch or Crux they'd probably take you seriously.
Corporate-backed distros often have support plans that they profit from. They also have in-house technology running the same software they're developing. If one of their paid developers notices a problem and it's a kernel problem rather than a problem specific to their distro, it only makes sense that those who are paid to work on Linux for a living would be taken the most seriously when it comes to making changes to the Linux kernel itself.
Is this strictly a wired effort, or will the signal from the camera be broadcast by some means (or perhaps even recorded)? Is it possible that someone could use these cameras for a purpose other than for what they were intended? Could a suspicious husband view the camera's archive to see where the wife has been all day? Could law enforcement hijack these cameras for their own purposes?
Ones that never get attacked are either niche markets or not very good.
I'm not sure I would paint with such a broad brush. For example, I am using the Opera browser as we speak and have been for about two years now. I can count on one hand the number of sites I've had a problem using this program with. It's been around since the late '90s and from what I understand, it's been one of the major innovators in the field. It's just never had the megabucks for advertising or the benefit of being an automatically installed application on a commercial OS like IE or Safari and didn't have the benefit of being Netscape's closest successor and the most popular Linux/BSD application around (Firefox). It's played its quiet little role for some time now and has a small but devoted following...not because it fills some sort of niche but because it's a capable product for those who happen to seek it out.
There are many other applications like this: not huge players but do what they do very well and have certain features that set them apart from the mainstream players.
We hear about vulnerabilities involving services and programs that the majority of internet consumers use everyday on a constant basis; it's pretty much expected...not just from pre-installed Windows applications like Internet Explorer, but from GMail, Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress etc. By contrast, when was the last time you heard of a Filemaker exploit, a malicious Opera toolbar, an identica worm, or someone having their Fastmail hacked? Good services with solid support that aren't used by the clueless masses are probably the best way to go when deciding what online applications to patronize.
See, and I'm the flamebaiter/troll here. When liberals insult and demean in pornographic detail, they're just sticking to their principles and should automatically receive +5 insightful.
All these companies are privacy-sensitive, but if you're looking for image or video search AND SSL, Ixquick's the only game in town. Yauba would be my favorite if not for the lack of an SSL option.
I use Scroogle for everyday searching because it's the fastest over SSL (surprising, considering they're running AES 256-bit, military-grade encryption).
I run Avast and MSSE. Security Essentials does have a pretty small footprint, though it gives me the impression that it's pretty impotent. Avast is good and has kept me from small-time JavaScript exploits on more than one occasion, which MSSE did not detect. However, installing it on my 4 year-old laptop pretty much brought it to its knees.
It's important to note that Anti-Virus is 90% theater. If you do reckless things with your computer, you will get owned sooner or later.
Slashdot Mirror
My Amish?
I'd make a comment about Lynx, but odds are you're not going to be watching much porn in that anyway.
The pirating of legally-free software never ceases to amuse me...I know the licence is for a "paid" version of the program, but still, for personal users, the "free" version is more than sufficient.
Replace "personal users" with "people possessing common sense."
The #1 reason I avoid pirated software is because more often than not, they contain malware and viruses. Now, isn't pirating an anti-virus program that has a free version readily available more than a little self-defeating?
Why would you even look at the phone manufacturers
I'm not. I'm looking at Google. Google doesn't make the phones; they are just the biggest contributor to the OS software that's running on them.
I'm NOT succumbing to privacy fatalism like everyone else in the world. If I have to go back to a fucking landline, then so be it.
The Nexus 1 didn't even need any hacking to root it, as I understand it.
I'd go for that if I could, but I'm on Verizon and have no intentions of switching. The most important thing to me is reception for calls; I'd trade all the gadgetry in the world for a phone that would simply work when I need it to.
I would recommend not using a smartphone. Some people forget that's an option. To certain people it'd be equivalent to a death sentence; after all, your head might explode if you don't check your Facebook wall for more than five minutes...
You can keep your privacy. Me, I can't wait for Google to index my brain.
It's not rape if the person on the receiving end consents to it. Enjoy your symptom.
Show me a phone that will let me run make install on the Android OS code and I might be impressed with its open-source capabilities. But as day after day go by I hear about more and more phones with ever-increasing lockout features that prevent almost everyone from getting root access to their phones. Why do they devote so much time and effort to this? My money says they have something to hide.
Alow me to coin a new term: Open-sourciness.
What makes you think your current carrier isn't mining your text messages and emails?
There is no way to know. I simply make a habit of avoiding companies with disreputable business practices, such as Google.
Maybe you think they're violating that? I find that unlikely, as they would be breaking the law pretty blatantly.
That's what lawyers are for. They'll find ways to get around whatever legal restrictions are in place. I know that Google isn't the only one capable of doing devious things with my data, they just have a very poor track record when it comes to their customers' privacy.
Looks like no smartphone for you.
Fine. By. Me.
Would you use a cell phone OS made by an advertising company? I only have a lowly call-and-text phone, but if I were buying a smartphone I'd avoid Android like the plague. I don't care how open their app development is; I want to know they're not mining my text messages and emails....
I think what's worth equal amount of attention (and probably harder to get real data on) is the willingness to accept new code for the kernel, and how it relates to the same willingness on the part of the distros to accept new code. I'm not a C programmer, so I can only speculate about this, but I'd imagine that you'd have to cry pretty loudly in order to get code you've written accepted into the Linux Kernel project, just as the same would probably have to do the same for some of the major corporate-backed distros to accept new code. By contrast, I'm pretty sure that if you contribute a bugfix to Arch or Crux they'd probably take you seriously.
Corporate-backed distros often have support plans that they profit from. They also have in-house technology running the same software they're developing. If one of their paid developers notices a problem and it's a kernel problem rather than a problem specific to their distro, it only makes sense that those who are paid to work on Linux for a living would be taken the most seriously when it comes to making changes to the Linux kernel itself.
Is this strictly a wired effort, or will the signal from the camera be broadcast by some means (or perhaps even recorded)? Is it possible that someone could use these cameras for a purpose other than for what they were intended? Could a suspicious husband view the camera's archive to see where the wife has been all day? Could law enforcement hijack these cameras for their own purposes?
Or nobody will even notice. Which is somewhat relieving.
Ones that never get attacked are either niche markets or not very good.
I'm not sure I would paint with such a broad brush. For example, I am using the Opera browser as we speak and have been for about two years now. I can count on one hand the number of sites I've had a problem using this program with. It's been around since the late '90s and from what I understand, it's been one of the major innovators in the field. It's just never had the megabucks for advertising or the benefit of being an automatically installed application on a commercial OS like IE or Safari and didn't have the benefit of being Netscape's closest successor and the most popular Linux/BSD application around (Firefox). It's played its quiet little role for some time now and has a small but devoted following...not because it fills some sort of niche but because it's a capable product for those who happen to seek it out.
There are many other applications like this: not huge players but do what they do very well and have certain features that set them apart from the mainstream players.
We hear about vulnerabilities involving services and programs that the majority of internet consumers use everyday on a constant basis; it's pretty much expected...not just from pre-installed Windows applications like Internet Explorer, but from GMail, Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress etc. By contrast, when was the last time you heard of a Filemaker exploit, a malicious Opera toolbar, an identica worm, or someone having their Fastmail hacked? Good services with solid support that aren't used by the clueless masses are probably the best way to go when deciding what online applications to patronize.
See, and I'm the flamebaiter/troll here. When liberals insult and demean in pornographic detail, they're just sticking to their principles and should automatically receive +5 insightful.
Going down my Opera search bar:
Default - Scroogle scraper (SSL)
Ixquick (SSL)
DuckDuckGo (SSL)
Yauba
AAfter
All these companies are privacy-sensitive, but if you're looking for image or video search AND SSL, Ixquick's the only game in town. Yauba would be my favorite if not for the lack of an SSL option.
I use Scroogle for everyday searching because it's the fastest over SSL (surprising, considering they're running AES 256-bit, military-grade encryption).
I run Avast and MSSE. Security Essentials does have a pretty small footprint, though it gives me the impression that it's pretty impotent. Avast is good and has kept me from small-time JavaScript exploits on more than one occasion, which MSSE did not detect. However, installing it on my 4 year-old laptop pretty much brought it to its knees.
It's important to note that Anti-Virus is 90% theater. If you do reckless things with your computer, you will get owned sooner or later.
It's this kind of insightful commentary that makes me glad I read Slashdot.
Quiet, you. :)
Julius? Is that you?
Shocking development: Much of European government occupied by spoiled far-left quasi-socialists. Film at 11.
On the contrary. Kids are born that way. They want what they want, and they want it now. Parents and society stay that way because they never grow up.