As long as you are connected to a network, you are not safe. This is true of any OS.
It's also true that there is crime everywhere you go, and that you are not completely safe anywhere you live. But I'd still rather live in... hmm.. just about any 'peaceful suburb' than, say, Harlem.
Your flawed FUD argument is that "no platform is 100% safe therefore you might as well use any platform". But like crime, security is approximately quantified and expressed best as a probability, not a binary "yes" or "no".
Oh, its not Apple's fault when they have commercials saying how much more secure their computers are compared to "PCs"?
Uh, are you honestly attempting to claim that an Apple system is as insecure as any typical Windows PC? That's beyond absurd. A tiny handful of vulnerabilities with basically no known exploits in the wild compared to thousands for PCs plus thousands of malware and botnet apps and hundreds of thousands of viruses? You're smoking some pretty heavy crack there. I mean, even a Windows fanboy like yourself surely can't totally ignore the obvious fact that Macs are still far more secure than Windows PCs.
FTA: "We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something," Maynor said.
With such a childish attitude, it's obvious that they're not only grandstanding for headlines, but also biased and no doubt deliberately distorting things.
Because unlike logon screens secret questions can usually only be used in conjunction with something else that suggests that you are you, e.g. an e-mail reminder whereby you'd have to ALSO be able to intercept the e-mails while doing this dictionary attack.
> American citizens should have the jobs that serve our market.
So why not make a point of buying from companies that don't outsource? Ah, hang on, here we get to the crux: Because companies that outsource can provide their products cheaper (which is why they outsource in the first place). I bet when you're shopping for something you check the price but not whether or not the company outsources. Seems like consumers want low prices more than anything else, and because markets are generally competitive companies that don't outsource generally end up being more expensive (and face going under, or adapting). I mean outsourcing isn't some plot to steal jobs, it's just free markets (labour and otherwise) in action. Would you buy more expensive products to 'preserve local jobs'? Would enough people do so? Should they?
This is a myth so oft-repeated that it's become widely believed, perpetuating itself. However there is no evidence for it - only a lot of rhetoric. In fact there is extremely strong and irrefutable evidence that traditional 'gender role' tendencies are more genetic than the result of socialisation:
Perhaps you ought to read up on (and try to explain) the case of David Reimer:
Pathogen-free? You are seriously kidding yourself. The problem is the environment, not what your fingers or penis have come into contact with. Hands tend to be dry most of the time and exposed to the elements, while the environment in your underwear is warm, dark, humid, and very well protected from wind, sun etc. - it's practically ideal for promoting the growth of all sorts of little cuddly friends like bacteria and fungi. Bacteria can multiply incredibly fast in such conditions - a single bacterium can divide into millions within hours. (Why do you think armpits are one of the most bacteria-filled areas of your body, when practically *nothing* ever comes into contact with them? That's right, warm, moist, dark etc.).
Not washing your hands after touching your penis is disgusting. Having said that though, worrying about all these pathogens all the time is largely pointless and overly paranoid too, in spite of all the bacteria and so on these are still relatively safe to touch, that's why we have immune systems (as someone else pointed out, many women frequently put penises in their mouths; if it was so dangerous women would be dropping like flies or getting sick all the time).
If you really follow the ideas and cause-and-effect through to their logical conclusion, it's evident that non-sustainability is basically just time-shifted murder - stealing something from someone in the future or killing them for it. There is little difference between Bios_Hakr saying something like "In short, if there isn't a direct payoff to me, then fuck it.", and someone saying something like "In short, it's OK to kill Bios_Hakr for his wallet because there's a direct payoff to me".
That means by 2014, there will be 66,000 tons of waste, and it'd take 66 years for Yucca to catch up- but five years after Yucca was completed, we'd again have more nuclear waste than storage capacity
OK, fine and well, but where will we be by 2014 if Yucca doesn't open at all?
It was perfectly clear from context that his name was raised because he was a person at the center of some controversy for some reason and that's all you really needed to know to unstand the article
I don't really agree. The core issue here is a controversy relating to the idea of banning certain topics from Wikipedia. The only way for anyone like me to be able to make any kind of judgment about whether or not such 'banning' is justified or not is to know exactly what those topics are about. Without knowing, it's impossible to form an opinion. (It's a bit like the whole Danish cartoons "controversy", where everybody was reporting on these controversial cartoons without publishing them. How can you form any kind of judgment about them without seeing them? Or are our opinions supposed to be "guided" based on what someone else feels is controversial, like children? No, we have to know.)
Did you RTA? "Varibel says its glasses can detect which direction sounds come from, amplifying words spoken directly to the wearer while dampening background noise."
Do any existing hearing aids embedded in glasses detect the direction sounds are coming from and dynamically adjust the volume of different sounds depending on the direction? Didn't think so --- that's pretty smart functionality.
I know this is slashdot and all so we're all supposed to eagerly clamour to point out why the article "isn't news" in order to show off our intellectual plumage, but at least RTA before doing so.
Of course they can do that anyway even (and especially) without the glasses, so this is not a 'flaw' with these glasses. Reminds me of that episode of Desperate Housewives where the husband of a deaf woman keeps making nasty remarks about his wife behind her back while she is there.
Ah, so one way to manipulate your critics into suppressing their viewpoint is by blanketly associating it with paranoid nutcases, thereby using 'fear of being labelled' to silence them, I see.
I'm not sure where the "conspiracy theory" here though is because this is established fact.
It sounds ideal for cross-platform application development --- you only need one machine, and just need to reboot when porting/compiling to your 'non-primary' platforms. Combine with a decent cross-platform API like wxWidgets for best results. Make it a MacBook and you're portable too, and with all three platforms available to give product demos depending on who you're selling to.
Microsoft was convicted of including a BROWSER in their operating system.
Uh, I think you forgot (deliberately?) most of the rest of the findings of fact, not only about the product tying but a.o. the illegal coersion of OEMs.
Ew, so just today I've heard MS called a breast, and Windows called a sex machine... think it's time to quit slashdot before any of these weird associations start sticking:/.
If they just need the money for something why not get it budgeted from existing tax channels? Seems almost like a premise for setting up additional infrastructure allowing the government to keep track of anything bought/sold and by whom.[/tinfoilhat]
Open source by its very nature is meant to operate such that outsiders find the bugs, isn't it true? So how can you argue that open source is better than that?
No, it isn't, I'm not sure where you get that misconception from, the majority of opensource development work is done by core teams that often work full-time on projects --- exactly like closed source. The fact the outsiders can also look for and find bugs is just a "bonus". One can easily argue that open source is "better" by just comparing what each has going for it:
Closed source projects have: (1) A core team of developers.
Open source projects have: (1) A core team of developers, AND (2) Extra 'outside eyes' looking at the code.
When does the security bug become visible in the open source world? Shortly after the discovery. The uSoft bug became only visible after the bug was found, fixed, QAd, built, and posted.
But there are also security bugs that are found, fixed, QAd, built and posted before (non-internal) discovery in the OpenSource world -- same as with closed source. You seem to be implying that bugs in the OpenSource world are only found externally, and then patched. That's not true. Fact is, both 'methodologies' are at least equal in that particular aspect. Sometimes bugs are found internally, sometimes not. How is the closed source model better? Seems to me that with security, OpenSource has a few advantages that closed source doesn't, but closed source has no advantages that opensource doesn't also have.
He might have a point, but it doesn't matter: Whether or not "environmentalism" may be a "religious tendency" in man has nothing to do with whether or not global warming actually exists. Even if we were believing it for all the wrong reasons it could still be true, and its truth value isn't even remotely connected to whether or not we believe it or why we do.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you are connected to a network, you are not safe. This is true of any OS.
It's also true that there is crime everywhere you go, and that you are not completely safe anywhere you live. But I'd still rather live in ... hmm .. just about any 'peaceful suburb' than, say, Harlem.
Your flawed FUD argument is that "no platform is 100% safe therefore you might as well use any platform". But like crime, security is approximately quantified and expressed best as a probability, not a binary "yes" or "no".
Oh, its not Apple's fault when they have commercials saying how much more secure their computers are compared to "PCs"?
Uh, are you honestly attempting to claim that an Apple system is as insecure as any typical Windows PC? That's beyond absurd. A tiny handful of vulnerabilities with basically no known exploits in the wild compared to thousands for PCs plus thousands of malware and botnet apps and hundreds of thousands of viruses? You're smoking some pretty heavy crack there. I mean, even a Windows fanboy like yourself surely can't totally ignore the obvious fact that Macs are still far more secure than Windows PCs.
FTA: "We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something," Maynor said.
With such a childish attitude, it's obvious that they're not only grandstanding for headlines, but also biased and no doubt deliberately distorting things.
Because unlike logon screens secret questions can usually only be used in conjunction with something else that suggests that you are you, e.g. an e-mail reminder whereby you'd have to ALSO be able to intercept the e-mails while doing this dictionary attack.
> American citizens should have the jobs that serve our market.
So why not make a point of buying from companies that don't outsource? Ah, hang on, here we get to the crux: Because companies that outsource can provide their products cheaper (which is why they outsource in the first place). I bet when you're shopping for something you check the price but not whether or not the company outsources. Seems like consumers want low prices more than anything else, and because markets are generally competitive companies that don't outsource generally end up being more expensive (and face going under, or adapting). I mean outsourcing isn't some plot to steal jobs, it's just free markets (labour and otherwise) in action. Would you buy more expensive products to 'preserve local jobs'? Would enough people do so? Should they?
This is a myth so oft-repeated that it's become widely believed, perpetuating itself. However there is no evidence for it - only a lot of rhetoric. In fact there is extremely strong and irrefutable evidence that traditional 'gender role' tendencies are more genetic than the result of socialisation:
Perhaps you ought to read up on (and try to explain) the case of David Reimer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
This is not the only case:
http://www.infocirc.org/rollston.htm
So much for "socialisation".
Pathogen-free? You are seriously kidding yourself. The problem is the environment, not what your fingers or penis have come into contact with. Hands tend to be dry most of the time and exposed to the elements, while the environment in your underwear is warm, dark, humid, and very well protected from wind, sun etc. - it's practically ideal for promoting the growth of all sorts of little cuddly friends like bacteria and fungi. Bacteria can multiply incredibly fast in such conditions - a single bacterium can divide into millions within hours. (Why do you think armpits are one of the most bacteria-filled areas of your body, when practically *nothing* ever comes into contact with them? That's right, warm, moist, dark etc.).
Not washing your hands after touching your penis is disgusting. Having said that though, worrying about all these pathogens all the time is largely pointless and overly paranoid too, in spite of all the bacteria and so on these are still relatively safe to touch, that's why we have immune systems (as someone else pointed out, many women frequently put penises in their mouths; if it was so dangerous women would be dropping like flies or getting sick all the time).
Of course, there's always the "we'll run out of oil by 1995" theories running around
Where did you get this? Even the most pessimistic peak oil projections put us "running out" of oil at the very earliest around the 2040's.
Sustainability
If you really follow the ideas and cause-and-effect through to their logical conclusion, it's evident that non-sustainability is basically just time-shifted murder - stealing something from someone in the future or killing them for it. There is little difference between Bios_Hakr saying something like "In short, if there isn't a direct payoff to me, then fuck it.", and someone saying something like "In short, it's OK to kill Bios_Hakr for his wallet because there's a direct payoff to me".
That means by 2014, there will be 66,000 tons of waste, and it'd take 66 years for Yucca to catch up- but five years after Yucca was completed, we'd again have more nuclear waste than storage capacity
OK, fine and well, but where will we be by 2014 if Yucca doesn't open at all?
Don't you just love inductive fallacies. "Predictions in the past were false. Therefore future predictions are also false."
How do they detect directionality without multiple microphones?
The article says the sound is processed by a microchip, which probably implies digitally.
It was perfectly clear from context that his name was raised because he was a person at the center of some controversy for some reason and that's all you really needed to know to unstand the article
I don't really agree. The core issue here is a controversy relating to the idea of banning certain topics from Wikipedia. The only way for anyone like me to be able to make any kind of judgment about whether or not such 'banning' is justified or not is to know exactly what those topics are about. Without knowing, it's impossible to form an opinion. (It's a bit like the whole Danish cartoons "controversy", where everybody was reporting on these controversial cartoons without publishing them. How can you form any kind of judgment about them without seeing them? Or are our opinions supposed to be "guided" based on what someone else feels is controversial, like children? No, we have to know.)
Did you RTA? "Varibel says its glasses can detect which direction sounds come from, amplifying words spoken directly to the wearer while dampening background noise."
Do any existing hearing aids embedded in glasses detect the direction sounds are coming from and dynamically adjust the volume of different sounds depending on the direction? Didn't think so --- that's pretty smart functionality.
I know this is slashdot and all so we're all supposed to eagerly clamour to point out why the article "isn't news" in order to show off our intellectual plumage, but at least RTA before doing so.
Of course they can do that anyway even (and especially) without the glasses, so this is not a 'flaw' with these glasses. Reminds me of that episode of Desperate Housewives where the husband of a deaf woman keeps making nasty remarks about his wife behind her back while she is there.
Ah, so one way to manipulate your critics into suppressing their viewpoint is by blanketly associating it with paranoid nutcases, thereby using 'fear of being labelled' to silence them, I see.
I'm not sure where the "conspiracy theory" here though is because this is established fact.
It sounds ideal for cross-platform application development --- you only need one machine, and just need to reboot when porting/compiling to your 'non-primary' platforms. Combine with a decent cross-platform API like wxWidgets for best results. Make it a MacBook and you're portable too, and with all three platforms available to give product demos depending on who you're selling to.
Microsoft was convicted of including a BROWSER in their operating system.
Uh, I think you forgot (deliberately?) most of the rest of the findings of fact, not only about the product tying but a.o. the illegal coersion of OEMs.
Thanks for the mammaries, MS, you big teat.
Ew, so just today I've heard MS called a breast, and Windows called a sex machine ... think it's time to quit slashdot before any of these weird associations start sticking :/.
If they just need the money for something why not get it budgeted from existing tax channels? Seems almost like a premise for setting up additional infrastructure allowing the government to keep track of anything bought/sold and by whom.[/tinfoilhat]
Is this a sign of the increasing freedoms that politicians argue(d) liberalised trade with China would bring about?
which was both bold, a different color and italicized.
Your post is both interesting, informative and insightful.
Open source by its very nature is meant to operate such that outsiders find the bugs, isn't it true? So how can you argue that open source is better than that?
No, it isn't, I'm not sure where you get that misconception from, the majority of opensource development work is done by core teams that often work full-time on projects --- exactly like closed source. The fact the outsiders can also look for and find bugs is just a "bonus". One can easily argue that open source is "better" by just comparing what each has going for it:
Closed source projects have: (1) A core team of developers.
Open source projects have: (1) A core team of developers, AND (2) Extra 'outside eyes' looking at the code.
When does the security bug become visible in the open source world? Shortly after the discovery. The uSoft bug became only visible after the bug was found, fixed, QAd, built, and posted.
But there are also security bugs that are found, fixed, QAd, built and posted before (non-internal) discovery in the OpenSource world -- same as with closed source. You seem to be implying that bugs in the OpenSource world are only found externally, and then patched. That's not true. Fact is, both 'methodologies' are at least equal in that particular aspect. Sometimes bugs are found internally, sometimes not. How is the closed source model better? Seems to me that with security, OpenSource has a few advantages that closed source doesn't, but closed source has no advantages that opensource doesn't also have.
He might have a point, but it doesn't matter: Whether or not "environmentalism" may be a "religious tendency" in man has nothing to do with whether or not global warming actually exists. Even if we were believing it for all the wrong reasons it could still be true, and its truth value isn't even remotely connected to whether or not we believe it or why we do.