Luckily, the IT folks wherever you work are smarter, more knowledgeable, and have more resources than us Kaspersky guys. (BTW, we're headquartered in Moscow...hint, hint...)
Note to self: don't forget to turn on that Trojan horse on Cybergeddon Day.
(Note to humor-impaired moderators: it's just a joke.:-)
Hey, maybe you're on to something... I'm beginning to understand now why Google paid $2 billion for Nest. Previously, I saw that as a couple of rich guys indulging themselves with stockholder's money (which is also partly their own - then again, Larry and Sergei have more to spare Google's other stockholders.) It makes a lot more sense, though, when you throw in the whole tinfoil hat thing: presumably, the Government (read: NSA) wants to know what temperature people find to be "comfortable" in their living rooms - and maybe even torture terrorist with the wrong setting, now that waterboarding has been discredited. And of course that's only the start: if the whole "IoT" thing really takes off, Google's (subsidized) Nest thermostat will be asking our refrigerators whether you and I need to buy another gallon of milk - and I say it's none of their darn business!
There's probably also a good tinfoil-hat reason that Microsoft paid so much for Nokia's money-losing phone division. I can't see any advantage for the Government (read: NSA) to subsidize that, but it just proves them Feds is a whole lot smarter than I am. And don't even get me started on NSA's nefarious plans for Minecraft...
Or maybe part of the endless Vim vs. Emacs debate: Vim fans tout "the Vim's alertness" and Emacs folks, tired of hearing it, respond with "threaten less Vims" and are relieved to hear that The Prophet Stallman "reseals tenth Vims" just in time to avert the coming apocalypse.
so I'm guessing this has something to do with Microsoft not wanting traditional desktop Linux to have decent Skype support
Waitaminute...are you suggesting that a business would pay $8.5 billion for something they give away, as part of a larger strategy of building a moat around the things they sell? Gosh, that's dastardly. No wonder everyone here thinks they're evil...;-)
Well, sounds crazy to me, but if it actually works, maybe those Redhat folks should try giving away something and selling something different. Here's an idea - maybe they could give away free source code as part of a larger business strategy of selling service contracts or something.
You forgot this one: Only PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE companies making CLOSED software have bugs. The gnuPhone's modern appy app apps are 100% free, and since enough eyeballs make all bugs shallow, they don't have any bugs - not even Heartbleed!
(Disclaimer: like its parent, the preceding comment was just a joke. Since no response is necessary for a joke, this comment is ipso factonot a "Troll.")
The next thing you know, they'll come up with a way to determine my age from what percentage of the day I'm grumpy. Which reminds me..."YOU KIDS GET OUTTA MY YARD!"
Hmmm...I hadn't thought about that. Heck, I thought they were releasing their software under a liberal open source license because they wanted people to use and develop the software as part of their larger business model - not as some sort of devious trap.
Now that you mention it, though, I can see how naive this "Occam's Razor" sort of thinking really is. After all, Richard, they are The Evil Empire...
How little do I make? Suffice it to say, it's a sad story. I don't worry about having to pay $700 or so for MSVC every five years. The bigger problem of running a home business on the small scale that I do is having to fill out a couple of dozen tax forms every year. For example, the state I live in makes me pay unemployment tax in case I ever get laid off from my one-man home business.
TFA has an interesting but unlikely premise: Microsoft cares about the "trust" of the open source community. Why should they? Isn't the whole idea of open source (with a suitable license) supposed to be that you don't have to trust the originator of the software? For example, open source is often cited as a solution for the problem that the originator goes belly-up. Fine, just maintain it yourself or with the help of the community.
Besides, why should Microsoft care about the "trust" of the people they're giving stuff to? First, it's unlikely they they will ever gain the trust of those who forever view them as The Evil Empire. Second, they've already got the trust (by and large) of their paying customers, much as a male black widow spider trusts the female: trust her, but don't become lunch.
For example, I have a large body of software I've developed over the past 20 years that's written for Microsoft's "MFC." (Seemed like a good idea at the time...) I trust them to keep supporting that (as they have for 20 years), and I also trust that they'll make me buy a new version of Visual Studio every few years when the old one no longer works on modern versions of Windows. (Been there, done that.) That sort of trust is called "business."
Gosh, that's pretty strident. Yes, I'm speaking figuratively. Isn't it obvious that Snowden literally didn't make any laws? For example, he held no office which held that power. Geesh...
My basic point is that he determined unilaterally what the law should be. Specifically, people who have security clearances sign a legal agreement that causes them to be bound to the (literal) law not to disclose secrets. (Trust me, I know, I once signed such an agreement as part of getting a security clearance.)
You're welcome to your opinion about whether what he did was right, moral, etc., but it was undeniably against the law. BTW, Snowden evidently agrees on that point - unless he's just enjoying a very extended vacation in Russia.
As for drugs, all the ones I'm on are either prescribed by my doctor, available over the counter at any pharmacy, or at corner grocery store. I don't currently hold a security clearance, but I wouldn't fail the required drug test for one. Can you make that same statement?...
BTW, has anybody noticed that Kim Jong Un always seems to be the one-and-only fat guy in any picture you ever see of North Koreans? Not even the elite folks that flank him are fat (except for the brims of their hats, of course.) Maybe he has a rule about that or something: "I am only fat guy in North Krorea!" Just wondering...
Sounds like if you and Snowden could find a third like-minded soul, you could form a triumvirate and make only moral laws. Then, none of us would have to break any laws any more to conform to (your) morality. Best of all, as an old boss of mine used to say whenever we caught him breaking his own rules, "The maker of the law is exempt from the law.";-)
But seriously, my basic beef with Snowden is that he elected himself chief lawmaker. Of course, the lawmakers that the rest of us elect are far from perfect. But at least they didn't elect themselves...
Slashdot Mirror
Note to humor-impaired commenters: it's just a joke. :-)
Luckily, the IT folks wherever you work are smarter, more knowledgeable, and have more resources than us Kaspersky guys. (BTW, we're headquartered in Moscow...hint, hint...)
Note to self: don't forget to turn on that Trojan horse on Cybergeddon Day.
(Note to humor-impaired moderators: it's just a joke. :-)
Hey, maybe you're on to something... I'm beginning to understand now why Google paid $2 billion for Nest. Previously, I saw that as a couple of rich guys indulging themselves with stockholder's money (which is also partly their own - then again, Larry and Sergei have more to spare Google's other stockholders.) It makes a lot more sense, though, when you throw in the whole tinfoil hat thing: presumably, the Government (read: NSA) wants to know what temperature people find to be "comfortable" in their living rooms - and maybe even torture terrorist with the wrong setting, now that waterboarding has been discredited. And of course that's only the start: if the whole "IoT" thing really takes off, Google's (subsidized) Nest thermostat will be asking our refrigerators whether you and I need to buy another gallon of milk - and I say it's none of their darn business!
There's probably also a good tinfoil-hat reason that Microsoft paid so much for Nokia's money-losing phone division. I can't see any advantage for the Government (read: NSA) to subsidize that, but it just proves them Feds is a whole lot smarter than I am. And don't even get me started on NSA's nefarious plans for Minecraft...
Or maybe part of the endless Vim vs. Emacs debate: Vim fans tout "the Vim's alertness" and Emacs folks, tired of hearing it, respond with "threaten less Vims" and are relieved to hear that The Prophet Stallman "reseals tenth Vims" just in time to avert the coming apocalypse.
Or maybe it's a commentary on Candidate Trump, and Former Candidate Rubio for trying to beat him at his own game: "Statesmen Shrivel"
It's simply an anagram for "Heavers Smelt Nits." (Isn't that mostly what we do here?)
so I'm guessing this has something to do with Microsoft not wanting traditional desktop Linux to have decent Skype support
Waitaminute...are you suggesting that a business would pay $8.5 billion for something they give away, as part of a larger strategy of building a moat around the things they sell? Gosh, that's dastardly. No wonder everyone here thinks they're evil... ;-)
Well, sounds crazy to me, but if it actually works, maybe those Redhat folks should try giving away something and selling something different. Here's an idea - maybe they could give away free source code as part of a larger business strategy of selling service contracts or something.
Yeah, don't you just hate it when somebody pays $8.5 billion for something, then refuses to give it away. No wonder everyone here thinks they're evil...
(Note to moderators: Since the system here provides no "Irony" tag, please just ignore this comment if you don't get it. :-)
Would you consider becoming my running mate?
- Donald
You forgot this one: Only PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE companies making CLOSED software have bugs. The gnuPhone's modern appy app apps are 100% free, and since enough eyeballs make all bugs shallow, they don't have any bugs - not even Heartbleed!
(Disclaimer: like its parent, the preceding comment was just a joke. Since no response is necessary for a joke, this comment is ipso facto not a "Troll.")
The next thing you know, they'll come up with a way to determine my age from what percentage of the day I'm grumpy. Which reminds me..."YOU KIDS GET OUTTA MY YARD!"
(Is it nap time yet?)
Hmmm...I hadn't thought about that. Heck, I thought they were releasing their software under a liberal open source license because they wanted people to use and develop the software as part of their larger business model - not as some sort of devious trap.
Now that you mention it, though, I can see how naive this "Occam's Razor" sort of thinking really is. After all, Richard, they are The Evil Empire...
How little do I make? Suffice it to say, it's a sad story. I don't worry about having to pay $700 or so for MSVC every five years. The bigger problem of running a home business on the small scale that I do is having to fill out a couple of dozen tax forms every year. For example, the state I live in makes me pay unemployment tax in case I ever get laid off from my one-man home business.
Except that surrenders the legal precedent whereby law enforcement can demand you write a program to compromise your product's security.
I prefer the current system where computer manufacturers install crapware without being compelled to do so.
TFA has an interesting but unlikely premise: Microsoft cares about the "trust" of the open source community. Why should they? Isn't the whole idea of open source (with a suitable license) supposed to be that you don't have to trust the originator of the software? For example, open source is often cited as a solution for the problem that the originator goes belly-up. Fine, just maintain it yourself or with the help of the community.
Besides, why should Microsoft care about the "trust" of the people they're giving stuff to? First, it's unlikely they they will ever gain the trust of those who forever view them as The Evil Empire. Second, they've already got the trust (by and large) of their paying customers, much as a male black widow spider trusts the female: trust her, but don't become lunch.
For example, I have a large body of software I've developed over the past 20 years that's written for Microsoft's "MFC." (Seemed like a good idea at the time...) I trust them to keep supporting that (as they have for 20 years), and I also trust that they'll make me buy a new version of Visual Studio every few years when the old one no longer works on modern versions of Windows. (Been there, done that.) That sort of trust is called "business."
But how do we tell the difference? They're both fat yellow dictatorial pigs.
The primary way to tell the difference between the two is that there's no evidence that Kim is a misogynist - heck, he even has a girl's name...
Thermonuclear War is no fun with so many players. The two-player rules are a lot more fun:
1. Kim Jong-un
2. Donald Trump
It's more likely to be 12 or 14.
I've also heard a more practical explanation: once a state accepts taxes in a currency, it has value.
Gosh, that's pretty strident. Yes, I'm speaking figuratively. Isn't it obvious that Snowden literally didn't make any laws? For example, he held no office which held that power. Geesh...
My basic point is that he determined unilaterally what the law should be. Specifically, people who have security clearances sign a legal agreement that causes them to be bound to the (literal) law not to disclose secrets. (Trust me, I know, I once signed such an agreement as part of getting a security clearance.)
You're welcome to your opinion about whether what he did was right, moral, etc., but it was undeniably against the law. BTW, Snowden evidently agrees on that point - unless he's just enjoying a very extended vacation in Russia.
As for drugs, all the ones I'm on are either prescribed by my doctor, available over the counter at any pharmacy, or at corner grocery store. I don't currently hold a security clearance, but I wouldn't fail the required drug test for one. Can you make that same statement?...
BTW, they must think that we're really neglecting Obama, as thin as he is...
Very interesting and informative, thanks!
BTW, has anybody noticed that Kim Jong Un always seems to be the one-and-only fat guy in any picture you ever see of North Koreans? Not even the elite folks that flank him are fat (except for the brims of their hats, of course.) Maybe he has a rule about that or something: "I am only fat guy in North Krorea!" Just wondering...
Sounds like if you and Snowden could find a third like-minded soul, you could form a triumvirate and make only moral laws. Then, none of us would have to break any laws any more to conform to (your) morality. Best of all, as an old boss of mine used to say whenever we caught him breaking his own rules, "The maker of the law is exempt from the law." ;-)
But seriously, my basic beef with Snowden is that he elected himself chief lawmaker. Of course, the lawmakers that the rest of us elect are far from perfect. But at least they didn't elect themselves...
AFAICS, most people who think they understand statistics don't.
Exactly right. In fact, nearly 110% of people who have taken a statistics class fall below the 105th percentile.