Lots of childish cynical trolls on Slashdot lately... how about growing up and entering the reasonable discourse among adults again? Do something good to yourself and your country and give rational arguments another try.
I have used ClamAV on Linux in the past, but wasn't very impressed. Anyway, the argument you seem to implicate is a non-sequitur. I'm saying that Kaspersky with a full audit by a trustworthy 3rd-party would be an awesome antivirus product and probably the best and most secure on the market. I am decidedly not saying that any random open-source antivirus program would be the best just because it's open source. By the way, I haven't checked but somehow doubt that ClamAV has been audited by a professional 3rd party at all. Full code audits are very expensive.
If they do that, then that's absolutely great and reason alone to switch to Kaspersky. Everybody should welcome this.
Closed-source Antivirus and other security products (encryption, voting machines, credit card processing, etc.) tend to be fairly insecure for lack of external auditing. Companies go at great length to claim how careful they are etc., but the sad truth is that without any external auditing they will allow all kinds of blunders, fix vulnerabilities late and secretly, etc. This has been proven again and again.
It's definitely a step in the right direction. To say more about it, we'll need to see the printed results of the audits and who conducted them.
People forget that Kaspersky's engine is used by many other security products, too.
The reasonable stance is that if you have important trade secrets on your machines, you should choose your antivirus carefully - it's best to use one from your own country, including the engine. The same for journalists, dissidents, etc. Don't security products from the country you're criticizing.
Any other people aka "ordinary citizens" should just choose the antivirus that performs best and suits them best. Kaspersky is top notch. If you're worried about viruses and maybe a bit about NSA mass surveillance, Kaspersky is one of the best choices. If you're primarily worried about Romanian mass surveillance, on the other hand, then you should avoid Bitdefender. And so on.
It's kind of a no-brainer. On a side note, any machine, no matter how well-patched and which operating system it is running, will be broken and accessed in a targeted attack by any state actor. There are no secure PCs.
All news agencies of the world for months, all intelligence agencies of the US, the heads of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and former and current National Security Advisors, the former US president, the current US president (in one of his clearer moments), a sizable number of independent security consultancy companies and well-respected analysts from various different countries, and every US senator who was in the secret intelligence briefings of the US Senate hearings (both Republican and Democrat senators). They all agree on that matter. I'm sure I've missed a few more.
I suppose you're one of those people who believe that "evidence" cannot ever be delivered by expert testimony. I have bad news for you. The vast majority of what you know is from expert testimony - such as "textbooks", if you've ever heard of that concept. In fact, nearly everything. It's called knowledge by testimony. It's our primary source of culture and technology, the concept that makes all the difference between a cave man and an educated person. If you're unable to learn from reliable testimony given by dozens to hundreds of different sources who agree, you're bound to stay ignorant for the rest of your life. Your "I believe it when I see some directly verifiable piece of evidence in front of my eyes" attitude works for statements like "The cat is on the mat". It will not work for anything more complex, I'm afraid. However, this attitude in your case is just an obvious cheap rhetorical trick anyway. You should be able to be better than that.
I respect the will of the British people and it seems unlikely that there was much Russian interference with the Brexit. If they meddled with it, then probably not in a substantial way with much effect. The Brexit was basically directly caused by the fact that Syrian war refugees tried to go for a better live in Europe at the same time as Cameron had scheduled the EU vote. That these two events occurred roughly at the same time was a mere historical coincidence, of course. If ISIS would have gotten stronger a few years later and the Syrian civil war broke out a bit later, then there'd almost surely been no Brexit, since the UK was and is doing well economically. But if there happened to have been an economic crisis at the time of the vote, then there might have been a Brexit again because of the tendency of politicians to use the EU as a scapegoat for all of their failures. This is how public opinion swings back and forth.
Anyway, you Brits really need to expedite the Brexit. Recent UK laws, especially the heavy regulation and censorship of the Internet and extreme surveillance of citizens, are not fully compatible with EU constitution and shared EU values codified in existing directives. Ironically, though, leaving the EU will not really 'fix this issue' for the UK. The Brexit will make it easier for the UK to continue to violate human rights, but you will continue to be bound to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). You will have to reverse your own Human Rights Act first and cancel the ECHR treaty, before you can safely continue to turn your country into a fascist nanny state.
I expect this to happen within 5 years after Brexit, i.e., 2019-2024.
Well, without FB work productivity in Europe would increase dramatically and voters would be well-informed again, so the US government cannot allow that to happen.
The US doesn't have free speech either, it's one of those bizarre myths like "the American Dream". There are plenty of things you can say in the US that will get you into prison in no time.
The world of global politics and diplomacy doesn't work that way.
You can hardly ever get hundreds of countries with politicians from all imaginable political sides and different obligations towards their voters to decide on a bunch of regulations in one go. Such treaties require patient work, which is a problem in the case of the global warming effect, because the matter has become urgent by now. (In fact, it may be too late already.) Unfortunately, enacting international treaties is and has always been slow. You start with a declaration of will. Then you negotiate concrete mechanisms, then you turn these into follow-up treaties, then these treaties are decided and signed (but not ratified yet), and finally they are ratified by all of their members. There are negotiations at each of these steps.
Usually, governments bail out at the last step, e.g. the US signed the Rome statute to put the International Criminal Court in place but continues to refuse to ratify it. Bailing out of a non-binding declaration of will like the Paris agreement is far more drastic, it is essentially a blocking move that makes further co-operation fruitless. The US has isolated themselves with this step from the rest of the world in that matter.
On a side note, I find Trump's middle position oddly incoherent and indecisive. He really needs to make up his mind whether he believes the majority of scientists and his daughter or whether he believes his base voters and (some of his) fellow Republicans.
Left-wing antisemitism exists and was partly spurred by the situation in Palestine. Not just for left-wing radicals, also for more moderate voices some of Israel's policies appear to be fairly fascist, for example Israel occasionally operates political assassination squads like 2010 in Dubai. Some of these critiques are unfortunately incapable of distinguishing between governments and ethnic groups, hence the antisemitism. That being said, right-wing antisemitism is certainly stronger overall. It's basically a mindless continuation of failed and obviously senseless Nazi ideology.
The far right and the far left are indeed very similar to the extent that some prominent figureheads like Horst Mahler happily changed their affiliations over time. Totalitarians and other anti-humanists tend to have fairly unrealistic and inconsistent belief systems anyway.
Neither of them. The American citizens themselves, by electing Donald Trump as a president - and previously Bush Jr. and his regime, who probably caused the biggest damage to the US so far that any government has ever caused.
Well, you can deal with that with some discipline. And by 'discipline', I mean teaching discipline to others. Never answer your phone unless you want to, never read or reply to messages unless you're in the mood, and never answer to any work-related issues outside office hours unless you're somehow being paid for it. The trick is just to reply consistently late, or to be consistent with being inconsistent. If you have difficulties with the latter, use a random number generator to determine the reply time.
Slashdot has lost it a few years ago when it was overrun not with conservatives (nothing against them) but first with hordes of Putinbots and then with absolutely retarded alt-right followers who want to push their bizarre agenda. People who are full of hatred and don't give a shit about reality at all. These posters have successfully destroyed/. Talking about the political spectrum, it used to play no role and there also used to be many reasonable and well educated conservatives on this site, say 10-15 years ago, but most of them are long gone. I don't know what happened to them, maybe some of them got polarized and radicalized by recent US politics so much that they are no longer recognizable. US lefties have become more radical, too, of course, and these political 'debates' have become so vitriolic, they are no longer bearable for people outside the US. Let me assure you that nobody outside the US gives a shit about your president or your religious fanatism.
What's going on on/. is just a mirror of what's going on in the US in general, but at least for/. my outlook is bleak. Strictly banning all political topics might help, but frankly speaking it would be best to close down the site. The current user demographics is no longer suitable for a tech-related site driven by user-submissions. I won't tell anyone here which other forums I use, for fear of attracting the trolls to them. Suffices to say that there are way better places nowadays than/.
"Fake news" is not a term thought up by anyone, it's an expression of the English language that every native speaker understands. Do you have an idea what a fake policeman would be? You have. That's not a real policeman, but someone intentionally and falsely claims to be one. Someone who is lying.
Not really hard understand, isn't it? Adjective + Noun, even die-hard Trump supporters should be able to grasp that concept. I'll leave the correct interpretation of "fake news" to you as an exercise.
'alternative' news sites', where in fact the traditional media are the fake news producers now.
Right, because those blogs, political activist sites, youtube channel owners and tabloid sites like Breitbart employ large networks of full-time journalists and correspondents all over the world who provide them with a constant stream of actual news, texts, sound and images. Totally unlike these corrupt mainstream medias who just copy everything and make things up.
If you get all your information from 'alternative sites', then you don't have to be surprised when you ultimately turn out to be clueless and uninformed. Knowledge is power, and that's why you don't have any.
Reminds me of those nationalists that exist in just about every country who want to preserve their own culture, and when you ask them about what this culture consists of you get a blank stare and they turn out to have zero cultural education, don't read anything and get all the dates and facts about their own country wrong, and of course also produce no cultural goods of any worth themselves - no books, no music, no theater, no movies, no poems worth reading, watching, or listening to, absolutely nothing.
People said exactly the same about women and voting. Even many women themselves conceded that they are not really interested in politics and do not really know enough about it to vote anyway. Even today, many Pariahs in India agree that they shouldn't be in certain professions. Their kharma is too bad. I could go on with thousands of examples from hundreds of cultures.
To cut a long story short, the actual distribution of preferences is fairly unimportant when it comes to matters of basic social justice. Preferences change all the time, as you can for example see from the fact that women nowadays do like to vote, as bizarre as this might seem to some people on/.
Well, I'm pretty sure that you and many others do in fact ignore AmiMojo. It's not as if people were listening to each other on/. You have all evidently made up your mind about everything already.
Things are not as simple as you think, maybe you should read up on Amartya Sen's capability theory. The status quo is fairly irrelevant to these questions, unless you prefer to stay stuck in medieval thinking. People used to say that it's ridiculous to even consider that common men like peasants should have an equal voice in political matters, but we've come a long way since then. You can have almost any distribution you like, but you need to like it first, of course. Not just as a lip service.
I wouldn't trust them, since they're located in Washington D.C.. I've written my own password manager 20 years ago and still use it. Less features, but at least if there is a flaw in it, then it's my own fault and not some intern's at random company XYZ.
The police have no legal duty to protect citizens not already in custody. Many don't realize that.
They sure have that duty where I live, so let me ask someone else before I store this in the "only in the US..." category of unbelievable US exceptions in comparison to the rest of the world: Is this even remotely true?
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of childish cynical trolls on Slashdot lately... how about growing up and entering the reasonable discourse among adults again? Do something good to yourself and your country and give rational arguments another try.
I have used ClamAV on Linux in the past, but wasn't very impressed. Anyway, the argument you seem to implicate is a non-sequitur. I'm saying that Kaspersky with a full audit by a trustworthy 3rd-party would be an awesome antivirus product and probably the best and most secure on the market. I am decidedly not saying that any random open-source antivirus program would be the best just because it's open source. By the way, I haven't checked but somehow doubt that ClamAV has been audited by a professional 3rd party at all. Full code audits are very expensive.
If they do that, then that's absolutely great and reason alone to switch to Kaspersky. Everybody should welcome this.
Closed-source Antivirus and other security products (encryption, voting machines, credit card processing, etc.) tend to be fairly insecure for lack of external auditing. Companies go at great length to claim how careful they are etc., but the sad truth is that without any external auditing they will allow all kinds of blunders, fix vulnerabilities late and secretly, etc. This has been proven again and again.
It's definitely a step in the right direction. To say more about it, we'll need to see the printed results of the audits and who conducted them.
People forget that Kaspersky's engine is used by many other security products, too.
The reasonable stance is that if you have important trade secrets on your machines, you should choose your antivirus carefully - it's best to use one from your own country, including the engine. The same for journalists, dissidents, etc. Don't security products from the country you're criticizing.
Any other people aka "ordinary citizens" should just choose the antivirus that performs best and suits them best. Kaspersky is top notch. If you're worried about viruses and maybe a bit about NSA mass surveillance, Kaspersky is one of the best choices. If you're primarily worried about Romanian mass surveillance, on the other hand, then you should avoid Bitdefender. And so on.
It's kind of a no-brainer. On a side note, any machine, no matter how well-patched and which operating system it is running, will be broken and accessed in a targeted attack by any state actor. There are no secure PCs.
All news agencies of the world for months, all intelligence agencies of the US, the heads of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and former and current National Security Advisors, the former US president, the current US president (in one of his clearer moments), a sizable number of independent security consultancy companies and well-respected analysts from various different countries, and every US senator who was in the secret intelligence briefings of the US Senate hearings (both Republican and Democrat senators). They all agree on that matter. I'm sure I've missed a few more.
I suppose you're one of those people who believe that "evidence" cannot ever be delivered by expert testimony. I have bad news for you. The vast majority of what you know is from expert testimony - such as "textbooks", if you've ever heard of that concept. In fact, nearly everything. It's called knowledge by testimony. It's our primary source of culture and technology, the concept that makes all the difference between a cave man and an educated person. If you're unable to learn from reliable testimony given by dozens to hundreds of different sources who agree, you're bound to stay ignorant for the rest of your life. Your "I believe it when I see some directly verifiable piece of evidence in front of my eyes" attitude works for statements like "The cat is on the mat". It will not work for anything more complex, I'm afraid. However, this attitude in your case is just an obvious cheap rhetorical trick anyway. You should be able to be better than that.
Bias has never been a problem for people who can think.
I respect the will of the British people and it seems unlikely that there was much Russian interference with the Brexit. If they meddled with it, then probably not in a substantial way with much effect. The Brexit was basically directly caused by the fact that Syrian war refugees tried to go for a better live in Europe at the same time as Cameron had scheduled the EU vote. That these two events occurred roughly at the same time was a mere historical coincidence, of course. If ISIS would have gotten stronger a few years later and the Syrian civil war broke out a bit later, then there'd almost surely been no Brexit, since the UK was and is doing well economically. But if there happened to have been an economic crisis at the time of the vote, then there might have been a Brexit again because of the tendency of politicians to use the EU as a scapegoat for all of their failures. This is how public opinion swings back and forth.
Anyway, you Brits really need to expedite the Brexit. Recent UK laws, especially the heavy regulation and censorship of the Internet and extreme surveillance of citizens, are not fully compatible with EU constitution and shared EU values codified in existing directives. Ironically, though, leaving the EU will not really 'fix this issue' for the UK. The Brexit will make it easier for the UK to continue to violate human rights, but you will continue to be bound to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). You will have to reverse your own Human Rights Act first and cancel the ECHR treaty, before you can safely continue to turn your country into a fascist nanny state.
I expect this to happen within 5 years after Brexit, i.e., 2019-2024.
Well, without FB work productivity in Europe would increase dramatically and voters would be well-informed again, so the US government cannot allow that to happen.
The US doesn't have free speech either, it's one of those bizarre myths like "the American Dream". There are plenty of things you can say in the US that will get you into prison in no time.
Uhm, no. I don't. Only morons do that.
But the two tings are not mutually exclusive, I prefer good developer reputation + having the source code.
The world of global politics and diplomacy doesn't work that way.
You can hardly ever get hundreds of countries with politicians from all imaginable political sides and different obligations towards their voters to decide on a bunch of regulations in one go. Such treaties require patient work, which is a problem in the case of the global warming effect, because the matter has become urgent by now. (In fact, it may be too late already.) Unfortunately, enacting international treaties is and has always been slow. You start with a declaration of will. Then you negotiate concrete mechanisms, then you turn these into follow-up treaties, then these treaties are decided and signed (but not ratified yet), and finally they are ratified by all of their members. There are negotiations at each of these steps.
Usually, governments bail out at the last step, e.g. the US signed the Rome statute to put the International Criminal Court in place but continues to refuse to ratify it. Bailing out of a non-binding declaration of will like the Paris agreement is far more drastic, it is essentially a blocking move that makes further co-operation fruitless. The US has isolated themselves with this step from the rest of the world in that matter.
On a side note, I find Trump's middle position oddly incoherent and indecisive. He really needs to make up his mind whether he believes the majority of scientists and his daughter or whether he believes his base voters and (some of his) fellow Republicans.
All this shows is that you (luckily) don't know any genuine "hitlerist" nazis. But there are plenty of them.
Left-wing antisemitism exists and was partly spurred by the situation in Palestine. Not just for left-wing radicals, also for more moderate voices some of Israel's policies appear to be fairly fascist, for example Israel occasionally operates political assassination squads like 2010 in Dubai. Some of these critiques are unfortunately incapable of distinguishing between governments and ethnic groups, hence the antisemitism. That being said, right-wing antisemitism is certainly stronger overall. It's basically a mindless continuation of failed and obviously senseless Nazi ideology.
The far right and the far left are indeed very similar to the extent that some prominent figureheads like Horst Mahler happily changed their affiliations over time. Totalitarians and other anti-humanists tend to have fairly unrealistic and inconsistent belief systems anyway.
Neither of them. The American citizens themselves, by electing Donald Trump as a president - and previously Bush Jr. and his regime, who probably caused the biggest damage to the US so far that any government has ever caused.
Well, you can deal with that with some discipline. And by 'discipline', I mean teaching discipline to others. Never answer your phone unless you want to, never read or reply to messages unless you're in the mood, and never answer to any work-related issues outside office hours unless you're somehow being paid for it. The trick is just to reply consistently late, or to be consistent with being inconsistent. If you have difficulties with the latter, use a random number generator to determine the reply time.
Slashdot has lost it a few years ago when it was overrun not with conservatives (nothing against them) but first with hordes of Putinbots and then with absolutely retarded alt-right followers who want to push their bizarre agenda. People who are full of hatred and don't give a shit about reality at all. These posters have successfully destroyed /. Talking about the political spectrum, it used to play no role and there also used to be many reasonable and well educated conservatives on this site, say 10-15 years ago, but most of them are long gone. I don't know what happened to them, maybe some of them got polarized and radicalized by recent US politics so much that they are no longer recognizable. US lefties have become more radical, too, of course, and these political 'debates' have become so vitriolic, they are no longer bearable for people outside the US. Let me assure you that nobody outside the US gives a shit about your president or your religious fanatism.
What's going on on /. is just a mirror of what's going on in the US in general, but at least for /. my outlook is bleak. Strictly banning all political topics might help, but frankly speaking it would be best to close down the site. The current user demographics is no longer suitable for a tech-related site driven by user-submissions. I won't tell anyone here which other forums I use, for fear of attracting the trolls to them. Suffices to say that there are way better places nowadays than /.
"Fake news" is not a term thought up by anyone, it's an expression of the English language that every native speaker understands. Do you have an idea what a fake policeman would be? You have. That's not a real policeman, but someone intentionally and falsely claims to be one. Someone who is lying.
Not really hard understand, isn't it? Adjective + Noun, even die-hard Trump supporters should be able to grasp that concept. I'll leave the correct interpretation of "fake news" to you as an exercise.
'alternative' news sites', where in fact the traditional media are the fake news producers now.
Right, because those blogs, political activist sites, youtube channel owners and tabloid sites like Breitbart employ large networks of full-time journalists and correspondents all over the world who provide them with a constant stream of actual news, texts, sound and images. Totally unlike these corrupt mainstream medias who just copy everything and make things up.
If you get all your information from 'alternative sites', then you don't have to be surprised when you ultimately turn out to be clueless and uninformed. Knowledge is power, and that's why you don't have any.
Reminds me of those nationalists that exist in just about every country who want to preserve their own culture, and when you ask them about what this culture consists of you get a blank stare and they turn out to have zero cultural education, don't read anything and get all the dates and facts about their own country wrong, and of course also produce no cultural goods of any worth themselves - no books, no music, no theater, no movies, no poems worth reading, watching, or listening to, absolutely nothing.
People said exactly the same about women and voting. Even many women themselves conceded that they are not really interested in politics and do not really know enough about it to vote anyway. Even today, many Pariahs in India agree that they shouldn't be in certain professions. Their kharma is too bad. I could go on with thousands of examples from hundreds of cultures.
To cut a long story short, the actual distribution of preferences is fairly unimportant when it comes to matters of basic social justice. Preferences change all the time, as you can for example see from the fact that women nowadays do like to vote, as bizarre as this might seem to some people on /.
Well, I'm pretty sure that you and many others do in fact ignore AmiMojo. It's not as if people were listening to each other on /. You have all evidently made up your mind about everything already.
Things are not as simple as you think, maybe you should read up on Amartya Sen's capability theory. The status quo is fairly irrelevant to these questions, unless you prefer to stay stuck in medieval thinking. People used to say that it's ridiculous to even consider that common men like peasants should have an equal voice in political matters, but we've come a long way since then. You can have almost any distribution you like, but you need to like it first, of course. Not just as a lip service.
I wouldn't trust them, since they're located in Washington D.C.. I've written my own password manager 20 years ago and still use it. Less features, but at least if there is a flaw in it, then it's my own fault and not some intern's at random company XYZ.
That's gonna cost you!
The police have no legal duty to protect citizens not already in custody. Many don't realize that.
They sure have that duty where I live, so let me ask someone else before I store this in the "only in the US..." category of unbelievable US exceptions in comparison to the rest of the world: Is this even remotely true?