This is disgusting and appalling. There is no shortage of workers. Studies have shown that there are in fact twice as many tech workers in the USA as there are jobs. These companies are basically funding all of this to increase their own profits while driving down the wages for workers by flooding the labor market with third world labor. This is devastating for American workers, if you are an American worker this means YOU will be laid off and lose your job to Indians who will gladly steal it from you. Do all you can to oppose Mark Suckerberg, Facebook and all the other large companies behind this obscene agenda to basically replace American citizens with foreign labor. All this is, is an effort by these large companies to dupe unsuspecting people into supporting policies which will harm workers, policies that actually run against our own best interests.
Remember that each one of these H1B visas means one fewer American without a job and it means lower wages for American workers. We must stop this immigration invasion and stop these corporations from manipulating the political system in this way.
I thought the sun had already set on Sun long ago, when Oracle bought. Doesn't it still exist, though, to a degree, in the divisions and products that continue inside Oracle.
In its last days, the contributions of OpenOffice seem to have been most beneficial for providing real user control and freedom, hence not being locked into proprietary, centralized software development where users of software could not see or control any of the code that controls their computer.
While the article shows a cute little example on how to write a useless module, it does not show anyone how to actually write a serious kernel module. The Linux kernel has never been known for documenting kernel internals, such documentation is scant at best and simply not sufficient to write a module. It is safe to say tha due to the poor practices of Kernel developers who constitently ignore good practice by not Documenting Their Crap, the kernel is an elite club of developers with knowledge that is secret. The practices of the Linux kernel development is just sheer sloppiness, horribly bad practice. They could have easily set up a Wiki and documented the interfaces and their architecture. What we see with the kernel developers is that they do not care about anyone else, not users, and not even outside techies, so why would they care about whether or not an outsider can understand the kernel, just as why would they care if a user can upgrade kernel versions without having all of their device drivers blow up. As anyone well versed in computer science knows, computer code is rarely self documenting, especially the kernel, and trying to reverse document a large software project is an outrageous waste of time and can be enough of a problem that it keeps even seasoned programmers away from the project. A huge piece of undocumented code is just not worth the effort to learn.
The keystone xl pipeline from Canada is often brought up by the fact it heads to houston should raise alarm, this means shale oil could be shipped overseas and would do little to improve the market price for oil in the US. The oil companies do not want to lower oil prices in the US which is why they want Keystone XL, they want to charge a higher price on the international market so they need to get it out of the US. The current pipelines terminate in the midwest refineries which keeps the oil in the US which is what we want. We also have Canada boxed in here. To the west of Alberta lies hundreds of miles of jagged mountains. It would be expensive, maybe impossible for Canada to build an oil pipeline over the mountains. So we would want the oil to go to midwest refineries, and the pipeline to end at those refineries, and serve the US, this is what we would do if we are smart, we do not want Keystone XL which goes to Houston.
While oil may not run out in the immediate future, small declines in production would have devastating impacts, you dont need oil or fossil fuel depletion to get bad effects, the bad effects start when you hit peak and production declines, and this may not be very far away, long, long before we will ever get to depletion.
If we were smart, we would encourage cities around a "cell" based design with good housing designed for workers and their families located near the employment areas, or design things so that public transportation runs between housing and the employment center, and save as much remaining fossil fuel for agricultural production.
Ending immigration in order to avoid over-exertion of the natural resources would also be of great benefit. As has been discussed, immigration into the US is stressing already finite resources which should be entirely reserved for the existing population. As well, they result in tech jobs being stolen from American citizens, because there is actually no shortage of tech workers, and retail, construction, housekeeping, and low skilled jobs being stolen from college students and non-college educated populations. The democratic party actually wants to swell the welfare rolls by helping illegals steal jobs from Americans. This shows the traitorous nature of the party which in my opinion is vastly worse than the GOP, who at least are nationalists and actually seem to care a bit more about Americans rather than do everything they can to help illegals steal the country from Americans.
For a solution we need a strong nationalist who will seal the borders for good and be very strict with enforcing border laws, including mass deportation of illegals, but will also do quite a lot to help local governments develop transportation planning that minimises the use of cars, encourages better public transit systems, including by moving corporate offices to where workers are rather than expecting workers to drive massive distances into downtowns.
there is a possibility of neurological and eye problems from putting something like this into the field of vision. I wonder if the FDA has looked into these issues and might consider regulations, perhaps a warning label.
Thje google glass concept is creepy in my opinion, as if people walking around with eyes glued to little smartphones wasnt creepy enogh (tracking and monitoring devices in reality). People need to get out, live more, and get untangled from the grid for more of their lives. I am a computer programmer, mind you, but I dont think this idea of always being in some virtual reality, with eyes glued to a screen, is healthy. I leave behind my computer work when I leave the office and go hiking or something, not paying attention to a smartphone.
Linux really does have serious issues
on
Linux Sucks (Video)
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Linux has many positives, there is no doubt. However, there are many problems with the system. The lack of applications leads to situations where a user is told is a great OS, but there is nothing on the OS that does what they want to do. Its great to have a kernel that works well but whats the point if you cant do what you need on it because of the lack of applications. Wine has been around for 20 years yet still has yet to develop an emulation layer that can run 99% of Windows applications reliably. It constantly breaks support for older applications carelessly. The changelogs seem to be filled with obscure performance hacks that lead to a.01% improvement in performance but it appears little is happening in major progress on supporting all of the Windows API.
The bigger problem is lack of hardware support, to the point that the application issue may just be a result of the problem with it being so difficult to get new, novel, or unusual hardware to work on Linux. The fact is, hardware makers will always provide better working drivers in a timely manner than backwards engineering. Its a pipe dream to think that many hardware makers will open source the drivers. By the time open source drivers come around, the hardware is often so old its not even being sold any more or is out of date. Some hardware has no drivers available.
This problem stems from the attitude of the Linux kernel developers. Many of the Linux community have an absolute aversion to actually working with hardware manufacturers to get hardware support implemented, especially with Dell. With Microsoft repetedly throwing Dell and other manufacturers under the bus, there was an opportunity to reach out to Dell to look at Linux as an alternative. This option has been thrown away by Linux. Linux could have gotten much wider adoption by accepting the users using small amount of binary code, which wouldnt even be required to be used as open source drivers would still be developed. Part of the problem as well is the badly documented or not documented at all kernel driver interfaces. It is actually almost impossible to find any comprehensive reference on kernel internals and the driver interfaces. Driver interfaces which seem to change with each kernel version as well, blowing up hardware support for users in the process. Backward compatability is critical throughout the system. Users need to be able to be assured they can use applications and driver accross kernel versions. I have suggested before a driver compatability layer for binary drivers so they will work between kernel versions.
Another problem is the bone headedness of Canonical and Gnome who have copied every disasterous mistake and disaster of Windows 8 in creating user interfaces that are incomprehensible. The fact is, for users, an interface that is well known and practical rather than some hair brained scheme concocted by some crackhead who thinks they know better than everyone else and wants to ram their self righteous idea of user interface design on users, as with Ubuntu Unity and Gnome 3. Just stick with the tried and true taskbar start menu paradigm, please. These people are actually worse than the kernel developers because they think that they are genuises with user interface design but are self absorbed, obsessed and arrogant with trying their insane user interface experiments without any sense of practicality or really caring about users at all. The user interfaces they create are vastly worse than what the kernel developers would come up with.
You are confusing the difference between Tier 1, 2 and 3 ISPs with the difference between Common Carrier and Information services. A Tier 3 ISP is almost entirely common carrier, it does in cases contract with Tier 2 and Tier 1 providers who themselves are common carriers. An ISP sort of almost is all hardware as it is. ISPs are already mostly a carrier service as it is right now. The websites such as Yahoo are doing a lot of the content in an advertising driven model. Your bill to the ISP goes mostly to hardware, partly to the ISPs own network, and partly to Tier 2 and Tier 1 upstream providers (in many cases). Tier 2 and Tier 1 ISPs are as much of a common carrier as a Tier 3, and perhaps even more critical. Requiring incumbant Tier 3s to lease their lines to other Tier 3s, since it would allow competition in Tier 3 internet providers. The differentiation would be in customer service and possibly different tier 1 and 2 infrastructure upstream, though the Tier 3 infrastructure would be shared among several customers. I dont think it negates the need for net neutrality legislation.
There is no free lunch. The consumer will pay for internet infrastructure one way or another. The cost of requiring websites to pay end user ISPs would reduce the selection of free services and cause increases in prices for subscription video services. This will not save consumers any money. Instead, what it will do is throw such a regulatory burden and cost onto running innovative new websites that it will reduce consumer choice of web services, and will be bad for the consumer therefore in producing less competition in say, video streaming services by making things much more difficult for startups. So, it discourages entreprenuership and small business innovation and that is bad for consumers. These anti net neutrality things will stifle and kill innovation on the interrnet
If ISPs need more cash to upgrade their network they should do what they have always done, offer a high speed tier for video users and gamers to pay for it.
I do agree that making systems secure to begin with is vitally important. This includes making sure the software is not running vulnerable versions to attack. Part of the problem with Windows and some other UIs is that they make it inconvenient, even unnatural for non-tech users to take advantage of the privelege seperation features. Which is why the OS should have a wizard that on first boot puts the user into a non-root account by default. Another is to have app stores for desktop OSs. Another is to prohibit execution of executables which have regular user file permissions which would prevent users from downloading and executing trojans. The user by default does not even need to know about root or be given access to it. Though, root could be accessed through a control panel deep in configuration settings or from a command line window by a tech, things non-tech users probably will never find or know what they will do. It sounds draconian but its easy for advanced users to get around, and seeing how non-tech users operate, its really necessary. Non-tech users usually have no clue how computer works, they dont really even have a concept of what an operating system is or what executables are and such. Another idea is to use virtual roots to run download applications in, that is, an application is in its own sandbox and really every downloaded app could be, and only with user permission be given access to a documents directory but certainly not access to any of the real system files. The damage an app could do would then be confined to that environment and could be totally removed by completely deleting the environment.
Part of the problem may be the closed source nature of AV itself. I have always wondered if the closed source AV vendors are basically reinventing the wheel and needlessly wasting resources on finding viruses that have already been found by other companies, and that maybe there should be a central virus database that all of the companies would contribute to instead. The model of each company having to independantly find viruses is inefficient and leads to much slower progress on eliminating them. It is wasted time and effort reinventing the wheel, and as well it actually worsens things for users because things do not work as well as they could.
Does anyone here have a recommendation for the best AV software?
What about ClamAV? Is this as good as the closed source AV products?
I am a supporter of Linux and open source and truly want it to be a success. I admit, however, that sometimes the arrogance of Linux developers is holding Linux back from acceptance. Such as refusal to have a compatability layer for binary driver compatability between kernel versions and the refusal to allow users to use binary drivers. For instance, I have heard that many Linux developers wanted to drop support for floppy disks, "because few Linux developers have floppy drives", despite there being tons of floppies around that users may need to access. THat says it all about the mentality of some Linux developers, they dont care about users, are arrogant, live in a bubble, are elitist and sort of think of Linux as their private club and sort of want it to be hard to use, because it makes them feel special since they are able to endure the pain of using it.
Dont forget that current CPUs use an array of toxic metals as dopants in their manufacture. Such as arsenic. Not to mention the many process chemicals.
BTW if you can discover some new forces or develop a more complex model of forces from physical data, I would be quite delighted and would welcome such. Science needs to be more skeptical about its own theories. When you consider that something like electromagnetism has only been tested under a finite set of conditions, arrangements of magnets and so on, because the number of such arrangements is extremely large, there is uncovered territory there, a place where an undiscovered effect could hide. When one considers the billions, even infinite, number of ways electromagnetic fields, and that of other forces, can interact geometrically, spatiallly, temporally, these have just not all been tested. We have taken expiremental data from observations from a finite number of interactions and extrapolated them to everything. The extrapolation is more of an assumption rather than a proof. Hence EMF does have qualities of a theory that is not 100% proven, because the possibility of something undiscovered has not been eliminated.
If someone wanted to spend some money on a wild goose chase i am sure someone could build a rig that would test electromagnetism and other forces for anamolies that might indicate an undiscovered fundamental force.
Buckhard Heim took a crack at it and postulated several additional forces in his unified field theory.
It would be ridiculous to assume they are not using radio waves. Its still a very feasible technology. I have no idea what else you are proposing. Ideas of teleportation have been shown to be far too energy intensive to be feasible even for the most advanced civilizations, which likely face similar resource problems with energy (depleting fossil fuels). With current physics theories, there is a pretty solid understanding already of what is possible and what isn't. The basic forces are well documented and modelling on computers and so on allows for a pretty good picture of how far technology can go. To say that there is some advanced technology that we have not yet discovered seems increasingly to favor a major disruption of current, well established laws of physics. I am not saying thats not possible, but you are going up against the strong force, electromagnetism, gravity and the weak force here. You basically necessitate saying that these theories are massively incomplete adn there is an undiscovered phenomena that is not consistant with current understanding of these 4 forces.
It may simply be the result of space travel being too infeasible coupled with the distance to other civilized worlds. There are probably other advanced intelligence planets but the distance is probably very great. Consider the huge 4.5 billion year lead up needed for advanced technology on earth. Even a civilization around for 100 my could haev missed us in time. Also consider that they may have come here already, say 100 million years ago, but the evidence was destroyed by natural processes, erosion.
If you do install OpenWRT, can you revert back to the manufacturers software at a later time or is it a one way street? Lets say OpenWRT did not work properly.
Democrats love stealing jobs from Americans as well. Democrats though particularly love victimizing and stealing jobs from low income americans by replacing them with illegal aliens. Though, Democrats i am sure are fine with the H1B program, anything other than American is preferable to them, they have such a hatred of natural born American citizens they will do anything they can to undermine them, ruin their lives, steal their jobs, etc. They will then steal your money and give it to the illegal aliens in the form of welfare fraud which democrats actually love and want.
This is all about government being able to expand its power and make sure that the citizens lives are controlled by government rather than vice versa, by people who are obsessed with power and basically want to be dictators, to have unlimited power over peoples lives. They want a defenseless population and this leads to dictatorships.
I agree, that the general population in the country should be provided arms, as it is done in Switzerland.
I do believe open source is safer as it does absolutely allow for independant party review, which is how this bug was found. Because outside parties had access to OpenSSL they were able to find the problem, whereas with closed source software it might have never been found, or found but hushed up by the company. Proprietary software has just as many bugs as open source, if not more, the difference is there is less accountability.
That being said, the full potential of open source software in independant party review is not brought to its full potential but the fact that a lot of open source software is poorly documented as to the internal construction of the code. This ends up wasting time for programmers to basically have to spend more time than it should to learn the internals, and even wastes time of those running the project basically repeating explanations of the code whereas if they were to make some documentation people could get many more answers without having to bother the project leads. It makes the learning curve much steeper that when dealing with software that has a lot of code, to not have any documentation on how that code fits together. On one hand, we say that open source allows people to review the code, but just opening the source alone does not make it easy as possible for this to happen, the code needs internals documentation or else it often will take simply too much time for people on the outside for people to penetrate it. Many open source software projects end up with a cliche who understands the internals of the software because they wrote it, but its difficult for those on the outside to penetrate. Even for an expert programmer, being able to access documentation speeds up the time to become familiar with the code immensely.
Not doing code documentation is a poor practice and open source developers should document what they are doing for others and as well to save time by preventing having to explain things over and over again to newcomers.
Its probably possible to create a compiler mode that will compile bounds checking code into existing C programs. This would involve one compiler pass that would generate C output with the inserted code, and a second pass to generate the binary. This could be done with a new backend in Clang. It would also allow the inserted code to be easily seen since the source output could be dumped into a file. A good thing about this is that such a feature could be turned on or off in the compiler. This would be on by default in nearly all programs. Doing this is much more efficient than rewriting a lot of software in other languages.
Slashdot Mirror
This is disgusting and appalling. There is no shortage of workers. Studies have shown that there are in fact twice as many tech workers in the USA as there are jobs. These companies are basically funding all of this to increase their own profits while driving down the wages for workers by flooding the labor market with third world labor. This is devastating for American workers, if you are an American worker this means YOU will be laid off and lose your job to Indians who will gladly steal it from you. Do all you can to oppose Mark Suckerberg, Facebook and all the other large companies behind this obscene agenda to basically replace American citizens with foreign labor. All this is, is an effort by these large companies to dupe unsuspecting people into supporting policies which will harm workers, policies that actually run against our own best interests.
Remember that each one of these H1B visas means one fewer American without a job and it means lower wages for American workers. We must stop this immigration invasion and stop these corporations from manipulating the political system in this way.
The pacific is the product of plate tectonics and has nothing to do with an impact crater.
I thought the sun had already set on Sun long ago, when Oracle bought. Doesn't it still exist, though, to a degree, in the divisions and products that continue inside Oracle.
In its last days, the contributions of OpenOffice seem to have been most beneficial for providing real user control and freedom, hence not being locked into proprietary, centralized software development where users of software could not see or control any of the code that controls their computer.
While the article shows a cute little example on how to write a useless module, it does not show anyone how to actually write a serious kernel module. The Linux kernel has never been known for documenting kernel internals, such documentation is scant at best and simply not sufficient to write a module. It is safe to say tha due to the poor practices of Kernel developers who constitently ignore good practice by not Documenting Their Crap, the kernel is an elite club of developers with knowledge that is secret. The practices of the Linux kernel development is just sheer sloppiness, horribly bad practice. They could have easily set up a Wiki and documented the interfaces and their architecture. What we see with the kernel developers is that they do not care about anyone else, not users, and not even outside techies, so why would they care about whether or not an outsider can understand the kernel, just as why would they care if a user can upgrade kernel versions without having all of their device drivers blow up. As anyone well versed in computer science knows, computer code is rarely self documenting, especially the kernel, and trying to reverse document a large software project is an outrageous waste of time and can be enough of a problem that it keeps even seasoned programmers away from the project. A huge piece of undocumented code is just not worth the effort to learn.
The problem is the waste would have to be transported to Australia. Like boats have never sunk and planes have never crashed before into the ocean.
The keystone xl pipeline from Canada is often brought up by the fact it heads to houston should raise alarm, this means shale oil could be shipped overseas and would do little to improve the market price for oil in the US. The oil companies do not want to lower oil prices in the US which is why they want Keystone XL, they want to charge a higher price on the international market so they need to get it out of the US. The current pipelines terminate in the midwest refineries which keeps the oil in the US which is what we want. We also have Canada boxed in here. To the west of Alberta lies hundreds of miles of jagged mountains. It would be expensive, maybe impossible for Canada to build an oil pipeline over the mountains. So we would want the oil to go to midwest refineries, and the pipeline to end at those refineries, and serve the US, this is what we would do if we are smart, we do not want Keystone XL which goes to Houston.
While oil may not run out in the immediate future, small declines in production would have devastating impacts, you dont need oil or fossil fuel depletion to get bad effects, the bad effects start when you hit peak and production declines, and this may not be very far away, long, long before we will ever get to depletion.
If we were smart, we would encourage cities around a "cell" based design with good housing designed for workers and their families located near the employment areas, or design things so that public transportation runs between housing and the employment center, and save as much remaining fossil fuel for agricultural production.
Ending immigration in order to avoid over-exertion of the natural resources would also be of great benefit. As has been discussed, immigration into the US is stressing already finite resources which should be entirely reserved for the existing population. As well, they result in tech jobs being stolen from American citizens, because there is actually no shortage of tech workers, and retail, construction, housekeeping, and low skilled jobs being stolen from college students and non-college educated populations. The democratic party actually wants to swell the welfare rolls by helping illegals steal jobs from Americans. This shows the traitorous nature of the party which in my opinion is vastly worse than the GOP, who at least are nationalists and actually seem to care a bit more about Americans rather than do everything they can to help illegals steal the country from Americans.
For a solution we need a strong nationalist who will seal the borders for good and be very strict with enforcing border laws, including mass deportation of illegals, but will also do quite a lot to help local governments develop transportation planning that minimises the use of cars, encourages better public transit systems, including by moving corporate offices to where workers are rather than expecting workers to drive massive distances into downtowns.
there is a possibility of neurological and eye problems from putting something like this into the field of vision. I wonder if the FDA has looked into these issues and might consider regulations, perhaps a warning label.
Thje google glass concept is creepy in my opinion, as if people walking around with eyes glued to little smartphones wasnt creepy enogh (tracking and monitoring devices in reality). People need to get out, live more, and get untangled from the grid for more of their lives. I am a computer programmer, mind you, but I dont think this idea of always being in some virtual reality, with eyes glued to a screen, is healthy. I leave behind my computer work when I leave the office and go hiking or something, not paying attention to a smartphone.
Linux has many positives, there is no doubt. However, there are many problems with the system. The lack of applications leads to situations where a user is told is a great OS, but there is nothing on the OS that does what they want to do. Its great to have a kernel that works well but whats the point if you cant do what you need on it because of the lack of applications. Wine has been around for 20 years yet still has yet to develop an emulation layer that can run 99% of Windows applications reliably. It constantly breaks support for older applications carelessly. The changelogs seem to be filled with obscure performance hacks that lead to a .01% improvement in performance but it appears little is happening in major progress on supporting all of the Windows API.
The bigger problem is lack of hardware support, to the point that the application issue may just be a result of the problem with it being so difficult to get new, novel, or unusual hardware to work on Linux. The fact is, hardware makers will always provide better working drivers in a timely manner than backwards engineering. Its a pipe dream to think that many hardware makers will open source the drivers. By the time open source drivers come around, the hardware is often so old its not even being sold any more or is out of date. Some hardware has no drivers available.
This problem stems from the attitude of the Linux kernel developers. Many of the Linux community have an absolute aversion to actually working with hardware manufacturers to get hardware support implemented, especially with Dell. With Microsoft repetedly throwing Dell and other manufacturers under the bus, there was an opportunity to reach out to Dell to look at Linux as an alternative. This option has been thrown away by Linux. Linux could have gotten much wider adoption by accepting the users using small amount of binary code, which wouldnt even be required to be used as open source drivers would still be developed. Part of the problem as well is the badly documented or not documented at all kernel driver interfaces. It is actually almost impossible to find any comprehensive reference on kernel internals and the driver interfaces. Driver interfaces which seem to change with each kernel version as well, blowing up hardware support for users in the process. Backward compatability is critical throughout the system. Users need to be able to be assured they can use applications and driver accross kernel versions. I have suggested before a driver compatability layer for binary drivers so they will work between kernel versions.
Another problem is the bone headedness of Canonical and Gnome who have copied every disasterous mistake and disaster of Windows 8 in creating user interfaces that are incomprehensible. The fact is, for users, an interface that is well known and practical rather than some hair brained scheme concocted by some crackhead who thinks they know better than everyone else and wants to ram their self righteous idea of user interface design on users, as with Ubuntu Unity and Gnome 3. Just stick with the tried and true taskbar start menu paradigm, please. These people are actually worse than the kernel developers because they think that they are genuises with user interface design but are self absorbed, obsessed and arrogant with trying their insane user interface experiments without any sense of practicality or really caring about users at all. The user interfaces they create are vastly worse than what the kernel developers would come up with.
You are confusing the difference between Tier 1, 2 and 3 ISPs with the difference between Common Carrier and Information services. A Tier 3 ISP is almost entirely common carrier, it does in cases contract with Tier 2 and Tier 1 providers who themselves are common carriers. An ISP sort of almost is all hardware as it is. ISPs are already mostly a carrier service as it is right now. The websites such as Yahoo are doing a lot of the content in an advertising driven model. Your bill to the ISP goes mostly to hardware, partly to the ISPs own network, and partly to Tier 2 and Tier 1 upstream providers (in many cases). Tier 2 and Tier 1 ISPs are as much of a common carrier as a Tier 3, and perhaps even more critical. Requiring incumbant Tier 3s to lease their lines to other Tier 3s, since it would allow competition in Tier 3 internet providers. The differentiation would be in customer service and possibly different tier 1 and 2 infrastructure upstream, though the Tier 3 infrastructure would be shared among several customers. I dont think it negates the need for net neutrality legislation.
There is no free lunch. The consumer will pay for internet infrastructure one way or another. The cost of requiring websites to pay end user ISPs would reduce the selection of free services and cause increases in prices for subscription video services. This will not save consumers any money. Instead, what it will do is throw such a regulatory burden and cost onto running innovative new websites that it will reduce consumer choice of web services, and will be bad for the consumer therefore in producing less competition in say, video streaming services by making things much more difficult for startups. So, it discourages entreprenuership and small business innovation and that is bad for consumers. These anti net neutrality things will stifle and kill innovation on the interrnet
If ISPs need more cash to upgrade their network they should do what they have always done, offer a high speed tier for video users and gamers to pay for it.
I do agree that making systems secure to begin with is vitally important. This includes making sure the software is not running vulnerable versions to attack. Part of the problem with Windows and some other UIs is that they make it inconvenient, even unnatural for non-tech users to take advantage of the privelege seperation features. Which is why the OS should have a wizard that on first boot puts the user into a non-root account by default. Another is to have app stores for desktop OSs. Another is to prohibit execution of executables which have regular user file permissions which would prevent users from downloading and executing trojans. The user by default does not even need to know about root or be given access to it. Though, root could be accessed through a control panel deep in configuration settings or from a command line window by a tech, things non-tech users probably will never find or know what they will do. It sounds draconian but its easy for advanced users to get around, and seeing how non-tech users operate, its really necessary. Non-tech users usually have no clue how computer works, they dont really even have a concept of what an operating system is or what executables are and such. Another idea is to use virtual roots to run download applications in, that is, an application is in its own sandbox and really every downloaded app could be, and only with user permission be given access to a documents directory but certainly not access to any of the real system files. The damage an app could do would then be confined to that environment and could be totally removed by completely deleting the environment.
Part of the problem may be the closed source nature of AV itself. I have always wondered if the closed source AV vendors are basically reinventing the wheel and needlessly wasting resources on finding viruses that have already been found by other companies, and that maybe there should be a central virus database that all of the companies would contribute to instead. The model of each company having to independantly find viruses is inefficient and leads to much slower progress on eliminating them. It is wasted time and effort reinventing the wheel, and as well it actually worsens things for users because things do not work as well as they could.
Does anyone here have a recommendation for the best AV software?
What about ClamAV? Is this as good as the closed source AV products?
I am a supporter of Linux and open source and truly want it to be a success. I admit, however, that sometimes the arrogance of Linux developers is holding Linux back from acceptance. Such as refusal to have a compatability layer for binary driver compatability between kernel versions and the refusal to allow users to use binary drivers. For instance, I have heard that many Linux developers wanted to drop support for floppy disks, "because few Linux developers have floppy drives", despite there being tons of floppies around that users may need to access. THat says it all about the mentality of some Linux developers, they dont care about users, are arrogant, live in a bubble, are elitist and sort of think of Linux as their private club and sort of want it to be hard to use, because it makes them feel special since they are able to endure the pain of using it.
Dont forget that current CPUs use an array of toxic metals as dopants in their manufacture. Such as arsenic. Not to mention the many process chemicals.
BTW if you can discover some new forces or develop a more complex model of forces from physical data, I would be quite delighted and would welcome such. Science needs to be more skeptical about its own theories. When you consider that something like electromagnetism has only been tested under a finite set of conditions, arrangements of magnets and so on, because the number of such arrangements is extremely large, there is uncovered territory there, a place where an undiscovered effect could hide. When one considers the billions, even infinite, number of ways electromagnetic fields, and that of other forces, can interact geometrically, spatiallly, temporally, these have just not all been tested. We have taken expiremental data from observations from a finite number of interactions and extrapolated them to everything. The extrapolation is more of an assumption rather than a proof. Hence EMF does have qualities of a theory that is not 100% proven, because the possibility of something undiscovered has not been eliminated.
If someone wanted to spend some money on a wild goose chase i am sure someone could build a rig that would test electromagnetism and other forces for anamolies that might indicate an undiscovered fundamental force.
Buckhard Heim took a crack at it and postulated several additional forces in his unified field theory.
It would be ridiculous to assume they are not using radio waves. Its still a very feasible technology. I have no idea what else you are proposing. Ideas of teleportation have been shown to be far too energy intensive to be feasible even for the most advanced civilizations, which likely face similar resource problems with energy (depleting fossil fuels). With current physics theories, there is a pretty solid understanding already of what is possible and what isn't. The basic forces are well documented and modelling on computers and so on allows for a pretty good picture of how far technology can go. To say that there is some advanced technology that we have not yet discovered seems increasingly to favor a major disruption of current, well established laws of physics. I am not saying thats not possible, but you are going up against the strong force, electromagnetism, gravity and the weak force here. You basically necessitate saying that these theories are massively incomplete adn there is an undiscovered phenomena that is not consistant with current understanding of these 4 forces.
It may simply be the result of space travel being too infeasible coupled with the distance to other civilized worlds. There are probably other advanced intelligence planets but the distance is probably very great. Consider the huge 4.5 billion year lead up needed for advanced technology on earth. Even a civilization around for 100 my could haev missed us in time. Also consider that they may have come here already, say 100 million years ago, but the evidence was destroyed by natural processes, erosion.
If you do install OpenWRT, can you revert back to the manufacturers software at a later time or is it a one way street? Lets say OpenWRT did not work properly.
Democrats love stealing jobs from Americans as well. Democrats though particularly love victimizing and stealing jobs from low income americans by replacing them with illegal aliens. Though, Democrats i am sure are fine with the H1B program, anything other than American is preferable to them, they have such a hatred of natural born American citizens they will do anything they can to undermine them, ruin their lives, steal their jobs, etc. They will then steal your money and give it to the illegal aliens in the form of welfare fraud which democrats actually love and want.
OO once had a calculator and mail program. Why not simply bring it back?
This is all about government being able to expand its power and make sure that the citizens lives are controlled by government rather than vice versa, by people who are obsessed with power and basically want to be dictators, to have unlimited power over peoples lives. They want a defenseless population and this leads to dictatorships.
I agree, that the general population in the country should be provided arms, as it is done in Switzerland.
I do believe open source is safer as it does absolutely allow for independant party review, which is how this bug was found. Because outside parties had access to OpenSSL they were able to find the problem, whereas with closed source software it might have never been found, or found but hushed up by the company. Proprietary software has just as many bugs as open source, if not more, the difference is there is less accountability.
That being said, the full potential of open source software in independant party review is not brought to its full potential but the fact that a lot of open source software is poorly documented as to the internal construction of the code. This ends up wasting time for programmers to basically have to spend more time than it should to learn the internals, and even wastes time of those running the project basically repeating explanations of the code whereas if they were to make some documentation people could get many more answers without having to bother the project leads. It makes the learning curve much steeper that when dealing with software that has a lot of code, to not have any documentation on how that code fits together. On one hand, we say that open source allows people to review the code, but just opening the source alone does not make it easy as possible for this to happen, the code needs internals documentation or else it often will take simply too much time for people on the outside for people to penetrate it. Many open source software projects end up with a cliche who understands the internals of the software because they wrote it, but its difficult for those on the outside to penetrate. Even for an expert programmer, being able to access documentation speeds up the time to become familiar with the code immensely.
Not doing code documentation is a poor practice and open source developers should document what they are doing for others and as well to save time by preventing having to explain things over and over again to newcomers.
It seems, ITER long ago disproved that at least this kind of Fusion can be cost effective.
Its probably possible to create a compiler mode that will compile bounds checking code into existing C programs. This would involve one compiler pass that would generate C output with the inserted code, and a second pass to generate the binary. This could be done with a new backend in Clang. It would also allow the inserted code to be easily seen since the source output could be dumped into a file. A good thing about this is that such a feature could be turned on or off in the compiler. This would be on by default in nearly all programs. Doing this is much more efficient than rewriting a lot of software in other languages.
Does this effect SSH at all? It seems more likely this would effect TSL servers such as Apache and stunnel.