Uh, what? Have I earned myself a rabid following of angry moderators? There is nothing flamebait-worthy in my post. It shows no bias, clarifies a point of query concerning a +5 post, and is at least interesting. Are the moderators here really that ignorant of what the moderation is for? Never mind, this is Slashdot, I've been here long enough to know the answer to that...
To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim, "well it could be used to juice oranges".
Or going after the recordable media manufacturers and demanding royalties because "it could be used to record copyrighted media." I have complete faith that such things would never come to pass.
Everyone has their supporters. The "Impossible to do anything right" club is for those that are lambasted by the popular mainstream media, regardless of which action they take. "Mainstream" media excludes overtly biased sources such as Fox and what not.
Clinton was in the "Impossible to do anything wrong" club, hence his general association with Teflon. Even during the sex scandal, the general consensus was "who cares, there are more important issues."
Obama was in the ITDAW for a bit, but the financial crisis has made him everybody's enemy it seems. If this keeps up, he may be accepted into the ITDAR, but I think it's unlikely that the media can stay mad at him for that long.
Alternately, it could be the general perception of Slashdot (and not the mainstream media) that determines it, which means that, due to Slashdot's strong lean to the left, ITDAR is perpetually reserved for big corporations/conservative pundits. Even Slashdot darlings like Google eventually end up there. Sun and Apple will join soon, I suspect.
So, the French and Canadian reactor technologies are viable, but those in the US (where no new reactors have been brought online in almost 20 years) are not? So, then, please state why you think we should NOT become French (in relation to their adoption of modern, safe, nuclear technology)?
It occurs to me I (and DaveV1.0) may have parsed your sentence incorrectly. When you said
That said, all energy sources have pros and cons. Some are extreme (nuclear,coal) but even the most benign source has impacts
I assumed that you meant that nuclear had extreme disadvantages. Now it occurs to me the two items may have been listed in order respective to the first sentence (extreme pros - nuclear, extreme cons - coal). If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Heh, toldja. Opinionated moderator is opinionated. It'd be too much to expect an anonymous moderator to be smart enough to understand the purpose of the moderation system. If you disagree with a post, you post a response detailing why you disagree. If you actually feel that the post is a troll (intentionally written to incite retaliation and not further meaningful discussion or provide useful information), then you mod it as troll. But those that are to stupid to formulate a proper rebuttal must sadly rely on the moderation system to promote their uninformed viewpoints.
Bring it, 'tard boys, I got Karma to burn. And even if, in your impudent rage, you mod down every post I ever made and will make, you only succeed in proving your lack of reason.
I don't necessarily consider this pricey or resource intensive when you realize that what is proposed in nothing short of replacing roughly 100 years of nationwide power generation infrastructure, from scratch, in 40 years. Attempting to do that, with any technology, is what is ridiculous (though nuclear might be up to the challenge, haven't seen the numbers). That and attempting to do it with energy generation limited exclusively to the east coast, introducing insurmountable (or at least unnecessarily difficult to surmount) obstacles to distribution. Oh, and essentially barricading the entire eastern seaboard. So, yeah, it's a bad idea, but not because it costs $10.4 trillion and requires 170,000 people for 40 years.
You may have missed it, but we are now in the 21st century. The technologies have improved dramatically since the 80s. Or, more accurately, technologies developed in (and since) the 80s are now being considered (and possibly deployed) to replace outdated 50s technology that plagued the fission plants (or, rather, the public perception of fission plants) in the 80s.
As to why we should become French, I hear it is legal for women to go topless there. And since our women (typically) shave their armpits, this should be self evident. Okay, we do have to ignore our propensity for obesity, but maybe we could inherit their generally better physical health without having to suffer their nicotine pollution. We could just become French-American, incorporating the best of both worlds. Or move to Canada - same diff, I suspect.
Before I mention this, I should indicate that I am not opposed to cameras in public places. Any yahoo can wield a video camera and record your actions when you are in public. Hell, private investigators make a living off of it. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. In most communities, I believe that the crime deterrence/solving potential of such devices outweighs the risk of abuse (especially since they only record your public actions anyway). So you want to go to an adult book store - disguise yourself, or buy online.
So you want to commit a crime? Wear a mask before entering a monitored area. So what's the point of the cameras if they are so easily circumvented? Well, lets see. Abductions - we now know that some child was abducted by a man in a mask rather than just ran away. Or that 5 car pile-up, we now have better evidence of who was at fault. That hit and tun? On tape (the driver didn't plan it, so they were more likely to be driving their own vehicle and not wearing a disguise). And so on.
And lastly, if you don't like it? Take action. The ammo is cheap enough you don't even need all that great an aim, and the masks look cool.
I do like the idea of opening up the feeds to the public, but the obvious downside to that is that it could be used by "terrorists" to organize city wide attacks. Not that wireless Internet and some camera enabled laptops are much different, but the improved vantage, lack of need to physically expose yourself to public observation, and reduced cost to the criminal (one computer and Internet connection as opposed to several) does reduce the "barrier to entry" for the potential criminal. But again, I think that the benefit outweighs the risk here too.
I should post anonymously because by disagreeing with the rabid anarchists here, even though I am being civil and reasonable, I'm sure to be modded into oblivion, but I am willing to be associated with my beliefs. I may not (as mentioned elsewhere) be an activist standing up for them, but I won't hide them.
Ah, so you're one of those people that believes everything they read. And here I thought people like you were a myth. Because when the article headline reads "Scientist invents perpetual motion device" it is a given that all of the counter arguments that typically apply have already been considered by the scientist and reporter, and so the perpetual motion device mustactuallyexist, right? Hold on a second while I discuss this obviously bogus bill with my electricity provider who is obviously trying to charge me for something I am making in unlimited quantities for free at home due to all of these PM devices I have laying about.
Come on, the TSA is full of dishonesty, why should we expect any different from the Vietnamese equivalent (well, not really, since this is the Health Department, but they are commenting on airport security matters, so it stands to reason that they got their information from their airport security personnel, or worse, are talking out their asses)? All those people with encrypted laptop hard drives or who forgot to toss their 16 oz bottle of water are obviously willfully trying to circumvent security regulations, amirite?
We've read enough misleading article titles for "save the children" causes or RIAA hatchet jobs to know that the article title is frequently the least reliable content in the article. And even if the title does a good job of summing up the article, each of us has seen more than our fair share of FUD and outright lies in print (online and off) that such a tacit assumption of correctness is beyond naive.
So, no, it is not cut and dry. Though I will agree that they may have been circumventing Vietnamese law, I see no evidence of intent. Even I had no idea that there were thermal scans at the Vietnamese airport nor that attempts to fool them by doing something as common as taking cold medication was unlawful until I read this article, and I've been to that airport 5 times in the last 6-7 years (and good God, don't attempt to pay in American currency unless it is a pristine condition $100 bill). In fact, according to the article, the only official claim that is made is that "'a series of passengers' took fever reducers three hours before arrival" - no quote about cheating is attributed to the Health Department, the intent to cheat is entirely an interpretation made by the author as far as I can tell.
I need to amend my argument to specify that in all but the first paragraph, when I say AV software I meant to refer to general tools that promote security, including (but not limited to) malware detectors/removers (rootkits, adware, viruses, etc., all count as malware, contrary to what most AV makers would like you to think) and lockdown tools.
No OS is secure, though some are inherently moreso than others, hence the OS makers are responsible
Any idiot user can, by ignorance and bad practice, reduce the most secure OS to a virus ridden hell-box if given sufficient time, so the users are responsible
The ISPs own the bandwidth and many of the resources used to spread viruses, and hence are responsible
The criminals that research, design, build, and deploy the viruses are most directly responsible
Additionally, anyone who, by inaction, allows the problem to grow is also arguably responsible. However, this is only part of the point. Good security is layered. You can't just fine the OS makers and call it a day as that won't solve the problem completely (inasmuch as it can be completely resolved) because like I said in point one, no OS is 100% secure, so eventually it will be exploited to spread a virus. Likewise, education isn't the only solution as even the best of us make mistakes, and even ignoring that any system is only so strong as its weakest link, so any given level of education merely raises the bar for the criminals. ISPs walk a fine line between monitoring the health of their networks and infringing on their user's privacy and/or freedoms, so there are limits to how far they should go. And punishing the perpetrators has been the preferred method since the dawn of mankind and you can see how well that's worked so far - it's effective, but it is imperfect on its own.
So, since funding to thoroughly and directly address all of the above is unlikely to be available, which give us the biggest bang for our buck? Which should we do first? And considering that this problem is one among many, how much money should we throw at it? I don't have the answers or the research to determine the answers, but I would guess that a campaign to at least provide visibility to the issue would likely be one of the cheapest and most effective, and using it to point people towards low cost or even free tools that already exist and that can dramatically reduce the scale of the problem makes sense.
But how extreme do we take this? Do we require a computing license, similar to a driver's license that all computer users must obtain before being allowed to sit behind the keyboard? Do we require all computer sellers or ISPs to include an information packet with this information, and maybe offer free or reduced cost classes to interested customers? Do we make those classes mandatory? Or do we just run some ads on TV during prime-time referring people to a web site? Again, this is open to significantly more debate, but the last item seems like a good start.
As I wrap this up, it occurs to me that this is less a response to the parent post and more a (indirect) response to a sister post from causality (among other similar posts) and the article in general. As such, please be gentle with the offtopic and/or troll/flamebait mods. The point that I'm arguing is the finger pointing going on here is fruitless and largely a waste of effort since we all share blame to some degree, and as such any solution needs to acknowledge that in order to be comprehensive.
Is this what is called a strawman? The GPP was making the point that a campaign against botnets was a prudent measure, not necessarily the purchasing of AV software. Much like the campaigns against the Germans in the Second World War, people weren't tasked to buy weapons, they were tasked to buy bonds, conserve critical resources, etc. A campaign in this context isn't necessarily "buy the most expensive defense" - it is a call to action, either by educating the public on proper precautions for reducing/eliminating the problem or asking them to take reasonable steps (including purchasing resources) to more aggressively attack the issue. Like getting a flu shot or buying a gas mask or one of any number of less-extreme-than-buying-artillery solutions such campaigns have employed in the past. He might like the idea of everyone buying AV software, or he might like the other proposals which included awareness campaigns, levying fines against those who cause harm through inaction, or mandating minimum security levels in OSes. The latter two are less like campaigns and more like simple legislation, but the point is that AV software is obviously more practical and affordable a solution to a problem than everyone owning an anti-aircraft gun. Recommending everybody buy a $40 item and recommending that everybody buy a $50,000+ item are widely separated on the "appropriate response" spectrum, and I think you are well aware of that.
The more appropriate (and currently enacted response) to the fact that other countries use military aircraft is to tax our citizens in order to fund our own military force and equip them so that they can deal with the airborne threat. When planes first started becoming widely used for military purposes, I can imagine that those awesome 50's "duck and cover" films addressed how to react when the enemy planes came by for a visit. They didn't encourage everyone to buy their own warplane or an AA gun, they said "get to safety and let your properly equipped and trained military force deal with the issue". So, sure, to fight botnets, we could fund a cyber-defense force (and as we have seen, this is apparently in the works, but just like in WWII, you folks at home can help by eating SPAM, buying war bonds, and using alternatives to the metal needed to build tanks and ammo for our fighting men overseas, or in this case, you can buy AV software, use a secure OS, and practice safe computing.
In short, in order to be effective, the response to a problem must also be practical. Having your average citizen buy and use AV software is, having them buy and use explosive ordinance isn't.
VLC has improved dramatically in the last year, and almost as dramatically in the preceding years. At least on Windows. Years ago I only used it to play streaming media files since it handled bit corruption (a necessary evil of NNTP before PAR) better than the dedicated players for local playback. Now, however, it is my primary player, replacing Winamp (and the open source Media Player 6 that is bundled with many codecs - and codec packs - such as Real Player Alternative and QuickTime Alternative). It isn't dramatically better than Winamp or MS Media Player for what I use it for (DVI to HDMI playback so I can watch Torrented TV shows on my big screen TV, mostly), but it is less naggy about constant updates, leaner, supports more codecs, and is open source which gives me warm fuzzies. And the interface works better for me on a dual screen setup with full screen video on the second screen. One of the things I really like is that the playlist is a separate window that I can place on the primary display and interact with while the playback window runs full screen on the second monitor (my TV in this case). Media Player (either one) won't break the playlist off into its own window and Winamp had some other annoying behavior I don't recall at the moment with regard to working across two monitors.
If I needed a library management system, I might lean back towards WinAMP (ever since Microsoft's Media Player stopped supporting the space bar as the pause control I haven't touched it voluntarily, and so I don't know - or care - if they eventually came to their senses), and if I needed all sorts of navigation options and smooth scrolling, well, I don't know how it handles those since I never use them. All I need is something small, with a playlist (for queue management) and wide codec support, stability (which is MUCH better now than even 6 months ago) and performance. I'm always open to new tools, but VLC fits the bill quite nicely for me. I'll probably try some of the tools mentioned here, but inertia will probably keep me on VLC unless one of them is <neo>whoa!</neo> better
I'm just guessing, but I think when he said "Technologically Uneducated Users" he was talking about Mac users, not developers. You might have missed the last 25 years where Macs claim to be more user friendly and cater to a less technologically inclined user-base, lending significant support to his suggestion. In short, not all Mac users fit that profile, but the ones that do are contributing to the negative image that OSX and Macs in general enjoy among a significant portion of the populace. Think "AOL", except replace the service itself with something worthwhile, and decrease the percentage of "Technologically Uninclined/Uneducated" users in the user-base from >99% down to about 80% or less.
More importantly, however, I think that he was implying that the users that claim that Macs are completely impervious to malware and that therefore Mac users need not take any precautions against infection are making the Mac community, and by extension the Mac OS, a laughing stock of the computer technology community. In short, the OS is technologically impressive in many ways, but a vocal portion of the users frequently make claims about it that are factually impossible and socially irresponsible. Not that this is exclusive to Mac, just better advertised and frequently sanctioned by the manufacturer.
If you do common sense things - like not running random software from the internet, keeping your machine patched, and turning off unnecessary services - you don't need anti-virus software running constantly.
you don't need anti-virus software running constantly
running constantly
constantly
Does that help answer your question? From the GGPP:
I only have virus scanning done on a weekly basis
In short, he does scan, just not every second via a memory resident application.
I mean really - Off-topic? The article is about a sun employee complaining about someone creating a version of Java that is incompatible with Sun's product and I point out the hypocrisy by describing how Sun's own versions of Java are incompatible with each other. I must just be more perceptive than most...
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, what? Have I earned myself a rabid following of angry moderators? There is nothing flamebait-worthy in my post. It shows no bias, clarifies a point of query concerning a +5 post, and is at least interesting. Are the moderators here really that ignorant of what the moderation is for? Never mind, this is Slashdot, I've been here long enough to know the answer to that...
To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim, "well it could be used to juice oranges".
Or going after the recordable media manufacturers and demanding royalties because "it could be used to record copyrighted media." I have complete faith that such things would never come to pass.
Everyone has their supporters. The "Impossible to do anything right" club is for those that are lambasted by the popular mainstream media, regardless of which action they take. "Mainstream" media excludes overtly biased sources such as Fox and what not.
Clinton was in the "Impossible to do anything wrong" club, hence his general association with Teflon. Even during the sex scandal, the general consensus was "who cares, there are more important issues."
Obama was in the ITDAW for a bit, but the financial crisis has made him everybody's enemy it seems. If this keeps up, he may be accepted into the ITDAR, but I think it's unlikely that the media can stay mad at him for that long.
Alternately, it could be the general perception of Slashdot (and not the mainstream media) that determines it, which means that, due to Slashdot's strong lean to the left, ITDAR is perpetually reserved for big corporations/conservative pundits. Even Slashdot darlings like Google eventually end up there. Sun and Apple will join soon, I suspect.
So which one applies to Kim?
Yes, I know there are a couple missing "s"es, but work with me here...
So, the French and Canadian reactor technologies are viable, but those in the US (where no new reactors have been brought online in almost 20 years) are not? So, then, please state why you think we should NOT become French (in relation to their adoption of modern, safe, nuclear technology)?
It occurs to me I (and DaveV1.0) may have parsed your sentence incorrectly. When you said
That said, all energy sources have pros and cons. Some are extreme (nuclear,coal) but even the most benign source has impacts
I assumed that you meant that nuclear had extreme disadvantages. Now it occurs to me the two items may have been listed in order respective to the first sentence (extreme pros - nuclear, extreme cons - coal). If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
-1, Troll
Heh, toldja. Opinionated moderator is opinionated. It'd be too much to expect an anonymous moderator to be smart enough to understand the purpose of the moderation system. If you disagree with a post, you post a response detailing why you disagree. If you actually feel that the post is a troll (intentionally written to incite retaliation and not further meaningful discussion or provide useful information), then you mod it as troll. But those that are to stupid to formulate a proper rebuttal must sadly rely on the moderation system to promote their uninformed viewpoints.
Bring it, 'tard boys, I got Karma to burn. And even if, in your impudent rage, you mod down every post I ever made and will make, you only succeed in proving your lack of reason.
I don't necessarily consider this pricey or resource intensive when you realize that what is proposed in nothing short of replacing roughly 100 years of nationwide power generation infrastructure, from scratch, in 40 years. Attempting to do that, with any technology, is what is ridiculous (though nuclear might be up to the challenge, haven't seen the numbers). That and attempting to do it with energy generation limited exclusively to the east coast, introducing insurmountable (or at least unnecessarily difficult to surmount) obstacles to distribution. Oh, and essentially barricading the entire eastern seaboard. So, yeah, it's a bad idea, but not because it costs $10.4 trillion and requires 170,000 people for 40 years.
Replace "spinning blades" with "swinging blades", and you've just described almost every side scrolling platform game produced in the 80s.
You may have missed it, but we are now in the 21st century. The technologies have improved dramatically since the 80s. Or, more accurately, technologies developed in (and since) the 80s are now being considered (and possibly deployed) to replace outdated 50s technology that plagued the fission plants (or, rather, the public perception of fission plants) in the 80s.
As to why we should become French, I hear it is legal for women to go topless there. And since our women (typically) shave their armpits, this should be self evident. Okay, we do have to ignore our propensity for obesity, but maybe we could inherit their generally better physical health without having to suffer their nicotine pollution. We could just become French-American, incorporating the best of both worlds. Or move to Canada - same diff, I suspect.
Before I mention this, I should indicate that I am not opposed to cameras in public places. Any yahoo can wield a video camera and record your actions when you are in public. Hell, private investigators make a living off of it. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. In most communities, I believe that the crime deterrence/solving potential of such devices outweighs the risk of abuse (especially since they only record your public actions anyway). So you want to go to an adult book store - disguise yourself, or buy online.
So you want to commit a crime? Wear a mask before entering a monitored area. So what's the point of the cameras if they are so easily circumvented? Well, lets see. Abductions - we now know that some child was abducted by a man in a mask rather than just ran away. Or that 5 car pile-up, we now have better evidence of who was at fault. That hit and tun? On tape (the driver didn't plan it, so they were more likely to be driving their own vehicle and not wearing a disguise). And so on.
And lastly, if you don't like it? Take action. The ammo is cheap enough you don't even need all that great an aim, and the masks look cool.
I do like the idea of opening up the feeds to the public, but the obvious downside to that is that it could be used by "terrorists" to organize city wide attacks. Not that wireless Internet and some camera enabled laptops are much different, but the improved vantage, lack of need to physically expose yourself to public observation, and reduced cost to the criminal (one computer and Internet connection as opposed to several) does reduce the "barrier to entry" for the potential criminal. But again, I think that the benefit outweighs the risk here too.
I should post anonymously because by disagreeing with the rabid anarchists here, even though I am being civil and reasonable, I'm sure to be modded into oblivion, but I am willing to be associated with my beliefs. I may not (as mentioned elsewhere) be an activist standing up for them, but I won't hide them.
Only if they are over 30.
I just interpreted it to mean all extremists, since if you go far enough right, you wrap around to the left...
Okay, not really, but since both extremes should be shot, I just lump them all together anyway. So it kinda works out.
This being the topic of TFA, is a given
Ah, so you're one of those people that believes everything they read. And here I thought people like you were a myth. Because when the article headline reads "Scientist invents perpetual motion device" it is a given that all of the counter arguments that typically apply have already been considered by the scientist and reporter, and so the perpetual motion device must actually exist, right? Hold on a second while I discuss this obviously bogus bill with my electricity provider who is obviously trying to charge me for something I am making in unlimited quantities for free at home due to all of these PM devices I have laying about.
Come on, the TSA is full of dishonesty, why should we expect any different from the Vietnamese equivalent (well, not really, since this is the Health Department, but they are commenting on airport security matters, so it stands to reason that they got their information from their airport security personnel, or worse, are talking out their asses)? All those people with encrypted laptop hard drives or who forgot to toss their 16 oz bottle of water are obviously willfully trying to circumvent security regulations, amirite?
We've read enough misleading article titles for "save the children" causes or RIAA hatchet jobs to know that the article title is frequently the least reliable content in the article. And even if the title does a good job of summing up the article, each of us has seen more than our fair share of FUD and outright lies in print (online and off) that such a tacit assumption of correctness is beyond naive.
So, no, it is not cut and dry. Though I will agree that they may have been circumventing Vietnamese law, I see no evidence of intent. Even I had no idea that there were thermal scans at the Vietnamese airport nor that attempts to fool them by doing something as common as taking cold medication was unlawful until I read this article, and I've been to that airport 5 times in the last 6-7 years (and good God, don't attempt to pay in American currency unless it is a pristine condition $100 bill). In fact, according to the article, the only official claim that is made is that "'a series of passengers' took fever reducers three hours before arrival" - no quote about cheating is attributed to the Health Department, the intent to cheat is entirely an interpretation made by the author as far as I can tell.
located in an industrial zone on the outskirts of Paris
As opposed to the underskirts of Paris?
Well, apparently there is a joystick option, of sorts...
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/6/5/
Isn't proposition A how we got cops/government in the first place?
I need to amend my argument to specify that in all but the first paragraph, when I say AV software I meant to refer to general tools that promote security, including (but not limited to) malware detectors/removers (rootkits, adware, viruses, etc., all count as malware, contrary to what most AV makers would like you to think) and lockdown tools.
Everybody is responsible.
Additionally, anyone who, by inaction, allows the problem to grow is also arguably responsible. However, this is only part of the point. Good security is layered. You can't just fine the OS makers and call it a day as that won't solve the problem completely (inasmuch as it can be completely resolved) because like I said in point one, no OS is 100% secure, so eventually it will be exploited to spread a virus. Likewise, education isn't the only solution as even the best of us make mistakes, and even ignoring that any system is only so strong as its weakest link, so any given level of education merely raises the bar for the criminals. ISPs walk a fine line between monitoring the health of their networks and infringing on their user's privacy and/or freedoms, so there are limits to how far they should go. And punishing the perpetrators has been the preferred method since the dawn of mankind and you can see how well that's worked so far - it's effective, but it is imperfect on its own.
So, since funding to thoroughly and directly address all of the above is unlikely to be available, which give us the biggest bang for our buck? Which should we do first? And considering that this problem is one among many, how much money should we throw at it? I don't have the answers or the research to determine the answers, but I would guess that a campaign to at least provide visibility to the issue would likely be one of the cheapest and most effective, and using it to point people towards low cost or even free tools that already exist and that can dramatically reduce the scale of the problem makes sense.
But how extreme do we take this? Do we require a computing license, similar to a driver's license that all computer users must obtain before being allowed to sit behind the keyboard? Do we require all computer sellers or ISPs to include an information packet with this information, and maybe offer free or reduced cost classes to interested customers? Do we make those classes mandatory? Or do we just run some ads on TV during prime-time referring people to a web site? Again, this is open to significantly more debate, but the last item seems like a good start.
As I wrap this up, it occurs to me that this is less a response to the parent post and more a (indirect) response to a sister post from causality (among other similar posts) and the article in general. As such, please be gentle with the offtopic and/or troll/flamebait mods. The point that I'm arguing is the finger pointing going on here is fruitless and largely a waste of effort since we all share blame to some degree, and as such any solution needs to acknowledge that in order to be comprehensive.
Is this what is called a strawman? The GPP was making the point that a campaign against botnets was a prudent measure, not necessarily the purchasing of AV software. Much like the campaigns against the Germans in the Second World War, people weren't tasked to buy weapons, they were tasked to buy bonds, conserve critical resources, etc. A campaign in this context isn't necessarily "buy the most expensive defense" - it is a call to action, either by educating the public on proper precautions for reducing/eliminating the problem or asking them to take reasonable steps (including purchasing resources) to more aggressively attack the issue. Like getting a flu shot or buying a gas mask or one of any number of less-extreme-than-buying-artillery solutions such campaigns have employed in the past. He might like the idea of everyone buying AV software, or he might like the other proposals which included awareness campaigns, levying fines against those who cause harm through inaction, or mandating minimum security levels in OSes. The latter two are less like campaigns and more like simple legislation, but the point is that AV software is obviously more practical and affordable a solution to a problem than everyone owning an anti-aircraft gun. Recommending everybody buy a $40 item and recommending that everybody buy a $50,000+ item are widely separated on the "appropriate response" spectrum, and I think you are well aware of that.
The more appropriate (and currently enacted response) to the fact that other countries use military aircraft is to tax our citizens in order to fund our own military force and equip them so that they can deal with the airborne threat. When planes first started becoming widely used for military purposes, I can imagine that those awesome 50's "duck and cover" films addressed how to react when the enemy planes came by for a visit. They didn't encourage everyone to buy their own warplane or an AA gun, they said "get to safety and let your properly equipped and trained military force deal with the issue". So, sure, to fight botnets, we could fund a cyber-defense force (and as we have seen, this is apparently in the works, but just like in WWII, you folks at home can help by eating SPAM, buying war bonds, and using alternatives to the metal needed to build tanks and ammo for our fighting men overseas, or in this case, you can buy AV software, use a secure OS, and practice safe computing.
In short, in order to be effective, the response to a problem must also be practical. Having your average citizen buy and use AV software is, having them buy and use explosive ordinance isn't.
VLC has improved dramatically in the last year, and almost as dramatically in the preceding years. At least on Windows. Years ago I only used it to play streaming media files since it handled bit corruption (a necessary evil of NNTP before PAR) better than the dedicated players for local playback. Now, however, it is my primary player, replacing Winamp (and the open source Media Player 6 that is bundled with many codecs - and codec packs - such as Real Player Alternative and QuickTime Alternative). It isn't dramatically better than Winamp or MS Media Player for what I use it for (DVI to HDMI playback so I can watch Torrented TV shows on my big screen TV, mostly), but it is less naggy about constant updates, leaner, supports more codecs, and is open source which gives me warm fuzzies. And the interface works better for me on a dual screen setup with full screen video on the second screen. One of the things I really like is that the playlist is a separate window that I can place on the primary display and interact with while the playback window runs full screen on the second monitor (my TV in this case). Media Player (either one) won't break the playlist off into its own window and Winamp had some other annoying behavior I don't recall at the moment with regard to working across two monitors.
If I needed a library management system, I might lean back towards WinAMP (ever since Microsoft's Media Player stopped supporting the space bar as the pause control I haven't touched it voluntarily, and so I don't know - or care - if they eventually came to their senses), and if I needed all sorts of navigation options and smooth scrolling, well, I don't know how it handles those since I never use them. All I need is something small, with a playlist (for queue management) and wide codec support, stability (which is MUCH better now than even 6 months ago) and performance. I'm always open to new tools, but VLC fits the bill quite nicely for me. I'll probably try some of the tools mentioned here, but inertia will probably keep me on VLC unless one of them is <neo>whoa!</neo> better
I'm just guessing, but I think when he said "Technologically Uneducated Users" he was talking about Mac users, not developers. You might have missed the last 25 years where Macs claim to be more user friendly and cater to a less technologically inclined user-base, lending significant support to his suggestion. In short, not all Mac users fit that profile, but the ones that do are contributing to the negative image that OSX and Macs in general enjoy among a significant portion of the populace. Think "AOL", except replace the service itself with something worthwhile, and decrease the percentage of "Technologically Uninclined/Uneducated" users in the user-base from >99% down to about 80% or less.
More importantly, however, I think that he was implying that the users that claim that Macs are completely impervious to malware and that therefore Mac users need not take any precautions against infection are making the Mac community, and by extension the Mac OS, a laughing stock of the computer technology community. In short, the OS is technologically impressive in many ways, but a vocal portion of the users frequently make claims about it that are factually impossible and socially irresponsible. Not that this is exclusive to Mac, just better advertised and frequently sanctioned by the manufacturer.
If you do common sense things - like not running random software from the internet, keeping your machine patched, and turning off unnecessary services - you don't need anti-virus software running constantly.
you don't need anti-virus software running constantly
running constantly
constantly
Does that help answer your question? From the GGPP:
I only have virus scanning done on a weekly basis
In short, he does scan, just not every second via a memory resident application.
It's just dry skin! Really!
Note to self: Slashdot mods are rabidly pro Sun.
I mean really - Off-topic? The article is about a sun employee complaining about someone creating a version of Java that is incompatible with Sun's product and I point out the hypocrisy by describing how Sun's own versions of Java are incompatible with each other. I must just be more perceptive than most...
Ask Kenneth.