Actually it may not even make an observable difference if the code is embedded into other code, which actually uses the result.
Reasons why it may not make an observable code include:
* It is code that is never actually executed.
* It is code that does not itself produce observable behaviour, and the different result of both never is translated into observable behaviour (think for example of code where the result is used to address an array which is larger than necessary; this will cause different array cells being used, but as long as it is consistent, this difference will not show up in observable behaviour).
please consider whether there's any words at all that can be written ON-topic, given the submission.
Well, given that this is about porn, I guess it's one of the rare cases where a link to goatse would be on-topic (you might have to mention that you don't need bitcoins to see it, though);-)
Consider USD. The same government that issues USD collects taxes in the same currency. If that's the problem, I've got a solution: I hereby volunteer to tax anyone in bitcoins. To make it easy, I'll just say everyone owes me ten Satoshi per year.;-)
The last week was unusually quiet with only two stories. But in the last five weeks, there were on average four Bitcoin stories per week, which makes a story about every two days.
It would give the site owner an incentive to check the ads, because as soon as it is loaded on their own servers, malware on it does not only threaten the users, it also threatens their own site.
Also, I'm willing to make the following contract with any advertiser:
The advertiser agrees to provably not track me in any way, to use no advertising containing sound, no advertising which hides content, and no animation that lasts for longer than a few seconds, use no Flash or other Browser plugins, not to eat up considerable processor time (and, in case of mobile devices, battery charge), their advertisement never eating up more than ten kilobytes of memory or bandwidth per web page (actually the memory requirement could be relaxed, but not the bandwidth requirement), not to put their advertisements in the middle of the text, and most importantly, to properly make sure that their ad inserts do not contain any malware (the latter having a penalty for non-compliance of ten million dollars, to make sure it is really taken seriously), and in return I agree to not intentionally block their advertisements, provided they give me a way to reliably do so without enabling other ads as well.
I don't have problems with advertising in principle. I do have problems with advertising that
* tracks me * actively annoys me (not that I'd ever buy anything from annoying ads anyway, mind you) * eats my resources * threatens my security
The individuals in your neighbourhood walk around with access points? That must be a very unusual neighbourhood. Most people who have an access point just put it somewhere stationary.
Bitcoin does have an elemental unit, the Satoshi. Yes, it could be changed, but AFAIU that would be a protocol update, that is, you'd need new versions for your clients in order to spend or accept them. Just like the cent is the smallest unit for the dollar, but in the (extremely unlikely) case the government decided a lower unit were desirable, they could e.g. add a "mill" at the value of 0.1 cent without the need to switch to a completely different currency (all the existing dollars and cents would remain valid, just as all existing bitcoins would remain valid if sub-Satoshis were introduced).
why are bitcoin slashvertisements any worse than all the rest?
Because it comes up more often than any of the rest.
There was a time when every few days there was a Slashvertisement for Apple products. The result was people complaining as much (and even more) about those as they do now about Bitcoin stories.
Most people only care that the persons they deal with daily don't know about their porn habits. And if you are not prominent, you can be fairly sure that no one does an extensive investigation on it, especially if they don't have any suspicion otherwise. I wouldn't expect it to be anonymous to the police or the NSA, so I certainly wouldn't use it for illegal stuff (well, I wouldn't do anyway, but the point is, even if I were doing such stuff, I certainly would not use bitcoin for it).
You're right; I'd pay to specifically not store my data on a Seagate hard disk. Is Eminem (or anybody) exclusively licensed to Spotify? That would be pretty dumb for anyone already well known.
Well, there are artists doing this. However my point was not exclusive deals, my point is that you do care about specific artists, and therefore are interested that those specific artists continue to make music, which they might not do if they are not adequately paid. OTOH, when using web storage, you care about storing your data, not about specific products used.
The difference is that you don't go to Dropbox in order to store your data specifically on a Seagate hard disk, but you may go to Spotify to specifically listen to Eminem.
Of course the only difference between malware and legitimate software or other content is the intent, which the tool obviously cannot detect. Therefore any tool that can be used to remove malicious software can also be used to remove legal software or other content.
Yes. But installing Malicious Software Removal Tool is not something which secretly happens in the background, but which the user does knowingly, fully being aware that the tool is not only able to remove malicious software, but it is actually it's purpose.
Also, the botnet hardly is legal software, and the fact that it contains a concealed outdated copy of the Tor client doesn't change that fact.
If you don't want anybody in your computer, then simply don't invite him there. It's not as if the Malicious Software Removal Tool installed itself on the computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it may not even make an observable difference if the code is embedded into other code, which actually uses the result.
Reasons why it may not make an observable code include:
* It is code that is never actually executed.
* It is code that does not itself produce observable behaviour, and the different result of both never is translated into observable behaviour (think for example of code where the result is used to address an array which is larger than necessary; this will cause different array cells being used, but as long as it is consistent, this difference will not show up in observable behaviour).
However the "SEO part" doesn't only help search engines, it helps also individuals like me who look at the URL before following it.
That's true: Sooner or later I get hungry, so I'll go somewhere to eat and ask the server to give me some food.
Obviously you should make your product cross-platform by supporting both NSPR and Chrome ;-)
You mean, you can run Chrome in Emacs?
Well, given that this is about porn, I guess it's one of the rare cases where a link to goatse would be on-topic (you might have to mention that you don't need bitcoins to see it, though) ;-)
The last week was unusually quiet with only two stories. But in the last five weeks, there were on average four Bitcoin stories per week, which makes a story about every two days.
Then you could have looked for other advertisers. If enough people had done that, doubleclick would be history.
It would give the site owner an incentive to check the ads, because as soon as it is loaded on their own servers, malware on it does not only threaten the users, it also threatens their own site.
Two words: Surrogate script.
Also, I'm willing to make the following contract with any advertiser:
The advertiser agrees to provably not track me in any way, to use no advertising containing sound, no advertising which hides content, and no animation that lasts for longer than a few seconds, use no Flash or other Browser plugins, not to eat up considerable processor time (and, in case of mobile devices, battery charge), their advertisement never eating up more than ten kilobytes of memory or bandwidth per web page (actually the memory requirement could be relaxed, but not the bandwidth requirement), not to put their advertisements in the middle of the text, and most importantly, to properly make sure that their ad inserts do not contain any malware (the latter having a penalty for non-compliance of ten million dollars, to make sure it is really taken seriously), and in return I agree to not intentionally block their advertisements, provided they give me a way to reliably do so without enabling other ads as well.
I don't have problems with advertising in principle. I do have problems with advertising that
* tracks me
* actively annoys me (not that I'd ever buy anything from annoying ads anyway, mind you)
* eats my resources
* threatens my security
The individuals in your neighbourhood walk around with access points? That must be a very unusual neighbourhood. Most people who have an access point just put it somewhere stationary.
Indeed, your device probably does it already, to present you a list of available networks.
That would give "proof of work" a wholly new meaning ... ;-)
Bitcoin does have an elemental unit, the Satoshi. Yes, it could be changed, but AFAIU that would be a protocol update, that is, you'd need new versions for your clients in order to spend or accept them. Just like the cent is the smallest unit for the dollar, but in the (extremely unlikely) case the government decided a lower unit were desirable, they could e.g. add a "mill" at the value of 0.1 cent without the need to switch to a completely different currency (all the existing dollars and cents would remain valid, just as all existing bitcoins would remain valid if sub-Satoshis were introduced).
Because it comes up more often than any of the rest.
There was a time when every few days there was a Slashvertisement for Apple products. The result was people complaining as much (and even more) about those as they do now about Bitcoin stories.
Most people only care that the persons they deal with daily don't know about their porn habits. And if you are not prominent, you can be fairly sure that no one does an extensive investigation on it, especially if they don't have any suspicion otherwise. I wouldn't expect it to be anonymous to the police or the NSA, so I certainly wouldn't use it for illegal stuff (well, I wouldn't do anyway, but the point is, even if I were doing such stuff, I certainly would not use bitcoin for it).
You're right; I'd pay to specifically not store my data on a Seagate hard disk. Is Eminem (or anybody) exclusively licensed to Spotify? That would be pretty dumb for anyone already well known.
Well, there are artists doing this. However my point was not exclusive deals, my point is that you do care about specific artists, and therefore are interested that those specific artists continue to make music, which they might not do if they are not adequately paid. OTOH, when using web storage, you care about storing your data, not about specific products used.
The difference is that you don't go to Dropbox in order to store your data specifically on a Seagate hard disk, but you may go to Spotify to specifically listen to Eminem.
"Posted by" means "Put online by". Which is accurate.
"Posted by" does not mean "edited by".
Of course the only difference between malware and legitimate software or other content is the intent, which the tool obviously cannot detect. Therefore any tool that can be used to remove malicious software can also be used to remove legal software or other content.
Err ... "its purpose", of course ...
Yes. But installing Malicious Software Removal Tool is not something which secretly happens in the background, but which the user does knowingly, fully being aware that the tool is not only able to remove malicious software, but it is actually it's purpose.
Also, the botnet hardly is legal software, and the fact that it contains a concealed outdated copy of the Tor client doesn't change that fact.
If you don't want anybody in your computer, then simply don't invite him there. It's not as if the Malicious Software Removal Tool installed itself on the computer.