Is my Kaspersky Antivirus going to find and remove their viruses?
It seems like a good idea to avoid American make anti-virus software, as they may be working in cooperation with the NSA. But going for a Russian one doesn't seem like a terribly good idea, as you'll just get spied on by their security services instead. (Recently Russia gave out goodie bags to G20 representatives which contained spyware in USB drives and power supplies.)
Likewise British and Israeli anti-virus would be a bad choice given their history of surveillance and cooperating with the US.
So which country that we trust a bit more has an anti-virus company?
Right. Because it's not as if they found a bug in GnuTLS security the other week, that compromises HTTP security in many Linux apps. A bug that may or may not have been planted by the NSA, but either way has been undiscovered for 9 years.
There is nothing about Linux that makes it safer from government hacking. In fact the openness that allows many people, who's actual identities are not know to anyone, to contribute code makes it more vulnerable than a closed commercial OS.
At least with a closed commercial OS you have to actually be an identifiable person working for the company to submit changes. Or risk posing as one. And there are people who are paid to do the boring testing and audits. Apple's equivalent of the GnuTLS bug was discovered in a matter of months, not years.
No. Each country has an official currency that the government use for accounting, to tax, and to pay. In the USA that is the US dollar. These official currencies are unique and irreplaceable for that reason. The government could choose to change to another currency, but you as an individual or company can't.
When you are taxed, you can't do it with bitcoin. You will be taxed on the official currency equivalent, and will have to pay in actual US dollars.
You libertarians are too hooked on the gold standard. The major fiat currencies are more stable. Take a look at a chart of the value of gold.
And of course they are only going to forward what they consider to be non-insulting questions. Which is a shame when the person concerned is as much of a sleazy nutjob as ESR is.
Now, with regard to legality, criminality and tax avoidance I ask you to consider if the average taxpayer who fails to report the odd bit of income is more or less immoral than the corporations who shift billions in revenue to tax havens to avoid paying anything. Completely legal, but arguably just as wrong.
I agree. I'm just saying we should discuss bitcoin based on it's legal pros and cons. Because there are no hard facts when it comes to criminality.
I've come through the bitcoin crashes to date and I'm still saying it.
And you will keep saying it until you come to a point of revelation, that you've been playing in the market for years and you've ended up not making any money. Bitcoin is still very young. 5 years since it fist started being used by a few enthusiasts. Maybe a year since it got any significant interest.
Everything since the gold standard went away is a mirage.
The gold standard gives you nothing. If you look at the price of gold, it's more volatile than the major fiat currencies.
That dollar (or whatever) in your pocket is a mirage.
The US Dollar is older than the consitution. Virtually as old as US independence. My currency, the Pound Sterling has been in use for about 1600 years. They are a lot more solid than you imagine.
Value is relative based on perception and bitcoin is as valuable as people think it is, the same as with anything else.
Most people think bitcoin is worthless. Apparently only a few hundred people own 50% of all bitcoins. It's dream kept aloft through the hopes of a few libertarians.
And it's dangerous for anyone that doesn't understand it. Anyone who doesn't understand the need for extreme security measures is likely to lose their money at any time. A loss that is irreversible. And given that it's too complicated for most normal people to ever understand, it's never going to catch on as a general currency. Heck, it appears that even the banking and trading equivalents such as Mt Gox don't understand the need for extreme security.
I honestly hope you manage to get out before you lose what you have. And I do hope you never have the majority of your savings in it.
How much does a Segway cost compared to a 4 wheeled electric wheelchair? Don't underestimate the cost of the engineering required to balance on 2 feet.
Why put 4-8 legs on a robot when 2 will do? We ourselves do just fine on 2.
We make do with 2. But it's only advantage is that we get to use what were formally our front legs to manipulate things. 4 legs + 2 arms would always outperform 2 legs + 2 arms.
I don't spot anyone claiming that Microsoft isn't a nasty company. What I see is people claiming that Google is becoming ever more like Microsoft, as time passes. And your post just adds more evidence for that.
And lets not pretend that Google is specifically punishing Microsoft. They are only seeking to serve their own profits, just as Microsoft did.
but you can't argue "well fixing aging is pointless because dementia."
Which I didn't. That's mischaracterising my opinion as being a simple, single reason. It's not, it's multifaceted. There's a whole host of down sides to extending lifespans, a couple of which I've mentioned, but there are many more. Both on an individual basis, and as a society. The latter of which I haven't even touched.
I tend to think it's the other way around. People are going to cycle to the destination they are going. They are mostly not going to simply follow cycle routes where-ever they happen to go. Cycle routes should be built to cover the most popular journeys. That is the use of research like this.
Thank you. I'm always confused by the idiots in threads like this that immediately start talking about how horrible it would be, with an extra forty or fifty years of suffering. That's not how it works!
How it works is somewhere between the two. Healthy life can be extended by healthier living (e.g. diet and exercise). But many medical life extensions have come by keeping alive people that would otherwise have died of chronic diseases.
And then there are ageing diseases that pretty much only affect old folk. (e.g. Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.) Extending people's lives medically, into the years of diseases like this certainly reduces their quality of life.
But I'm not trying to make any decisions for anyone else. I'm just satisfied that 70 to 80 years will be enough for me. And you don't know any better about my opinion than I do.
If you ask instead if they want to keep the body of a thirty year old until they're eighty,
Funny how that just happens to be around the average current lifespan at this point in time.
Three score years and ten (i.e. 70) is also the length of life mentioned in the bible. Whilst I'm not religious, and don't necessarily believe all the text goes back as far as claimed, it certainly does go back hundreds of years, and certainly earlier than 1910.
You've never seen anyone recording with Google Glass. If you had, you wouldn't have made the original mistake of believing that there's a recording light.
What the hell is point of medicine if not to extend life, anyway?
Improving quality of life is more important than length of it. There's little point in extending life into the 100s, if those years are spent being unwell.
And who wouldn't want to be healthier and live longer?
Somewhere between 70 and 80 would do me nicely.
Sure you get a lot of loudmouths who speak before they think blurbing about Malthusian crises
It's a perfectly valid concern. This planet is finite, and the day when there's somewhere that would be pleasant to live that's off this planet seems like it's a very long way away.
And before someone talks about the evil corporations, lets get something straight... look around the country in more business friendly areas. Take texas or South Dakota or either of the Carolinas... how much of this police buying are we seeing there? Not much. So California is where we're seeing this now. Why of why would that be?
Is this a quiz? Is it because South Dakota and the Carolinas don't have any corporations?
Or are you trying to make some kind of dumb non-sequiteur?
I can't comment on the game, as I can't play it. But from the photos, it look like a very small number of polygons, set in outer space. This is the kind of 3D we had in the early 1990s. Modern phones on the other hand are running modern 3D game engines, within full 3D environments with thousands of polys.
It matters as much as finding out that the person behind Groklaw was Pam Jones. As much as finding out about the life of Howard Hughes when he went into hiding. And as much as finding out who Banksy is.
It's not at all important, but it is interesting. But unfortunately people's interest is satisfied only at the cost of the privacy of the person who wants to remain hidden.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither.
Neither one is intrinsically more secure as a desktop OS than the other. That Linux has had less malware is only because the market share is smaller.
Is my Kaspersky Antivirus going to find and remove their viruses?
It seems like a good idea to avoid American make anti-virus software, as they may be working in cooperation with the NSA. But going for a Russian one doesn't seem like a terribly good idea, as you'll just get spied on by their security services instead. (Recently Russia gave out goodie bags to G20 representatives which contained spyware in USB drives and power supplies.)
Likewise British and Israeli anti-virus would be a bad choice given their history of surveillance and cooperating with the US.
So which country that we trust a bit more has an anti-virus company?
Right. Because it's not as if they found a bug in GnuTLS security the other week, that compromises HTTP security in many Linux apps. A bug that may or may not have been planted by the NSA, but either way has been undiscovered for 9 years.
There is nothing about Linux that makes it safer from government hacking. In fact the openness that allows many people, who's actual identities are not know to anyone, to contribute code makes it more vulnerable than a closed commercial OS.
At least with a closed commercial OS you have to actually be an identifiable person working for the company to submit changes. Or risk posing as one. And there are people who are paid to do the boring testing and audits. Apple's equivalent of the GnuTLS bug was discovered in a matter of months, not years.
No. Each country has an official currency that the government use for accounting, to tax, and to pay. In the USA that is the US dollar. These official currencies are unique and irreplaceable for that reason. The government could choose to change to another currency, but you as an individual or company can't.
When you are taxed, you can't do it with bitcoin. You will be taxed on the official currency equivalent, and will have to pay in actual US dollars.
You libertarians are too hooked on the gold standard. The major fiat currencies are more stable. Take a look at a chart of the value of gold.
No, the FAQ on interviews makes it clear they select the questions to pass on to the interviewee.
http://slashdot.org/faq/interv...
And of course they are only going to forward what they consider to be non-insulting questions. Which is a shame when the person concerned is as much of a sleazy nutjob as ESR is.
If you don't know who ESR is you don't belong here.
And if you don't introduce Three Letter Acronyms (TLAs) the first time you use them, you don't belong on the editing team of this site, nor any other.
Now, with regard to legality, criminality and tax avoidance I ask you to consider if the average taxpayer who fails to report the odd bit of income is more or less immoral than the corporations who shift billions in revenue to tax havens to avoid paying anything. Completely legal, but arguably just as wrong.
I agree. I'm just saying we should discuss bitcoin based on it's legal pros and cons. Because there are no hard facts when it comes to criminality.
I've come through the bitcoin crashes to date and I'm still saying it.
And you will keep saying it until you come to a point of revelation, that you've been playing in the market for years and you've ended up not making any money. Bitcoin is still very young. 5 years since it fist started being used by a few enthusiasts. Maybe a year since it got any significant interest.
Everything since the gold standard went away is a mirage.
The gold standard gives you nothing. If you look at the price of gold, it's more volatile than the major fiat currencies.
That dollar (or whatever) in your pocket is a mirage.
The US Dollar is older than the consitution. Virtually as old as US independence. My currency, the Pound Sterling has been in use for about 1600 years. They are a lot more solid than you imagine.
Value is relative based on perception and bitcoin is as valuable as people think it is, the same as with anything else.
Most people think bitcoin is worthless. Apparently only a few hundred people own 50% of all bitcoins. It's dream kept aloft through the hopes of a few libertarians.
And it's dangerous for anyone that doesn't understand it. Anyone who doesn't understand the need for extreme security measures is likely to lose their money at any time. A loss that is irreversible. And given that it's too complicated for most normal people to ever understand, it's never going to catch on as a general currency. Heck, it appears that even the banking and trading equivalents such as Mt Gox don't understand the need for extreme security.
I honestly hope you manage to get out before you lose what you have. And I do hope you never have the majority of your savings in it.
How much does a Segway cost compared to a 4 wheeled electric wheelchair? Don't underestimate the cost of the engineering required to balance on 2 feet.
no one really took it seriously (and in my school, most of the rumors were true).
So SOMEONE took them seriously. Gullible child that you were.
Why put 4-8 legs on a robot when 2 will do? We ourselves do just fine on 2.
We make do with 2. But it's only advantage is that we get to use what were formally our front legs to manipulate things. 4 legs + 2 arms would always outperform 2 legs + 2 arms.
I don't spot anyone claiming that Microsoft isn't a nasty company. What I see is people claiming that Google is becoming ever more like Microsoft, as time passes. And your post just adds more evidence for that.
And lets not pretend that Google is specifically punishing Microsoft. They are only seeking to serve their own profits, just as Microsoft did.
but you can't argue "well fixing aging is pointless because dementia."
Which I didn't. That's mischaracterising my opinion as being a simple, single reason. It's not, it's multifaceted. There's a whole host of down sides to extending lifespans, a couple of which I've mentioned, but there are many more. Both on an individual basis, and as a society. The latter of which I haven't even touched.
I tend to think it's the other way around. People are going to cycle to the destination they are going. They are mostly not going to simply follow cycle routes where-ever they happen to go. Cycle routes should be built to cover the most popular journeys. That is the use of research like this.
Thank you. I'm always confused by the idiots in threads like this that immediately start talking about how horrible it would be, with an extra forty or fifty years of suffering. That's not how it works!
How it works is somewhere between the two. Healthy life can be extended by healthier living (e.g. diet and exercise). But many medical life extensions have come by keeping alive people that would otherwise have died of chronic diseases.
And then there are ageing diseases that pretty much only affect old folk. (e.g. Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.) Extending people's lives medically, into the years of diseases like this certainly reduces their quality of life.
But I'm not trying to make any decisions for anyone else. I'm just satisfied that 70 to 80 years will be enough for me. And you don't know any better about my opinion than I do.
If you ask instead if they want to keep the body of a thirty year old until they're eighty,
Sure. But then I've had enough.
Funny how that just happens to be around the average current lifespan at this point in time.
Three score years and ten (i.e. 70) is also the length of life mentioned in the bible. Whilst I'm not religious, and don't necessarily believe all the text goes back as far as claimed, it certainly does go back hundreds of years, and certainly earlier than 1910.
You've never seen anyone recording with Google Glass. If you had, you wouldn't have made the original mistake of believing that there's a recording light.
What the hell is point of medicine if not to extend life, anyway?
Improving quality of life is more important than length of it. There's little point in extending life into the 100s, if those years are spent being unwell.
And who wouldn't want to be healthier and live longer?
Somewhere between 70 and 80 would do me nicely.
Sure you get a lot of loudmouths who speak before they think blurbing about Malthusian crises
It's a perfectly valid concern. This planet is finite, and the day when there's somewhere that would be pleasant to live that's off this planet seems like it's a very long way away.
And before someone talks about the evil corporations, lets get something straight... look around the country in more business friendly areas. Take texas or South Dakota or either of the Carolinas... how much of this police buying are we seeing there? Not much. So California is where we're seeing this now.
Why of why would that be?
Is this a quiz?
Is it because South Dakota and the Carolinas don't have any corporations?
Or are you trying to make some kind of dumb non-sequiteur?
As if cops weren't already completely biased towards corporations and against individual citizens.
This is a move in the direction satirised by RoboCop (the original). Very bad news.
I can't comment on the game, as I can't play it. But from the photos, it look like a very small number of polygons, set in outer space. This is the kind of 3D we had in the early 1990s. Modern phones on the other hand are running modern 3D game engines, within full 3D environments with thousands of polys.
It matters as much as finding out that the person behind Groklaw was Pam Jones. As much as finding out about the life of Howard Hughes when he went into hiding. And as much as finding out who Banksy is.
It's not at all important, but it is interesting. But unfortunately people's interest is satisfied only at the cost of the privacy of the person who wants to remain hidden.
Who is John Galt?
Some fucking sad-sack libertarian survivalist hanging out in the woods with his guns.
ZTE Open is about the same as an iPhone 3GS. Although it has a 1GHz processor compared with the 600MHz of the 3GS.
Now low end, but not as low as the 3rd world devices they talk about.
And from the photos, Asteroid Mania looks very limited. Like a game from the 1990s.
This whole thing reminds me of all the folks complaining about how old BB apps were all Java while praising Android.
I wasn't really party to that discussion. But for sure Java bytecode seriously outpaces Javascript.
Of course it all depends what you mean by low-end devices. You could both be right, but simply have a different level of devices in mind.
However, if Firefox OS were really designed for low-end devices, it would be using a lower level language than HTML5 and Javascript for apps.
Thanks for the terminology. Always good to learn a new word. But I did already point out the slight difference of 1 day a year.
More than accurate enough for the bible though!