I am not an animal like any other. I can record my objections for posterity.
And an elephant can take and eat buns with it's nose. Picking something that you can uniquely do doesn't make you fundamentally different from other animals. Many have unique skills.
Think only intellectual skills count? Chimps can outperform you on a number of intelligence skills.
It's tempting to think that. But the top 3 animals for intelligence after man are the dolphin, the chimp and the pig, with the exact order open to debate. Yet people are quite happy to kill and eat pigs.
Cats and dogs are much lower on the intelligence scale, but most cultures find it unacceptable to kill them for sport or food.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against killing dolphins too.
But the list of what animals we will kill for what purposes is somewhat arbitrary.
They may not have written history, but they certainly pass skills on from generation to generation.
They could hunt people if they wanted. But other than the occasional long imprisoned orca that goes mad and drowns a captor, they much prefer to make friends.
We don't pay you anything. You're here because you want people to pay attention to your point of view. But they don't because they think you're an illiterate.
Of course there is far more money available from the oil companies than is actually taken, because few scientists got in to science to take money to falsify articles.
How many billions have institutions been given in grants by politicians, desiring as they were justification for their energy security policies?
It may have escaped your attention, but most governments around the world have actively avoided implementing the requirements from the Kyoto protocol. Most politicians, especially conservative ones, would much prefer that AGW was not true.
I'm afraid you have decided against AGW based on your politics, and everything else you believe is just confirmation bias. You're deluding yourself.
The "NoScript" subject header was inherited from dome way back up the thread. The person I responded to was rejecting the benefits of Javascript altogether, as well as implying a compromise in security that isn't there.
Then YOU get to ask YOURSELF whether YOU want to take the risk of running THEIR scripts on YOUR system in order to read/watch THEIR content.
Of course Javascript is limited to accessing THEIR content. Anything else on YOUR system is out of reach of Javascript.
But I've found that the sites that run scripts usually don't have much content worth my time.
Then you aren't using much in the way of Web 2.0 sites. Most of the interactive web-sites since Google Maps are unavailable to you. Hope you like the 1990s.
I'm all for blocking ads. But disabling Javascript altogether is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
In recent comments, you describe global warming as a "religion". Describe yourself as a libertarian, and say that Obama is worse than Nixon.
So, you're not "considered by many to be a denier. You ARE a denier. And your politics are not at all out of the usual bell curve of deniers at all. You're a classic denier.
Clearly you're more happy with your large screen TV than with the cinema experience. And there's plenty of people like you. But your opinion isn't everybody's. Many people still like to go to the cinema, for the reasons I've described amongst others. And that's why cinemas are not obsolete.
You know, I haven't seen a virus scanner log on any of my computers come up with any positive results since early 2000s, so maybe things have changed. However, the way it was done back then, and the way I assumed it was still done today, is that the anti-virus would flag the potentially malicious files, and then tell you in big red letters, "We detected virus blah. What would you like to do? Ignore / Delete / Quarantine"
I don't know the way Microsoft Security Essentials does it, as I moved to the Mac a long time ago. But having the dialog you mention as a default would be a big mistake. 99.9% of users wouldn't know what to do, and it would be a pure fluke if they selected the most appropriate action.
Developers shouldn't delegate the hard decisions to users. They should work out the right thing to do, and do it. In cases where there is no doubt that this is a malware that might be to delete immediately. In cases where false positives are possible, that might mean quarantining, and deleting at some time in the future.
From the sounds of it, this sounds like a delete immediately case. It happens on machines that are known to have the malware, and the TOR client is an old version installed in a specific hidden directory. There is no chance of a false positive.
Of course it's probably a good idea for virus checkers to have a mode with a dialog such as you describe, for use by virus researchers etc. But it should be a well hidden option, not the default.
Then you should know better. People are free to wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in. Jeans and t-shirts are comfortable and easy casual work-wear. There's no age limit on them.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not an animal like any other. I can record my objections for posterity.
And an elephant can take and eat buns with it's nose. Picking something that you can uniquely do doesn't make you fundamentally different from other animals. Many have unique skills.
Think only intellectual skills count? Chimps can outperform you on a number of intelligence skills.
It's tempting to think that. But the top 3 animals for intelligence after man are the dolphin, the chimp and the pig, with the exact order open to debate. Yet people are quite happy to kill and eat pigs.
Cats and dogs are much lower on the intelligence scale, but most cultures find it unacceptable to kill them for sport or food.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against killing dolphins too.
But the list of what animals we will kill for what purposes is somewhat arbitrary.
They may not have written history, but they certainly pass skills on from generation to generation.
They could hunt people if they wanted. But other than the occasional long imprisoned orca that goes mad and drowns a captor, they much prefer to make friends.
We don't pay you anything. You're here because you want people to pay attention to your point of view. But they don't because they think you're an illiterate.
You pop in and pick up a few things when you're on the way home from work. Or you order what you want online and have it delivered.
Grocery shopping isn't a reason to have a car.
Oil companies paying researchers?
Openly so. Available to any scientist OR economist. Example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
Of course there is far more money available from the oil companies than is actually taken, because few scientists got in to science to take money to falsify articles.
How many billions have institutions been given in grants by politicians, desiring as they were justification for their energy security policies?
It may have escaped your attention, but most governments around the world have actively avoided implementing the requirements from the Kyoto protocol. Most politicians, especially conservative ones, would much prefer that AGW was not true.
I'm afraid you have decided against AGW based on your politics, and everything else you believe is just confirmation bias. You're deluding yourself.
It's even more obvious you haven't. Peer reviewers need to be able to use capital letters and punctuation properly.
And the Netherlands are practically flat enough to bicycle without pedalling.
Indeed. If you find yourself at sea level, you can usually free-wheel down from there.
No girl will ever be impressed by a Prius.
You need to get out more. There are plenty of hippy girls out there.
Then your daughter is presumably as ignorant of the rules of publishing in research journals as you are.
I know what NoScript is.
The "NoScript" subject header was inherited from dome way back up the thread. The person I responded to was rejecting the benefits of Javascript altogether, as well as implying a compromise in security that isn't there.
Attendance has dropped a bit over the last decade, but not by much.
http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/09/20/the-future-of-cinemas/#!sznZx
Certainly the loss is trivial compared to the losses from Cinemas heyday, and the subsequent recovery as the multiscreen came along.
http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/AbdelUpload/cineb.JPG
The teens I know just say no to friending their mothers, and continue to use facebook.
Then YOU get to ask YOURSELF whether YOU want to take the risk of running THEIR scripts on YOUR system in order to read/watch THEIR content.
Of course Javascript is limited to accessing THEIR content. Anything else on YOUR system is out of reach of Javascript.
But I've found that the sites that run scripts usually don't have much content worth my time.
Then you aren't using much in the way of Web 2.0 sites. Most of the interactive web-sites since Google Maps are unavailable to you. Hope you like the 1990s.
I'm all for blocking ads. But disabling Javascript altogether is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
A lot of geeks like to think they're influential opinion-formers. Most of them are far less influential than they imagine
Indeed. Look how (un)successful geeks have been in getting people not to use Facebook for example.
In recent comments, you describe global warming as a "religion". Describe yourself as a libertarian, and say that Obama is worse than Nixon.
So, you're not "considered by many to be a denier. You ARE a denier. And your politics are not at all
out of the usual bell curve of deniers at all. You're a classic denier.
Clearly you're more happy with your large screen TV than with the cinema experience. And there's plenty of people like you. But your opinion isn't everybody's. Many people still like to go to the cinema, for the reasons I've described amongst others. And that's why cinemas are not obsolete.
You know, I haven't seen a virus scanner log on any of my computers come up with any positive results since early 2000s, so maybe things have changed. However, the way it was done back then, and the way I assumed it was still done today, is that the anti-virus would flag the potentially malicious files, and then tell you in big red letters, "We detected virus blah. What would you like to do? Ignore / Delete / Quarantine"
I don't know the way Microsoft Security Essentials does it, as I moved to the Mac a long time ago. But having the dialog you mention as a default would be a big mistake. 99.9% of users wouldn't know what to do, and it would be a pure fluke if they selected the most appropriate action.
Developers shouldn't delegate the hard decisions to users. They should work out the right thing to do, and do it. In cases where there is no doubt that this is a malware that might be to delete immediately. In cases where false positives are possible, that might mean quarantining, and deleting at some time in the future.
From the sounds of it, this sounds like a delete immediately case. It happens on machines that are known to have the malware, and the TOR client is an old version installed in a specific hidden directory. There is no chance of a false positive.
Of course it's probably a good idea for virus checkers to have a mode with a dialog such as you describe, for use by virus researchers etc. But it should be a well hidden option, not the default.
What a dumb thing to say. As I said, you should know better at your age.
Security Essentials removes this TOR payload anyway.
I'll be in trouble if I'm ever raided -- I have several USB devices and CD-R's
So reformat the rewritable ones, and throw the others away. Problem solved.
You're the biggest fanboy here.
Never, but it can add to a list of small frustrations, getting a user to switch manufacturers next contract renewal.
You WANT to add to users frustrations? Bad attitude.
I'm way over 40.
Then you should know better. People are free to wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in. Jeans and t-shirts are comfortable and easy casual work-wear. There's no age limit on them.
What's this? Immature little boys thinking they own jeans and t-shirts? We were wearing them since before your were a twinkle in your daddy's eye.
Come back and try and be cool when you invent something of your own.