That is a possibility to avoid interference. For suspicious files, you can also upload them to VirusTotal to basically get almost all scanners. Still, unless you behave in a very risky way, what MS offers is quite enough.
You know, with the features that make Linux better, like stability, performance and security. This is just a crappy Windows kernel with a Linux interface. If I want that, Cygwin gives me that and (of course!) the ability to run X11 applications as well.
Indeed. The buy the same signatures everybody else has. Also, installing two AW solutions may well result in them interfering with each other. Not a good idea.
Oh, yes. Calling somebody an "engineer" that is not even a fit technician is not going to work, because they cannot perform. It is a real tragedy though that people that have very little and do not understand what is going on get defrauded this way. This is a cultural problem though, and laws will not fix it. It needs generally good education for everybody to be fixed, but of course, that comes with these politicians and other profiteers losing their opportunities to make lots of money.
The education itself must be really bad, because 60% of 800'000 unemployed is not something you can get with reasonable education and an actual market need. Calling these people "engineers" is not a realistic assessment of the situation.
Oh, yes. Far to many bad papers get published and far too many good papers turn out to be difficult to publish. I have gotten contacted by conference chairs several times by now because I was the only reviewer that rejected a paper, but apparently was also the only one that actually read and understood it. (None of these got published.)
I fully agree. One of the reasons I made sure to keep my online rights when publishing my PhD thesis. Had to go to a small publisher for that. All my papers are online as well, for the journal ones (few, that process just takes far too long got CS) as tech-reports with the same title.
The thing is, I already got paid for all my research by public funding. I consider it highly immortal to ask people to pay for access after that. Personally, I think that publicly funded research should come with a hard requirement that anything published must be free to access for anybody and I expect we will basically get that, as eventually nobody will read the commercial journals anymore and their relevance will go away.
Greed, declining review quality, slow publication, etc. Just like other copyright industries, but probably even more stupid than most. And no loss at all to humanity when these all finally fail. Content will of course continued to be published, after all the authors and the reviewers (the two critical parts of scientific publishing) never got any compensation from journals at all. This will also allow to make a real effort to fix the currently mostly broken review system.
Especially if you live in a police-state, like the US for example. Your rights count for nothing in that case. And you can be sure that very soon, the "rioting mob" will be provided by the authorities, as a sure-fire way to get rid of "protesters" (terrorist, all of them, obviously!) permanently.
Indeed. For this to have _any_ significance with regards to sexism, it needs to prove causation. Otherwise it means exactly nothing.
However, it gives us one data-point in a related discussion: This is yet another faulty argument trying to prove sexism against women. That tells me that the people trying to prove sexism against women are probably pretty bad at statistics. This study here was authored by four women. It would be interesting to see whether a) there is a correlation between bad statistics and female authorship and b) whether there actually is causation.
I think the systemd team just cannot hack it. They are too dysfunctional. Systemd needs to die before something that actually improves on the classic solutions will get a chance.
You do not get it. Seriously. What counts for reliability is how the tool performs that delivers the service. What it uses for that is under control of the developers. If they select a bad library and fail to include appropriate redundancies in a system-critical tool, then the fault is on their heads.
Indeed. This low level or reliability is _not_ acceptable on Linux. And look, it is the same cretins that have broken other things before. Why is this stuff in distros labeled as "stable" again?
Getting subverted by criminal means does not count as "allowing". It counts as having gotten compromised. Anyways, nobody in their right mind will use RSA products for security at this time. They have screwed up far too often in the last few years. (Yes, I am aware their stuff still gets used. Do not expect a working security mind-set anywhere where that is the case....)
Slashdot Mirror
Something that gets this much hype cannot be good, or the hype would not be needed. Seems to me some cretins are using Rust as a religion-surrogate.
Incompetent amateurs (the signature on the key) with the equivalent of nuclear weapons. Who thought this was a good idea?
Since this is about fighting evil people that want to put things in their bodies that the government does not approve of, it surely must all be fine!
That is a possibility to avoid interference. For suspicious files, you can also upload them to VirusTotal to basically get almost all scanners. Still, unless you behave in a very risky way, what MS offers is quite enough.
You know, with the features that make Linux better, like stability, performance and security. This is just a crappy Windows kernel with a Linux interface. If I want that, Cygwin gives me that and (of course!) the ability to run X11 applications as well.
Indeed. The buy the same signatures everybody else has. Also, installing two AW solutions may well result in them interfering with each other. Not a good idea.
Oh, yes. Calling somebody an "engineer" that is not even a fit technician is not going to work, because they cannot perform. It is a real tragedy though that people that have very little and do not understand what is going on get defrauded this way. This is a cultural problem though, and laws will not fix it. It needs generally good education for everybody to be fixed, but of course, that comes with these politicians and other profiteers losing their opportunities to make lots of money.
That insight requires some management skills. This AC does not seem to have any.
The education itself must be really bad, because 60% of 800'000 unemployed is not something you can get with reasonable education and an actual market need. Calling these people "engineers" is not a realistic assessment of the situation.
For Disney, it is currently defined at "now + 20 years", so I would say "forever" is a good approximation.
They probably do not want people shallow enough to have issues with the mascot as their users. Smart decision.
Oh, yes. Far to many bad papers get published and far too many good papers turn out to be difficult to publish. I have gotten contacted by conference chairs several times by now because I was the only reviewer that rejected a paper, but apparently was also the only one that actually read and understood it. (None of these got published.)
I fully agree. One of the reasons I made sure to keep my online rights when publishing my PhD thesis. Had to go to a small publisher for that. All my papers are online as well, for the journal ones (few, that process just takes far too long got CS) as tech-reports with the same title.
The thing is, I already got paid for all my research by public funding. I consider it highly immortal to ask people to pay for access after that. Personally, I think that publicly funded research should come with a hard requirement that anything published must be free to access for anybody and I expect we will basically get that, as eventually nobody will read the commercial journals anymore and their relevance will go away.
Greed, declining review quality, slow publication, etc. Just like other copyright industries, but probably even more stupid than most. And no loss at all to humanity when these all finally fail. Content will of course continued to be published, after all the authors and the reviewers (the two critical parts of scientific publishing) never got any compensation from journals at all. This will also allow to make a real effort to fix the currently mostly broken review system.
Especially if you live in a police-state, like the US for example. Your rights count for nothing in that case. And you can be sure that very soon, the "rioting mob" will be provided by the authorities, as a sure-fire way to get rid of "protesters" (terrorist, all of them, obviously!) permanently.
Right? Because they treat their employees so badly, quite a lot find a jump from the roof preferable.
That is a pretty bad fail. Their results are completely meaningless.
Indeed. For this to have _any_ significance with regards to sexism, it needs to prove causation. Otherwise it means exactly nothing.
However, it gives us one data-point in a related discussion: This is yet another faulty argument trying to prove sexism against women. That tells me that the people trying to prove sexism against women are probably pretty bad at statistics. This study here was authored by four women. It would be interesting to see whether a) there is a correlation between bad statistics and female authorship and b) whether there actually is causation.
Very much so, yes.
I think the systemd team just cannot hack it. They are too dysfunctional. Systemd needs to die before something that actually improves on the classic solutions will get a chance.
While funny, this is about what I expect from these morons.
You do not get it. Seriously. What counts for reliability is how the tool performs that delivers the service. What it uses for that is under control of the developers. If they select a bad library and fail to include appropriate redundancies in a system-critical tool, then the fault is on their heads.
Indeed. This low level or reliability is _not_ acceptable on Linux. And look, it is the same cretins that have broken other things before. Why is this stuff in distros labeled as "stable" again?
Or is it just me and I have overblown expectations?
Getting subverted by criminal means does not count as "allowing". It counts as having gotten compromised. Anyways, nobody in their right mind will use RSA products for security at this time. They have screwed up far too often in the last few years. (Yes, I am aware their stuff still gets used. Do not expect a working security mind-set anywhere where that is the case....)