Ah, touche`... my "list" is actually about 10 points. Common sense to me, but you're right - it goes far beyond "don't download infected software". I do maintain that the underlying principle is the same: don't invite trouble into your computer, either actively or passively. ANd it doesn't take a complete lockdown to manage that sanely.
Possibly, but too me that seems to depend on whether you give more than a cursory look. I've heard the same things from others, yet it's still pretty apparent when even someone described as wearing makeup correctly is wearing makeup. Not a quick glance, but any kind of significant look within 10 feet or so.
Firefox takes care of this mostly, and noscript in the last few months removes any remaining threat.
get spam email with virus that requires you to hover your mouse over the message title in Outlook to install
a) don't use outlook b) in ANY email client, disable HTML rendering and scripting.
or some protocol you weren't even aware your computer used has a security hole and an IP scanner finds that port open on your box...
run behind a dedicated hardware firewall w/ NAT. You should never have your computer directly on an public-facing Internet connection.
I've managed to remain un-exploited for a couple of decades now with those basic procedures. I run clamav against my windows partition while booted into linux about once a month to verify. And I'll periodically monitor inbound/outbound traffic from firewall/router box (mostly as an extra precaution).
BTW your Windows anti-malware solutions sucks, a lot of bots/droppers these days are protected with something like hacker defender which isn't going to trigger any startup monitoring tool.
Missing the point - if you don't install software that's infected, you won't get infected.
but you'll find that their societies don't emphasize the use of cosmetics as being attractive.
That's rather the point, isn't it? Society -- in this case *heavily* influenced by marketing tactics -- does emphasize it. The question is, without those tactics, would the emphasis still be there? I would question that very much. (
Here's the interesting thing about it. Personally I find makeup distasteful... and most males I know do as well (though of course we tolerate it..). This led me to wonder, "Okay.... well if men don't really care to see their women in a ton fo makeup on a regular basis, what other motivation is there?"
Asking among female friends revealed two motivations*: for the younger crowd, it was about being more "mature" and sometimes for attracting men. For anyone out of their twenties, they want to look "put together" to other women. Basically concerned that other women would look down on them for *not* wearing it.
*Based only on my sample size of about 10 makeup-wearing women over several years, obviously not universally true... I'd love to hear the slashdotian woman's perspective, both makeup-wearing and non-makeup-wearing...
Since it's owned by News Corporation, it'd be fair to say that it draws from the Murdoch family's deep well of moral squalor. So selling user data to the highest bidder, in addition to attacking Murdoch's ideological enemies, is being just true to form for these people.
I can't say I'm surprised.
And for reference you provide a hearsay account posted to a Wikipedia article, wherein someone accuses MySpace of a behavior with nothing to back it up. Clicking the source link for the story, we find that it's no longer valid. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I am saying that better sources might be in order...
Ahem, code must go through a compile even in an interpreted language like PHP. The difference is an interpreted language is compiled at run time, whereas in a "compiled" language it has to be compiled before attempting a run.
However, you can have portions of a script that are not compiled at run time -- by virtue of the fact that they will be included dynamically. In such a way badly written code can sit on a live server for years before any error is displayed due to failed parsing.
And if we're going to be picking nits, let's not forget that "parsing" is a different operation from "compiling" -- in a language that is not compiled, there is no compilation; only parsing. When a compilation occurs, there is a transformation into executable code. In many scripting languages, the executable code *is* the script - there is no bytecode or binary representation of instructions. Instead, the code is parsed and executed simultaneously -- though PHP is not such a language.
Next time you decide to be pedantic about someone's word choice make sure you have your facts straight.
Even the worst code must compile to be used. Law doesn't even have to pass that litmus test, and it shows.
Unless it's PHP (or other scripted language), which actually makes a pretty good parallel for the law. Until a given piece of code is actually run, you've no idea if it's valid... Still, a valid point all the same.
If Congress had to write laws that were held to anything remotely approaching the standard of what computers require of programmers there would be about 3 pages left.
Haha, good one. That, or you must not have been programming for very long... it's amazing the twisted and convoluted ways that programmers come up with to do the simplest of things. Check out "CodeSOD" on dailywtf.com sometime.
I don't support weak copyright when it comes to paying for things. I fully support the idea that someone should get paid for the work they've done, and consider the justifications "it's just data", "it doesn't cost anything to reproduce", "nothing is getting stolen" et al to be complete crap; nothing more than a thin excuse for taking what you want, when you want it, without regard for others.
Whether PF wanted to do this as a way to make more money or as a way to ensure artistic integrity makes no difference to me at all. In both cases, they are fully within their rights as the holders of the copyright.
I think posters supporting Pink Floyd realise that they had this contract for the right reason - artistic integrity. It wasn't primarily a grab for money. There's no EULA saying what you can and can't do with one of their albums once you've bought it.
Let's see... the "debate" consists of 17 comments on some dude's blog.
Curious, I searched for solarphp debate and the first 12 results are a verbatim cut-n-paste of the same summary that was copy-pasted into the Slashdot article.
The subsequent results don't even touch on any kind of performance testing with solarphp. So, um... why is this on the front page again?
information has no desires and can't want to be free
And gases can't "want" to fill their containers, but when talking about the observed properties of gases, we anthropomorphize by describing the tendency as a "want." It's a rhetorical convention, not a conjecture that a gas is self-determining.
I'm rather more selective in my anthropomorphization. Just ask my car, she'll tell you.
Fortunately Slashdot consists of many minds and some of them don't view this is a contradiction at all. That is: PF has the right to control distribution however it wants to -- moreover, EMI supported that as well, in the contract they signed. Beyond that: information has no desires and can't want to be free, but artists (and even labels) are within their rights to want to get paid.
f there's anything we learned from the PC universe, it's that many people would rather have viruses run transparently in the background than have their machines slow to a crawl because of overbearing security suites that often don't even identify proper threats.
I'm not sure what PC universe you spend time in, but in mine most users prefer both. They love to run the overbearing security suites because then they *know* they're secure, and don't have to worry about all those weird other things running transparently in the background.
But in the context of "no.net bindings means it's not ready", Java bindings are perfectly relevant. Too, I haven't noticed any performance issues using opengl in Java.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, touche`... my "list" is actually about 10 points. Common sense to me, but you're right - it goes far beyond "don't download infected software". I do maintain that the underlying principle is the same: don't invite trouble into your computer, either actively or passively. ANd it doesn't take a complete lockdown to manage that sanely.
Also, did tossing out a couple of insults make you feel better? I am curious, as I can't see any other reason for having done so.
Possibly, but too me that seems to depend on whether you give more than a cursory look. I've heard the same things from others, yet it's still pretty apparent when even someone described as wearing makeup correctly is wearing makeup. Not a quick glance, but any kind of significant look within 10 feet or so.
Hah! So in other words, when there's enough background noise to drown out the bad voice acting you don't notice it so much...
I'd love to hear the slashdotian woman's perspective,
And then you'll get the perspective of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, right?
I swore I saw one once. But it could have been a dream.
.except if you enter sites with drive-by exploits
Firefox takes care of this mostly, and noscript in the last few months removes any remaining threat.
get spam email with virus that requires you to hover your mouse over the message title in Outlook to install
a) don't use outlook b) in ANY email client, disable HTML rendering and scripting.
or some protocol you weren't even aware your computer used has a security hole and an IP scanner finds that port open on your box...
run behind a dedicated hardware firewall w/ NAT. You should never have your computer directly on an public-facing Internet connection.
I've managed to remain un-exploited for a couple of decades now with those basic procedures. I run clamav against my windows partition while booted into linux about once a month to verify. And I'll periodically monitor inbound/outbound traffic from firewall/router box (mostly as an extra precaution).
BTW your Windows anti-malware solutions sucks, a lot of bots/droppers these days are protected with something like hacker defender which isn't going to trigger any startup monitoring tool.
Missing the point - if you don't install software that's infected, you won't get infected.
but you'll find that their societies don't emphasize the use of cosmetics as being attractive.
That's rather the point, isn't it? Society -- in this case *heavily* influenced by marketing tactics -- does emphasize it. The question is, without those tactics, would the emphasis still be there? I would question that very much. (
Here's the interesting thing about it. Personally I find makeup distasteful... and most males I know do as well (though of course we tolerate it..). This led me to wonder, "Okay.... well if men don't really care to see their women in a ton fo makeup on a regular basis, what other motivation is there?"
Asking among female friends revealed two motivations*: for the younger crowd, it was about being more "mature" and sometimes for attracting men. For anyone out of their twenties, they want to look "put together" to other women. Basically concerned that other women would look down on them for *not* wearing it.
*Based only on my sample size of about 10 makeup-wearing women over several years, obviously not universally true... I'd love to hear the slashdotian woman's perspective, both makeup-wearing and non-makeup-wearing...
Well - look at the UID. He probably never learned any better... ;)
Since it's owned by News Corporation, it'd be fair to say that it draws from the Murdoch family's deep well of moral squalor. So selling user data to the highest bidder, in addition to attacking Murdoch's ideological enemies, is being just true to form for these people.
I can't say I'm surprised.
And for reference you provide a hearsay account posted to a Wikipedia article, wherein someone accuses MySpace of a behavior with nothing to back it up. Clicking the source link for the story, we find that it's no longer valid. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I am saying that better sources might be in order...
Ahem, code must go through a compile even in an interpreted language like PHP. The difference is an interpreted language is compiled at run time, whereas in a "compiled" language it has to be compiled before attempting a run.
However, you can have portions of a script that are not compiled at run time -- by virtue of the fact that they will be included dynamically. In such a way badly written code can sit on a live server for years before any error is displayed due to failed parsing.
And if we're going to be picking nits, let's not forget that "parsing" is a different operation from "compiling" -- in a language that is not compiled, there is no compilation; only parsing. When a compilation occurs, there is a transformation into executable code. In many scripting languages, the executable code *is* the script - there is no bytecode or binary representation of instructions. Instead, the code is parsed and executed simultaneously -- though PHP is not such a language.
Next time you decide to be pedantic about someone's word choice make sure you have your facts straight.
Indeed.
Even the worst code must compile to be used. Law doesn't even have to pass that litmus test, and it shows.
Unless it's PHP (or other scripted language), which actually makes a pretty good parallel for the law. Until a given piece of code is actually run, you've no idea if it's valid... Still, a valid point all the same.
If Congress had to write laws that were held to anything remotely approaching the standard of what computers require of programmers there would be about 3 pages left.
Haha, good one. That, or you must not have been programming for very long... it's amazing the twisted and convoluted ways that programmers come up with to do the simplest of things. Check out "CodeSOD" on dailywtf.com sometime.
Ah, sorry - I thought your comment was in reply to mine.
Define "freedom" in this context.
Whether PF wanted to do this as a way to make more money or as a way to ensure artistic integrity makes no difference to me at all. In both cases, they are fully within their rights as the holders of the copyright.
I think posters supporting Pink Floyd realise that they had this contract for the right reason - artistic integrity. It wasn't primarily a grab for money. There's no EULA saying what you can and can't do with one of their albums once you've bought it.
Why should the reason matter or all?
If the CISO treats one rule casually, what is the dolt liable to ignore next?
Not every slope is a slippery one.
Curious, I searched for solarphp debate and the first 12 results are a verbatim cut-n-paste of the same summary that was copy-pasted into the Slashdot article.
The subsequent results don't even touch on any kind of performance testing with solarphp. So, um... why is this on the front page again?
information has no desires and can't want to be free
And gases can't "want" to fill their containers, but when talking about the observed properties of gases, we anthropomorphize by describing the tendency as a "want." It's a rhetorical convention, not a conjecture that a gas is self-determining.
I'm rather more selective in my anthropomorphization. Just ask my car, she'll tell you.
Fortunately Slashdot consists of many minds and some of them don't view this is a contradiction at all. That is: PF has the right to control distribution however it wants to -- moreover, EMI supported that as well, in the contract they signed. Beyond that: information has no desires and can't want to be free, but artists (and even labels) are within their rights to want to get paid.
f there's anything we learned from the PC universe, it's that many people would rather have viruses run transparently in the background than have their machines slow to a crawl because of overbearing security suites that often don't even identify proper threats.
I'm not sure what PC universe you spend time in, but in mine most users prefer both. They love to run the overbearing security suites because then they *know* they're secure, and don't have to worry about all those weird other things running transparently in the background.
there's no cable between the two parts to smack you in the face when things get heated
Smacking myself in the face with the cable is how I keep myself humble.
Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem. Dona eis requiem sempiternam. THWAP
And if you think this is a biblical reference, please don't mod this.
But in the context of "no .net bindings means it's not ready", Java bindings are perfectly relevant. Too, I haven't noticed any performance issues using opengl in Java.
Excellent, glad to hear it. A new update is coming out tonight (if I can stay awake long enough) with multiple fixes and a couple of new features.