I think it would be more fair to compare the number of devices that allow arbitrary execution of externally acquired software. A PC, or a smart-phone or a tablet does allow this. Generally a router or a TV or other embedded software system don't.
Most infections are due in part to users allowing the malware access to the system (clicking a link, opening an attachment, running the software, etc.)
So, I don't think it is fair the number of Windows install (largely desktops and servers) to the number of Linux installs (loads of devices in the consumer electronics market).
For what it's worth, my opinion is basically, like with most debates, that both arguments are correct. Windows has a larger market share of computers (as opposed to devices in general), and so presents a more attractive target. It is also an easier target as it is much easier to install malware on it, and when done so it is much easier to compromise the entire system rather than just a subsection or a user account.
It is of course quite possible for malware to infect a Linux system, all that has to happen is the user has to install it. This is much harder to do on Linux due to the repos being the source of most installations, as opposed to downloads being from un-verified websites for Windows.
Would this remain true if the great mass of unskilled users started using Linux?
I think that if Linux got a larger market share there would be more commercial involvement and we would see more 'download our app from our website (and pay us £20)' type installs going on, which would break the security that repositories currently give the typically Linux user. Maybe we'd see something more like the Android market?
Why are "47%, flip-flopping on every issue, refuse to tell us his plans, tax returns" excellent reasons that he (Romney) would not make a good president?
For example, why do his tax returns have any effect on his ability to make effective and efficacious executive decisions?
Are you sure that you don't mean that these things make you like him less?
But while I'm at it, if we crack the problem of converting carbon, hydrogen and oxygen into oil and petrol, then surely we would be able to figure out how to convert hydrogen and oxygen back into water.
If we believe the above assumptions then I am not sure you can call it hypocrisy. If he genuinely believes that homosexuality is a choice and that you should only attack people who make bad/wrong/immoral choices then he is not a hypocrite.
I agree he is a bigot and an idiot, but I think hypocrisy is about intent rather than result.
I think it hinges on the question of how easy is it to accidentally send an SMS to everyone in a Blackberry address book?
I have never used a Blackberry. I use an HTC and wouldn't know how to do it intentionally, let alone by accident. Does anyone (who uses a Blackberry) know how plausible it is?
It was clear that tehcyder was saying one should stop focusing on external stimuli (e.g. based on hard facts from WikiP and Google) and instead occasionally take the time to focus on these other more esoteric and less tangible subjects where subjective reflection and personal perspective can be important. He/She wasn't saying that these things in and of themselves where divorced from the material world.
Even the most solid of materialist / atheist / reductionist mindsets could, I hope, agree that there is a physiological and emotional, and so by extension perhaps 'spiritual', element to human existence. Not everything that is true is a fact or a datum.
But try actually doing anything with an algorithm or maths equation. You can't unless you implement it.
Software is suppose to do something - to fill some needs or solve some problem.You must take your algorithms and build them in such a way that they run on certain hardware and interact with certain interfaces and I/O devices.
A sort or search algorithm is fine, but to really be useful (sellable) software it has to interact with some form of data storage and probably interface with other software.
Now, I'm British and so I'm not familiar with the US patent system. Are people really trying to implement abstract algorithms, or bits of software that use them?
Plus, the stuff in the shop presumably has some utility to the shopper (they want food to eat, newspapers to read, wine to drink,etc.) Hence them maybe wanting to still buy it at a higher price, as they have a need to fulfill.
The utility of stock is its price. If the price goes up then it is worth less to the buyer. And stock is very substitutable. If the price goes up then people will buy another product (i.e. a different stock at a better price).
Forgetting the analogy, what is the actual problem that we're trying to solve here? If the price differences being created here are "razor thin" then what is the injustice? I buy and sell stock maybe once or twice a year - I'm not going to base my decisions on razor thin differences but on long terms trends and predictions.
I agree with you, but there is the caveat that it is quite common for companies to own quite a lot of their own stock. So a stock price rise is beneficial to them.
If the Chinese made toy hurts someone that is either because of the actions of a) the user, or b) the manufacturer.
With software there is a third party. A bridge builder isn't held liable if someone bombs the bridge. A drinks manufacturer isn't held liable if someone poisons the drink. But this conversation suggests that a software developer should be liable for similar third party attacks.
I tend to agree with the comments that say that solutions should be contractual - if you want that security then pay for it, and if you don't want the risk then don't buy stuff that doesn't (in a legally binding way) promise it.
So we have approx 5% of people who buy games. And 95% who pirate them.
Ubisoft (and others certainly) implement DRM to reduce piracy.
Let us say that the DRM is responsible for piracy rates being at 95% and not 95.5%. Be fair, there are a certain number of people who are not going to know how to scour bittorrent for keygens and cracks.
So, the DRM has increased Ubisoft's sales by 10%. That matters to them.
I am fairly sure that Ubisoft doesn't care too much about the huge number of people who would pirate the game regardless, and it doesn't care too much about the small fraction of people who have problems with the DRM (it clearly isn't putting too much of a dent in the sales figures).
"They don't even seem overly interested in actually talking to him. They seem to want one and only one thing, to get him on Swedish soil at all costs. That seems very very unusual."
For this to be useful you would have to provide evidence of this being in any way different to the behaviour of the authorities in other high profile sexual assault cases in Sweden. It is only unusual if it isn't their usual behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it would be more fair to compare the number of devices that allow arbitrary execution of externally acquired software. A PC, or a smart-phone or a tablet does allow this. Generally a router or a TV or other embedded software system don't.
Most infections are due in part to users allowing the malware access to the system (clicking a link, opening an attachment, running the software, etc.)
So, I don't think it is fair the number of Windows install (largely desktops and servers) to the number of Linux installs (loads of devices in the consumer electronics market).
For what it's worth, my opinion is basically, like with most debates, that both arguments are correct. Windows has a larger market share of computers (as opposed to devices in general), and so presents a more attractive target. It is also an easier target as it is much easier to install malware on it, and when done so it is much easier to compromise the entire system rather than just a subsection or a user account.
It is of course quite possible for malware to infect a Linux system, all that has to happen is the user has to install it. This is much harder to do on Linux due to the repos being the source of most installations, as opposed to downloads being from un-verified websites for Windows.
Would this remain true if the great mass of unskilled users started using Linux?
I think that if Linux got a larger market share there would be more commercial involvement and we would see more 'download our app from our website (and pay us £20)' type installs going on, which would break the security that repositories currently give the typically Linux user. Maybe we'd see something more like the Android market?
Why are "47%, flip-flopping on every issue, refuse to tell us his plans, tax returns" excellent reasons that he (Romney) would not make a good president?
For example, why do his tax returns have any effect on his ability to make effective and efficacious executive decisions?
Are you sure that you don't mean that these things make you like him less?
Then explain, rather than criticise.... Be constructive...
It isn't controlled, as there is no control group.
I assume from what I have read here that not many non-Christians voted for him. Electorally, I doubt he has to worry too much.
I agree.
Also, hello from Sussex, England.
Posting to undo a mistaken moderation.
But while I'm at it, if we crack the problem of converting carbon, hydrogen and oxygen into oil and petrol, then surely we would be able to figure out how to convert hydrogen and oxygen back into water.
If we believe the above assumptions then I am not sure you can call it hypocrisy. If he genuinely believes that homosexuality is a choice and that you should only attack people who make bad/wrong/immoral choices then he is not a hypocrite.
I agree he is a bigot and an idiot, but I think hypocrisy is about intent rather than result.
To be fair, that is generally because they believe that legislative and governmental solutions to heal the sick and feed the poor tend not to work.
I think it hinges on the question of how easy is it to accidentally send an SMS to everyone in a Blackberry address book?
I have never used a Blackberry. I use an HTC and wouldn't know how to do it intentionally, let alone by accident. Does anyone (who uses a Blackberry) know how plausible it is?
Why be so hostile?
It was clear that tehcyder was saying one should stop focusing on external stimuli (e.g. based on hard facts from WikiP and Google) and instead occasionally take the time to focus on these other more esoteric and less tangible subjects where subjective reflection and personal perspective can be important. He/She wasn't saying that these things in and of themselves where divorced from the material world.
Even the most solid of materialist / atheist / reductionist mindsets could, I hope, agree that there is a physiological and emotional, and so by extension perhaps 'spiritual', element to human existence. Not everything that is true is a fact or a datum.
I'm not sure I understand who or what is being criticised here?
Not all questions have answers. The best questions generally don't.
But try actually doing anything with an algorithm or maths equation. You can't unless you implement it.
Software is suppose to do something - to fill some needs or solve some problem.You must take your algorithms and build them in such a way that they run on certain hardware and interact with certain interfaces and I/O devices.
A sort or search algorithm is fine, but to really be useful (sellable) software it has to interact with some form of data storage and probably interface with other software.
Now, I'm British and so I'm not familiar with the US patent system. Are people really trying to implement abstract algorithms, or bits of software that use them?
But a feudal system is not defined by levels of inequality. If it was then slavery would be a feudal system.
They're not mutually exclusive. Just because something is important and consequential does not mean it can't also be fun.
Plus, the stuff in the shop presumably has some utility to the shopper (they want food to eat, newspapers to read, wine to drink ,etc.) Hence them maybe wanting to still buy it at a higher price, as they have a need to fulfill.
The utility of stock is its price. If the price goes up then it is worth less to the buyer. And stock is very substitutable. If the price goes up then people will buy another product (i.e. a different stock at a better price).
Forgetting the analogy, what is the actual problem that we're trying to solve here? If the price differences being created here are "razor thin" then what is the injustice? I buy and sell stock maybe once or twice a year - I'm not going to base my decisions on razor thin differences but on long terms trends and predictions.
In the UK we have something called "stamp duty". From www.direct.gov.uk:
"You pay SDRT on paperless transactions for UK shares at a flat rate of 0.5 per cent."
SDRT = Stamp Duty Reserve Tax
It doesn't seem to have stopped the City of London from participating in these sorts of HFT schemes.
I agree with you, but there is the caveat that it is quite common for companies to own quite a lot of their own stock. So a stock price rise is beneficial to them.
I would completely agree with this. Can anybody explain the downsides to this proposal?
Vodafone block TLS for FTP (but not for SMTP oddly).
I have to go through a VPN to connect to certain FTP servers.
The comparison is not entirely fair.
If the Chinese made toy hurts someone that is either because of the actions of a) the user, or b) the manufacturer.
With software there is a third party. A bridge builder isn't held liable if someone bombs the bridge. A drinks manufacturer isn't held liable if someone poisons the drink. But this conversation suggests that a software developer should be liable for similar third party attacks.
I tend to agree with the comments that say that solutions should be contractual - if you want that security then pay for it, and if you don't want the risk then don't buy stuff that doesn't (in a legally binding way) promise it.
So we have approx 5% of people who buy games. And 95% who pirate them.
Ubisoft (and others certainly) implement DRM to reduce piracy.
Let us say that the DRM is responsible for piracy rates being at 95% and not 95.5%. Be fair, there are a certain number of people who are not going to know how to scour bittorrent for keygens and cracks.
So, the DRM has increased Ubisoft's sales by 10%. That matters to them.
I am fairly sure that Ubisoft doesn't care too much about the huge number of people who would pirate the game regardless, and it doesn't care too much about the small fraction of people who have problems with the DRM (it clearly isn't putting too much of a dent in the sales figures).
Sorry, I'm a naive boy from England, so can someone explain:
"In 1989, no one had heard of a "free speech zone". The entire *country* was a free speech zone"
What is a "free speech zone"?
"They don't even seem overly interested in actually talking to him. They seem to want one and only one thing, to get him on Swedish soil at all costs. That seems very very unusual."
For this to be useful you would have to provide evidence of this being in any way different to the behaviour of the authorities in other high profile sexual assault cases in Sweden. It is only unusual if it isn't their usual behaviour.