Comment Re:How much more 'silent' was than other bugs? (Score 4, Insightful) 259
I'd rather hear about a flaw like this after the fact frankly. I don't think an unpatched exploit needs the kind of publicity that /. would get it.
Comment Re:Correlation != Causality (Score 1) 397
But it does wink suggestively at it.
Comment Re:This cannot stand! (Score 1) 397
A crowd sourced approach to the problem?
Comment That's nothing... (Score 1) 239
I spilled water into a power bar back in 95 and achieved exactly the same effect!
Comment Re:No defense (Score 1) 60
What's the difference between "malicious" and "beneficial", when it comes to software?
Malware isn't defined by what it does. It's defined by deception and lack of consent, and only by deception and lack of consent.
This is an extremely important sentiment and it can not be repeated enough.
Comment He's got it all backwards. (Currently) (Score 1) 1
Computers are much more dangerous to those WITH hardware and software in their bodies than those without.
Comment Re:It's good enough.. (Score 4, Funny) 198
I mean, as long as your wife/girlfriend can't track your porno sites with ease you're fine.
If your wife/girlfriend is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire though... might want to find a different 'hobby'.
Then it's back to an old suitcase under the work bench in the garage.
Comment This is going to be an unpopular sentiment but... (Score 2, Insightful) 198
Virtual machines? Flash disks?
I never use the same computer twice!
But...who are we hiding from? I support efforts to maintain privacy, and I admire it as a thought experiment, but what's the scenario we're defending against here? All of this sounds like extreme overkill if you're hiding porn from your mom. If you're trying to hide from advertisers, governments, etc, then I think that your bigger worry is not your home machine, but everything out there in our marvelously complicated ecosystem of an internet.
Submission + - Gitmo Science: ecological research at Guantanamo (discovermagazine.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Within the barbed wire and "Keep Out" signs that ring the Guantanamo Bay naval base, rare wildlife is thriving. So is scientific research. American scientists who work there--from herpetologists to botanists, and marine scientists to entomologists--say that the isolated and protected Navy base has allowed rare wildlife to thrive. One researcher studies the hutia, Cuba's largest native mammal, which is trapped for food in other parts of Cuba. Other scientists say the base is an important refuge for iguanas, lizards, and snakes. It does seem ironic, though, that a refuge for wildlife is also a prison for humans.
Comment Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 2, Funny) 102
As I'm hit and fall into the pit of lava, the safety overrides fail and suddenly, yeah, my peripherals are trying their best to get me up to a thousand degrees C. THIS is why I continue to play Nethack.
The controller suddenly welds itself to your hand! Do you want your possessions identified?
Comment Re:Global warming != anthropogenic (Score 1) 1657
Eventually you have to determine an acceptable level of risk and do something though. Some people think the risk of action is higher than the risk of inaction. Personally, I'm hardly qualified to make that judgment call, I can just speculate.
In the meantime, we can certainly take action to minimize further damage. It's definitely possible to slow global warming without abandoning industrialization, and I've heard lots of ideas toward that end, some clever, some patently absurd.
Comment Re:Global warming != anthropogenic (Score 1) 1657
Hmm. Of all 1,880 imperiled species in the United States, 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their impact combined with other forces. (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html) Seems our meddling (by introducing a species, which then became an invasive species) caused a few more problems than we anticipated. Are you sure you now want to just blindly attempt to make changes to climate? Shouldn't we pause to determine if what we do could cause MORE problems then what is currently happening?
That lady and germs, is the internet's famous logical fallacy, the strawman.
Comment Re:Global warming != anthropogenic (Score 1) 1657
If we presume that the environment is ours to do with as we please, then aren't we as guilty of those who caused the destruction of the environment in the first place?
Only if you don't see a distinction between "manipulate" and "recklessly endanger."
Comment Re:Global warming != anthropogenic (Score 3, Interesting) 1657
Of course, we might not be able to stop it if it's anthropogenic either.
I choose to believe that we have enormous tools and resources at our disposal, and could achieve quite significant change if we wanted to. Modern science is pretty damn impressive.
Strictly speaking it is possible to affect the climate globally, whether or not you think it's realistic. And at this point, we'd better be seriously considering trying. Best that current trends not continue.
Comment Re:Global warming != anthropogenic (Score 5, Interesting) 1657
Does it matter if it's anthropogenic?
I'm against a hot world with rising seas, melting ice caps and global drought. I'm against all of the other terrible nastiness associated with it. I don't give a damn who we blame, but let's find a way to halt/fix it, shall we?
