True but bitcoins are completely untraceable
Ok, so here's how Bitcoin works:
Bitcoins aren't really a thing you can have. Even the physical "bitcoins" you can buy aren't really coins. They're just private keys that are allowed to sign transactions on behalf of accounts that have a non-zero balance.
The only reason why people talk about Bitcoin as being untraceable is that anyone can create accounts, and there aren't necessarily names attached to accounts, but it would be too hard for authorities with warrants to catch you if they suspected you. The entire transaction history is still there, forever, for everyone to see!
Yes, DuckDuckGo uses Bing as back-end. Which kind of makes the usual slashdot "bing sucks ass" posts kind of funny,
I tried DuckDuckGo for about a month, but the results sucked ass. Now I know why.
Something was seriously wrong with your system and it wasn't memory.
Well, Java and a Windows virtual machine or two will easily cause this. Of course, both qualify as "something seriously wrong" to me, so I don't disagree...
Seems like you didn't need to take it over the IT department at all - you could have made a case to them and they could have supported you. Now you got to enjoy yourselves in the moment and possibly cost you future IT security.
What part of this didn't you understand:
I pointed out that since i was being paid nearly $70 an hour, and I'm losing a good couple of hours a day on computer slugishness, that the investment would pay itself off in about 2 days, since not having the ram was costing the company about $140 a day. No dice.
Using a
My response: "No, it doesn't, and here's a 7000-word, peer-reviewed article---written by people who understand how the Internet works---that explains why."
Your response: "Yeah, but, if we lived in Magical Faerie Land where the Internet didn't work that way, this would be a great idea! Also, that article is just somebody's opinion. I won't mention any specific objections to it, and I probably haven't read it except for its title."
Using a
RFC 3675 disagrees with you.
About the security model: I know that apt works by checking an OpenPGP signature on the Release file (which contains hashes of the Packages files, which themselves contain hashes of the individual
Do you know if yum does something similar? I remember, a few years ago, RPM signatures were at the individual package level, rather than at the repository level. Is that still the case?
1. Get rid of these notice-and-takedown laws.
2. Enact statutory liability any time this happens. That will make these folks a lot more careful about how they use the notice-and-takedown laws.
Anyone who has their freedom of speech inappropriately restricted deserves compensation from these clowns.
Debian can't even be considered secure (no less than twice they had their servers hacked)
You realize that the whole Debian archive is signed, and those signatures are checked by apt-get, right? When did malicious code ever make it into the (signed) archive?
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol