The biggest issue with malware is that people don't understand the scope of the network their computer is hooked up to. If people just realized for a second that connecting your computer to the Internet is the equivelant of walking into a room with about 3 billion other people in it, then you'd be a wee-bit more conscious about what you do and who you trust.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I can't think of a single instance when something being FSF-compliant matters at all
Except for ones own piece of mind, of course. Which I guess doesn't matter.
Agreed. I'm actually an AVG reseller for many years. I always loved them when they just stuck to what they were good at, which was solid, lightweight antivirus protection (they held out longer than most). I guess it's inevitable that they will get dollar signs in their eyes and try to produce and sell everything else under the sun (PC Tune-up, Web Tune-up, Internet Security, Anti-Spam, Firewall, blah blah blah).. Ever since they did that, their core Antivirus offering got pushed aside and now they sell adware (constant pop-ups on the desktop to purchase add-ons, for instance). I still think they're one of the best out there, but that's really not saying much IMHO. Would love to see them get back to their roots as I'd feel better recommending it to my clients.
They say it's for "good energy" but really it's so you can gun down every motherfucker that comes for you before they even see your face.
I have no words. That is just gold.
In Trailer #2 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ), 1:52
Yeah, that's totally what happens. I mean, they say it's the most realistic hacker movie since Sneakers, but all I see is a bunch of cheezy CG and an overwhelming desire for the movie to portray hackers as either criminals or criminals-turned-nsa-helpie-people.
Oh, but there's a bash prompt! That makes up for it, right?
From TFA: "...radio’s ‘local nature makes it an integral part of the daily lives of hundreds of millions of consumers in markets large and small’."
People like local content, it's as simple as that. It's a real shame that most local radio stations don't play music created by local artists, but it makes sense since most of them are owned by corporations that don't live in the area..
Hey, sex sells. Even women get it (that's what she said).
as a normal U.S. citizen, and *especially* after 9/11/2001, I have felt like certain topics must be tread upon very carefully when conversing with others online. My
own Facebook posts, comments and even "liking" something that might be considered contreversial seemingly spawns a new process in my brain that wants to
ask the question, "Should I really?"
Then you need to seek professional help, because you're showing signs of mental illness.
Really? 9/11? Unjustified war/invasion of Iraq? The Patriot Act? Room 641A? PRISM? Constitutional rights flushed down the toilet in the name of security? You don't see a trend here?
You think these are unfounded concerns and I need professional help because I'm worried about what's getting logged about me and possibly misanalyzed, misfiltered or misrepresented now or at any point in time I might raise a red flag with anyone who has access to my digital fingerprint? You're living in a state of denial. I might be extremely concerned, but I think I have a god damned good reason to be. Everyone should be.
I'm not saying that 'the government is telling people to judge', you obviously misread. The environment itself, whether directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, promotes judgement. If one feels that they are under surveillance (which in many parts of the world, including the good ole' U.S. of A., is completely and factually true in many different ways), they will be on the defensive. I mean, look at Facebook. You can't say that you haven't read something that you feel afterwards was TMI or that you almost felt creepy having read since it was such a private topic or conversation blatantly posted on someone's wall, in a comment, etc.
Also not sure what you meant by, "everyone would agree with you if only the government were not 'controlling' them". Where did I imply that people would, or should, agree with me in any circumstance?
I feel the same. See my post, "Yes.", it even starts with the same wording
I'm not a professional writer/journalist/etc., but as a normal U.S. citizen, and *especially* after 9/11/2001, I have felt like certain topics must be tread upon very carefully when conversing with others online. My own Facebook posts, comments and even "liking" something that might be considered contreversial seemingly spawns a new process in my brain that wants to ask the question, "Should I really?"
This is probably the most powerful aspect of a surveilled people. If you want to control minds and mouths, you make them hesitant to speak or even think thoughts that might be viewed by others as risky. When people feel constantly judged, whether its by thoughts written, spoken or simply within their own minds, you have them "under control".
So what's the answer, then? IMHO people simply need more courage to say, 'Fuck you, I don't care what you think of me' because they are brave enough to stand up for themselves (and others). Once this mentality is in place, people start being normal again. Genuine, caring, loving and unjudgemental. Maybe the people who search XKEYSCORE will have to start to understand that peoples' words don't necessarily reflect future actions.
Slashdot should surely know the difference between getting "hacked" and unintentionally downloading and executing a trojan horse.
I think this video sums it up pretty well.