I have had my Nexus One for three months. Yes, it's reliable as an alarm.
There are an infinite number of strings containing a specific pattern. A computer can't know all strings that contain that pattern, but it can analyze any pattern to see whether it contains that string.
And yes, a computer CAN evaluate code without executing it. It could just execute it in a VM, simulating itself. Derp!
It is not impossible to build a secure system. You define secure behavior, and you build a system that implements it. Many digital and real-world systems are secure.
They are limited in what they do because of your definition of secure, but those limitations are desired. Saying the systems are then useless is simply retarded.
There will always be a method of attack that the computer cannot detect simply based on the fact that it's looking for malicious code (What if the authorized user is malicious. How is the computer supposed to distinguish that?).
So. Fucking. Retarded. You're asking the computer to be omniscient. A computer is a machine. You build authorization and security into it because you don't trust the user, not because you don't trust the machine. It will carry out it's security analysis and either do something or not do something based on the result of that analysis. This behavior is defined by the user, and is by definition desired. A user puts the security checks in place to protect himself from himself. The user is the grand authority on whether or not the system should do something.
Either you make the computer so weak that it cannot possibly run something malicious (and thereby making it all but useless), or you encumber the UI to the point that it requires the user to confirm everything (it's typically a combination of them).
Way to present a false choice.
Man, you're retarded, and the people who wrote that drivel that you've bought into are equally retarded.
Ah, yes, people throwing foam balls around on the street should certainly be subject to arrest.
Despite, of course, that not being illegal in any conceivable manner.
So do I, but I quite like that plenty of my friends take photos and put them online, so I get the fun reminiscing without the effort of taking the photos.
I say this as someone who _hasn't_ paid for any 3D movies yet
I say this as someone who has paid for several 3D movies over the last year and while I wouldn't go so far as to say 3D is completely worthless, I have yet to see a movie that was improved by the process either.
I'm a huge fan of the movies and I want to see good ones. If it's good and in 3D, that's fine. I saw Coroline in 3D and while I had no complaints about the movie itself, I don't think seeing it in 3D made it any better. Since I paid a premium (at my wife's behest), though, I felt a bit ripped off.
Perhaps some genius of a director will come along who will show what can be done with 3D beyond the gee-whiz aspects of seeing things jump out of the screen at you; that could change my mind. So far, however, it appears to me as nothing more than a gimmick used purely for novelty's sake.
At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.