Windows 7 is vulnerable to 100% of Windows 7 malware and some amount of Windows 8 malware. Windows 8 is vulnerable to ~15% of Windows 7 malware and 100% of Windows 8 malware. Virus scanners and the like can reduce those vulnerabilities significantly, even close to 0% for both versions of the OS. There's no FUD in those facts, but acting as if Windows 8 is suddenly immune to malware makes you a shill.
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).
Windows 8 was tested and found to be invulnerable to about 85% of all previous Windows 7 malware. That means there's about 15% of old malware that can infect the new hotness. Depends on your perspective for the precise phrasing, but 'huge chunk' is not completely false.
You're allowed to choose how much coverage you get. As of a few years ago, it went from a minimum of roughly 250k up to somewhere near a million, with correspondingly expensive premiums.
S: (adj) electronic (of or concerned with electrons)
Metal contains electrons
The posts grown into kitty's legs are metal
Kitty is now electronic.
I want my toaster to make coffee as well,
I seem to recall, in the days before Firefox, that Internet Explorer 4 (or was it 5? It's been a while) was actually one of the least bad browsers in common usage. If we're comparing browser to browser in an "adjusted for spec inflation" sense, IE9 actually would probably come in somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Or, perhaps more significantly in the day of netbooks, try Chrome, Firefox, and Opera with a slow or very small main drive. Opera is the only one I've found that doesn't lock up loading a page with the hdd-led solid red, and that is why Opera has evicted every other browser from my EeePC.
If you share confidential business information over unencrypted email, you might as well just be posting it on twitter.
You're in MORE danger of proving the Bible right in MORE ways than disproving it.
This is science. We disprove things for a living. Positive proofs are for math. There will never be a scientific discovery that proves the Bible is, like you imply, a completely true book. Instead, there will continue to be discovery upon discovery that--no matter what the book's place as a fantastic piece of history, the collected stories and an artifact of the gestalt of a bronze-age-era tribe--simply proves the asserted facts as untrue.
Ya know, if it's all random...nothing matters.
If the assertion that upon your death you will experience an eternity of unchanging consciousness doesn't scare the ever-loving shit out of every sane person here, the belief that this looming eternity is the only reason to even go on living should. You and I are the most advanced product of a process that has been ongoing for trillions of years. We are Star Stuff made into a thinking and reasoning being. My species is the ultimate in local technology: There is literally nothing superior to the noble homo sapiens. Science is no more than the process of asking how that happened and trying to answer that question. Your neo-barbarian cult papers over every question with "Ghost man inna sky dunnit."
There are dozens of proofs in the Bible;
This is enough of a weasel phrase that nearly any passage could fit it, and it's barely worth considering. But how about this: I assert that you cannot find one single true statement of unambiguous scientific fact in the Bible that goes against the contemporary prevailing beliefs of the society that produced it. Even something as simple as referring to an orbit would qualify, but I'm certain that even that mild of a truth is missing from the Bible.
Call me if you see a light-speed capable ship. I have a life to live.
Yes. You have a life to live. But you're expecting heaven as soon as you die, and here you are suffering through the drudgery of day-to-day life like a sucker. Serious question: Why do Christians not en masse undertake suicidally hazardous activities? Surely offing yourself would be a stronger message than the currency your kind uses today, like pedophile priests, abusive pastors, shouting TV charlatans, and proven fraudulent faith "healers".
He specifically referenced legal audits, with the threat of bailiffs pawing through your hardware. A code audit is a very different animal, and nothing any open source supporter should be at all concerned about, even in the extreme case.
You need to cite your FUD. I may not have a law degree, but I do have a dictionary and a copy of the AGPL which do not support your statement, not to mention the only semi-relevant link Google dragged up was a proprietary software company that threatened to audit you if you used Affero-licensed software on the same system as theirs.
That was exactly my point. I've seen so many frivolous lawsuits allowed to go on far longer than they should have. From the oft-referenced woman who burned herself with a cup of coffee to the lawsuit that prompted safety warning stickers on chainsaws to the criminal who hurt himself while burgling a home, American society seems to have a mania for lawsuits without merit.
Obviously I don't think there's any merit to a lawsuit over a forum post unless it crosses into the kind of slander that is actionable, but it was an example of the kind of idiocy that our judges don't seem to throw out quickly enough.
This is America. You can sue anyone for anything at any time. I could sue you right now for hurting my feelings with your post...and if I had an expensive lawyer (who didn't tell me to take a hike for being frivolous) I'd probably win.
Nope, that was EFS. I don't like whole-disk encryption in Windows, because you can almost guarantee you'll eventually need to get at the disk with a live cd to remove a virus or fix something corrupted.