Will the US play along with this and not expand the extrajudicial assassination by drone program to Sweden? There's a high likelihood the next US administration will continue the drone war (which the US would call "state-sponsored terrorism" if any other country were doing has been doing). Terror Tuesday is coming up fast but we all know murder-by-drone is lighthearted humor except for its victims and anyone who thinks killing is wrong. Like Obama said, "Turns out I'm really good at killing people. Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine". Paving the way for the next war criminal, Hillary Clinton, to take over the role.
Indeed; there are many reasons not to do business with Apple and many reasons to never use proprietary, user-subjugating software. Contrary to one of the follow-ups to the parent post, this has everything to do with TrueCrypt, VeraCrypt, and any other free software to which one entrusts their sensitive information. There's nothing these programs can do to fix the real problem. The user has to switch operating systems to a fully free software, user-respecting OS and install only free software on top of that to do the best we can do to avoid the aforementioned problems. So while nobody can blame these free software programs for leaked keys, passphrases, and other leaked information there's no reason to trust the underlying proprietary software these free programs rely on to do everything they do when running on non-free OSes.
There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.
What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.
No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.
Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.
And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.
Your suggestion, in a thread about relative costs of systems, is to buy a custom piece of hardware, from a vendor who's website doesn't actually list a price.
But it's not like Windows can backup to thin air. You have to have something on the other end of that CAT-5, so it's probably a wash hardware-wise.
Do you know what I think when I see a website selling a product but not listing a unit price.
"Huh, I wonder if Amazon has them?" would have been my first thought, but apparently it wasn't yours.
if things ever get too hairy for a dell, your restore process is entirely automated in windows or linux. restoring a mac is nothing short of corporate witchcraft.
To backup: buy a Synology NAS. Enable the Time Machine service. Configure your Macs to back up to it. Voila, done.
To restore from scratch: hold down Command-R when booting a Mac. Tell it to restore from Time Machine. Wait an hour. Voila, done.
because Mac is like 10 percent of the worlds PC sales, and the viruses usually dont survive that far when the percentage of ownership is that low
That has zero to do with the relative dearth of malware on Macs. (Pausing for a moment for a pedant to point out the one or two Mac bugs they've read about. Yes, we know. It's still proportionally much less than Mac's market share so move along.) Macs are initially more expensive, but that also means there owners tend to have more money and therefore the machines are more valuable targets. There are also still tens of millions of Macs out there in the wild. Even if there are more PCs, there are still a hell of a lot of Macs to be owned for anyone interested and capable. The fact that they're not is an indicator that building a nice interface on top of a solid Unix platform is a good way to end up with a stable, secure desktop.
OMG yes. I bought my wife an MLB.tv season pass because she loves watching baseball. What do you get for $109.99? Every game on TV except the ones in your home market. You can watch the Twins suck any time you want, so long as you don't live in Minnesota. Oh, and no postseason: that's a separate subscription.
Who the fuck came up with those ideas? I'll be damned if MLB ever gets another penny from us.
The problem isn't the trouble of having to read and modify so much, it's that even if you do all that you can't trust what you have; you can't be sure those "41 pages of switches, GPOs, and reg hacks" will grant you the privacy you seek even on the Enterprise variant of Windows. Anyone who tells you otherwise is speculating from ignorance. You can't stop any variant of Windows from tricking users into "upgrading" to some more recently-released variant (like the trouble Windows users had with Windows 10 "upgrades" recently). That's the thing about proprietary software; you're never in charge of what it does. Even if you think you've set the switches the right way, programmers can make a UI that looks like it is doing what the user wants but actually does something the user does not want and does this without the user's permission or control. No configuration of switches can fix this. Users need software freedom to fix this.
Satya Nadella and Bill Gates before him focused on what's important for modern proprietors—spying on the user because that's profitable and secures powerful friends. Consider that Microsoft tells the NSA about bugs before fixing them. This doesn't help most Windows users, but it helps the NSA know to devalue those bugs. And it tells you to devalue proprietary software. With proprietors, you're the product: all the data you generate including what you run, when you're using the computer, and where you take the computer (for computers with cell phone capability or GPS units) can and is spied upon. You don't get out of that trap without software freedom either.
Thanks for the clarification. Are people meant to run other OSes but GNU atop Windows Subsystem for Linux? I've not heard of anyone doing this nor have I seen any announcement this was intended.
So GNU doesn't come with this, but one runs ELF binaries (Ubuntu's 14.05 release, for instance) on Microsoft's Windows Subsystem for Linux to effectively get GNU. Since this ostensibly doesn't include the Linux kernel this wouldn't qualify as GNU/Linux either.
Functionally, however, I don't see a great deal of difference between this and Cygwin as in both cases one ends up with a lot of the same programs running atop Microsoft Windows.
"Right now I feel that I've got my feet on the ground as far as my head is concerned." -- Baseball pitcher Bo Belinsky