Skype-to-Skype communications are, and always have been, completely secure and private.
First, it’s my understanding that Skype is proprietary software (and not semi-free software). Please correct me if I’m mistaken. If this is true, how can users come to know that their Skype-to-Skype communications are, and always have been, completely secure and private, given that they are not privy to Skype’s source code?
Spyware and malware survive and thrive on secrecy. The best way to maintain secrecy in a software program is to deny users access to the program’s source code (i.e. by making the whole or part of the program proprietary). With Free software, users are free to audit and modify the corresponding source code of a program. This means malicious features are easily thwarted.
In theory, malicious code can exist in popular Free software programs but it’s not practical. Adding malicious code to a Free software program and attempting to distribute that code through a mainstream channel is like knocking on every door in an apartment complex to inform the inhabitants of
A) you spying on/attacking them and
B) the method(s) you are using to do so
Of course, many users don’t look at or change source code (just as many people are not in their apartment when there’s a knock at the door). But all it takes is one honest programmer (or one person at home in the entire apartment complex) to become aware of what’s happening. In effect, someone will blow the whistle on any attempt to harm the users. This benefit is had by both programmers and average computer users alike.
The freedom that Free software offers is the best defense against malware and spyware.
At a euro.dell site the first two points are fine, no bias at all. But…
And on the right, they imply that the benefits of Free software are primarily for programmers. Educational institutions should also compare and contrast two opposing statements here…on the left, “do not want to learn” and on the right, “want to learn”.
The man’s lawyer, Doug Christie, tr[ied] to have the case tossed out on constitutional grounds, saying his religious motive negated any criminal intent.
Thrown out? A legal system has failed if “religious motive” can excuse such an act. I can buy the lack of criminal intent, but that’s only through an insanity defence. At the very least, the man needs to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
On a related but inconsequential note, I don’t understand why (especially in this day and age) some parents have their sons circumcised. I have heard several arguments but don’t find any of them compelling. Perhaps a medical condition could set in necessitating the procedure, but I’m referring to an otherwise healthy child.
I want to right-click a graphic and choose something like “search for related images”. Then have exact (ranked closely thereafter by not-quite-exact) results appearing as links in my browser.
The “not-quite-exact” results are the most interesting feature and what that may mean is beyond my technical knowledge (and for now, my imagination). But one example would be the image existing within another’s larger coordinate system. That is, the image exists elsewhere on the web as part of a larger image. I’m sure there are other possible results (e.g. a grayscaled or rotated image match would appear high in the rankings) but much smarter folks than me can work the possibilities out.
Check out this new Acer netbook that “dual-boots” Windows and Google’s GNU/Linux variant “Android”:
(No, this post is not to point out the video cutting at 1:33 because Windows is taking a lifetime to boot – that laugh is bonus)
At the 1:16 mark we see Android ask, “Switch to OS: Would you like boot (sic) to Windows?”. After confirmation, we see Windows begin to boot…or is it launch? I’m curious – has the Windows operating system been turned into a proprietary GNU/Linux application? It appears this Acer isn’t hard booting when the command is given to start Windows (where’s the BIOS’s output?). So is this a warm boot or has Windows been virtualized?
I’d be grateful to anyone with more information willing to pass it on. When Windows is shut down, are we back to GNU/Linux? Or do we need to boot the machine again?
The United States’ current version of their War on Drugs fails miserably because the problem of drug abuse is a health issue. Categorizing an illness as a crime makes the situation worse by introducing unnecessary problems. Instead of policy posturing to demonstrate a “get tough” approach on drugs, the US should get smart and reform laws to resemble those in countries like Portugal.
The current administration has indicated they’re open to change. However, simply making arrests a “low priority” doesn’t go nearly far enough. Decriminalization will coax more citizens suffering from addiction to seek treatment. As well, non-enforcement indicates a corruption of the law itself. If enforcement causes problems, the solution isn’t to ignore the law but to change it, so that its existence is just and beneficial to society.
I’m so very proud of my religious congregation. $118,600 as of October 4th! When I rejoiced, an un-noodly one tried to discredit Our Faith by challenging the common knowledge that belief in Him makes you a better person. With an arrogant smirk, he ignorantly flashed this superficiallylarger measure ($989,675) of “generosity”. But using my smarts granted by Him, I quickly shot back at the infidel by pointing out the datesthe two teams formed.
Tom Hoffman has an insightful but disturbing post regarding the push for adoption of the Common Standards in US schools. His comparison of other documents to the Common Standards makes it clear they’re designed not to improve Language Arts, but to satisfy the parties heavily invested in standardized testing results.
If you’re a stakeholder, it’s well worth your time essential to give Tom’s words a read. At the end of the post, he includes a link for commenting on the currently proposed draft.
I came across the video below of Peter Schiff “interviewed” by Ed Schultz. This has to be one of the worst interviews I’ve seen. Schultz simply wasn’t interested in constructive questioning or dialog. It was clear Schultz entered the interview with the intent of shouting Peter down. This was annoying at best and disrespectful at worst but getting beyond that, Schiff brought up a point (between 7:07 and 7:18) that I’ve questioned before.
I want people who now get health insurance from their employers to get money – to get wages instead that are not taxed and they can make a decision if they want to buy healthcare or if they want to buy something else.
The problem I have with this is that it equates the need of health care with the desire for every other consumer product on the market. Schiff doesn’t seem to think that health care should be seen as any different than the production of cars or Frisbees. So let’s say that one chooses not to buy health insurance and their gamble doesn’t pay off. They get sick. A car salesman has no ethical obligation to sell someone a car when they’ve spent their dollars on something else. A toy store owner won’t feel a compassionate impulse to sell someone a Frisbee when they’ve spent their income on something else. Should doctors be put in a position to say, “Sorry about that cancer, buddy. Next time you should think about making better economic choices. I hope you’ve learned your lesson.”
Either I’m misunderstanding Peter’s proposal or his approach is void of any humanity. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the free market. I just don’t see that the efficiency of the free market on its own can sufficiently meet essential human needs.
