wmt

I'm not saying this due to some marketing claims, but just by looking at the results from independent testing organisations like AV-Test (http://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/17-software-...) or av-comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org/removal-tests/).

You will not feel like a sexual tyrannosaurus, but realise you just got dumped. She was not into you, and walked away from your awkward sexual advances. She even ditched your money after jumping through hoops to pitch you into doing the offer you did. Of course she dumped you because you were you, not because they suddenly didn't want the money they wanted.

-"Of course not, why would a DRM vendor lie about whether the DRM can be cracked of not?"

-"A good point!"

If the government wishes for the people to have more children, the only reasonable payer for the costs is the same as with all goverment spending - the taxpayer. Handing out a proportion of your salary as the maternity or paternity benefit will also make the it more equal and not cripple the incomes of better paid people.

Don't tell me someone has used that as an interview question? That's a silly kids joke, after which you'd laugh childishly. There even was a follow up question, if an elephant and a giraffe would race, who'd win to give the other guy a chance to redeem himself.

The joke works a lot better with languages without definite and indefinite versions of nouns, like Finnish, and you mess up the joke with english where using the definite preposition would ruin the joke, and the indefinite form is not honest.

You should always aim at working with people who are smarter or better than you. Unless they have stack ranking.

There's definitely a pattern that AV companies put their efforts in being able to say they're #1 in outside tests or in reviews. In ye olden times someone would just take multiple vendors, scan against 1000000 old viruses and rank them based on the detection %, and as the end result the "best" (and the most sold) products ended up being resource hogs. Later reviewers took notice and started also measuring file copying performance and detection capabilities against active malware, and in a year or two many vendors adapted and improved their performance and their efforts against malware that actually is being spread.

Hopefully reviewers will take notice and include some exploitability metrics in the future so that vendors need to focus on it or go out of business.

Funny thing is that despite Bitdefender having thousands of exploitable points in their product, at the moment your average user will still be less vulnerable against online criminals than most those who don't run anything.

The people who end up wanting to keep using heroin are typically those who don't have their life in order due to heavy stress, sadness or something similar. The thing that heroin does is that it makes even the shitty moments feel not-shitty, and doesn't really get you wasted like many other drugs.

I'm not surprised that soldiers in a war might seek comfort from heroine, but once they return to their normal lives they no longer need heroine to help make life feel okay again.

Having random scribbles, alt solutions and other "shitty" comments while working on a problem is definitely not a sin if you clean them up before pushing them forward.

However, I'd also run EMET to make it a bit harder for an exploit getting past NoScript to operate correctly.

For Prins, the reason is completely different.

"We didn't want to interfere with NSA/GCHQ operations," he told Mashable, explaining that everyone seemed to be waiting for someone else to disclose details of Regin first, not wanting to impede legitimate operations related to "global security."

http://mashable.com/2014/11/25/regin-spy-malware-nsa-gchq/

Sure, they could just go ahead and disclose it against the customers express wishes, but how many would hire their services in the future if there's no expectation of customer confidentiality?

Edit: There likely is an NDA in place even before externals are allowed in, so breaching it might invite some additional problems than just image issues.

There have been very few scientific studies about the basics of building software, like how much unit tests really affects the bug density, and those few studies go often unnoticed when teaching future software engineers.

It would require a major effort to first study the existing emergent software craftsmanship practices to find common patterns and to scientifically evaluate their effectiveness, and the results would have to be taught in the hypothetical future curriculum where future software engineers would be made. Then we might have software engineering instead of just software craftsmanship.

It's almost a bit amazing that software "engineers" who can be very obsessive about getting the data or A/B-testing will craft software based on methods they have no data about.

Trying to force the global economic system into a software analogy just feels silly and wrong.

Some celebrate TDD, but to me it just has appears to help people not dropping out the tests.

Automatic static analysis with compiler warnings or pure static analyzers is a really good and quick solution for it, but what I'm really hoping is a fully automated dynamic analysis solution. What's really exciting is that there already are some dabbles with that approach, like the american fuzzy lop (http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/) which actively tries to find new branches from the application being tested.

Not all observations are extrapolations from a single observation.

References in dynamically typed languages however often make me nervous, as I'm never entirely sure when different types in different languages get copied or not. If I the function argument p gets modified here, did the original variable in the caller get modified? Do I have to write an elobarate check for its mutability?

I find it unlikely that Chinese rulers would want to send abroad anyone but its loyal opposers of democracy.

It's perfectly valid to question using a macro to rename a function instead of just renaming calls, especially if the renamed function is only called twice. It also would've been more pragmatic to mention in the code that rb_obj_equal is being used due to an optimization in opt_eq_func, as it's not obvious.

There might be reasons for using a macro in this case, like wanting to underline the fact that symbols are being compared, but I strongly suspect the author was just focused on changing the implementation of sym_equal to be better, and didn't think of the option of throwing it away.