Given Microsoft's usual poor code quality, we should all be cowering in fear. The IP stack is something that needs to be battle-tested for years before we get comfortable with it. Uncle Bill and his minions have chosen to inflict an unproven stack on us for the sake of a few bells and whistles.
This is another fine reason to delay your Vista "upgrade" until at least the second service pack -- assuming you upgrade at all.
I'm taking bets on how many critical patches will be on the ip stack this year (2007).
Hey, maybe that's what Allchin meant -- his kid uses Vista without antivirus, because he keeps it off the net.
While there is no absolute security, you can get far closer to it with sensible development practices. When something is designed for security on day one, developers aren't cowboy coders, PMs aren't cramming every possible feature into it, and the code is battle tested, then you have a much more secure system. Unfortunately, Microsoft practices are the exact opposite.
... you'd think they might have learned to underpromise and overdeliver, for once. Unfortunately, the MS propaganda machine is going at it as usual.
Let's see, 50 million lines of code, a new IP stack, horrid complexity -- I'm taking bets on when the first service pack is needed, and when the first worm hits.
A side bet -- how many vulnerabilities did the black hats find in Vista, and then didn't report them to MS.
After the hype dies down, it might be time to short Microsoft again.
We (the US) got the right-wing fundamentalist whackos that fled tolerant Europe. Said whackos exert a disproportiate influence on the US electoral system. Alcohol, gambling, evolution -- all tools of the devil.
I bartended in Texas as a high school senior; the rules were truly weird, like no cleaning supplies could be behind the bar -- apparently, we might cut a nice single malt scotch with drano, or something. Liquor bottles sold to bars were serialized (!!!?!), and the serial number had to be scratched off after the bottle was finished, on pain of a $10k fine and a shutdown for a week (!!!). In the land of the bible belt, goofy rules (bar rules, blue laws, and so on) were common.
I'm very glad to be living in Seattle (northwest corner of the continental US) now.
Linux uses the GNU license, of course. To call it "minor" is incorrect. Before Linus started his work, people grabbed an app here and there (gcc, gdb, emacs etc.) and GNU software languished in relative obscurity; post-kernel, people can grab a collection of software, enabled by the kernel, which produces an entire distribution. This demonstrates that the kernel is the most important piece of the distribution.
The guys who add the value get to name their work. Had Stallman and company stopped playing with themselves and actually gotten hurd out, they could have called it GNU; since Linus and company did the work, they get the honors, Stallman's whining notwithstanding.
Hypothetically, would you honor Bosch's claim that you should call a Volkswagen a "Bosch/VW", simply because VW chose to use Bosch engine computer and windshield wipers?
The French tried to "protect" their culture by standing up the Language Police. I don't think it worked, but it gave the Frogs a lot to complain about.
Heck, the US didn't learn anything from Prohibition -- we still have a Holy War on Some Drugs (alcohol and nicotine are OK), and we have a new Holy War on Online Gambling. It's for the children, of course.
Won't happen. Not with Energy companies continuing to keep new technologies from coming to market. Many large companies purchase technologies with the intent of completely destroying them and never bringing them to market.
A real citation, please, not a muddy "friend of a friend" story. If the "someone" patented it, great, give us the number. If not, describe the engine.
A nontrivial amount (some say a majority) of search queries from the Redmond campus go to Google instead of MSN Search. So, if the Microsofties think that MSN Search sucks relative to Google, why should a random enterprise be any different?
"Your house"? Yeah, right. That was a nice assumption of the sale, Mr. Turner, but you're selling snake oil.
Ummm...using your figures of $20B for cash payment and $38B for the leasing, then cash payments would indeed save the government billions of dollars.
True if the government has the budget to buy the tankers outright, but they didn't.
My point was to demonstrate that the parent poster's hyperventalating about a massive pork barrel project was silly. The price difference between outright purchase and leasing of the tankers was several billion dollars, and was a direct result of the desire of the US Air Force to lease rather than buy, and not some sinister desire to give Boeing money under the table.
If someone thinks that their mortgage payment is a pork barrel subsidy of their banker, well, that's their business. In reality, their house price is significantly less than the sum of their mortgage payments, and comes from the homeowner's desire to pay over time. That's basic finance, not evil action.
Another poor attempt to obfuscate and smear Boeing. Head down to your local auto dealership, and ask about buying a particular car in two ways -- cash or lease. You'll find that the sum of the lease payments is significantly more than the cash cost of the car.
The US Air Force _wanted_ a lease on the tankers to reduce its upfront outlay. In most of the free world when massive subsidies do not distort the market, paying less now means paying more in the long term.
A 767 lists for around $200m a copy; 100 of them costs $20billion. Figure in a 5% interest rate and 30 years gives a monthly payment of $107m, and a sum of the payments of roughly $38b. So your complaint about "billions of dollars above what it would have cost to buy them outright" is invalid, and demonstrates your financial illiteracy.
If you halve the cost of the 767s, cash upfront ($10b) vs. lease total ($19b) is still multi billions of dollars apart.
Bullshit. Your silly equivalence of a multi billion euro non-recourse loan (which may not be paid back) to a military contract with a typical 8% profit margin (and in which Boeing provides something of value) doesn't stand.
Even if you see a military contract as a subsidy, Airbus has the same problem -- EADS, the parent company of Airbus, gets buttloads of military contracts from EU countries and elsewhere. So the real dispute is about launch aid to Airbus, and the market distortions it produces.
So, Airbus should stand up and act like a real company, or admit that it can't compete with Boeing without massive subsidies.
We can trust the judgement of a multi-thousand hour Airline Transport Pilot, or a dumb computer. That's a no-brainer (no pun intended) for me.
If Airbus actually implements this insanity, I'm hoping that the Federal Aviation Administration (the US flight safety organization) finally puts it foot down and says "no way on a US certificated aircraft."
but more to the point the models that use the greenhouse gasses as the main contributer have accurately predicted presentday temperatures.
How well have the models predicted temperature in the future, and for how long? We seem to get a "it's going to get EVEN WARMER" prediction every quarter or so, which suggests two things: one, the new scary model hasn't predicted anything yet, and two, the producer of the new scary model doesn't think the current models are good enough.
When we have an agreed upon stable model, and that model has predicted temperatures correctly for a long time (say, five years, or a decade), then we have something suitable for a rational policy. Until then, the new scary models are almost certainly nothing more than curve-fitting.
Over the top? I don't think so. Boeing and the other defense contractors fight tooth-and-nail for defense contracts that, in many cases, have an 8% profit.
Even if someone argues that this is a subsidy, the parent company of Airbus (EADS) has the same issue. So the real difference between the Boeing and Airbus is the huge launch aid subsidies offered to Airbus by the EU countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Given Microsoft's usual poor code quality, we should all be cowering in fear. The IP stack is something that needs to be battle-tested for years before we get comfortable with it. Uncle Bill and his minions have chosen to inflict an unproven stack on us for the sake of a few bells and whistles.
This is another fine reason to delay your Vista "upgrade" until at least the second service pack -- assuming you upgrade at all.
I'm taking bets on how many critical patches will be on the ip stack this year (2007).
People are forgetting the secret to Google's success.
Luck.
Spoken like someone who's never experienced business success. Go back to your happy fantasy land, and envy those who work harder and smarter than you.
Hey, maybe that's what Allchin meant -- his kid uses Vista without antivirus, because he keeps it off the net.
While there is no absolute security, you can get far closer to it with sensible development practices. When something is designed for security on day one, developers aren't cowboy coders, PMs aren't cramming every possible feature into it, and the code is battle tested, then you have a much more secure system. Unfortunately, Microsoft practices are the exact opposite.
... you'd think they might have learned to underpromise and overdeliver, for once. Unfortunately, the MS propaganda machine is going at it as usual.
Let's see, 50 million lines of code, a new IP stack, horrid complexity -- I'm taking bets on when the first service pack is needed, and when the first worm hits.
A side bet -- how many vulnerabilities did the black hats find in Vista, and then didn't report them to MS.
After the hype dies down, it might be time to short Microsoft again.
Verification of Herr Stallman's hydrophobia:
5 97102
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=202874&cid=16
Chicks also dig people who take showers on a regular basis ...
We (the US) got the right-wing fundamentalist whackos that fled tolerant Europe. Said whackos exert a disproportiate influence on the US electoral system. Alcohol, gambling, evolution -- all tools of the devil.
I bartended in Texas as a high school senior; the rules were truly weird, like no cleaning supplies could be behind the bar -- apparently, we might cut a nice single malt scotch with drano, or something. Liquor bottles sold to bars were serialized (!!!?!), and the serial number had to be scratched off after the bottle was finished, on pain of a $10k fine and a shutdown for a week (!!!). In the land of the bible belt, goofy rules (bar rules, blue laws, and so on) were common.
I'm very glad to be living in Seattle (northwest corner of the continental US) now.
It's "GNU".
Linux uses the GNU license, of course. To call it "minor" is incorrect. Before Linus started his work, people grabbed an app here and there (gcc, gdb, emacs etc.) and GNU software languished in relative obscurity; post-kernel, people can grab a collection of software, enabled by the kernel, which produces an entire distribution. This demonstrates that the kernel is the most important piece of the distribution.
The guys who add the value get to name their work. Had Stallman and company stopped playing with themselves and actually gotten hurd out, they could have called it GNU; since Linus and company did the work, they get the honors, Stallman's whining notwithstanding.
Hypothetically, would you honor Bosch's claim that you should call a Volkswagen a "Bosch/VW", simply because VW chose to use Bosch engine computer and windshield wipers?
... "you wanted it easier and more secure" to "you wanted it, good and hard."
The French tried to "protect" their culture by standing up the Language Police. I don't think it worked, but it gave the Frogs a lot to complain about.
Heck, the US didn't learn anything from Prohibition -- we still have a Holy War on Some Drugs (alcohol and nicotine are OK), and we have a new Holy War on Online Gambling. It's for the children, of course.
Won't happen. Not with Energy companies continuing to keep new technologies from coming to market. Many large companies purchase technologies with the intent of completely destroying them and never bringing them to market.
A real citation, please, not a muddy "friend of a friend" story. If the "someone" patented it, great, give us the number. If not, describe the engine.
Would You Hire a Former Black Hat?
Tigers don't change their stripes. If the "former" Black Hat was happy to screw people in the past, he/she won't have a problem screwing you later.
Jesus H. Christ! Do these f'ing idiots test anything?
And doesn't this just give you warm fuzzies about the reliability of Vista and its 50 million lines of code?
Translated, "we'll support the parts of the standard that we like." Bastards ... same old arrogant Microsoft.
Don't forget lube -- gallons of lube.
A nontrivial amount (some say a majority) of search queries from the Redmond campus go to Google instead of MSN Search. So, if the Microsofties think that MSN Search sucks relative to Google, why should a random enterprise be any different?
"Your house"? Yeah, right. That was a nice assumption of the sale, Mr. Turner, but you're selling snake oil.
Ummm...using your figures of $20B for cash payment and $38B for the leasing, then cash payments would indeed save the government billions of dollars.
True if the government has the budget to buy the tankers outright, but they didn't.
My point was to demonstrate that the parent poster's hyperventalating about a massive pork barrel project was silly. The price difference between outright purchase and leasing of the tankers was several billion dollars, and was a direct result of the desire of the US Air Force to lease rather than buy, and not some sinister desire to give Boeing money under the table.
If someone thinks that their mortgage payment is a pork barrel subsidy of their banker, well, that's their business. In reality, their house price is significantly less than the sum of their mortgage payments, and comes from the homeowner's desire to pay over time. That's basic finance, not evil action.
Another poor attempt to obfuscate and smear Boeing. Head down to your local auto dealership, and ask about buying a particular car in two ways -- cash or lease. You'll find that the sum of the lease payments is significantly more than the cash cost of the car.
The US Air Force _wanted_ a lease on the tankers to reduce its upfront outlay. In most of the free world when massive subsidies do not distort the market, paying less now means paying more in the long term.
A 767 lists for around $200m a copy; 100 of them costs $20billion. Figure in a 5% interest rate and 30 years gives a monthly payment of $107m, and a sum of the payments of roughly $38b. So your complaint about "billions of dollars above what it would have cost to buy them outright" is invalid, and demonstrates your financial illiteracy.
If you halve the cost of the 767s, cash upfront ($10b) vs. lease total ($19b) is still multi billions of dollars apart.
Bullshit. Your silly equivalence of a multi billion euro non-recourse loan (which may not be paid back) to a military contract with a typical 8% profit margin (and in which Boeing provides something of value) doesn't stand.
Even if you see a military contract as a subsidy, Airbus has the same problem -- EADS, the parent company of Airbus, gets buttloads of military contracts from EU countries and elsewhere. So the real dispute is about launch aid to Airbus, and the market distortions it produces.
So, Airbus should stand up and act like a real company, or admit that it can't compete with Boeing without massive subsidies.
We can trust the judgement of a multi-thousand hour Airline Transport Pilot, or a dumb computer. That's a no-brainer (no pun intended) for me.
If Airbus actually implements this insanity, I'm hoping that the Federal Aviation Administration (the US flight safety organization) finally puts it foot down and says "no way on a US certificated aircraft."
It sounds like the grandparent has Speakeasy as his/her isp. Speakeasy has a private network to ensure QoS and prioritization of voice traffic.
I've heard the results -- VoIP over Speakeasy is far better and more consistent than, say, Vonage.
Microsoft has just shuffled around the senior executives a bit. How this could possibly be interpreted as "heads rolling" is beyond me.
It's a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Too much mass and arrogance doomed or will doom them both.
How well have the models predicted temperature in the future, and for how long? We seem to get a "it's going to get EVEN WARMER" prediction every quarter or so, which suggests two things: one, the new scary model hasn't predicted anything yet, and two, the producer of the new scary model doesn't think the current models are good enough.
When we have an agreed upon stable model, and that model has predicted temperatures correctly for a long time (say, five years, or a decade), then we have something suitable for a rational policy. Until then, the new scary models are almost certainly nothing more than curve-fitting.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Over the top? I don't think so. Boeing and the other defense contractors fight tooth-and-nail for defense contracts that, in many cases, have an 8% profit.
Even if someone argues that this is a subsidy, the parent company of Airbus (EADS) has the same issue. So the real difference between the Boeing and Airbus is the huge launch aid subsidies offered to Airbus by the EU countries.