You didn't specify it, but I assume you are referring to Windows. A question worth asking is whether whatever it is that has you running Windows is worth the hassle of worrying about virii/worms/etc.
But, hey, we wrote the Japanese constitution and made the Empiror publicly declare he wasn't a god, and that all worked out.
That worked because we nuked two of their cities and threatened (even though we were fresh out of nukes) to continue.
When your only choice is to accept or be annihilated, you'll find people generally accept. In Japan the people were united behind Hirohito. Beating him was seen in the eyes of the Japanese as beating the Japanese. In Iraq, the people aren't so tied to Saddam. So beating Saddam is not equal to beating the Iraqi people.
In Iraq they don't face instant and inevitable annihilation, so they aren't as likely to fall in line. That doesn't even take into consideration the cultural differences between Iraq and Japan which determines a sort of national characteristic where in Japan is one of following the rules and in Iraq is not quite so uniform.
But pouting because Bush didn't win the popular vote is just retarded.:/
Yeah, it's *real* retarded that the guy who "won" the election is the one who got the least number of votes (of the two parties which, unfortunately, count).
We're supposed to be *happy* that the guy who we most wanted to win didn't?
But for some reason we're supposed to grant the farmer and the hillbilly a stronger vote because they are the top thinkers of our nation? Seems to me that the city-folk got it right.
Democracy is exactly what the founders sought to avoid when they framed the Constitution.
What type of government did you give us? (asked of Benjamin Franklin)
"A Democracy--if you can keep it," he replied.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
A Republic is two wolves and 98 sheep voting on what to have for dinner, where only the two wolves get to vote.
A democracy is eternally threatened by... people in large numbers.
Yes, it's "eternally threatened". So? Are you such a chickin-shit that you'd rather just give in and be ruled by an elite class? Your alternative is to eternally subject the people to the greed of people in small numbers.
I can't believe the stupidity of a sheep who would willingly follow a wolf.
The argument this guy is making ignores the fact that our system is based on one of the most successful compromises in history: many disparate states sacrificing some aspects of sovereignty to form a single nation.
The argument you're making ignores the fact that it's the people, not the states, that should have the power. The President rules over the people of the US, not just the states.
Your justification for weighting the vote towards the farmer is flawed. I can imagine any number of groups to favor. Why not give blacks 1.5 votes per person to make up for their lesser numbers in the population? Or gays 3 votes? Or cancer victims 2.5 votes? It doesn't make any sense.
There will always be justification for giving one group power over another. You could even come up with a reason to allow insane people two votes (maybe a vote for each personality, or as a reason to compel sane people to vote, or because an insane person is half as likely to vote, etc). That's the problem with tyranny--it's always accompanied with justifications.
The only equitable answer is to aspire for true Democracy. If you educate the people well enough, and report the situation accurately enough, the farmers will get the aid they need--it is in the city-dwellers best interest that the farm community is healthy.
Right now, farmers are paid to not produce milk, while at the same time they are injecting their cows with rBGH to produce more milk. So we're paying more for milk so we can get more milk that's not as healthy. Super...
Sorry, but that's one of the most foolish arguments against Democracy out there. What's the alternative? The tyranny of the minority?
Strictly by the numbers, more people want Kerry than Bush. More people wanted Gore than Bush. But Bush "won" anyway, and he might just win again (sic).
Now, if you're in the minority that prefers Bush, you might think that it's good that the minority has won in this case, but you can't escape the fact that you've just supported swapping out the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the minority. At least with the tyranny of the majority you can say we deserve what we get.
In order to keep a Democratic system from self-destruction, make the dangerous actions harder to accomplish (like changing the Constitution). Two other things important for a Democracy are a healthy media and a strong educational system--both of which are supported by a vast majority of Americans, but which a small minority in America oppose (sucessfully).
Yes, Democracy is vulnerable to tyranny, but the answer is not to just jump right into tyranny!
I don't understand your surprise. Some software companies even have their own music videos.
On a more serious note, I somewhat repulsed that a person would find a project release song repuslive. The repulsion is what I'd expect from the PHB sort. To me, having a song illustrates wonderfully the difference between Free Software/OSS communities and the corporate world. In the one world, creativity is stifled because creativity is often inefficient and non-productive, while in the other, creativity (the human spirit) is the entire purpose.
Even worse, when the corporate world does take on theme songs, they are geared towards mind-control. Take, for example, this old IBM company song:
IBM, Happy men, smiling all the way.
Oh what fun it is to sell our products night and day. IBM, Watson men, partners of T.J. In his service to mankind-that's why we are so gay.
(yes, sung to "Jingle Bells")
There are, of course, counter-examples on both sides, but the tendencies are clear.
How long will it be until the rules are so complex that no one can understand them all and law enforcement can prosecute people at random because everyone's guilty of something if you look hard enough?
Slippery slope is a fallacious argument.
That argument is identical to "It's cold, but don't turn up the thermostat, or next thing you know we'll all be cooked!" which ignores the fact that an equilibrium is often reached around 65-70 degrees.
"Judges can't show the 10 Commandments? Next thing you know they'll sneak into your house and take your Bibles!"
"Gay marriages? Next thing they'll demand the right to marry their pets!"
So yeah, scrap the law, get rid of all of these types of laws. Get the government out!
We already tried that, it didn't work out so well.
"Saint Peter don't ya take me 'cause I can't go, I sold my soul to the company store."
You can either have a government which proscribes similar contracts you might "enter into with my employer", or a society where such contracts are the only real option for many.
I have a hard time understanding people who ask for the right to be oppressed. Maybe it's because they dream of becoming the oppressor? Or maybe they've been taught "slavery is freedom".
Your premise is correct, but your conclusion is wrong.
No one can create information that does not exist. However, a television screen cannot display all of the information contained in the signal and even if it could, you would not perceive it all anyway.
For example, small variations in contrast can be amplified, false color can make clear what the mind would miss, sharpening (even over-sharpening) can show you detail that your (and everyone else's) pathetic visual perception can not possibly see otherwise.
Your notion that the resulting image being displayed has lost information in being processed is valid, but the processed image can most certainly show you more information (perceptually) than the original image conveyed (this happens with absolutely every artificially transmitted image you have ever seen), and even in the cases where the total amount of information the image conveys is diminished, it's possible to show information that was not apparent in the original image.
Democracy is something that requires effort to maintain.
Unstable != undesirable.
That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.
They in fact did specify a Democracy. We democratically elect our representatives. As you pointed out, this is all outlined in the Constitution. Thus we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
The move away from, and popular disfavor of, Democracy has been a really bad idea.
You have entirely missed the point of calling Bush out on his abortion, alcoholism, coke habit, etc.
The reason is that he oppresses people who have had these very problems. The right has abortions (Bush), gets divorced (Limbaugh), has affairs (Gingrich), does drugs (Bush), etc. But the right likes to claim these things are only done by evil people. The left believes that view to be wrong and points out the hypocrisy in order to make the case that the evil is not in doing those things but in oppressing, as opposed to helping, those so afflicted.
The right is in the position of the privileged class. They can do with impunity the very things that they throw the poor in jail for. That is evil and that is why the left is so loud about such issues.
.... am getting sick of haveing two choices for the person who runs this entire country. i have historically voted for third parties so that perhaps some day we WILL have more than two lousy choices. Seeing how i live in NY i will probably again be voting for a third party. last time i checked, one reason the US was so great was choice.
I too want choice very much. However, Nader is not, and never has been (and the way things are going, never will be) a choice. Yes, his name will be on the ballot for yet another presidential election, and probably will be in future elections, but he is not a option. In 2004, Kerry might win the election and Bush might win the election, but Nader will not, no matter how many alternate universes you imagine between now and November, win the election.
Nader is not a choice. He's a false choice. If you think Bush and Kerry are so alike that you don't care which you get, then vote Nader as a protest vote (in that case, he's just a human equivalent of voting for Mickey Mouse). However, if you prefer Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, don't waste your vote on Nader.
Put another way, a vote for Nader is a vote against whoever you would have voted for between the R and D sides of the ballot.
listen to yourself for just a moment. you actually think it's a good thing that apple doesn't listen to its (potential) customers.
Exactly. I'm glad you are starting to understand. Apple knows more than the average customer about what makes a computer good. You missed a few words though: "it's a good thing Apple doesn't listen to all of its (potential) customers".
Some of the things potential customers ask for (OS X on intel PC hardware, multi-button mice, headless iMacs, etc) would make the Mac a lesser platform. MS unabashedly provides the customer with what they want, and you see what that gets you. Apple looks at customer requests and if they can't provide the request at a reasonable price in a way that meets a certain standard, they won't provide it.
You're asking for Apple to become more like MS. May you never get your wish.
no, just that apple's forcing me to pay for one, whether i want it or not.
No, Apple is not forcing you to pay for a mouse. But, if you buy a Mac it comes with one. Big deal. Almost everything I buy comes with something I'd rather have different. If that's a big enough issue for you, don't buy the thing.
I find it funny that you get worked up over a mouse on a computer purchase, especially since a mouse is easily replaceable.
by that standard, why don't you praise apple for shipping with a 101-button mouse by default?
That's the dumbest argument I've heard on Slashdot (and I've heard plenty). Using ctrl-click is a standard on the Mac. It's a mouse action. It's equivalent to right-click. It's universal across the entire Mac platform. There's no such thing as "w-click on a file" or whatever you're thinking.
wasn't that long ago i heard some mac fanatic claim the one-button mouse was so that users wouldn't get confused about which mouse button to press. clearly pressing ctrl+mousebutton must not be confusing at all to them, nor can there be anything the least bit unintuitive about combining input actions from two separate devices simultaneously. apple users must be so smart, they don't need to use their brains to use their computers, i take it.
You don't understand Apple one bit. It *is* easier to have only one mouse button. Few users need the right-click, and those that do can use it via a new mouse or the ctrl key. And a *very* limited number of apps actually make extensive use of multiple buttons (these are things like Maya, which even a "power user" will never use).
So what we have is a simple interface (Apple is *all*about* simple--if you don't understand that, you're not paying attention. Look at the iMac and iPod), that serves 80% of the users best. Then for the next 19.5%, they can use the ctrl key (very easy to do), or buy a new mouse. For the last.5% who run Maya or whatever, they can buy a new mouse. They already paid many thousands on hardware and software, what's $15 more?
all i want is for apple to ship a pointing device with a scroll wheel as standard.
You're not alone. Many people ask for this. Fortunately Apple has not listened. You can buy one when you buy your Mac. In fact, you're likely to already have more than one, or know someone who does--if you're such a person who is so worked up over it.
Do you realize how you sound? "I'd buy a Mac but for the inconvenience of having to buy an extra mouse."
Windows looks too much like NeXT. You'll have to wait for 2006 for it to look too much like OS X (I have no idea what XP looks like... A Fischer-Price toy?).
Ressemblance to Windows / IE goes a long way toward new users migration for Microsoft, keep that in mind.
At the expense of new users sticking around to become old users. If they are too similar, why stay with Linux?
Linux needs to be unique. I don't mean uniqueness for unique's sake, but true innovation. Fortunately this isn't much of an issue. KDE is like a super-powered Windows and GNOME is like a Unixy Mac (mmm... irony). So there really is uniqueness and innovation all around.
The two button mice are in another section of their store, and must be bought seperately.
Which is to say no one is making you use a one-button mouse. Besides, all Macs ship with a two-button mouse--the second button is on the keyboard (ctrl-click brings up the context menu).
"Can this be a reasonably good statistic? Most of the music that I listen to online either comes from online radio stations, Poisoned (mac app), or iTunes. What clout would this have over any other song statistics?"
There is a ratings list that might be more relevant for you that's compiled by the RIAA. It's not as user-friendly as the BBC list though.
I wasn't disputing the article. In fact I agree with the article. I was disputing that Apple's security flaws have been from their proprietary software and that the answer to their (nonexistent) problem is to open source the whole thing.
"When discussing this, keep in mind how many more eyes OSS can train on code, and how much faster those patches can be created."
I care nothing about how many eyes see the code as how many brains do.
"Because the laws of physics - most specifically the inverse square law - work against the transmission of electromagnetic energies over vast distances. Isn't efficiency the pinnacle of any advanced civilization?"
As opposed to sending out an asteroid with DNA on it which would be impossible to aim at a planet, requires exceptional resources to launch, would most likely be either ignored or destroyed, and is far slower than an electromagnetic signal.
Oh, and we'd likely need a place to launch it towards anyway, so why not just send a signal that way to begin with?
I wouldn't call it irrational. Sometimes people vent their anger irrationally, but the cause of that anger is generally quite rational indeed.
And your assertion:
"So really, there are two reasons why Mac OS has not had mass exploits: 1.) Obscure 2.) Not an emotional target"
is pure speculation. If they were the sole reasons, then you'd expect at least one actual exploit to surface in the wild. I'm sure they are factors, but how about it's easier to write viruses/worms/trojans for Windows? And the fact that MS waits so long before security updates?
In short, there are not, simply, "two reasons why Mac OS has not had mass exploits".
Slashdot Mirror
And when not that, Mac OS X.
You didn't specify it, but I assume you are referring to Windows. A question worth asking is whether whatever it is that has you running Windows is worth the hassle of worrying about virii/worms/etc.
But, hey, we wrote the Japanese constitution and made the Empiror publicly declare he wasn't a god, and that all worked out.
That worked because we nuked two of their cities and threatened (even though we were fresh out of nukes) to continue.
When your only choice is to accept or be annihilated, you'll find people generally accept. In Japan the people were united behind Hirohito. Beating him was seen in the eyes of the Japanese as beating the Japanese. In Iraq, the people aren't so tied to Saddam. So beating Saddam is not equal to beating the Iraqi people.
In Iraq they don't face instant and inevitable annihilation, so they aren't as likely to fall in line. That doesn't even take into consideration the cultural differences between Iraq and Japan which determines a sort of national characteristic where in Japan is one of following the rules and in Iraq is not quite so uniform.
But pouting because Bush didn't win the popular vote is just retarded. :/
Yeah, it's *real* retarded that the guy who "won" the election is the one who got the least number of votes (of the two parties which, unfortunately, count).
We're supposed to be *happy* that the guy who we most wanted to win didn't?
But for some reason we're supposed to grant the farmer and the hillbilly a stronger vote because they are the top thinkers of our nation? Seems to me that the city-folk got it right.
Democracy is exactly what the founders sought to avoid when they framed the Constitution.
... people in large numbers.
What type of government did you give us? (asked of Benjamin Franklin)
"A Democracy--if you can keep it," he replied.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
A Republic is two wolves and 98 sheep voting on what to have for dinner, where only the two wolves get to vote.
A democracy is eternally threatened by
Yes, it's "eternally threatened". So? Are you such a chickin-shit that you'd rather just give in and be ruled by an elite class? Your alternative is to eternally subject the people to the greed of people in small numbers.
I can't believe the stupidity of a sheep who would willingly follow a wolf.
The argument this guy is making ignores the fact that our system is based on one of the most successful compromises in history: many disparate states sacrificing some aspects of sovereignty to form a single nation.
The argument you're making ignores the fact that it's the people, not the states, that should have the power. The President rules over the people of the US, not just the states.
Your justification for weighting the vote towards the farmer is flawed. I can imagine any number of groups to favor. Why not give blacks 1.5 votes per person to make up for their lesser numbers in the population? Or gays 3 votes? Or cancer victims 2.5 votes? It doesn't make any sense.
There will always be justification for giving one group power over another. You could even come up with a reason to allow insane people two votes (maybe a vote for each personality, or as a reason to compel sane people to vote, or because an insane person is half as likely to vote, etc). That's the problem with tyranny--it's always accompanied with justifications.
The only equitable answer is to aspire for true Democracy. If you educate the people well enough, and report the situation accurately enough, the farmers will get the aid they need--it is in the city-dwellers best interest that the farm community is healthy.
Right now, farmers are paid to not produce milk, while at the same time they are injecting their cows with rBGH to produce more milk. So we're paying more for milk so we can get more milk that's not as healthy. Super...
For one, it avoids tyranny of the majority
Sorry, but that's one of the most foolish arguments against Democracy out there. What's the alternative? The tyranny of the minority?
Strictly by the numbers, more people want Kerry than Bush. More people wanted Gore than Bush. But Bush "won" anyway, and he might just win again (sic).
Now, if you're in the minority that prefers Bush, you might think that it's good that the minority has won in this case, but you can't escape the fact that you've just supported swapping out the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the minority. At least with the tyranny of the majority you can say we deserve what we get.
In order to keep a Democratic system from self-destruction, make the dangerous actions harder to accomplish (like changing the Constitution). Two other things important for a Democracy are a healthy media and a strong educational system--both of which are supported by a vast majority of Americans, but which a small minority in America oppose (sucessfully).
Yes, Democracy is vulnerable to tyranny, but the answer is not to just jump right into tyranny!
On a more serious note, I somewhat repulsed that a person would find a project release song repuslive. The repulsion is what I'd expect from the PHB sort. To me, having a song illustrates wonderfully the difference between Free Software/OSS communities and the corporate world. In the one world, creativity is stifled because creativity is often inefficient and non-productive, while in the other, creativity (the human spirit) is the entire purpose.
Even worse, when the corporate world does take on theme songs, they are geared towards mind-control. Take, for example, this old IBM company song:
(yes, sung to "Jingle Bells")
There are, of course, counter-examples on both sides, but the tendencies are clear.
in that apartment for rent on Park Street.
Are you saying Jesus was a robot???
No, just his followers.
How long will it be until the rules are so complex that no one can understand them all and law enforcement can prosecute people at random because everyone's guilty of something if you look hard enough?
Slippery slope is a fallacious argument.
That argument is identical to "It's cold, but don't turn up the thermostat, or next thing you know we'll all be cooked!" which ignores the fact that an equilibrium is often reached around 65-70 degrees.
"Judges can't show the 10 Commandments? Next thing you know they'll sneak into your house and take your Bibles!"
"Gay marriages? Next thing they'll demand the right to marry their pets!"
Give me a break.
So yeah, scrap the law, get rid of all of these types of laws. Get the government out!
We already tried that, it didn't work out so well.
"Saint Peter don't ya take me 'cause I can't go,
I sold my soul to the company store."
You can either have a government which proscribes similar contracts you might "enter into with my employer", or a society where such contracts are the only real option for many.
I have a hard time understanding people who ask for the right to be oppressed. Maybe it's because they dream of becoming the oppressor? Or maybe they've been taught "slavery is freedom".
Your premise is correct, but your conclusion is wrong.
No one can create information that does not exist. However, a television screen cannot display all of the information contained in the signal and even if it could, you would not perceive it all anyway.
For example, small variations in contrast can be amplified, false color can make clear what the mind would miss, sharpening (even over-sharpening) can show you detail that your (and everyone else's) pathetic visual perception can not possibly see otherwise.
Your notion that the resulting image being displayed has lost information in being processed is valid, but the processed image can most certainly show you more information (perceptually) than the original image conveyed (this happens with absolutely every artificially transmitted image you have ever seen), and even in the cases where the total amount of information the image conveys is diminished, it's possible to show information that was not apparent in the original image.
Democracy is an unstable form of government.
Democracy is something that requires effort to maintain.
Unstable != undesirable.
That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.
They in fact did specify a Democracy. We democratically elect our representatives. As you pointed out, this is all outlined in the Constitution. Thus we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
The move away from, and popular disfavor of, Democracy has been a really bad idea.
You have entirely missed the point of calling Bush out on his abortion, alcoholism, coke habit, etc.
The reason is that he oppresses people who have had these very problems. The right has abortions (Bush), gets divorced (Limbaugh), has affairs (Gingrich), does drugs (Bush), etc. But the right likes to claim these things are only done by evil people. The left believes that view to be wrong and points out the hypocrisy in order to make the case that the evil is not in doing those things but in oppressing, as opposed to helping, those so afflicted.
The right is in the position of the privileged class. They can do with impunity the very things that they throw the poor in jail for. That is evil and that is why the left is so loud about such issues.
.... am getting sick of haveing two choices for the person who runs this entire country. i have historically voted for third parties so that perhaps some day we WILL have more than two lousy choices. Seeing how i live in NY i will probably again be voting for a third party. last time i checked, one reason the US was so great was choice.
I too want choice very much. However, Nader is not, and never has been (and the way things are going, never will be) a choice. Yes, his name will be on the ballot for yet another presidential election, and probably will be in future elections, but he is not a option. In 2004, Kerry might win the election and Bush might win the election, but Nader will not, no matter how many alternate universes you imagine between now and November, win the election.
Nader is not a choice. He's a false choice. If you think Bush and Kerry are so alike that you don't care which you get, then vote Nader as a protest vote (in that case, he's just a human equivalent of voting for Mickey Mouse). However, if you prefer Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, don't waste your vote on Nader.
Put another way, a vote for Nader is a vote against whoever you would have voted for between the R and D sides of the ballot.
listen to yourself for just a moment. you actually think it's a good thing that apple doesn't listen to its (potential) customers.
Exactly. I'm glad you are starting to understand. Apple knows more than the average customer about what makes a computer good. You missed a few words though: "it's a good thing Apple doesn't listen to all of its (potential) customers".
Some of the things potential customers ask for (OS X on intel PC hardware, multi-button mice, headless iMacs, etc) would make the Mac a lesser platform. MS unabashedly provides the customer with what they want, and you see what that gets you. Apple looks at customer requests and if they can't provide the request at a reasonable price in a way that meets a certain standard, they won't provide it.
You're asking for Apple to become more like MS. May you never get your wish.
no, just that apple's forcing me to pay for one, whether i want it or not.
.5% who run Maya or whatever, they can buy a new mouse. They already paid many thousands on hardware and software, what's $15 more?
No, Apple is not forcing you to pay for a mouse. But, if you buy a Mac it comes with one. Big deal. Almost everything I buy comes with something I'd rather have different. If that's a big enough issue for you, don't buy the thing.
I find it funny that you get worked up over a mouse on a computer purchase, especially since a mouse is easily replaceable.
by that standard, why don't you praise apple for shipping with a 101-button mouse by default?
That's the dumbest argument I've heard on Slashdot (and I've heard plenty). Using ctrl-click is a standard on the Mac. It's a mouse action. It's equivalent to right-click. It's universal across the entire Mac platform. There's no such thing as "w-click on a file" or whatever you're thinking.
wasn't that long ago i heard some mac fanatic claim the one-button mouse was so that users wouldn't get confused about which mouse button to press. clearly pressing ctrl+mousebutton must not be confusing at all to them, nor can there be anything the least bit unintuitive about combining input actions from two separate devices simultaneously. apple users must be so smart, they don't need to use their brains to use their computers, i take it.
You don't understand Apple one bit. It *is* easier to have only one mouse button. Few users need the right-click, and those that do can use it via a new mouse or the ctrl key. And a *very* limited number of apps actually make extensive use of multiple buttons (these are things like Maya, which even a "power user" will never use).
So what we have is a simple interface (Apple is *all*about* simple--if you don't understand that, you're not paying attention. Look at the iMac and iPod), that serves 80% of the users best. Then for the next 19.5%, they can use the ctrl key (very easy to do), or buy a new mouse. For the last
all i want is for apple to ship a pointing device with a scroll wheel as standard.
You're not alone. Many people ask for this. Fortunately Apple has not listened. You can buy one when you buy your Mac. In fact, you're likely to already have more than one, or know someone who does--if you're such a person who is so worked up over it.
Do you realize how you sound? "I'd buy a Mac but for the inconvenience of having to buy an extra mouse."
Windows looks too much like OSX!
Windows looks too much like NeXT. You'll have to wait for 2006 for it to look too much like OS X (I have no idea what XP looks like... A Fischer-Price toy?).
Ressemblance to Windows / IE goes a long way toward new users migration for Microsoft, keep that in mind.
At the expense of new users sticking around to become old users. If they are too similar, why stay with Linux?
Linux needs to be unique. I don't mean uniqueness for unique's sake, but true innovation. Fortunately this isn't much of an issue. KDE is like a super-powered Windows and GNOME is like a Unixy Mac (mmm... irony). So there really is uniqueness and innovation all around.
No one's making you use a one-button mouse.
The two button mice are in another section of their store, and must be bought seperately.
Which is to say no one is making you use a one-button mouse. Besides, all Macs ship with a two-button mouse--the second button is on the keyboard (ctrl-click brings up the context menu).
"Can this be a reasonably good statistic? Most of the music that I listen to online either comes from online radio stations, Poisoned (mac app), or iTunes. What clout would this have over any other song statistics?"
There is a ratings list that might be more relevant for you that's compiled by the RIAA. It's not as user-friendly as the BBC list though.
"You're just proving the point of the article."
I wasn't disputing the article. In fact I agree with the article. I was disputing that Apple's security flaws have been from their proprietary software and that the answer to their (nonexistent) problem is to open source the whole thing.
"When discussing this, keep in mind how many more eyes OSS can train on code, and how much faster those patches can be created."
I care nothing about how many eyes see the code as how many brains do.
"Because the laws of physics - most specifically the inverse square law - work against the transmission of electromagnetic energies over vast distances. Isn't efficiency the pinnacle of any advanced civilization?"
As opposed to sending out an asteroid with DNA on it which would be impossible to aim at a planet, requires exceptional resources to launch, would most likely be either ignored or destroyed, and is far slower than an electromagnetic signal.
Oh, and we'd likely need a place to launch it towards anyway, so why not just send a signal that way to begin with?
"People have an irrational hate for Microsoft"
I wouldn't call it irrational. Sometimes people vent their anger irrationally, but the cause of that anger is generally quite rational indeed.
And your assertion:
"So really, there are two reasons why Mac OS has not had mass exploits:
1.) Obscure
2.) Not an emotional target"
is pure speculation. If they were the sole reasons, then you'd expect at least one actual exploit to surface in the wild. I'm sure they are factors, but how about it's easier to write viruses/worms/trojans for Windows? And the fact that MS waits so long before security updates?
In short, there are not, simply, "two reasons why Mac OS has not had mass exploits".