He said that if Microsoft did that, there would be an issue of "single point of failure".
You replied with: "That works until everybody cries "anti-trust!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't. There's a lot of lightening up that needs to happen."
I'm sure that sounds like a "valid point" to you. But that is just more evidence that you're a shill.
"Didn't need to address his technical points, the response of the rest of the industry was a bigger problem."
No it was not because it was NOT part of his post.
You were not replying to his post because his post did not contain anything relating to why your response was.
Someone said something technical that was less than supportive about one of Microsoft's potential choices and YOU had to jump in and claim that lots of bad people out there were anti-Microsoft.
The post that triggered your response did not contain anything that you were posting about.
You cruise/. looking for posts that are less than flattering about Microsoft and then you launch into your rant about those bad people who hate Microsoft. Regardless of whether the post is factual or not.
"While I'm not certain that I completely trust Microsoft on this, it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS. Better low-level access, as well as being able to intercept attempts by something like Outlook to execute arbitrary files. Having a unified place to control such actions might help security.
On the other hand, the major effect might just be to introduce a single point of failure/attack. It's certainly possible to argue that the variety of security software in use makes it harder to attack any given system. For evidence, look at the list of processes that the more sophisticated viruses try to stop.
Background: I do not customarily use an on-demand scanner. On occasion, I have loaded up a scanner because of suspicious behavior. My Windows box (patched up to date, firewalled) has had only one virus, a backdoor program that was installed when my daughter clicked a "video clip" that she received in an e-mail, before she understood what a spoofed address was. So I'm not convinced that antivirus software is as necessary as it is built up to be."
I'm having a little trouble finding "evil" in there. Not to mention that he seems to be making some very good points about "single point of failure/attack".
So, it does seem that you went into your rant WITHOUT any cause.
Particularly Minority Report. His short short was so much better at covering the issues of knowing the future, which the movie did not even try to show.
But I guess that's what happens when Hollywood rapes the work of a really great writer.
There are always little apps that you didn't know about and no one else has heard of, except for the one guy in Accounting who absolutely needs it to run payroll every month.
Sure it's okay if you migrate it. But it has to work exactly as the current one does. Same input, same output, same format.
And it's a mess of spaghetti code from 20 years and 50 programmers. All undocumented.
And he needs a specific boot disk to make it work.
Moving 95% of the apps for 95% of the people is easy.
It's those one-of-a-kind yet mission-critical apps that take so long and cost so much that your project over runs on cost and time.
I just spent 2 whole days moving ONE user's workstation from NT to Win2K and it was practically perfect...... except ONE thing she prints doesn't print the same way now.
"The number of people who think comments like this are uncommon or meant to be taken literally is an indication of how close the average/. poster has ever been to the managerial meeting room."
So, if no one here actually believed that Microsoft was suggesting that someone kill a child, that means that "the average/. poster" has probably been to the "managerial meeting room"?
Did YOU believe that someone's child was being threatened?
But lots of "discussions" tend downwards towards pure emotional levels (just like in the 3rd grade).
There is some justification for this. It seems that people reach a decision FIRST and then rationalize it to themselves.
You can see that in almost all of the political "discussions". People will accept certain behaviour from "their" candidate (or politicians associated with "their" party) but will rant against identical (or almost identical) behaviour on the "other" side.
In technology, it should be easier to restrict the discussion to facts and such. But that may be why we don't see so many replies to most pure technology articles.
But when there is room for emotion (Microsoft "bad" vs you're all Microsoft haters) we see hundreds of replies.
Bring politics into the discussion and we can see over 1,000 replies.
As you said, none of them give a shit about you.
It seems to be an emotional need to "justify" ourselves and our "choices". As such, I don't see it ending any time soon.:(
"Fair point, but I doubt that'd be enough this time around. The main reason being that the AV software out there today is specifically for Windows. MS has an inside advantage towards getting problems fixed."
Therefore, to avoid ALL APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY they would have to keep a "Chinese Wall" between the rest of the developers and the anti-virus developers.
The Microsoft anti-virus team would have to work with the same, published API's that all the other anti-virus teams use. This way, the Microsoft anti-virus team would NOT have any advantage over the other vendors.
Or, as I said before, Microsoft would have to publish the API's and make their product easily removed and replaced AND allow OEM's to remove and replace it (another thing that Microsoft was doing in the Netscape trial).
In fact, it is VERY easy for Microsoft to enter the anti-virus market and NOT be in violation of anti-trust laws.
"How does this contradict my point that Microsoft doesn't have monopolies everywhere?"
I never said that Microsoft didn't have monopolies everywhere. I said they had ONE. And they have been found GUILTY of leveraging that ONE monopoly to gain advantages in other markets.
"Eh? Microsoft isn't the market leader in either app, so what's so 'cute' about it? Microsoft would sure LIKE to be. Same goes for the XBOX, they couldn't buy themselves into #1 there."
It's "cute" in that you can't claim that they were NOT found to be a monopoly so you're switching to claiming that they don't have LOTS of monopolies. Since no one ever claimed they had LOTS of monopolies, your attempt is "cute".
"Uh okay. I suppose I should just drop everything, shake my pitchfork at MS at every turn, and badmouth every little thing they do? That way I could be cool just like everybody else here."
Unthinking hatred is no better nor worse than unthinking loyalty.
People do NOT trust Microsoft because of Microsoft's DOCUMENTED PAST BEHAVIOUR.
That's frequently refered to as "learning" or "experience".
And you have a problem with this?
Or is it that you feel it is necessary to give Microsoft the benefit of a doubt this time because, this time, they just MIGHT act differently than ALL those other times.
And that behaviour is typically termed an "apologist".
So, if you aren't an apoligist, then WHY do you believe that Microsoft will NOT try to violate anti-trust laws this time?
Don't say "innocent until proven guilty". The easy counters are: "A leopard does not change his spots" "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."
Make it easily and completely removable and publish the API. Again, during the trial, Microsoft claimed that IE could not be removed because removing those.dll's would "cripple" Windows.
"If they could do that, then they'd have more than 3 apps that held monopoly status. Frontpage? Nope. IIS? Nope. Exchange? Nope. Media Player? Nope. Gee, I guess their monopoly isn't all that strong unless people actually want their stuff?"
So far, they've only been ruled a monopoly in one market. The desktop x86 market (Windows). Like I said, you need to read more.
It was cute how you tried to toss in two server apps (IIS and Exchange). Hee hee.:D
Oh well, you Microsoft apologists are all the same.
Sustainable speeds. From the pictures in the article, you can see that drives that may have the highest max speed don't always have the highest average speed.
But then you have to hook your drives to a controller. And controllers have the read/write & reliability factors that hard drives do AND they also have CPU utilization.
Ideally, you'll want hard drives with fast read/writes and high reliability hooked to a controller that does fast read/writes and has high reliability AND very low CPU utilization.
But if you're just looking at hard drives, you're correct in your statement.
But for best utilization of the hard drive, you at least have to look at the controller, also.
I want double blind tests of clean DNA submitted at random intervals to "prove" that the system will not flag the innocent.
If clean DNA is run and it comes back saying that it is linked to a crime, it shows that there is a problem with the system.
The important thing to remember is that any DNA matching will just about "prove" that you're "guilty" of that crime. It will be up to you to show that you didn't do it.
Given that humans will be involved, there will be mistakes. So the planning has to include methods of testing for errors. And repeated, random, testing.
Also, a series of checks to see where and why those errors were made and a review process to fix the problem(s) as they are identified.
Don't trust the cops. Don't trust the lab technicians. Don't trust anyone involved with it.
#1. DNA test everyone arrested for a FELONY and run a match through DNA samples from other cases.
#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.
#3. All people CONVICTED of FELONIES will have their DNA taken again (the last sample was purged in #2). This sample can stay in the databases forever.
#4. Any DNA samples will ONLY be used to compare to other DNA samples from criminal cases. No scanning for violent dispositions (as you mentioned) nor any paternity suits or ANYTHING.
#5. All DNA matching will require at least double blind. I don't trust cops.
#6. There will be random checks done (no less than.1% per year) by submitting DNA samples from non-criminals (but not the same people each time).
I think DNA matching is good idea, but I don't trust the cops with it. I want lots of checks and balances and I want non-convict DNA records to be deleted. Keep the honest cops honest and don't keep records on innocent citizens.
If they make the outer armour thick enough to stop small arms fire, then they're adding significant weight to the vehicle. Particularly the HMMWVs and such. If you add 2,000lbs of armour, you're facing other, structural, problems with the vehicles.
If you use 1/4 of your carrying capacity for armour, then that means that your convoys are going need 25% more vehicles.
Which means 25% more targets and (at least) 25% more breakdowns.
Which is exactly what you do not want in the "long-lasting, low-grade, hostile civilian population," scenario you mentioned.:(
I'm always suspicious of "defenses" that are too specific.
What if the vehicle is hit with regulare AK-47 rounds prior to the RPG attack? How large would a round have to be to cause the armour to discharge?
I think it would even more ironic if the vehicle went over mine and the crew was killed when the electrical armour discharged through the vehicle's interior.
Always believe that you'll be fighting against an enemy who will learn and exploit your weaknesses.
"Unfortunately, when software performance is less than optimal, these programmers generally don't know how to correct the problems with their software. They'll often spout things like "The 90-10 rule," or "I'll just use a profiler to correct the performance problems," but the truth is they don't really know how to improve the performance of their underperforming applications. It's all well and good to say, "I'll just find a better algorithm!" However, finding and deploying that algorithm, if one actually exists, is another matter."
That's where he covers profilers.
"Most of the time you can achieve very good performance boosts by simply improving the implementation of an existing algorithm. A computer scientist may argue that a constant improvement in performance isn't as good as, say, going from an algorithm with O(n^2) performance to one with O(n lg n) performance, but the truth is that most of the time a constant factor of two or three times improvement, applied throughout a piece of software, can make the difference between a practical application and one that is simply too slow to comfortably use. And it is exactly this type of optimization with which most modern programmers have little experience."
That's where he claims that his concept is better.
Please pay very careful attention to the phrase "What about the jobs that are needed to employ the new workers entering the workforce in 2001, 2002, 2003 and early 2004?"
Was that too difficult for you?
Here's a newsflash for you, so far, the number of people leaving the workforce each year (retirement / death / disability) has been less than the number of new workers entering the workforce.
Therefore, even if we managed to recover all 3 million of those lost jobs, we'd still be below the number of jobs needed to employ the new workers.
I wrote it. You even quoted it. But you still didn't understand it.
Not only do they incorrectly calculate the numbers, but they also don't use the correct numbers in the rest of the article.
It says we lost 3 million jobs since 2001.
But then it says we've gained back 1.4 million of those jobs recently.
But our population has been growing since 2001. What about the jobs that are needed to employ the new workers entering the workforce in 2001, 2002, 2003 and early 2004?
And what is the total pay for those segments of the population?
If I get outsourced as a sysadmin, and I take a job flipping burgers, then that's still ONE job. But the pay rate is very different.
It isn't just a matter of adding X jobs. They have to be in similar or better fields at similar or better pay.
Particularly the bit where it runs resident and alerts you to proposed changes in your registry.
WTF?!?
Why is my registry in danger from a website? Is it because Microsoft's default settings mean IE (and Windows) is wide open?
I'd rather the default settings be "locked down" and then each site would have to be allowed more access.
But that would be the complete opposite of Microsoft's "user-friendly" approach. And I'm going to ignore everyone who says that the security settings can be changed. I know they can. I'm talking about the other end-users who want to know about getting rid of all of that crap. Why does it take a THIRD PARTY APP to show them the problems?
That argument is based upon the assumption that security == marketshare.
Security is not the same as marketshare.
The vast majority of zombies were infected via Outlook's ability to run executables from email.
In order for Linux to have the same infection rate as Windows, Linux would have to have the same (or similar) flaws. For example, the same email client installed, by default, upon every Linux machine and that email client would have to run executable content.
Windows was designed with "user-friendly" being far more important than security. So important that security would be compromised in order for a feature to be "user-friendly". That is why there are so many problems on Windows machines.
Here's an example. Grab the latest copy of WindowsXP, run it without anti-virus software. Why is WindowsXP still vulnerable to the same viruses that Windows95 was?
Slashdot Mirror
He said that if Microsoft did that, there would be an issue of "single point of failure".
/. looking for posts that are less than flattering about Microsoft and then you launch into your rant about those bad people who hate Microsoft. Regardless of whether the post is factual or not.
You replied with:
"That works until everybody cries "anti-trust!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't. There's a lot of lightening up that needs to happen."
I'm sure that sounds like a "valid point" to you. But that is just more evidence that you're a shill.
"Didn't need to address his technical points, the response of the rest of the industry was a bigger problem."
No it was not because it was NOT part of his post.
You were not replying to his post because his post did not contain anything relating to why your response was.
Someone said something technical that was less than supportive about one of Microsoft's potential choices and YOU had to jump in and claim that lots of bad people out there were anti-Microsoft.
The post that triggered your response did not contain anything that you were posting about.
You cruise
To YOU that might sound like rational behaviour.
buh bye, my little shill.
A legitimate post detailing a legitimate security concern (the "single point of failure")... ...and you responded with your rant.
THAT is the behaviour of an apologist.
You did not address any of the technical points he made. You just went into rant mode.
Just like all the other apologists out there.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=111314&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=109&mode=thread&cid=9445792
"While I'm not certain that I completely trust Microsoft on this, it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS. Better low-level access, as well as being able to intercept attempts by something like Outlook to execute arbitrary files. Having a unified place to control such actions might help security.
On the other hand, the major effect might just be to introduce a single point of failure/attack. It's certainly possible to argue that the variety of security software in use makes it harder to attack any given system. For evidence, look at the list of processes that the more sophisticated viruses try to stop.
Background: I do not customarily use an on-demand scanner. On occasion, I have loaded up a scanner because of suspicious behavior. My Windows box (patched up to date, firewalled) has had only one virus, a backdoor program that was installed when my daughter clicked a "video clip" that she received in an e-mail, before she understood what a spoofed address was. So I'm not convinced that antivirus software is as necessary as it is built up to be."
I'm having a little trouble finding "evil" in there. Not to mention that he seems to be making some very good points about "single point of failure/attack".
So, it does seem that you went into your rant WITHOUT any cause.
NanoGator says:
"Wrong. I'm actually advocating people use their brains a bit, as opposed to just hating Microsoft because it's the cool thing to do."
And your basis for believing that someone is basing his opinion on what is "cool" as opposed to established facts is.........?
"Um, no. In general, I am against uninformed hatred."
Again, what is your basis for believing that someone is basing his opinion on what is "cool" as opposed to established facts is.........?
If you do not have a factual basis for that belief, then you are guilty of exactly the same behaviour you claim to oppose.
So, what is your basis?
"It's not like MS doesn't spend millions of dollars hiring PR firms and advertising agencies to push their point of view on us."
They spend that much money because it works. NanoGator is a good example of such.
Just look at this thread.
He is saying that people here will think that Microsoft is violating anti-trust laws if/when Microsoft gets into the anti-virus market.
He is NOT saying that Microsoft will NOT violate the anti-trust laws.
He is NOT saying that Microsoft has NOT violated anti-trust laws.
But he is crying about other people who do not trust Microsoft now because of Microsoft's past, documented, behaviour.
In other words, he is crying about people LEARNING from EXPERIENCE. He is crying that those people are vocal about it on this website.
I don't think he's on their payroll, but maybe he is.
I think he's just gotten his emotional self-worth tied up with defending Microsoft against the cynical masses on slashdot.
Or maybe he is simply against the cynicism of the masses on slashdot?
Whichever it is, the end result is the same.
He is opposing the expression of knowledge gained from experience and the extrapolation of that knowledge.
Particularly Minority Report. His short short was so much better at covering the issues of knowing the future, which the movie did not even try to show.
But I guess that's what happens when Hollywood rapes the work of a really great writer.
No patches though. He should have a name tag and a "US ARMY" tag.
Also, his pants are not bloused into his boots.
Are those zippers on the pockets on the front of those pants?
Now, his uniform is nice and new, but the eyelets of his boots are shiney. They eyelets should be black. New uniform & old boots maybe?
And is that a WHITE tee-shirt he's wearing? It should be a BROWN tee-shirt.
And his shirt is buttoned up too high.
There are always little apps that you didn't know about and no one else has heard of, except for the one guy in Accounting who absolutely needs it to run payroll every month.
Sure it's okay if you migrate it. But it has to work exactly as the current one does. Same input, same output, same format.
And it's a mess of spaghetti code from 20 years and 50 programmers. All undocumented.
And he needs a specific boot disk to make it work.
Moving 95% of the apps for 95% of the people is easy.
It's those one-of-a-kind yet mission-critical apps that take so long and cost so much that your project over runs on cost and time.
I just spent 2 whole days moving ONE user's workstation from NT to Win2K and it was practically perfect...... except ONE thing she prints doesn't print the same way now.
And THAT is the thing that will be remembered.
"The number of people who think comments like this are uncommon or meant to be taken literally is an indication of how close the average /. poster has ever been to the managerial meeting room."
/. poster" has probably been to the "managerial meeting room"?
So, if no one here actually believed that Microsoft was suggesting that someone kill a child, that means that "the average
Did YOU believe that someone's child was being threatened?
"Literally"?
But lots of "discussions" tend downwards towards pure emotional levels (just like in the 3rd grade).
:(
There is some justification for this. It seems that people reach a decision FIRST and then rationalize it to themselves.
You can see that in almost all of the political "discussions". People will accept certain behaviour from "their" candidate (or politicians associated with "their" party) but will rant against identical (or almost identical) behaviour on the "other" side.
In technology, it should be easier to restrict the discussion to facts and such. But that may be why we don't see so many replies to most pure technology articles.
But when there is room for emotion (Microsoft "bad" vs you're all Microsoft haters) we see hundreds of replies.
Bring politics into the discussion and we can see over 1,000 replies.
As you said, none of them give a shit about you.
It seems to be an emotional need to "justify" ourselves and our "choices". As such, I don't see it ending any time soon.
"Fair point, but I doubt that'd be enough this time around. The main reason being that the AV software out there today is specifically for Windows. MS has an inside advantage towards getting problems fixed."
Therefore, to avoid ALL APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY they would have to keep a "Chinese Wall" between the rest of the developers and the anti-virus developers.
The Microsoft anti-virus team would have to work with the same, published API's that all the other anti-virus teams use. This way, the Microsoft anti-virus team would NOT have any advantage over the other vendors.
Or, as I said before, Microsoft would have to publish the API's and make their product easily removed and replaced AND allow OEM's to remove and replace it (another thing that Microsoft was doing in the Netscape trial).
In fact, it is VERY easy for Microsoft to enter the anti-virus market and NOT be in violation of anti-trust laws.
"How does this contradict my point that Microsoft doesn't have monopolies everywhere?"
I never said that Microsoft didn't have monopolies everywhere. I said they had ONE. And they have been found GUILTY of leveraging that ONE monopoly to gain advantages in other markets.
"Eh? Microsoft isn't the market leader in either app, so what's so 'cute' about it? Microsoft would sure LIKE to be. Same goes for the XBOX, they couldn't buy themselves into #1 there."
It's "cute" in that you can't claim that they were NOT found to be a monopoly so you're switching to claiming that they don't have LOTS of monopolies. Since no one ever claimed they had LOTS of monopolies, your attempt is "cute".
"Uh okay. I suppose I should just drop everything, shake my pitchfork at MS at every turn, and badmouth every little thing they do? That way I could be cool just like everybody else here."
Unthinking hatred is no better nor worse than unthinking loyalty.
People do NOT trust Microsoft because of Microsoft's DOCUMENTED PAST BEHAVIOUR.
That's frequently refered to as "learning" or "experience".
And you have a problem with this?
Or is it that you feel it is necessary to give Microsoft the benefit of a doubt this time because, this time, they just MIGHT act differently than ALL those other times.
And that behaviour is typically termed an "apologist".
So, if you aren't an apoligist, then WHY do you believe that Microsoft will NOT try to violate anti-trust laws this time?
Don't say "innocent until proven guilty".
The easy counters are:
"A leopard does not change his spots"
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."
"Yeah? And how exactly?"
.dll's would "cripple" Windows.
:D
Make it easily and completely removable and publish the API. Again, during the trial, Microsoft claimed that IE could not be removed because removing those
"If they could do that, then they'd have more than 3 apps that held monopoly status. Frontpage? Nope. IIS? Nope. Exchange? Nope. Media Player? Nope. Gee, I guess their monopoly isn't all that strong unless people actually want their stuff?"
So far, they've only been ruled a monopoly in one market. The desktop x86 market (Windows). Like I said, you need to read more.
It was cute how you tried to toss in two server apps (IIS and Exchange). Hee hee.
Oh well, you Microsoft apologists are all the same.
Here are some choice quotes for you:
"Knife the baby"
"Cut off the air supply"
Given those quotes, who needs to lighten up? Hmmmm?
Microsoft could include anti-virus software. They have in the past. And Microsoft could do it without hitting anti-trust laws.
But when Microsoft SPECIFICALLY refers to killing another company's market by leveraging their monopoly, THAT is the problem.
You Microsoft apologists are all the same.
The pills won't make your penis larger.
You will not make lots of money working from home.
He will be spamming again.
Sustainable speeds. From the pictures in the article, you can see that drives that may have the highest max speed don't always have the highest average speed.
:)
But then you have to hook your drives to a controller. And controllers have the read/write & reliability factors that hard drives do AND they also have CPU utilization.
Ideally, you'll want hard drives with fast read/writes and high reliability hooked to a controller that does fast read/writes and has high reliability AND very low CPU utilization.
But if you're just looking at hard drives, you're correct in your statement.
But for best utilization of the hard drive, you at least have to look at the controller, also.
And cables.
Sorry I didn't make that clear enough.
I want double blind tests of clean DNA submitted at random intervals to "prove" that the system will not flag the innocent.
If clean DNA is run and it comes back saying that it is linked to a crime, it shows that there is a problem with the system.
The important thing to remember is that any DNA matching will just about "prove" that you're "guilty" of that crime. It will be up to you to show that you didn't do it.
Given that humans will be involved, there will be mistakes. So the planning has to include methods of testing for errors. And repeated, random, testing.
Also, a series of checks to see where and why those errors were made and a review process to fix the problem(s) as they are identified.
Don't trust the cops.
Don't trust the lab technicians.
Don't trust anyone involved with it.
#1. DNA test everyone arrested for a FELONY and run a match through DNA samples from other cases.
.1% per year) by submitting DNA samples from non-criminals (but not the same people each time).
#2. All DNA samples take from #1 are to be PURGED COMPLETELY from any databases after 30 days.
#3. All people CONVICTED of FELONIES will have their DNA taken again (the last sample was purged in #2). This sample can stay in the databases forever.
#4. Any DNA samples will ONLY be used to compare to other DNA samples from criminal cases. No scanning for violent dispositions (as you mentioned) nor any paternity suits or ANYTHING.
#5. All DNA matching will require at least double blind. I don't trust cops.
#6. There will be random checks done (no less than
I think DNA matching is good idea, but I don't trust the cops with it. I want lots of checks and balances and I want non-convict DNA records to be deleted. Keep the honest cops honest and don't keep records on innocent citizens.
If they make the outer armour thick enough to stop small arms fire, then they're adding significant weight to the vehicle. Particularly the HMMWVs and such. If you add 2,000lbs of armour, you're facing other, structural, problems with the vehicles.
:(
If you use 1/4 of your carrying capacity for armour, then that means that your convoys are going need 25% more vehicles.
Which means 25% more targets and (at least) 25% more breakdowns.
Which is exactly what you do not want in the "long-lasting, low-grade, hostile civilian population," scenario you mentioned.
I'm always suspicious of "defenses" that are too specific.
What if the vehicle is hit with regulare AK-47 rounds prior to the RPG attack? How large would a round have to be to cause the armour to discharge?
I think it would even more ironic if the vehicle went over mine and the crew was killed when the electrical armour discharged through the vehicle's interior.
Always believe that you'll be fighting against an enemy who will learn and exploit your weaknesses.
If I may quote him:
"Unfortunately, when software performance is less than optimal, these programmers generally don't know how to correct the problems with their software. They'll often spout things like "The 90-10 rule," or "I'll just use a profiler to correct the performance problems," but the truth is they don't really know how to improve the performance of their underperforming applications. It's all well and good to say, "I'll just find a better algorithm!" However, finding and deploying that algorithm, if one actually exists, is another matter."
That's where he covers profilers.
"Most of the time you can achieve very good performance boosts by simply improving the implementation of an existing algorithm. A computer scientist may argue that a constant improvement in performance isn't as good as, say, going from an algorithm with O(n^2) performance to one with O(n lg n) performance, but the truth is that most of the time a constant factor of two or three times improvement, applied throughout a piece of software, can make the difference between a practical application and one that is simply too slow to comfortably use. And it is exactly this type of optimization with which most modern programmers have little experience."
That's where he claims that his concept is better.
It isn't just the number of jobs.
It isn't just the total income.
It is whether there are enough jobs at a sufficient payrate for enough people.
When jobs get "off-shored" the job is gone and the income is gone BUT the opening has been filled.
So, corporate profits go up, but the wealth ends up concentrated in a few individuals. This is BAD for the country.
One person with $1 million does NOT support the economy the same as one thousand people with $100,000 each.
I wouldn't call it "treason", but it is working against the common US citizen.
Please pay very careful attention to the phrase "What about the jobs that are needed to employ the new workers entering the workforce in 2001, 2002, 2003 and early 2004?"
Was that too difficult for you?
Here's a newsflash for you, so far, the number of people leaving the workforce each year (retirement / death / disability) has been less than the number of new workers entering the workforce.
Therefore, even if we managed to recover all 3 million of those lost jobs, we'd still be below the number of jobs needed to employ the new workers.
I wrote it.
You even quoted it.
But you still didn't understand it.
Not only do they incorrectly calculate the numbers, but they also don't use the correct numbers in the rest of the article.
It says we lost 3 million jobs since 2001.
But then it says we've gained back 1.4 million of those jobs recently.
But our population has been growing since 2001. What about the jobs that are needed to employ the new workers entering the workforce in 2001, 2002, 2003 and early 2004?
And what is the total pay for those segments of the population?
If I get outsourced as a sysadmin, and I take a job flipping burgers, then that's still ONE job. But the pay rate is very different.
It isn't just a matter of adding X jobs. They have to be in similar or better fields at similar or better pay.
Particularly the bit where it runs resident and alerts you to proposed changes in your registry.
WTF?!?
Why is my registry in danger from a website? Is it because Microsoft's default settings mean IE (and Windows) is wide open?
I'd rather the default settings be "locked down" and then each site would have to be allowed more access.
But that would be the complete opposite of Microsoft's "user-friendly" approach. And I'm going to ignore everyone who says that the security settings can be changed. I know they can. I'm talking about the other end-users who want to know about getting rid of all of that crap. Why does it take a THIRD PARTY APP to show them the problems?
That argument is based upon the assumption that security == marketshare.
Security is not the same as marketshare.
The vast majority of zombies were infected via Outlook's ability to run executables from email.
In order for Linux to have the same infection rate as Windows, Linux would have to have the same (or similar) flaws. For example, the same email client installed, by default, upon every Linux machine and that email client would have to run executable content.
Windows was designed with "user-friendly" being far more important than security. So important that security would be compromised in order for a feature to be "user-friendly". That is why there are so many problems on Windows machines.
Here's an example. Grab the latest copy of WindowsXP, run it without anti-virus software. Why is WindowsXP still vulnerable to the same viruses that Windows95 was?