It's pretty simple really. If it was EVER part of China, it's part of China. I don't particularly like the theory myself, but it's pretty much the one that every powerful Chinese government in the past 3000 years has worked on. Chinese history is EXTREMELY cyclical (almost a microcosm of world history): Dynasty takes over, dynasty grows powerful, dynasty grabs back all the bits of "Greater China" that the last dynasty lost in its death throes, dynasty becomes top heavy and starts to lose power, provinces of "Greater China" that never really considered themselves Chinese succeed from China, dynasty falls, new dynasty takes over... rinse, lather, repeat. it's almost freakin' scary. This has happened 10 or 12 times since the Tang Dynasty, and all signs point to the communist "dynasty" following the exact same pattern. In all of those centuries China has rarely if ever displayed an interest in ruling any land outside of "Greater China".
Again, I'm not saying I agree with Chinese foreign policy, but thus far it seems to be following the familiar pattern. As long as this continues, you can pretty much expect them to finish grabbing "Greater China", and then leave everyone else alone other than as trading partners.
I wouldn't. Few major Superpowers in history collapse in blood and ashes (not that it doesn't happen: Rome is only the best example), most just wake up one day and realize that they are a second tier power. Britain, Spain, Holland, France: all are still major players on the world stage, they are still fairly wealthy countries, they just aren't the superpowers that they were 50, 100, or 2 or 3 hundred years ago. There were wars involved in most of the falls, but not civilization destroying Armageddon wars. Hell in some cases they "won" the war that marks the end of their greatest status. I think it's much more likely that we'll all wake up in 50 or 75 years and realize... "Hey, the Chinese (or other, as yet to be named power) are a Superpower, and the US isn't. Ehh... when did that happen?"
Guess we'll all find out at some some unspecified time in the future. Or won't if we're all dead (not even necessarily because of something terrible, some superpowers have lasted centuries; the "fall" could be 100 years off).
The problem with scripting languages is that they hide the architectural details of the system they are running on. They abstract everything to the point where programming becomes simply algorithm design implemented in a language so simple that it could have been pseudo-code 20 years ago. This is fine under two circumstances:
1) You are only interested in training "programmers", not computer scientists or computer engineers. In the case of this article, you could have a valid argument, since these are not computer science students. They're scientists in other disciplines who's primary goal is to write programs to figure out problems in their own fields of study. It is clearly not acceptable for computer science students who, in theory at least, need to understand the fundamental concepts of how computers work. Much of that understanding comes from learning "close to the metal" languages that are harder to learn, but remove abstraction and aid low level understanding.
2) You don't expect to need the power present in "close to the metal" programming languages. Because they are less abstracted (and because they are compiled), languages like C, C++, and Fortran tend to run much more efficiently than abstracted (and usually interrupted) languages like Python and Perl. This is where the argument from the article breaks down IMO. I've never seen Python used in scientific research, except in control scripts or GUI front ends. I'm not myself a scientific researcher, but I've spent a good chunk of my career doing admin work for various kinds of academics, so I have some idea what I'm talking about. When you've just spent 10 gajillion dollars on a 7000 CPU cluster (or even $300,000 on a 200 CPU cluster), you're not going to waste computational CPU cycles on less efficient language. There's not WRONG with python, don't misunderstand me. It has many valid uses, i just don't see it as a scientific research language.
That was my thought. An general purpose, interrupted scripting language for scientific computing? Say what? I've never seen anyone do any sort of scientific research programming with Python, unless it was a control script or GUI interface to something written in Fortran or a C derivative. What's the point of running on the kind of huge multi-CPU systems they use for scientific modeling, if you're going to use a an interrupted language?
At least one major Linux vendor does not support r/w ufs in its kernel. We installed a new RHEL box to replace an aging Solaris file server and were a bit shocked when we discovered it couldn't mount the ufs SAN filesystem that we'd beeen serving. Luckily we had enough space available on the SAN to cut out a new file system, build it ext3, and copy the data from the ufs read only mount.
Bullshit. It won't work with DRM protected stuff from the iTunes store, but all the music and a fair chunk of the video are not DRM protected these days. If you have some old DRMed music it won't work, and you can't get the DRMed video, but the Pre supports AAC encoding. All the music will play fine. AAC is an open standard, only choice prevents other digital music players from supporting it.
You've got a real chicken and egg problem with using entanglement arguments on the iPod:iTunes front. First, it pretty arguable whether Apple really has a monopoly in either sphere. They've got a big chunk of both markets, but nowhere close to 100%. Second, it would be really hard to determine whether the iPod's dominance in the player market brought about the iTunes dominance of the online music market or vice-versa. Really I don't think either would have happened without the package.
My father works for one of the Dodge dealerships that are not being closed. While they are not the biggest sellers in the area they have excellent financial because:
A) The owner is "a cheap bastard who know where every penny goes and never spends one where he can avoid it" (Note: This was not a compliment when my father said it, but he considers it one now:-) )
B) They never did the majority of their business selling cars. They make most of their money on parts and service. In the down economy this is actually great, because they aren't feeling the hit in new car sales as badly as some, and their parts and service departments are doing better than ever. People would rather pay for a repair than spend the money on a new car.
Many of the very large and powerful dealerships that are being closed have dismal financial. They've spent a fortune on fancy showrooms, borrowed a ton of money to do it, and their business models are based entirely on selling a huge volume of cars quickly. Sure they sell more cars than my Dad's place does even now, but many of them are buried in red ink. Of course I can't speak to every dealership in the country, and I'm sure you can point to one that doesn't fit my argument; but in general what they're looking at is profitability and long term viability, not volume.
And, in fact, being "hyper obsessive with social disorders" makes you a bad manager by definition. A managers job is to get a team working together and performing a coherent function. Hyper obsessives tend to micro-manage and/or want to do everything themselves. This is a terrible trait in a manager. People with social disorders (generally, there are exceptions) can't motivate others to accomplish a goal. The fact that a few guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs manage to get away with being hyper obsessive and/or socially inept doesn't mean that these are desirable management traits. It means that those particular guys have had the luck, vision, intelligence or whatever to overcome traits that would normally be detrimental.
If you look at the managers in most companies they are reasonably sociable people. They have to be, it's their job. This doesn't mean they can't also like comic books, or Sci Fi, or computers, it just means they have to be able to operate in normal society while they do.
And get what? 25% of the 5% Linux market penetration? That's what GP is saying. If I target even the most popular Linux Distro I'm still getting only a fraction of the fraction of the market share "Linux" has. Makes the business proposition for mass market Linux software and hardware even worse than when you look at straight Linux market penetration.
Everywhere else? I don't know about you, but I sometimes spend hours a day at neither at work nor home. Stores, parks, friends houses, bars, restaurants, traveling between all of these places in cars or buses. Not that it's always desirable to answer the phone in all of those places, but with a cell phone you can in an emergency, and some of them are perfectly appropriate. I, for one, really like being able to call my wife from the store to find out if she needs anything.
SonicWall is no where close to "No-name", but otherwise yeah. I'm a bit shocked that Cisco didn't provide a box for them to test. Info World isn't exactly a huge security publication, but it's a half-decent generalist magazine. People looking for UTMs tend to be generalist network/systems types in small to mid-sized companies, not security specialists in large ones.
What if we make ethanol from the grass the horse would have eaten and use it to power a very efficient car? I think we should do some experiments here.
I don't know that it's fair to compare "Europe" with the US as far as size or strength of the economies. European Union member states have far more autonomy over their internal economies than US states do. One can still properly talk about the "German Economy" or the "Italian Economy", one cannot really talk about the "New Jersey Economy" in the same way. Certainly it has a regional economy, but more in the way that Bavaria or the Rhineland do than in the way that Germany or Italy do.
The best way to demonstrate this is to look at the big financial meetings. In the G-20 for instance, EU member states attend as nations, the US sends one delegation.
And in fact when you look at the similarly government subsidized railroad systems in Europe, where the other factors you mention either don't exist or are mitigated by geography, they are largely successful. Free market purists always seem to portray Europe as some sort of example of the failure of limited socialism and mixed markets, but frankly I've never understood this. Germany, France and Britain are all lovely countries with economies just as strong (though obviously not as large) as the US. If I had to pick a place to be rich, I'd totally chose the US, that's true. If I had to pick a place to be poor or middle class though I'd probably pick one of the stronger European economies. Since the vast majority of us are not rich, why should we chose a system that clearly favors the people already most privileged?
Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me]
on
The Great Ethanol Scam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think there might be some truth to "Ethanol ruins engines not designed to burn ethanol", but since most cars built in the last 10 years or so are designed around at least partial ethanol fuels, that's only going to affect a (fairly small) subset of people. Whether it's entirely fair to screw around with the people who have older cars is another question, as is how much damage ethanol fuels actually do to those engines.
I'm not a huge Wine user, but if this bug is three years old, and the new X.org is in alpha (thus six months to a year out), doesn't it make sense that someone could have fixed it the "wrong" way in the middle term? I mean, if the bug was posted while the next X.org was already feature complete and in beta, I could see them saying "wait a couple of months and we'll get this fixed the right way." Three and half to four years is a long time to wait for someone else's fix; especially since it seems likely that the changes to X.org were announced much less than three years ago. Making the Wine developers (at the time than they made the decision not to implement a workaround) unaware that this problem would EVER be fixed the "right" way.
Well operating on the assumption that Sun is not lying flat out (because why would he?), doesn't it seem that a comment like "You"re using C++ style comments and we'd prefer C style (or whatever style is preferred), can you change them?" would be more useful than "It's not pretty enough". Probably resulting in a corrected and resubmitted patch rather than a frustrated developer. I mean, that's a really specific and easy to fix problem. "Code style" is a bit more arbitrary, but assuming we're talking about numbers of spaces in indents, not "You didn't code it exactly the way I would have", it should still be pretty easy to fix.
I kind of doubt that anyone who takes to time to write and test a patch is going to be completely frustrated and quit over the ten minutes required to reformat a few comments or change a few indents.
I don't understand this. I'm not to into the community for either project (I use Linux more for servers), but apparently KDE has done the same thing. If it's "still in development", why is it Amarok 2.0? Why isn't it Amarok 2.0.BETA1 or something? A.0 release is supposed to be (mostly) feature complete and (largely) bug free. Obviously bugs will still exist and features will be added (software is released by humans), but the big bugs are supposed to be out, and the features are supposed to be mostly where the spec document said they'd be. This sounds more like a development version of the code, akin to the odd number kernel minor revision numbers.
Especially 2. I work for a government contractor. The amount of stupid pointless shit we have to do in the name of "security" while leaving HUGE GAPING HOLES untouched just hurts my head. It's like our security policy is designed by ADD addled five year olds. They read about something in a magazine and think "Oh, shiny!" They quickly write some insane, over the top, policy to "solve" the "problem" and keep reading the magazine. It's great assuming that the article covers all possible security problems ever, or that it contained actual solutions instead of stuff that kinda sounds like it ought to fix a problem.
The latest brainstorm is that we are switching to 12 character passwords which change every 60 days. This is almost certain to result in:
a) People forgetting their passwords, requiring continuous password resets b) People writing down their impossible to remember, constantly changing, password c) Both (a) and (b)
Meanwhile, we still have a number of systems that use rsh (No, not Kerberized rsh, the plain 30 year old version with.rlogin files.). Granted this is an isolated network, with no Internet access at all. We're not likely to be attacked by outside entities. But if you trust the users of the isolated network enough to assume that they are not going to take advantage of the multiple and well published rsh vulnerabilities, why don't you trust them enough to assume that they are not running password crackers?
Yes, but as far as I can tell the only thing SELinux accomplishes is to make the Operating system virtually useless as anything other than a desktop. The first thing most admins I know do upon installing a new server is disable SELinux. It's possible (possible) to use SELinux on a server, but it usually requires days of tweaking settings, and winds up eliminating a good part of the benefit of the hardening.
Every example in your list is a social engineering trojan. They all require the user to literally INSTALL the malware and enter their admin password to do it. No system can defend against that. There are proof of concept viruses and worms on the Mac, but pretty much everything in wild is a trojan and requires significant user intervention to work. That's hardly fair. Of course stupid Mac users are still stupid users. That doesn't make the system itself less secure. I'm not one of the "OMG, it's completely secure!" fanbois. There are definitely holes in OS X, and Apple has not always been quick to fix them. The fact remains, however, that their are virtually no Mac viruses or worms in the wild (for the proper, security profession, definitions of "virus" or "worm").
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty simple really. If it was EVER part of China, it's part of China. I don't particularly like the theory myself, but it's pretty much the one that every powerful Chinese government in the past 3000 years has worked on. Chinese history is EXTREMELY cyclical (almost a microcosm of world history): Dynasty takes over, dynasty grows powerful, dynasty grabs back all the bits of "Greater China" that the last dynasty lost in its death throes, dynasty becomes top heavy and starts to lose power, provinces of "Greater China" that never really considered themselves Chinese succeed from China, dynasty falls, new dynasty takes over... rinse, lather, repeat. it's almost freakin' scary. This has happened 10 or 12 times since the Tang Dynasty, and all signs point to the communist "dynasty" following the exact same pattern. In all of those centuries China has rarely if ever displayed an interest in ruling any land outside of "Greater China".
Again, I'm not saying I agree with Chinese foreign policy, but thus far it seems to be following the familiar pattern. As long as this continues, you can pretty much expect them to finish grabbing "Greater China", and then leave everyone else alone other than as trading partners.
I wouldn't. Few major Superpowers in history collapse in blood and ashes (not that it doesn't happen: Rome is only the best example), most just wake up one day and realize that they are a second tier power. Britain, Spain, Holland, France: all are still major players on the world stage, they are still fairly wealthy countries, they just aren't the superpowers that they were 50, 100, or 2 or 3 hundred years ago. There were wars involved in most of the falls, but not civilization destroying Armageddon wars. Hell in some cases they "won" the war that marks the end of their greatest status. I think it's much more likely that we'll all wake up in 50 or 75 years and realize... "Hey, the Chinese (or other, as yet to be named power) are a Superpower, and the US isn't. Ehh... when did that happen?"
Guess we'll all find out at some some unspecified time in the future. Or won't if we're all dead (not even necessarily because of something terrible, some superpowers have lasted centuries; the "fall" could be 100 years off).
The problem with scripting languages is that they hide the architectural details of the system they are running on. They abstract everything to the point where programming becomes simply algorithm design implemented in a language so simple that it could have been pseudo-code 20 years ago. This is fine under two circumstances:
1) You are only interested in training "programmers", not computer scientists or computer engineers. In the case of this article, you could have a valid argument, since these are not computer science students. They're scientists in other disciplines who's primary goal is to write programs to figure out problems in their own fields of study. It is clearly not acceptable for computer science students who, in theory at least, need to understand the fundamental concepts of how computers work. Much of that understanding comes from learning "close to the metal" languages that are harder to learn, but remove abstraction and aid low level understanding.
2) You don't expect to need the power present in "close to the metal" programming languages. Because they are less abstracted (and because they are compiled), languages like C, C++, and Fortran tend to run much more efficiently than abstracted (and usually interrupted) languages like Python and Perl. This is where the argument from the article breaks down IMO. I've never seen Python used in scientific research, except in control scripts or GUI front ends. I'm not myself a scientific researcher, but I've spent a good chunk of my career doing admin work for various kinds of academics, so I have some idea what I'm talking about. When you've just spent 10 gajillion dollars on a 7000 CPU cluster (or even $300,000 on a 200 CPU cluster), you're not going to waste computational CPU cycles on less efficient language. There's not WRONG with python, don't misunderstand me. It has many valid uses, i just don't see it as a scientific research language.
That was my thought. An general purpose, interrupted scripting language for scientific computing? Say what? I've never seen anyone do any sort of scientific research programming with Python, unless it was a control script or GUI interface to something written in Fortran or a C derivative. What's the point of running on the kind of huge multi-CPU systems they use for scientific modeling, if you're going to use a an interrupted language?
At least one major Linux vendor does not support r/w ufs in its kernel. We installed a new RHEL box to replace an aging Solaris file server and were a bit shocked when we discovered it couldn't mount the ufs SAN filesystem that we'd beeen serving. Luckily we had enough space available on the SAN to cut out a new file system, build it ext3, and copy the data from the ufs read only mount.
You shook it too hard. ALL the bit came out. Now you have to find them and put them back. I recommend tweezers, they are very small.
Bullshit. It won't work with DRM protected stuff from the iTunes store, but all the music and a fair chunk of the video are not DRM protected these days. If you have some old DRMed music it won't work, and you can't get the DRMed video, but the Pre supports AAC encoding. All the music will play fine. AAC is an open standard, only choice prevents other digital music players from supporting it.
You've got a real chicken and egg problem with using entanglement arguments on the iPod:iTunes front. First, it pretty arguable whether Apple really has a monopoly in either sphere. They've got a big chunk of both markets, but nowhere close to 100%. Second, it would be really hard to determine whether the iPod's dominance in the player market brought about the iTunes dominance of the online music market or vice-versa. Really I don't think either would have happened without the package.
My father works for one of the Dodge dealerships that are not being closed. While they are not the biggest sellers in the area they have excellent financial because:
A) The owner is "a cheap bastard who know where every penny goes and never spends one where he can avoid it" (Note: This was not a compliment when my father said it, but he considers it one now :-) )
B) They never did the majority of their business selling cars. They make most of their money on parts and service. In the down economy this is actually great, because they aren't feeling the hit in new car sales as badly as some, and their parts and service departments are doing better than ever. People would rather pay for a repair than spend the money on a new car.
Many of the very large and powerful dealerships that are being closed have dismal financial. They've spent a fortune on fancy showrooms, borrowed a ton of money to do it, and their business models are based entirely on selling a huge volume of cars quickly. Sure they sell more cars than my Dad's place does even now, but many of them are buried in red ink. Of course I can't speak to every dealership in the country, and I'm sure you can point to one that doesn't fit my argument; but in general what they're looking at is profitability and long term viability, not volume.
I used "and/or" for a reason. Jobs is notoriously obsessive, whereas Gates is both obsessive and socially inept. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
And, in fact, being "hyper obsessive with social disorders" makes you a bad manager by definition. A managers job is to get a team working together and performing a coherent function. Hyper obsessives tend to micro-manage and/or want to do everything themselves. This is a terrible trait in a manager. People with social disorders (generally, there are exceptions) can't motivate others to accomplish a goal. The fact that a few guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs manage to get away with being hyper obsessive and/or socially inept doesn't mean that these are desirable management traits. It means that those particular guys have had the luck, vision, intelligence or whatever to overcome traits that would normally be detrimental.
If you look at the managers in most companies they are reasonably sociable people. They have to be, it's their job. This doesn't mean they can't also like comic books, or Sci Fi, or computers, it just means they have to be able to operate in normal society while they do.
And get what? 25% of the 5% Linux market penetration? That's what GP is saying. If I target even the most popular Linux Distro I'm still getting only a fraction of the fraction of the market share "Linux" has. Makes the business proposition for mass market Linux software and hardware even worse than when you look at straight Linux market penetration.
Could be Cray or SGI/Rackable too. I spent a fair amount of time in Chippewa Falls.
Everywhere else? I don't know about you, but I sometimes spend hours a day at neither at work nor home. Stores, parks, friends houses, bars, restaurants, traveling between all of these places in cars or buses. Not that it's always desirable to answer the phone in all of those places, but with a cell phone you can in an emergency, and some of them are perfectly appropriate. I, for one, really like being able to call my wife from the store to find out if she needs anything.
SonicWall is no where close to "No-name", but otherwise yeah. I'm a bit shocked that Cisco didn't provide a box for them to test. Info World isn't exactly a huge security publication, but it's a half-decent generalist magazine. People looking for UTMs tend to be generalist network/systems types in small to mid-sized companies, not security specialists in large ones.
What if we make ethanol from the grass the horse would have eaten and use it to power a very efficient car? I think we should do some experiments here.
I don't know that it's fair to compare "Europe" with the US as far as size or strength of the economies. European Union member states have far more autonomy over their internal economies than US states do. One can still properly talk about the "German Economy" or the "Italian Economy", one cannot really talk about the "New Jersey Economy" in the same way. Certainly it has a regional economy, but more in the way that Bavaria or the Rhineland do than in the way that Germany or Italy do.
The best way to demonstrate this is to look at the big financial meetings. In the G-20 for instance, EU member states attend as nations, the US sends one delegation.
And in fact when you look at the similarly government subsidized railroad systems in Europe, where the other factors you mention either don't exist or are mitigated by geography, they are largely successful. Free market purists always seem to portray Europe as some sort of example of the failure of limited socialism and mixed markets, but frankly I've never understood this. Germany, France and Britain are all lovely countries with economies just as strong (though obviously not as large) as the US. If I had to pick a place to be rich, I'd totally chose the US, that's true. If I had to pick a place to be poor or middle class though I'd probably pick one of the stronger European economies. Since the vast majority of us are not rich, why should we chose a system that clearly favors the people already most privileged?
I think there might be some truth to "Ethanol ruins engines not designed to burn ethanol", but since most cars built in the last 10 years or so are designed around at least partial ethanol fuels, that's only going to affect a (fairly small) subset of people. Whether it's entirely fair to screw around with the people who have older cars is another question, as is how much damage ethanol fuels actually do to those engines.
I'm not a huge Wine user, but if this bug is three years old, and the new X.org is in alpha (thus six months to a year out), doesn't it make sense that someone could have fixed it the "wrong" way in the middle term? I mean, if the bug was posted while the next X.org was already feature complete and in beta, I could see them saying "wait a couple of months and we'll get this fixed the right way." Three and half to four years is a long time to wait for someone else's fix; especially since it seems likely that the changes to X.org were announced much less than three years ago. Making the Wine developers (at the time than they made the decision not to implement a workaround) unaware that this problem would EVER be fixed the "right" way.
Well operating on the assumption that Sun is not lying flat out (because why would he?), doesn't it seem that a comment like "You"re using C++ style comments and we'd prefer C style (or whatever style is preferred), can you change them?" would be more useful than "It's not pretty enough". Probably resulting in a corrected and resubmitted patch rather than a frustrated developer. I mean, that's a really specific and easy to fix problem. "Code style" is a bit more arbitrary, but assuming we're talking about numbers of spaces in indents, not "You didn't code it exactly the way I would have", it should still be pretty easy to fix.
I kind of doubt that anyone who takes to time to write and test a patch is going to be completely frustrated and quit over the ten minutes required to reformat a few comments or change a few indents.
I don't understand this. I'm not to into the community for either project (I use Linux more for servers), but apparently KDE has done the same thing. If it's "still in development", why is it Amarok 2.0? Why isn't it Amarok 2.0.BETA1 or something? A .0 release is supposed to be (mostly) feature complete and (largely) bug free. Obviously bugs will still exist and features will be added (software is released by humans), but the big bugs are supposed to be out, and the features are supposed to be mostly where the spec document said they'd be. This sounds more like a development version of the code, akin to the odd number kernel minor revision numbers.
Especially 2. I work for a government contractor. The amount of stupid pointless shit we have to do in the name of "security" while leaving HUGE GAPING HOLES untouched just hurts my head. It's like our security policy is designed by ADD addled five year olds. They read about something in a magazine and think "Oh, shiny!" They quickly write some insane, over the top, policy to "solve" the "problem" and keep reading the magazine. It's great assuming that the article covers all possible security problems ever, or that it contained actual solutions instead of stuff that kinda sounds like it ought to fix a problem.
The latest brainstorm is that we are switching to 12 character passwords which change every 60 days. This is almost certain to result in:
a) People forgetting their passwords, requiring continuous password resets
b) People writing down their impossible to remember, constantly changing, password
c) Both (a) and (b)
Meanwhile, we still have a number of systems that use rsh (No, not Kerberized rsh, the plain 30 year old version with .rlogin files.). Granted this is an isolated network, with no Internet access at all. We're not likely to be attacked by outside entities. But if you trust the users of the isolated network enough to assume that they are not going to take advantage of the multiple and well published rsh vulnerabilities, why don't you trust them enough to assume that they are not running password crackers?
Yes, but as far as I can tell the only thing SELinux accomplishes is to make the Operating system virtually useless as anything other than a desktop. The first thing most admins I know do upon installing a new server is disable SELinux. It's possible (possible) to use SELinux on a server, but it usually requires days of tweaking settings, and winds up eliminating a good part of the benefit of the hardening.
Every example in your list is a social engineering trojan. They all require the user to literally INSTALL the malware and enter their admin password to do it. No system can defend against that. There are proof of concept viruses and worms on the Mac, but pretty much everything in wild is a trojan and requires significant user intervention to work. That's hardly fair. Of course stupid Mac users are still stupid users. That doesn't make the system itself less secure. I'm not one of the "OMG, it's completely secure!" fanbois. There are definitely holes in OS X, and Apple has not always been quick to fix them. The fact remains, however, that their are virtually no Mac viruses or worms in the wild (for the proper, security profession, definitions of "virus" or "worm").