Osama bin Laden took a hating to the US when the Saudi Royal family allowed US forces into Saudi Arabia to fight Hussein in round 1 of the Gulf War.
The bin Laden family is like the Kennedys or Rockafellas in Saudia Arabia, and Osama is the black sheep (Osama's father reportedly described the mother as his least favorite concumbine).
Osama was expelled from the Kingdom after his complaintants that the ruling family did not adhere to Wahabisim close enough. He believe them to be guilty of apostacy, a serious crime to bin Laden.
Osama's fundamental gripe is that the Kingdom let infidels - including women - use the holy land as a staging ground to fight another Arab state. Till this time bin Laden and the King Saud and his handlers were strongly anti-Iraq because of the secular nature of Hussein's Baathist regime. bin Laden was not a big fan of Kuwait at all since it is heavily westernized and pro-West.
Quite clearly, much of the rage against the US is on account of the intervention in the first Gulf War.
Interesting definition of "get ahead" of. My impression is that movie downloading illictly on the Internet has been "no big deal" for the masses for quite some time. When my clueless barely point-and-grunt literate co-worker offered me a DVD copy of the latest Star Wars 4 days after it opened I realized it had already hit the mainstream.
Sorry guys, to little, to late.
But data and code are as separate on Windows as they are on any other OS.
In a purely technical sense, binaries are binaries, and not not. In the purely realistic sense, it is not. People "execute" documents, data files, etc. They "invoke" commands on non-binaries, and the OS in turn takes an action which it supposes to do what the user wants.
And NX isn't really a nasty hack, it's something that should have been present and in use from the beginning.
It is unnecessary. Other OS's don't have the problems beacuse they are better designed and more simple. Occasional problems pop-up, but nothing on the scale of what happens with MS.
you're living with your head in the sand
I have a server with a stable configuration of OpenBSD. How many buffer overruns do you think I have to patch over the course of a year?
MS's implementation of COM is to blame. For example, take a word file. It's a document. Yet. You can embedd "COM Objects" - really references or code to COM programs - in it. When that embedded object is referenced a program is started and given commands absent the users knowledge or intervention. When you insert a chart from an Excel spreadsheet in a Word document the path between data and code is blurred. When Word encouters a reference to that COM object a new program is started and the data feed to it. That's a huge security problem. Gigantic. Embedding of code inside documents is dangerous!
This is exactly how all those Outlook/Outlook Express problems got going. Why would a mail client execute the contents of a message? Because the difference between code and data has been blurred thanks to COM and MS.
just like everyone else, seem to be confused on what COM, OLE, ActiveX, etc are and how they relate
No, actually not.
It isn't Windows only, either.
Did I say it was?
OLE is a SET of defined COM interfaces to Link and Embed Objects in documents (and similar). ActiveX was part marketing gimmick and part new version of OLE. This brought forth the mighty IDispatch interface for Automation.
SO?
My statement was intended to actually say "COM and it's DDE" predecessors.
Or, "OLE and it's DDE predecessors".
The point, besides your nitpicking know-it-all attitude is that MS's lack of data/code seperation has lead to nasty NX hacks and processor tricks to solve a problem that other OS's don't have.
Is the US Government actively hostile to business? No.
It is hardly the most pro-corporate.
What a joke. You need to read about the rest of the world. The corruption and depth of influence that some companies hold in other countries is beyond shocking. Research how China is developing into an economic powerhouse and you'll see what I mean. It's not exactly what you'd call "transparent".
Real systems seperate executable code and data effectively without resorting to things like NX.
Microsoft has this great idea with Windows 95 that things should be "document centric"; you don't open an application to print a document, you drag the document to the printer! Magic! Behind the scenes Windows will silently open the application, feed it the data, and a command telling it to print to the printer.
Sounds good, but the problem is that (1) Windows can be told to perform a different action instead of "print" - all actions are created equal. (2) Windows can be told instead to execute the data as code, (3) the "correct application" can be changed, feeding your data to any old app that feels like it should register itself as the handler of that data type, etc.
So in the name conveince MS has created a gigantic system where any thing can be executed as code and nothing is truly data. Then they go and design a huge mass of file formats that contain both data and binary.
Maybe they want to include it as a business intelligence feature in various packages they offer.
For example,
MS sells CRM package that's pretty big and fairly powerful. Maybe they want to add a feature so that users of the package can determine that customers in certain regions like certain products at higher rates than others, and therefore customize direct mail or catalogs or websites to meet that demographic need.
Or maybe they want to offier more advanced OLAP into other products that will allow customers to find patterns in data.
It's not very likely for MS's own advertising purposes, but rather, for features to be added into software they make for other businesses.
buy the technology BEHIND the popups, making them easier to block... (yeah right)...
There is no "technology behind popups". It's trivial.
The technology is in personalization of content. Adware companies are actually somewhat advanced in this area. Data-mining and such.
Everything you said was absurd. If MS wanted to the popups you mentioned you think they'd have to pay $500M for the "technology"? Are you an idiot or just daft? I could write that program in 15 minutes, as could any decent programmer.
Most well trained admins prefer a Unix server box over a Windows server box.
Unsubstantiated conjecture. Most *you* know.
Windows servers were dictated by managers and MSCEs
Unsubstantiated conjecture. Most *you* know.
The fact is that Windows Server outsells Unix. You claiming that it's a fluke, and all of those people are idiots and all the Unix users are saints is silly.
Why does everyone prefer Unix servers over Windows servers?
What groupthink colored world are you living in?
Look, get out. Unix is popular, but so is Windows on the server. Really, really popular. In terms of traditional Unix, Windows outsells all variants. In terms of Linux it's hard to tell how many installs there are, but if you look around at Netcraft, you'll see that 30-40% of sites use IIS. What does that mean? Million of IIS servers, each at close $1K or more a whack.
This whole thread is silly. It's almost like MS annouced they were going bankrupt.
And, as far as Spotlight goes, it's good and works good, but it's not exactly the be all. And it's not all that unique.
It's easy. Is that what a gallon of gas costs when you figure *everything* in?
When the government of Spain picks up half of a 10B tab for cleaning up a wrecked oil tanker, or the government of France pays to replace outdated and seeping oil tanks owned by bankrupt distributors, or the the US lets an oil company off the hook for environmental damage to drilling grounds that cost is not passed on to you, but rather, on to the taxpayers at large. Hence, a subsidy.
The taxes paid to pay a little bit of the true cost of that gallon of oil.
If you figure in the costs to environment, cleanup after drilling (which just gets abandoned), delivery, cleanups, spills, etc you'd realize what a gallon of gas really costs. The cost paid at the pump is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and consumers of other goods in all kinds of subtle ways. From tax breaks, to environmental clean up funds, to disaster cleanup and all of that - by the time all thats figured in a gallon of gas will cost well more than $5/gallon.
Your post should be summed up, entirely, as "No Clue".
The.NET bit is on the server, not the client. The client is just plain javascript.
Mono or IIS with ASP.NET will do fine.
You can use normal server-side programming to help you create the client side code, without having to get your hands extremely dirty, like you have to now if you want decent performance, features, and compatability.
In other words: the main reason we don't have working alternative energy solutions today is because we're still not sufficiently motivated
Part of the reason is that even in more "progressive" European nations oil and dirty engergy is very heavily subsidized.
There is an idea of "true cost". Right now when you pump the gas and pay the station you aren't really paying the full cost - that cost is being deferred - the cleanup costs after drilling is done; the cleanup costs of that gallon of gas when it is burned, etc.
When these costs are done being deferred you'll see a lot more motivation.
I am so sick and f'ing tired of cutesy headlines, references, etc in what should be dead-pan serious news articles.
Just because it's about a movie doesn't make this any less serious, or worthy of a serious look.
Argh. Enough. ENOUGH. To all the writers out there I say: you aren't cute. You aren't funny. It's not even witty. It's not worth the ink. Or the paper.
What I am asking you for is proof that any neo-conservative or any other person is attempting to shut down, or destroy, social security, as you claim.
My claim is that there is not an elected federal offical in favor on the record of shutting down social security, or ending it, or any of that. So, are you just a loudmouth slanderer, or do you have some *evidence*?
Then they'll just be fired or pay higher prices and the money still goes to fund Walmart which funds politicians who want to abolish social security
There is not an elected federal offical who openly supports abolishing social security. If you have some direct evidence otherwise, please, I'd love to see it.
Universal health care would be a great start
Universal health care in the US would probably not go very smoothly; it may smooth out after a while (a generation?), but it'll be bumpy getting there.
For one, there would be healthcare rationing, meaning, more demand than there is capacity. We have this now, but the rationing is very sophisticated. We'll perform heroic complex jaw-dropping procedures for trauma victims without thought of payment, but will refuse preventive care for non-trendy diseases and conditions for lack of money or insurance coverage. For the largest number of Americans, there is no rationing of care, at all. Your insurance company pays, you get whatever care you want, that's it. For others, the rationing is carried out by Medicare/Medicaid. For others, the rationing is whatever cash available on hand, often none.
Under a universal system, the rationing would be much more obvious and much more universal. Which, is at least more fair. I have a feeling this would go over very badly with people who have no rationing now (families with commerical insurance from one or two employers, supplemented with cash when necessary). The first time a moderately well-off person realizes they are going to die for lack of a procedure or treatment there is going to be hell to pay.
Things will be especially rocky if, like in Canada, it becomes illegal to compete with government healthcare. In this case you can expect to see the doctors who are foreign-born migrate elsewhere, and cease coming here for education and research opportunities. This is really not all that bad of a problem, but there is a significant base of research hospitals that would suffer a brain-drain, potentially slowing medical advancement.
One thing to understand in the American healthcare system is that we have been inching closer towards universal coverage but in an odd manner. A hodgepodge of local, state, and federal programs provide coverage and healthcare to people who can't get it from work or who don't work. On top of that, a significant amount of major medical procedures are performed without charge or with very heavily reduced fees because of economic need.
Regardless, if universal healthcare was guaranteed to Americans it would very likely be a rocky transition period.
Pretty much it's George McGovern's fault. He was a Senator from South Dakota.
He ran against Richard Nixon in the 1972 election on a peace at any costs platform, and proposed a generous minimum income welware program. He lost to Nixon even though most people personally detested the man even before his scandals hit the bigtime.
And he lost, in a big way. McGovern lost by 22% in the popular vote and only carried two states, losing there 520 votes to 17.
He ruined the name of "liberals" in America, by going as close as possible to out and out socialism.
So now, liberal means "socialist", which people equate to "communist".
True, but it is step one in tracking down and verifying the trail of that SPAM.
And it means that you can more easily create effective blacklists. Your domain would be blacklisted, and it would be an open and shut case, with no chance of false positives.
SPF isn't a cure all spam killer, but it is clearly a step in the right direction which doesnt require hacking dozens of hundreds of servers, MUA's and conforming wiley admins.
Slashdot Mirror
Osama bin Laden took a hating to the US when the Saudi Royal family allowed US forces into Saudi Arabia to fight Hussein in round 1 of the Gulf War. The bin Laden family is like the Kennedys or Rockafellas in Saudia Arabia, and Osama is the black sheep (Osama's father reportedly described the mother as his least favorite concumbine). Osama was expelled from the Kingdom after his complaintants that the ruling family did not adhere to Wahabisim close enough. He believe them to be guilty of apostacy, a serious crime to bin Laden. Osama's fundamental gripe is that the Kingdom let infidels - including women - use the holy land as a staging ground to fight another Arab state. Till this time bin Laden and the King Saud and his handlers were strongly anti-Iraq because of the secular nature of Hussein's Baathist regime. bin Laden was not a big fan of Kuwait at all since it is heavily westernized and pro-West. Quite clearly, much of the rage against the US is on account of the intervention in the first Gulf War.
Interesting definition of "get ahead" of. My impression is that movie downloading illictly on the Internet has been "no big deal" for the masses for quite some time. When my clueless barely point-and-grunt literate co-worker offered me a DVD copy of the latest Star Wars 4 days after it opened I realized it had already hit the mainstream. Sorry guys, to little, to late.
Steroetypes are generally true. That's where they come from.
Americans, sterotypically, are self-idenitifed white Christians.
Depending on your source 80-95% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian".
It's just a numbers game.
But data and code are as separate on Windows as they are on any other OS.
In a purely technical sense, binaries are binaries, and not not. In the purely realistic sense, it is not. People "execute" documents, data files, etc. They "invoke" commands on non-binaries, and the OS in turn takes an action which it supposes to do what the user wants.
And NX isn't really a nasty hack, it's something that should have been present and in use from the beginning.
It is unnecessary. Other OS's don't have the problems beacuse they are better designed and more simple. Occasional problems pop-up, but nothing on the scale of what happens with MS.
you're living with your head in the sand
I have a server with a stable configuration of OpenBSD. How many buffer overruns do you think I have to patch over the course of a year?
MS's implementation of COM is to blame. For example, take a word file. It's a document. Yet. You can embedd "COM Objects" - really references or code to COM programs - in it. When that embedded object is referenced a program is started and given commands absent the users knowledge or intervention. When you insert a chart from an Excel spreadsheet in a Word document the path between data and code is blurred. When Word encouters a reference to that COM object a new program is started and the data feed to it. That's a huge security problem. Gigantic. Embedding of code inside documents is dangerous!
This is exactly how all those Outlook/Outlook Express problems got going. Why would a mail client execute the contents of a message? Because the difference between code and data has been blurred thanks to COM and MS.
just like everyone else, seem to be confused on what COM, OLE, ActiveX, etc are and how they relate
No, actually not.
It isn't Windows only, either.
Did I say it was?
OLE is a SET of defined COM interfaces to Link and Embed Objects in documents (and similar). ActiveX was part marketing gimmick and part new version of OLE. This brought forth the mighty IDispatch interface for Automation.
SO?
My statement was intended to actually say "COM and it's DDE" predecessors.
Or, "OLE and it's DDE predecessors".
The point, besides your nitpicking know-it-all attitude is that MS's lack of data/code seperation has lead to nasty NX hacks and processor tricks to solve a problem that other OS's don't have.
Hardly.
You have no sense of perspective.
Is the US Government actively hostile to business? No.
It is hardly the most pro-corporate.
What a joke. You need to read about the rest of the world. The corruption and depth of influence that some companies hold in other countries is beyond shocking. Research how China is developing into an economic powerhouse and you'll see what I mean. It's not exactly what you'd call "transparent".
The vast majority of people are not OS developers. The only people who have to understand this now are MS people.
COM and it's OLE predecessors is inherently insecure simply because it mixes data and code. Bad. BAD.
Ahh..
you are uninformed.
Real systems seperate executable code and data effectively without resorting to things like NX.
Microsoft has this great idea with Windows 95 that things should be "document centric"; you don't open an application to print a document, you drag the document to the printer! Magic! Behind the scenes Windows will silently open the application, feed it the data, and a command telling it to print to the printer. Sounds good, but the problem is that (1) Windows can be told to perform a different action instead of "print" - all actions are created equal. (2) Windows can be told instead to execute the data as code, (3) the "correct application" can be changed, feeding your data to any old app that feels like it should register itself as the handler of that data type, etc.
So in the name conveince MS has created a gigantic system where any thing can be executed as code and nothing is truly data. Then they go and design a huge mass of file formats that contain both data and binary.
Maybe they want to include it as a business intelligence feature in various packages they offer.
For example, MS sells CRM package that's pretty big and fairly powerful. Maybe they want to add a feature so that users of the package can determine that customers in certain regions like certain products at higher rates than others, and therefore customize direct mail or catalogs or websites to meet that demographic need.
Or maybe they want to offier more advanced OLAP into other products that will allow customers to find patterns in data.
It's not very likely for MS's own advertising purposes, but rather, for features to be added into software they make for other businesses.
buy the technology BEHIND the popups, making them easier to block... (yeah right)...
There is no "technology behind popups". It's trivial.
The technology is in personalization of content. Adware companies are actually somewhat advanced in this area. Data-mining and such.
Everything you said was absurd. If MS wanted to the popups you mentioned you think they'd have to pay $500M for the "technology"? Are you an idiot or just daft? I could write that program in 15 minutes, as could any decent programmer.
I hope you are kidding.
I looked into it; and I was not accurate. The thing to note is that the actual number of boxen is going up just not as fast as apache.
Most well trained admins prefer a Unix server box over a Windows server box.
Unsubstantiated conjecture. Most *you* know.
Windows servers were dictated by managers and MSCEs
Unsubstantiated conjecture. Most *you* know.
The fact is that Windows Server outsells Unix. You claiming that it's a fluke, and all of those people are idiots and all the Unix users are saints is silly.
I am not dissing on APple.
Why does everyone prefer Unix servers over Windows servers?
What groupthink colored world are you living in?
Look, get out. Unix is popular, but so is Windows on the server. Really, really popular. In terms of traditional Unix, Windows outsells all variants. In terms of Linux it's hard to tell how many installs there are, but if you look around at Netcraft, you'll see that 30-40% of sites use IIS. What does that mean? Million of IIS servers, each at close $1K or more a whack.
This whole thread is silly. It's almost like MS annouced they were going bankrupt.
And, as far as Spotlight goes, it's good and works good, but it's not exactly the be all. And it's not all that unique.
It's easy. Is that what a gallon of gas costs when you figure *everything* in?
When the government of Spain picks up half of a 10B tab for cleaning up a wrecked oil tanker, or the government of France pays to replace outdated and seeping oil tanks owned by bankrupt distributors, or the the US lets an oil company off the hook for environmental damage to drilling grounds that cost is not passed on to you, but rather, on to the taxpayers at large. Hence, a subsidy.
The taxes paid to pay a little bit of the true cost of that gallon of oil.
If you figure in the costs to environment, cleanup after drilling (which just gets abandoned), delivery, cleanups, spills, etc you'd realize what a gallon of gas really costs. The cost paid at the pump is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and consumers of other goods in all kinds of subtle ways. From tax breaks, to environmental clean up funds, to disaster cleanup and all of that - by the time all thats figured in a gallon of gas will cost well more than $5/gallon.
Your post should be summed up, entirely, as "No Clue".
.NET bit is on the server, not the client. The client is just plain javascript.
The
Mono or IIS with ASP.NET will do fine.
You can use normal server-side programming to help you create the client side code, without having to get your hands extremely dirty, like you have to now if you want decent performance, features, and compatability.
Get a clue, RTFA, whatever!
In other words: the main reason we don't have working alternative energy solutions today is because we're still not sufficiently motivated
Part of the reason is that even in more "progressive" European nations oil and dirty engergy is very heavily subsidized.
There is an idea of "true cost". Right now when you pump the gas and pay the station you aren't really paying the full cost - that cost is being deferred - the cleanup costs after drilling is done; the cleanup costs of that gallon of gas when it is burned, etc.
When these costs are done being deferred you'll see a lot more motivation.
I am so sick and f'ing tired of cutesy headlines, references, etc in what should be dead-pan serious news articles.
Just because it's about a movie doesn't make this any less serious, or worthy of a serious look.
Argh. Enough. ENOUGH. To all the writers out there I say: you aren't cute. You aren't funny. It's not even witty. It's not worth the ink. Or the paper.
What I am asking you for is proof that any neo-conservative or any other person is attempting to shut down, or destroy, social security, as you claim.
My claim is that there is not an elected federal offical in favor on the record of shutting down social security, or ending it, or any of that. So, are you just a loudmouth slanderer, or do you have some *evidence*?
It all hinges on Intel being found an illegal monopoly for x86 chips.
If so, then Intel is busted. Otherwise, just about everything documented is a legal - if not cuthroat - business practice.
Then they'll just be fired or pay higher prices and the money still goes to fund Walmart which funds politicians who want to abolish social security
There is not an elected federal offical who openly supports abolishing social security. If you have some direct evidence otherwise, please, I'd love to see it.
where anyone can play as long as they arent bigoted pricks.
My experience has been that anyone to the right of Michael Moore is considered a bigoted prick within the Indymedia community.
Universal health care would be a great start
Universal health care in the US would probably not go very smoothly; it may smooth out after a while (a generation?), but it'll be bumpy getting there.
For one, there would be healthcare rationing, meaning, more demand than there is capacity. We have this now, but the rationing is very sophisticated. We'll perform heroic complex jaw-dropping procedures for trauma victims without thought of payment, but will refuse preventive care for non-trendy diseases and conditions for lack of money or insurance coverage. For the largest number of Americans, there is no rationing of care, at all. Your insurance company pays, you get whatever care you want, that's it. For others, the rationing is carried out by Medicare/Medicaid. For others, the rationing is whatever cash available on hand, often none. Under a universal system, the rationing would be much more obvious and much more universal. Which, is at least more fair. I have a feeling this would go over very badly with people who have no rationing now (families with commerical insurance from one or two employers, supplemented with cash when necessary). The first time a moderately well-off person realizes they are going to die for lack of a procedure or treatment there is going to be hell to pay. Things will be especially rocky if, like in Canada, it becomes illegal to compete with government healthcare. In this case you can expect to see the doctors who are foreign-born migrate elsewhere, and cease coming here for education and research opportunities. This is really not all that bad of a problem, but there is a significant base of research hospitals that would suffer a brain-drain, potentially slowing medical advancement. One thing to understand in the American healthcare system is that we have been inching closer towards universal coverage but in an odd manner. A hodgepodge of local, state, and federal programs provide coverage and healthcare to people who can't get it from work or who don't work. On top of that, a significant amount of major medical procedures are performed without charge or with very heavily reduced fees because of economic need. Regardless, if universal healthcare was guaranteed to Americans it would very likely be a rocky transition period.
Pretty much it's George McGovern's fault. He was a Senator from South Dakota.
He ran against Richard Nixon in the 1972 election on a peace at any costs platform, and proposed a generous minimum income welware program. He lost to Nixon even though most people personally detested the man even before his scandals hit the bigtime.
And he lost, in a big way. McGovern lost by 22% in the popular vote and only carried two states, losing there 520 votes to 17.
He ruined the name of "liberals" in America, by going as close as possible to out and out socialism.
So now, liberal means "socialist", which people equate to "communist".
True, but it is step one in tracking down and verifying the trail of that SPAM.
And it means that you can more easily create effective blacklists. Your domain would be blacklisted, and it would be an open and shut case, with no chance of false positives.
SPF isn't a cure all spam killer, but it is clearly a step in the right direction which doesnt require hacking dozens of hundreds of servers, MUA's and conforming wiley admins.