The US has already began returning manufacturing facilities and jobs from foreign countries. And the rate of return is increasing yearly. Rare earth elements and car component manufacturing are just a few examples of those US industries abandoning foreign manufacturing sources and going domestic. Even off shore software development is being reduced. And by the way if the US raised the tariffs on China's imports or even stopped importing China's products it would crash China's economy. China makes nothing that the US could not obtain from other foreign countries or produce domestically. Meanwhile China is importing food imports by a factor of 5 over the past 6 years from the US. They have went from a surplus to deficit economy. China is at the limit of adjusting thier currency to balance inflation and export prices. When people talk about China's growth they always use best case models that rely on China always making optimal decisions in regards to their economic policies. And those who say China owns the US don't know what they are talking about. China is investing in the US because they consider the US a safe and stable rate of return. They are not "loaning" the US money.
You are mistaken. There are still more active Windows servers than Linux servers. Not saying I consider one better than the other but the numbers don't lie. And what makes you think a Linux exploit can be detected and dealt with promptly? Do you honestly believe that all Linux administrators are geniuses? Incompetent administrators are not determined by the OS.
I think it may be better to say it is an attack targeted at specific regions or countries. Kaspersky had most of the module signatures in their database over 2 years ago and decided not to flag them as active malware. Most malware programs are small in size and spend a good deal of time trying to masquerade or hide itself from virus scanners. In Flames case it was a huge program using SQLLite and other normal business related applications to do the work. It was made to look like a normal business application which basically was hiding in plain sight that virus scanners determined harmless. The guys who built Flame and Stuxnet make Anonymous and other script kiddies look ridiculously stupid. As more and more applications get flagged as malware the only thing people will be able to actually run is the OS.
"That is a staggeringly stupid thing to say, because by definition they are in a position to know about them and I am not." Your the one who made the backdoor claim without facts. If you can't back up your statements then shut the fuck up until you can.
Yes, Start with posting the details on the MS back doors for a start. And a company being a monopoly is not illegal it is how they take advantage of their monopoly. And one reason MS gained their monopoly position was by people and companies lining up to sale their technology for the money. Nothing wrong with that. At some point a company becomes so big and successful they can't just stop and say we have made enough money so we should just stop building new stuff. The monopoly case against them had just as much to do with the incompetence of it's competitors than it did with MS actions. Industry practices change over time. The PC industry is relatively new and very dynamic so there is always someone who can leverage the game until laws and regulations are imposed.
And you and an every other person pushing this thesis have never produced a single piece of variable evidence that any government agency forces MS to do their bidding or install back doors to their systems. If they did this with MS why not do the same arm twisting with Apple or any other major software development firm? It would be nice if someone starting using facts instead of speculation when evaluating the world around them but the problem is getting worse by the day. All the fucking retards growing up believing everything they read on the Internet is true or if they encounter a piece of information that offends their sensibilities they just go hunt down another site that can provide them with more palatable information.
Sure they could have did it but so could a lot of countries. Claiming the US did it using nothing but opinions and theories with no real facts is the problem. And Iran was lucky it was a cyber attack instead of Isreal giving them a couple of nulcear weapons to demonstrate the power they possess when used.
The statement about the US creating Stuxnet was made by a guy writing a book using sources that can not be independently verified. Your link only addresses a "what if" scenario. The US government has not admitted to creating the attack. How could they? According to a lot of people the US is stupid and incapable of doing anything this complex.
The code has been scrutinized since it came out and even the smartest engineers and programmers in the world have not uncovered anything that can be traced back to any particular country. If you have any verifiable evidence please provide it. The entire attempt to blame the US or Israel has been nothing but opinions, suppositions, and propaganda.
The PLC code was actually the easiest part of the program. The real hard part was the installation, propagation, and hiding it on the infected machine.
I don't work for MS. I am totally OS agnostic. And the MS 82% is no more than marking fluff. And if you think someone can evaluate a new OS in an hour does nothing but revel your stupidity.
Yes, I have worked on evaluating and using the early previews of the Win8 system because of being able to get early releases under the Gold level partner program for developers. I concentrate more on the development side instead of spending a lot of time on the user experience. I need to determine if it is worth adopting in a corporate environment. It can also be configured to make the user experience similar to the existing OS. The first release of any OS can be hard but subsequent changes can be made by user feedback.
Yea I have heard over the past 5+ years how the Linux desktop was going to dominate the desktop world. Any day now.Businesses have invested a ton of money creating windows apps so as soon as they can re-write all of them the change over is a slam dunk.
Just storing something that requires outside internet access and data storage is insecure compared against storing data locally. If you think all US developed software is insecure you are free to build your own system, nothing is stopping you. And what the hell has the UK developed that even comes close to US software companies like Apple and MS?
I would make one small recommendation which is to replace "hate" and "love" with "useful" and "non-useful" as it relates to your particular needs. "Love" and "Hate" often means those who decide what system or technology to use are going to use without even bothering looking at any alternatives they have seen software described using the word "hate". There are pluses and minuses to all software technology today and you are better served making an in-depth examination of all your choices before start labeling something using descriptions such as "hate". You personally might already do this type of review but there are still a lot of knuckleheads out there that read these types of descriptions and then ignore any alternative systems out of hand.
Well at least they didn't put them in furnaces or work camps did they? Different eras means different decision making and this was just one of the more bad ones when reviewed after the fact.
Also don't forget the the US provided Russia with trucks, ammunition, food, fuel, and other war related items until the Soviets got their war production up and running. They also had to hunt down quite a few of their key scientists and engineers who had been sent to the Gulags to design and build their own armaments. Russia's initial strategy was to hope the Germans ran out of ammunition before Russia ran out of people charging the guns.
England would have fallen without US supply convoys. Before the US declared it's official entry into the world quite a few US merchant marines were killed while trying to send supplies to England while Congress dithered and did nothing. FDR was actually counting on the Germans attacking US merchant ships to give him a reason to enter the war. And the Germans tried to avoid firing on US ships but they made a few mistakes which provided some motivitation from the US public to try to do something. As it was FDR made a mockery of the US Congress with his lend-lease and safe zone expansion. If the US had not been successful in the war he would have been impeached. He also blatantly defied the US Congress ban on domestic spying looking for German agents. Right after Congress passed their law he just issued a Presidential memo to the justice department telling them to ignore Congress. FDR blatantly violated the US constitution with his actions but I saw a documentary where Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush 1, and Bush 2 all agreed there are times when breaking the rules are justified and they would have did the same type of things that FDR did. Carter's response to this question was the most unexpected. Of course Lincoln also violated the Constitution during the Civil War as another example of a President trying to help the country regardless of the political BS involved in running a war.
3 - 5 days is a good estimate because there would be no differentiation between combatants and non-compantants. That's the rules of the game the middle eastern countries use so why not adopt thier policies? If a country enters a war they should be willing to pound their enemies into the ground until there is no enemy left or the enemy surrenders unconditionally. Maybe that type of warfare would remind people of what a war really is and help them to do anything to prevent one in the future. The goal of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to take over the country. It was to remove Saddam and the Taliban and provide the average citizens with a chance to build a new government and society without fear. The military succeeded in both missions but the civilians wasted the opportunity. There is no way the US will ever bother with these or any other middle eastern countries unless provoked by them doing something stupid like hijacking airplanes or disrupting the world's oil supply. It is politically impossible that the US public would ever support any military actions such as those performed over the past 10 years. There was resistance against becoming involved in Libya. Syria is a good example of the US indifference to what is happening there. All they need to do is keep their actions within their own borders and the US and pretty much any other country would not give a shit. In the distant past the culture in the middle east and south Asia civilizations where advanced and outclassed any European civilizations by a large margin. Today they are too wrapped up in their petty religious BS to improve there societies.
Yes it would be expensive but if the US military used the "WW2" model it would drastically reduce US casualties and costs. But under no circumstance should the US give a shit about re-building what they destroy. No occupation, no Marshall like plan, no Peace treaty nonsense, and above all no financial assistance. Since there is not a single middle eastern country who even attempts to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants the US should return the favor.
The US should also start leaving Afghanistan immediately and on the way out napalm every single poppy field in the country and also cease all relations with the duplicitous Pakistanis. It's way past the time for the US to stop giving a damn about the international "community" opinions because they already vilify any US actions no matter what they do so why bother trying to appease them?
Slashdot Mirror
The US has already began returning manufacturing facilities and jobs from foreign countries. And the rate of return is increasing yearly. Rare earth elements and car component manufacturing are just a few examples of those US industries abandoning foreign manufacturing sources and going domestic. Even off shore software development is being reduced. And by the way if the US raised the tariffs on China's imports or even stopped importing China's products it would crash China's economy. China makes nothing that the US could not obtain from other foreign countries or produce domestically. Meanwhile China is importing food imports by a factor of 5 over the past 6 years from the US. They have went from a surplus to deficit economy. China is at the limit of adjusting thier currency to balance inflation and export prices. When people talk about China's growth they always use best case models that rely on China always making optimal decisions in regards to their economic policies. And those who say China owns the US don't know what they are talking about. China is investing in the US because they consider the US a safe and stable rate of return. They are not "loaning" the US money.
You are mistaken. There are still more active Windows servers than Linux servers. Not saying I consider one better than the other but the numbers don't lie. And what makes you think a Linux exploit can be detected and dealt with promptly? Do you honestly believe that all Linux administrators are geniuses? Incompetent administrators are not determined by the OS.
Of course. Americans are all idiots but somehow stil manage to lead the world in economic, military, and computer technology. It's a mystery.
I think it may be better to say it is an attack targeted at specific regions or countries. Kaspersky had most of the module signatures in their database over 2 years ago and decided not to flag them as active malware. Most malware programs are small in size and spend a good deal of time trying to masquerade or hide itself from virus scanners. In Flames case it was a huge program using SQLLite and other normal business related applications to do the work. It was made to look like a normal business application which basically was hiding in plain sight that virus scanners determined harmless. The guys who built Flame and Stuxnet make Anonymous and other script kiddies look ridiculously stupid. As more and more applications get flagged as malware the only thing people will be able to actually run is the OS.
I don't have to stop you. Your idioct statements are on display for all to see so why bother.
"That is a staggeringly stupid thing to say, because by definition they are in a position to know about them and I am not." Your the one who made the backdoor claim without facts. If you can't back up your statements then shut the fuck up until you can.
You are wrong about my employment history. Just keep making up stuff without facts only supports my statement.
Yes, Start with posting the details on the MS back doors for a start. And a company being a monopoly is not illegal it is how they take advantage of their monopoly. And one reason MS gained their monopoly position was by people and companies lining up to sale their technology for the money. Nothing wrong with that. At some point a company becomes so big and successful they can't just stop and say we have made enough money so we should just stop building new stuff. The monopoly case against them had just as much to do with the incompetence of it's competitors than it did with MS actions. Industry practices change over time. The PC industry is relatively new and very dynamic so there is always someone who can leverage the game until laws and regulations are imposed.
And you and an every other person pushing this thesis have never produced a single piece of variable evidence that any government agency forces MS to do their bidding or install back doors to their systems. If they did this with MS why not do the same arm twisting with Apple or any other major software development firm? It would be nice if someone starting using facts instead of speculation when evaluating the world around them but the problem is getting worse by the day. All the fucking retards growing up believing everything they read on the Internet is true or if they encounter a piece of information that offends their sensibilities they just go hunt down another site that can provide them with more palatable information.
Sure they could have did it but so could a lot of countries. Claiming the US did it using nothing but opinions and theories with no real facts is the problem. And Iran was lucky it was a cyber attack instead of Isreal giving them a couple of nulcear weapons to demonstrate the power they possess when used.
And who is going to be able to actually enforce any international legal mandates against the US?
The statement about the US creating Stuxnet was made by a guy writing a book using sources that can not be independently verified. Your link only addresses a "what if" scenario. The US government has not admitted to creating the attack. How could they? According to a lot of people the US is stupid and incapable of doing anything this complex.
The code has been scrutinized since it came out and even the smartest engineers and programmers in the world have not uncovered anything that can be traced back to any particular country. If you have any verifiable evidence please provide it. The entire attempt to blame the US or Israel has been nothing but opinions, suppositions, and propaganda.
The PLC code was actually the easiest part of the program. The real hard part was the installation, propagation, and hiding it on the infected machine.
The guy who released the information was busy writing a book so what a better way to publicize it.
I don't work for MS. I am totally OS agnostic. And the MS 82% is no more than marking fluff. And if you think someone can evaluate a new OS in an hour does nothing but revel your stupidity.
Yes, I have worked on evaluating and using the early previews of the Win8 system because of being able to get early releases under the Gold level partner program for developers. I concentrate more on the development side instead of spending a lot of time on the user experience. I need to determine if it is worth adopting in a corporate environment. It can also be configured to make the user experience similar to the existing OS. The first release of any OS can be hard but subsequent changes can be made by user feedback.
Sort of like Apple?
Yea I have heard over the past 5+ years how the Linux desktop was going to dominate the desktop world. Any day now.Businesses have invested a ton of money creating windows apps so as soon as they can re-write all of them the change over is a slam dunk.
Then you must be a genius if you can evaluate an entire OS in just a couple of hours. I suspect you saw the MS logo and decided it sucked.
If the US wanted him they would have him regardless of which country he is in.
Just storing something that requires outside internet access and data storage is insecure compared against storing data locally. If you think all US developed software is insecure you are free to build your own system, nothing is stopping you. And what the hell has the UK developed that even comes close to US software companies like Apple and MS?
I would make one small recommendation which is to replace "hate" and "love" with "useful" and "non-useful" as it relates to your particular needs. "Love" and "Hate" often means those who decide what system or technology to use are going to use without even bothering looking at any alternatives they have seen software described using the word "hate". There are pluses and minuses to all software technology today and you are better served making an in-depth examination of all your choices before start labeling something using descriptions such as "hate". You personally might already do this type of review but there are still a lot of knuckleheads out there that read these types of descriptions and then ignore any alternative systems out of hand.
Well at least they didn't put them in furnaces or work camps did they? Different eras means different decision making and this was just one of the more bad ones when reviewed after the fact.
Also don't forget the the US provided Russia with trucks, ammunition, food, fuel, and other war related items until the Soviets got their war production up and running. They also had to hunt down quite a few of their key scientists and engineers who had been sent to the Gulags to design and build their own armaments. Russia's initial strategy was to hope the Germans ran out of ammunition before Russia ran out of people charging the guns.
England would have fallen without US supply convoys. Before the US declared it's official entry into the world quite a few US merchant marines were killed while trying to send supplies to England while Congress dithered and did nothing. FDR was actually counting on the Germans attacking US merchant ships to give him a reason to enter the war. And the Germans tried to avoid firing on US ships but they made a few mistakes which provided some motivitation from the US public to try to do something. As it was FDR made a mockery of the US Congress with his lend-lease and safe zone expansion. If the US had not been successful in the war he would have been impeached. He also blatantly defied the US Congress ban on domestic spying looking for German agents. Right after Congress passed their law he just issued a Presidential memo to the justice department telling them to ignore Congress. FDR blatantly violated the US constitution with his actions but I saw a documentary where Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush 1, and Bush 2 all agreed there are times when breaking the rules are justified and they would have did the same type of things that FDR did. Carter's response to this question was the most unexpected. Of course Lincoln also violated the Constitution during the Civil War as another example of a President trying to help the country regardless of the political BS involved in running a war.
3 - 5 days is a good estimate because there would be no differentiation between combatants and non-compantants. That's the rules of the game the middle eastern countries use so why not adopt thier policies? If a country enters a war they should be willing to pound their enemies into the ground until there is no enemy left or the enemy surrenders unconditionally. Maybe that type of warfare would remind people of what a war really is and help them to do anything to prevent one in the future. The goal of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to take over the country. It was to remove Saddam and the Taliban and provide the average citizens with a chance to build a new government and society without fear. The military succeeded in both missions but the civilians wasted the opportunity. There is no way the US will ever bother with these or any other middle eastern countries unless provoked by them doing something stupid like hijacking airplanes or disrupting the world's oil supply. It is politically impossible that the US public would ever support any military actions such as those performed over the past 10 years. There was resistance against becoming involved in Libya. Syria is a good example of the US indifference to what is happening there. All they need to do is keep their actions within their own borders and the US and pretty much any other country would not give a shit. In the distant past the culture in the middle east and south Asia civilizations where advanced and outclassed any European civilizations by a large margin. Today they are too wrapped up in their petty religious BS to improve there societies.
Yes it would be expensive
but if the US military used the "WW2" model it would drastically reduce US casualties and costs. But under no circumstance should the US give a shit about re-building what they destroy. No occupation, no Marshall like plan, no Peace treaty nonsense, and above all no financial assistance. Since there is not a single middle eastern country who even attempts to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants the US should return the favor.
The US should also start leaving Afghanistan immediately and on the way out napalm every single poppy field in the country and also cease all relations with the duplicitous Pakistanis. It's way past the time for the US to stop giving a damn about the international "community" opinions because they already vilify any US actions no matter what they do so why bother trying to appease them?