The President of the United States seems to go pretty much everywhere inside a huge buffer of security provided by, essentially, his own private army. As far as I'm aware, no other country in the world feels the need to provide anything close to the level of the US Secret Service, presidential motorcade, etc. for their leaders.
At the same time, as you've taken reasonable precautions to prevent misuse of your network, your liability for anything the person who broke in did will be considerably lower too.
The Internet Explorer exe cannot be removed. If you delete it Windows will just replace it with a new one and applications can still spawn IE processes (such as malware). The same isn't true of Safari. If I delete Safari.app its completely gone.
That's only true because Mac OS X doesn't have an equivalent to Windows File Protection. You can make IEXPLORE.EXE go away for good if you're not afraid of the Registry and a hex editor.
Webkit is also well documented, and more so its Open Source.
WebKit being Open Source doesn't at all make it easier to embed it in an application.
what the hell do you think this has to do with the question that was asked?
As somebody who quite likes Mac OS X, I cringe everytime I read something like, "Internet Explorer can't be removed from Windows, but Safari can be removed from Mac OS X without hurting anything!!! Furthermore, WebKit's better because you can embed it in other applications through a well-defined API!!!"
Some facts:
Both OSes use their respective rendering engines quite a bit in the core OS.
Just like you can't really remove MSHTML and have a useable Windows (since Windows 98), you cannot remove WebKit and have a useable Mac OS X (since Panther).
MSHTML is a well-documented API that can be used to develop applications.
The administration is not a person, and it should not receive any presumption of innocence.
No, but "the yahoo's [sic] in power" are people. If you want them to face criminal liability for their official acts, they deserve the same due process you do.
We should assume that it will do anything that it thinks is within its power to do, and therefore should make damn sure that it is as legally limited as possible.
So:
The members of the Administration will do anything they think they're entitled to do. They receive no presumption that they might not be acting illegally, just because they could be acting illegally!
Do you seriously not see the two-faced absurdity of your argument?
My original point is that there really is enough that this Administration is proven to have done that you really don't have to make shit up out of whole cloth.
the yahoo's in power are not that honorable and use the "great latitude" to listen in on non-terror related conversations which might be illegal in nature but were obtained illeagally. Then this information is probably used to get legitimate warrants because all of a sudden some "anonymous person" called in something.
Uh.
Do you have any proof that this is happening, or are you holding the Administration to a different standard (presumption of guilt) than that to which you'd like to be held (presumption of innocence)?
I'm no great fan of the President, but I at least try to keep my criticisms within the realm of reality so it's effective beyond the audience of Slashdot, MoveOn, and DailyKos.
Well... let me put it this way... that would be another first (I think, does Richard Nixon count?).
No; the grand jury listed him as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Besides that, if another republican is president at the time he will simply pardon GWB... that has happened before.
You really can't make a direct comparison between September 1974 and February 2009. The 44th President will have a lot of shit to deal with and I really doubt he'll be as magnanimous as Ford was to spoil his honeymoon to salvage his predecessor's legacy.
Just imagine if only the data on the magnetic stripe of ATM, debit, and credit cards had a well-defined structure that allowed them to be read by different types of machines built by different manufacturers and used by different banks and processing companies.
1280x1024@85Hz wasn't an option, ostensibly because whatever spaghetti code X uses to detect my monitor doesn't work well, despite Windows and Mac OS X having done it successfully since Creation (and it's a well-documented Samsung).
All the Linux DEs I've seen could use rethinking and refining, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them unusable. Especially not in comparison to Windows. In GNOME, I may have to run through the System menu a couple of times to find the right the right setting (especially if its a networking tool, all of which are named rather ambiguously), but at least I know the setting is in that menu and not stashed away in some "Administrative Tools" or "System Tools" or other submenu!
I installed Dapper Drake last month. It set my monitor to 1024x768@60Hz. I wanted it to display 1280x1024@85Hz.
Tell me how I could have done that in the menus without editing X86Config.
Granted, I'm not necessarily going to change resolutions every day, but why the FUCK can't X, in the year 2006, change resolution without a restart?
Until the fundamental issues like this are addressed, people will continue saying that Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be perhaps because people keep trying to kill them?
Ted Stevens is a United States Senator.
You're clearly not qualified to choose your own elected representatives. You should just give up.
That's only true because Mac OS X doesn't have an equivalent to Windows File Protection. You can make IEXPLORE.EXE go away for good if you're not afraid of the Registry and a hex editor.
WebKit being Open Source doesn't at all make it easier to embed it in an application.
Some facts:
So:
The members of the Administration will do anything they think they're entitled to do. They receive no presumption that they might not be acting illegally, just because they could be acting illegally!
Do you seriously not see the two-faced absurdity of your argument?
My original point is that there really is enough that this Administration is proven to have done that you really don't have to make shit up out of whole cloth.
Really? You want unelected, unappointed clerks heavily influencing findings of fact?
I've long been of the opinion that there's enough real stuff to bitch about without having to risk losing credibility by just making shit up.
I know how it played out, thanks.
The question was whether or not he was ever indicted, and he wasn't.
Do you have any proof that this is happening, or are you holding the Administration to a different standard (presumption of guilt) than that to which you'd like to be held (presumption of innocence)?
I'm no great fan of the President, but I at least try to keep my criticisms within the realm of reality so it's effective beyond the audience of Slashdot, MoveOn, and DailyKos.
You really can't make a direct comparison between September 1974 and February 2009. The 44th President will have a lot of shit to deal with and I really doubt he'll be as magnanimous as Ford was to spoil his honeymoon to salvage his predecessor's legacy.
But I bet Kroger's doesn't use the same format Bank of America does.
Wouldn't that be cool?
But it's a lot cheaper than an expert and a lot better than a non-expert.
Is he wearing his Hulk tie, too?
That's your excuse?
VESA DDC's almost ten years old. All X has to do is ask the monitor what it can do.
That's why I had to edit X86Config.
Tell me how I could have done that in the menus without editing X86Config.
Granted, I'm not necessarily going to change resolutions every day, but why the FUCK can't X, in the year 2006, change resolution without a restart?
Until the fundamental issues like this are addressed, people will continue saying that Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
And they'll be mostly correct.