Basically, economies react fairly slow in many/most circumstances (bad things happen faster than good things usually). For example, an economic policy enacted by one President may not see fruition until after he is out of office. Similarly, some Presidents may be attributed growth in the economy when the result is, in actuality, at least partially attributable to the President in office before him.
They are using conventional storage standards for RAM CHIPS.
Putting the word "Byte" on it implies some layout. A memory chip is just a big array of bits and denotes mostly how big/small the chip has gotten. For example, if they say we've made a breakthrough and now are producing 1Tb memory chips using 60nm. This means that they have figured out a way to make a chip using 60nm that has 1Tb as a single unit. Later on, some company using the 1Tb chips can arrange them and design circuits with them to create any sort of layout that you want. They can use a 1Tb chip in a serial circuit to store 1Tb of information, or they can take a handful of these 1Tb chips (say 8 of them) and make a conventional 1TByte memory stick that is 8-bits wide, or whatever.
Also, the chip manufacturor may make a memory chip that is 1Tb but each chip is addressed as 256G rows that are 4-bits wide (a nibble for us old timers) and call it a 256Gx4. That way, you take 8 of these chips and you make a 32-bit wide memory stick for 1TB of storage.
It's all about the layout. To your PC, the layout is in bytes. To an individual memory chip, it is in bits.
Secondly, EM64T processors are expensive, server-oriented Xeons. It wouldn't make much sense to compared them with cheap desktop Athlon64s.
Why? Just because the EM64T processors cost more? Please don't tell me that you think there's a significant difference between the Nocona and the Prescott EM64T that will be released soon....
In our first look at 64-bit Linux, we used POV-Ray and noticed that not only was the AMD64 architecture much faster at this application, but that due to 64-bit verses 32-bit precision, it produced a truer image.
What does this mean in their review? Are they claiming that 64-bit POVRay uses 64-bit integers to represent color while 32-bit uses 32-bit or something? This sounds somewhat bogus. *Maybe* POVRay uses 64-bit integers internally for calculations until it outputs the 32-bit ARGB pixels is the only thing I can think of, but I doubt that is the case.
I don't know about Debian, my experiences with AMD64 Linux are on Fedora Core 2, Mandrake 10, and SuSE 9.1 Professional.
I use SuSE 9.1 Professional AMD64 on my home server/workstation. Everything I develop (mostly in C and Perl) I compile (where appropriate) in 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86_64 modes and test them (on the same machine under AMD64 Linux). As far as I can tell, everything that is provided by the distribution is x86_64. I have no problems running 32-bit x86 binaries under AMD64 SuSE 9.1 Pro.
Re:It mostly solves problems that don't exist on A
on
AMD vs Intel: A Linux Bout
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A more sensible pipeline length (i.e. an AMD processor) means there'll be less benefit to hyperthreading.
Actually, any processor with an "overabundance" of resources (say, if the Athlon 64 had 4 FPU and had HT) can make use of HyperThreading.
Simplistic example: In the P4 case, the pipeline is long (20 stages) and there are ~4 or so execution units. That's 80 things that can be in-flight that can have stalls. HyperThreading can help keep more of the 80 "things" doing something every clock than only one thread of execution.
If the Athlon 64 had 8 different ALU/FPUs or something, the odds are that some of them would be idle every clock (that's probably more than the instruction level parallelism in most code streams). If, say, 50% of them were idle at any given clock tick, then HyperThreading would be an option to keep them busy as well.
The critical difference is the required probability of success that is required to try out something different and probably dumb. Because it's so easy to fork, the main line gets the benefit without sustaining the risk
And he didn't state that. What he stated was that, in a closed source model, a third party could not have taken his code and modified it. Do you have a problem with that?
No problem at all.
You're mincing words and avoiding the issue. Look at Microsoft and Longhorn: Bill Gates is trying to decide from the top down how the entire OS is going to look and he is screwing up badly.
I don't know any of the details of this other than what is published in the typical online rags. Other than a simple ad hominem against Bill Gates and/or Microsoft, I don't have any information to refute or support you here.
Utter nonsense. Just about all software packages that you might think of as "duplicating functionality" differ greatly: Gnome and KDE, Konqueror and Mozilla, AbiWord and OpenOffice Writer, etc. They are written in different languages, have different GUIs, use different libraries, etc. Those projects wouldn't survive side-by-side if they didn't serve someone's needs. And it is just this kind of diversity in the OSS community that makes it robust.
Actually, a big reason why a number of those things exist is because of a religious following of folks who think they are right and the rest are wrong. One needs only to look at the Gnome/KDE discussions to see this.
Forks in codes are usually because of this as much as it is anything else. The F/OSS community is far more partisan and fragmented than other communities. I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily "bad" because when one organization fractures, diversity usually comes about and diversity isn't necessarily bad either.
Unlike Gates, who has a good chance of getting it wrong, the OSS community has all its bases covered, and users pick what they need, want, and like. The price one pays for that is that users don't have simple answers: they actually have to make a deliberate choice among different offerings, while in the Microsoft world, one big, central organization makes the choice for them.
I make deliberate choices when I pick what I need, want, and like on my Linux boxes just as I do on my Windows boxes. I believe I'm usually more picky than most in this regard. On my Windows boxes, other than what is delivered with the OS itself and VS.NET, I can't think of any of the other applications I run that are Microsoft branded. In fact, I run more than a few F/OSS packages on them (OpenOffice, LAME, etc.) I haven't seen Microsoft dictating that I must use their MSOffice, mp3 compressor, etc. and they don't prevent those apps I use from running.
I, for one, do not think the F/OSS community has all their bases covered. I enjoy the fruits of the community and even have contributed to it in the past both monitarily and with code, but I'm not so blindly religious to "the cause" as to think they are as perfect as you paint the picture. In general, zealotry and religious fanaticism usually make one more blind than open and, in the end, will stifle the person in a number of ways, limiting their ability to think in more open ways.
Example 1:For my sins, I am the maintainer of the YAFFS file system which is used extensively in Linux-based mobile and embedded devices. People have often take YAFFS and add stuff or use it in ways that would not happen if YAFFS was closed. Having people play with and extend YAFFS in ways that I would not have done myself has improved it. YAFFS is designed for NAND flash, when somebody said they want to use it for NOR flash I said "Dumb idea", but the person went ahead anyway and achieved great results. Now a few products are shipping using YAFFS on NOR. In a closed source model that could not have happened.
Impossible to conclude this. Your logic is flawed. IF YAFFS was a commercial product and if there was a way for the company to make money on NOR, they would have ported it to NOR. You simply cannot state that a commercial vendor would have never ported it to NOR under any circumstance.
Example 2: The RML preemptable kernel stuff. RML went and played with preemptable kernel stuff that many people said waas a waste of time (including, if I recall, Linus). When he was done, and could show that it worked, it got included back into the mainstream and the Linux kernel is vastly improved because of this. In a closed source model Linus would have said "Dumb idea, fsck off" and RML would have not been able to "scratch thaat itch" and would not have been able to get past having a cool idea.
Again, flawed. Your logic only applies to the Linux kernel itself and you cannot conclude that no kernel would ever be pre-emptable because RML couldn't be patched into it. There are other pre-emptable kernels that have been around much longer than Linux that don't even use RML.
Simply because something can be done in the F/OSS world does not imply that it cannot be done anywhere else.
In open source anyone can scratch an itch and try things out,
Unfortunately, there is a *lot* of software in the F/OSS world that is exactly like scratching an itch... doctors usually tell you not to scratch at things for risk of infection and the like. There's a lot of F/OSS software that "infects" machines as much as it does help them.;)
1. company uses quants plus (open source web dev tool). 2. company adds support for a different scripting language 3. company submits patch to dev team (company's version would be incompatible with new versions of quanta otherwise) 4. quanta plus dev team merges patch 5. community uses new code
Except, of course, if the company stops at step #2 and keeps it in-house. The GPL doesn't force them to submit the patches and they can keep it in-house all they want as long as they don't distribute it.
also there's the reiserFS buisiness model - you can have our software for free, but you can pay us to develop new features for you
And is ReiserFS profitable? or do the developers subsidize ReiserFS work with paychecks they get from other companies that are their day jobs?
IBM makes money off Linux because it's customers demand Linux. Global Services can easily tap IBM's Linux resources to satisfy the customer's requirements. It's as simple as that.
Too much marketing speak and politician question avoidance.
Different compilers also emit different warnings, helping one find bugs sooner.
You can say that again. We had a bug recently in some code that gcc compiled without any warnings or problems but the code didn't work right. Compiled it with another compiler and got a warning in the code, looked at it, and sure enough, that was a legitimate bug. Corrected that line of C, recompiled on that compiler and gcc and both executables worked.
When they get to where they release 1.0, then it will be interesting. Until then, it is just another project that may or may not produce anything beneficial.
I hope they aren't like most OSS projects, which never have the backbone to release a version 1.0 for fear of being accountable for what they produced. Until then, it is version 0.99.999.99.9.999.99.999 (beta)
Users loved DOS and Windows 3.1 so much that they threw out their less expensive, harder to use Macintoshes and flocked to the more expensive but easier to use DOS machines.
??? This statement must work on the two-falses make a truth principle or something...
The original quotes were along the lines of (my paraphrase to make it more clear where I was going): Boss: "What's the deal with all these virii and spyware, etc." IT: "Linux is immune to those things."
implying that Linux is immune to virii and spyware and the like.
To answer your question, I have no idea but I would think very few, or zero. I guess someone theoretically could do so if they wanted, though.
I would counter with "If someone is such a Windows zealot...
Yup, my statement was a general observation, yet you took "zealot" to mean "linux zealot". When someone is used to being defensive about something (which zealots are typically very defensive), you push your views into anything you read and get false implications. Zealotry of any form is not particularly a good state. A zealot will turn a blind eye to something that shouldn't be missed. I don't care what their zeal is about.
To me, there's no difference between someone who says: "If it's not Linux, then I don't want to hear about it" and someone who says "If it's not Windows, then I don't want to hear about it". Both are too trapped inside their own beliefs to be objective.
Nitpick: In your statement, your assumption is arguable (you are not assured to save money by going with Linux, you might can, you might not). You can't assume that any place can save money by going with one or the other until you understand what they are doing. If some piece of legacy software is only available for Windows, for instance, then it might be far more expensive to go with Linux since you'd have to hire a team of programmers to reverse engineer it and reimplement it. That's something you have to take into account and analyze *before* you simply state that "Linux will always save you money over Windows".
[quote]My company is trying to migrate to linux to get away from the nightmare that is windows security. we have the best firewalls you can buy and buy all the software scanners we can yet spyware sneaks into the machines because of the gigantic security holes that windows 2000 and XP has in them. none of this crud should get installed, yet it does, it bypasses the security settings and wiggles in there because of the flaws in IE and outook and Word.[/quote]
I think you should be educating your users on things not to do. At home, I have the cheapest firewalls I can buy and buy none of the software scanners and I have had zero problems with my home network. Our work network has better (higher cost) firewalls and some machines that tend to have to be exposed to the world have scanners on them. Spyware and other crud doesn't get installed because the users here know and understand how these things are spread and don't do those things. Both my home network and our work network are heterogenous (contains both Windows and Linux boxes).
[quote]we Had a Regional VP visit here during the last virus outbreak and he saw that the research department was working away without being bothered while we had to run around and fix machines because the patches and fixes would not reliably push out to the windows machines. He asked why, and the response from one of the IT guys was, "Oh, they run linux and are immune to all this."[/quote]
Obviously phrased so that it implies that linux is immune to all virii, spyware, and other exploits. I can show you my past patch logs for Mandrake and SuSE 9.1 that prove your IT guys wrong. Your IT guys are simply allowing their emotional stances to cloud their professional advice, which is not a good thing at all. In general, when someone turns zealot and gets OS religion, he will tend to ignore things that he should be paying attention to, and would have been if he were more platform agnostic. This makes him a poor person for the job.
There are a number of very easy things you can do while coding to make it more secure. For example, avoid any non- "n" string function. Just get used to typing and using strncat and snprintf and the like instead of the unchecked ones. Little things like that can actually go a pretty long way.
Go RTFA before posting. Bush enumerated the monies his administration has *already* devoted to both embryonic and adult stem cell research and says that research will, and should, continue.
He said that people shouldn't be mis-selling it because the science is still in its infancy. Telling people who have issues that stem cell research *may* one-day cure that a cure will be tomorrow is bad in that it gives false hope.
Slashdot Mirror
sh -> Bourne Shell
bash -> Bourne Again Shell
It's always like this. There is an economic "theory" called The Fool In The Shower.
Basically, economies react fairly slow in many/most circumstances (bad things happen faster than good things usually). For example, an economic policy enacted by one President may not see fruition until after he is out of office. Similarly, some Presidents may be attributed growth in the economy when the result is, in actuality, at least partially attributable to the President in office before him.
They are using conventional storage standards for RAM CHIPS.
Putting the word "Byte" on it implies some layout. A memory chip is just a big array of bits and denotes mostly how big/small the chip has gotten. For example, if they say we've made a breakthrough and now are producing 1Tb memory chips using 60nm. This means that they have figured out a way to make a chip using 60nm that has 1Tb as a single unit. Later on, some company using the 1Tb chips can arrange them and design circuits with them to create any sort of layout that you want. They can use a 1Tb chip in a serial circuit to store 1Tb of information, or they can take a handful of these 1Tb chips (say 8 of them) and make a conventional 1TByte memory stick that is 8-bits wide, or whatever.
Also, the chip manufacturor may make a memory chip that is 1Tb but each chip is addressed as 256G rows that are 4-bits wide (a nibble for us old timers) and call it a 256Gx4. That way, you take 8 of these chips and you make a 32-bit wide memory stick for 1TB of storage.
It's all about the layout. To your PC, the layout is in bytes. To an individual memory chip, it is in bits.
Secondly, EM64T processors are expensive, server-oriented Xeons. It wouldn't make much sense to compared them with cheap desktop Athlon64s.
Why? Just because the EM64T processors cost more? Please don't tell me that you think there's a significant difference between the Nocona and the Prescott EM64T that will be released soon....
I have seen a number of AMD advertisements in magazines and the like. Just none on TV.
In our first look at 64-bit Linux, we used POV-Ray and noticed that not only was the AMD64 architecture much faster at this application, but that due to 64-bit verses 32-bit precision, it produced a truer image.
What does this mean in their review? Are they claiming that 64-bit POVRay uses 64-bit integers to represent color while 32-bit uses 32-bit or something? This sounds somewhat bogus. *Maybe* POVRay uses 64-bit integers internally for calculations until it outputs the 32-bit ARGB pixels is the only thing I can think of, but I doubt that is the case.
I don't know about Debian, my experiences with AMD64 Linux are on Fedora Core 2, Mandrake 10, and SuSE 9.1 Professional.
I use SuSE 9.1 Professional AMD64 on my home server/workstation. Everything I develop (mostly in C and Perl) I compile (where appropriate) in 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86_64 modes and test them (on the same machine under AMD64 Linux). As far as I can tell, everything that is provided by the distribution is x86_64. I have no problems running 32-bit x86 binaries under AMD64 SuSE 9.1 Pro.
A more sensible pipeline length (i.e. an AMD processor) means there'll be less benefit to hyperthreading.
Actually, any processor with an "overabundance" of resources (say, if the Athlon 64 had 4 FPU and had HT) can make use of HyperThreading.
Simplistic example: In the P4 case, the pipeline is long (20 stages) and there are ~4 or so execution units. That's 80 things that can be in-flight that can have stalls. HyperThreading can help keep more of the 80 "things" doing something every clock than only one thread of execution.
If the Athlon 64 had 8 different ALU/FPUs or something, the odds are that some of them would be idle every clock (that's probably more than the instruction level parallelism in most code streams). If, say, 50% of them were idle at any given clock tick, then HyperThreading would be an option to keep them busy as well.
The critical difference is the required probability of success that is required to try out something different and probably dumb. Because it's so easy to fork, the main line gets the benefit without sustaining the risk
Good point.
And he didn't state that. What he stated was that, in a closed source model, a third party could not have taken his code and modified it. Do you have a problem with that?
No problem at all.
You're mincing words and avoiding the issue. Look at Microsoft and Longhorn: Bill Gates is trying to decide from the top down how the entire OS is going to look and he is screwing up badly.
I don't know any of the details of this other than what is published in the typical online rags. Other than a simple ad hominem against Bill Gates and/or Microsoft, I don't have any information to refute or support you here.
Utter nonsense. Just about all software packages that you might think of as "duplicating functionality" differ greatly: Gnome and KDE, Konqueror and Mozilla, AbiWord and OpenOffice Writer, etc. They are written in different languages, have different GUIs, use different libraries, etc. Those projects wouldn't survive side-by-side if they didn't serve someone's needs. And it is just this kind of diversity in the OSS community that makes it robust.
Actually, a big reason why a number of those things exist is because of a religious following of folks who think they are right and the rest are wrong. One needs only to look at the Gnome/KDE discussions to see this.
Forks in codes are usually because of this as much as it is anything else. The F/OSS community is far more partisan and fragmented than other communities. I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily "bad" because when one organization fractures, diversity usually comes about and diversity isn't necessarily bad either.
Unlike Gates, who has a good chance of getting it wrong, the OSS community has all its bases covered, and users pick what they need, want, and like. The price one pays for that is that users don't have simple answers: they actually have to make a deliberate choice among different offerings, while in the Microsoft world, one big, central organization makes the choice for them.
I make deliberate choices when I pick what I need, want, and like on my Linux boxes just as I do on my Windows boxes. I believe I'm usually more picky than most in this regard. On my Windows boxes, other than what is delivered with the OS itself and VS.NET, I can't think of any of the other applications I run that are Microsoft branded. In fact, I run more than a few F/OSS packages on them (OpenOffice, LAME, etc.) I haven't seen Microsoft dictating that I must use their MSOffice, mp3 compressor, etc. and they don't prevent those apps I use from running.
I, for one, do not think the F/OSS community has all their bases covered. I enjoy the fruits of the community and even have contributed to it in the past both monitarily and with code, but I'm not so blindly religious to "the cause" as to think they are as perfect as you paint the picture. In general, zealotry and religious fanaticism usually make one more blind than open and, in the end, will stifle the person in a number of ways, limiting their ability to think in more open ways.
Example 1:For my sins, I am the maintainer of the YAFFS file system which is used extensively in Linux-based mobile and embedded devices. People have often take YAFFS and add stuff or use it in ways that would not happen if YAFFS was closed. Having people play with and extend YAFFS in ways that I would not have done myself has improved it. YAFFS is designed for NAND flash, when somebody said they want to use it for NOR flash I said "Dumb idea", but the person went ahead anyway and achieved great results. Now a few products are shipping using YAFFS on NOR. In a closed source model that could not have happened.
;)
Impossible to conclude this. Your logic is flawed. IF YAFFS was a commercial product and if there was a way for the company to make money on NOR, they would have ported it to NOR. You simply cannot state that a commercial vendor would have never ported it to NOR under any circumstance.
Example 2: The RML preemptable kernel stuff. RML went and played with preemptable kernel stuff that many people said waas a waste of time (including, if I recall, Linus). When he was done, and could show that it worked, it got included back into the mainstream and the Linux kernel is vastly improved because of this. In a closed source model Linus would have said "Dumb idea, fsck off" and RML would have not been able to "scratch thaat itch" and would not have been able to get past having a cool idea.
Again, flawed. Your logic only applies to the Linux kernel itself and you cannot conclude that no kernel would ever be pre-emptable because RML couldn't be patched into it. There are other pre-emptable kernels that have been around much longer than Linux that don't even use RML.
Simply because something can be done in the F/OSS world does not imply that it cannot be done anywhere else.
In open source anyone can scratch an itch and try things out,
Unfortunately, there is a *lot* of software in the F/OSS world that is exactly like scratching an itch... doctors usually tell you not to scratch at things for risk of infection and the like. There's a lot of F/OSS software that "infects" machines as much as it does help them.
1. company uses quants plus (open source web dev tool).
2. company adds support for a different scripting language
3. company submits patch to dev team (company's version would be incompatible with new versions of quanta otherwise)
4. quanta plus dev team merges patch
5. community uses new code
Except, of course, if the company stops at step #2 and keeps it in-house. The GPL doesn't force them to submit the patches and they can keep it in-house all they want as long as they don't distribute it.
also there's the reiserFS buisiness model - you can have our software for free, but you can pay us to develop new features for you
And is ReiserFS profitable? or do the developers subsidize ReiserFS work with paychecks they get from other companies that are their day jobs?
IBM makes money off Linux because it's customers demand Linux. Global Services can easily tap IBM's Linux resources to satisfy the customer's requirements. It's as simple as that.
Too much marketing speak and politician question avoidance.
Different compilers also emit different warnings, helping one find bugs sooner.
You can say that again. We had a bug recently in some code that gcc compiled without any warnings or problems but the code didn't work right. Compiled it with another compiler and got a warning in the code, looked at it, and sure enough, that was a legitimate bug. Corrected that line of C, recompiled on that compiler and gcc and both executables worked.
When they get to where they release 1.0, then it will be interesting. Until then, it is just another project that may or may not produce anything beneficial.
I hope they aren't like most OSS projects, which never have the backbone to release a version 1.0 for fear of being accountable for what they produced. Until then, it is version 0.99.999.99.9.999.99.999 (beta)
I haven't seen where any of those mentioned is making money from Linux, per se.
I'd like to see IBM's numbers of their Linux group. Especially since they donated an army of techs to help Munich.
IBM and Sun both make their money from selling hardware and hardware support. Whether it runs AIX or Solaris or Linux, it doesn't matter to them.
Novell is still pretty new at the Linux thing. I've yet to see anything out of them that definitively says they are making money.
Users loved DOS and Windows 3.1 so much that they threw out their less expensive, harder to use Macintoshes and flocked to the more expensive but easier to use DOS machines.
??? This statement must work on the two-falses make a truth principle or something...
Yeah, it's not like other platforms have these type problems as well.
I'm not sure where you are going with this...
The original quotes were along the lines of (my paraphrase to make it more clear where I was going):
Boss: "What's the deal with all these virii and spyware, etc."
IT: "Linux is immune to those things."
implying that Linux is immune to virii and spyware and the like.
To answer your question, I have no idea but I would think very few, or zero. I guess someone theoretically could do so if they wanted, though.
So, you deny that there are any rootkits or other spyware that exists on Linux?
I would counter with "If someone is such a Windows zealot ...
Yup, my statement was a general observation, yet you took "zealot" to mean "linux zealot". When someone is used to being defensive about something (which zealots are typically very defensive), you push your views into anything you read and get false implications. Zealotry of any form is not particularly a good state. A zealot will turn a blind eye to something that shouldn't be missed. I don't care what their zeal is about.
To me, there's no difference between someone who says: "If it's not Linux, then I don't want to hear about it" and someone who says "If it's not Windows, then I don't want to hear about it". Both are too trapped inside their own beliefs to be objective.
Nitpick: In your statement, your assumption is arguable (you are not assured to save money by going with Linux, you might can, you might not). You can't assume that any place can save money by going with one or the other until you understand what they are doing. If some piece of legacy software is only available for Windows, for instance, then it might be far more expensive to go with Linux since you'd have to hire a team of programmers to reverse engineer it and reimplement it. That's something you have to take into account and analyze *before* you simply state that "Linux will always save you money over Windows".
[quote]My company is trying to migrate to linux to get away from the nightmare that is windows security. we have the best firewalls you can buy and buy all the software scanners we can yet spyware sneaks into the machines because of the gigantic security holes that windows 2000 and XP has in them. none of this crud should get installed, yet it does, it bypasses the security settings and wiggles in there because of the flaws in IE and outook and Word.[/quote]
I think you should be educating your users on things not to do. At home, I have the cheapest firewalls I can buy and buy none of the software scanners and I have had zero problems with my home network. Our work network has better (higher cost) firewalls and some machines that tend to have to be exposed to the world have scanners on them. Spyware and other crud doesn't get installed because the users here know and understand how these things are spread and don't do those things. Both my home network and our work network are heterogenous (contains both Windows and Linux boxes).
[quote]we Had a Regional VP visit here during the last virus outbreak and he saw that the research department was working away without being bothered while we had to run around and fix machines because the patches and fixes would not reliably push out to the windows machines. He asked why, and the response from one of the IT guys was, "Oh, they run linux and are immune to all this."[/quote]
Obviously phrased so that it implies that linux is immune to all virii, spyware, and other exploits. I can show you my past patch logs for Mandrake and SuSE 9.1 that prove your IT guys wrong. Your IT guys are simply allowing their emotional stances to cloud their professional advice, which is not a good thing at all. In general, when someone turns zealot and gets OS religion, he will tend to ignore things that he should be paying attention to, and would have been if he were more platform agnostic. This makes him a poor person for the job.
Yep... pretty common attitude... for exaxmple, all the junk in the Microsoft JPEG exploit thread the other day... It's pretty ironic.
Tons of one liner sayings come to mind...
There are a number of very easy things you can do while coding to make it more secure. For example, avoid any non- "n" string function. Just get used to typing and using strncat and snprintf and the like instead of the unchecked ones. Little things like that can actually go a pretty long way.
Go RTFA before posting. Bush enumerated the monies his administration has *already* devoted to both embryonic and adult stem cell research and says that research will, and should, continue.
He said that people shouldn't be mis-selling it because the science is still in its infancy. Telling people who have issues that stem cell research *may* one-day cure that a cure will be tomorrow is bad in that it gives false hope.