I would say it is partly due to their bad OS design (administrator by default), partly due to third party software (doesn't work if user doesn't have administrative rights, often not for valid reasons) and partly due to their success (a massive amount of relatively clueless users, who click on any [OK]/[Yes] button that is presented to them).
If some of these clueless users were to move to Debian and Ubuntu, the same problem might happen there. (Popup to fill in sudo password, user gives admin rights to 'that funny animation' they just got from their uncle they hadn't spoken to in years)
So while Microsoft sure has large part in the problem (user-friendliness over security), much of the problem is also to blame on third party developers and the clueless masses that use Windows.
Fortunately, they do something about it now, although I assume that for every user that is now better protected for free, there will be another anti-virus company that will be complaining about unfair competition.
I hate to break it to you, but more expensive equipment doesn't make you a better photographer. What will make you a better photographer is getting a sense for composition, light, colours. It is about -what- you put in your picture, not about what equipment you used to do it. Yes, there might be some technical tricks you can do with a more expensive camera, but that is not the essence of photography. Ohh, and talking about cell phone vs DSLR: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/k800i/index.html
Lets do a quick calculation: 1000 computers, in 5 years, would average 200 computers a year. Working 5 days a week, holidays and vacations gives you a bit over 200 workable days a year, so on average, you would be building one computer per day. Let's assume you are very quick, so with ordering parts, unpacking, assembling and all, you have that computer build in an hour. (Building and imaging the system. I'm not even taking into account the work in preparing the correct image, and everything that needs to be done to make this work possible in your office, like workbench and tools. Or the rent of storage to keep all those components you are going to need over five years time)
So now your boss is paying one eight of your year salary, for 5 years, for you to build those machines. Unless you build them during your lunch break or during your own time after office hours (as another poster suggested by saying how he build the office computers during his weekend. Those would be fun weekends, building five computers each weekend, for five years)
Please do not underestimate the cost of labor. There is a reason why all the major computer brands have their boxes assembled in China.
There's a reason they didn't want to have that footage released. Apart from the fact that it hurts their reputation, it also suddenly paints war in a completely different way. If you remember around the first Gulf war, all the people got to see were these 'neat' camera shots made from the nose of a missile. No dying people, no bodies lying strewn around. All we saw was a cross-hair on a building that got bigger and bigger, followed by a breakup in communication, and a 'hilarious' comment about not wanting to be the guy in that bunker.
War was changed from a dirty business into something neat, without (at least to the perception of the CNN viewers) the hurt and suffering. And that's exactly the same way they have been painting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. When was the last time you saw a firefight with someone getting shot on TV? They have created an image of war that they are desperate to keep. Because if people start thinking about 'the enemy' as actual human beings, it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult to swear blind obedience to a government that goes overseas to kill people.
If you only focus on the biochemistry part of the process, you are missing out on the biological ones. The fact that two molecules can be nearly indistinguishable from a chemistry point of view does not mean that their biological impact can not be radically different. For a simple example: Lactic acid comes is present in two stereo-isomer configurations. Chemically, they are identical during an oxidation process. However, the body metabolizes both differently.
That extra step that you mention to break down Fructose can have an impact on where in the body the molecule is being processed. Also, don't forget that before the fructose and glucose enter the metabolic cycle, a large number of processes have already taken place in the body, and those processes might have a different effect on the body. (Reaction to insulin, etc)
So, just because fructose might be (bio)chemically similar, this doesn't mean that biologically it is similar.
The problem with your supposition is that you first create a supernatural world (that which we can not observe) and then label those who do not believe in it.
The fact that you first have to construct a supernatural world, then place beings in it, is what atheists disagree with you on. They do not disagree on your supernatural beings, they disagree with your supernatural world. If something can be observed there is no reason for belief. If something can not be observed in any way, other than some human being is convinced that something is so, there is no reason for belief. And the only reason someone is labeled an atheist is because the human being who is convinced in the supernatural world wants to put a label on those who do not.
This supernatural world can contain titans, gods, fairies, leprechauns, vampires, magic, etc. Currently, only the people who believe in a supernatural world filled with gods seem to feel a need to label the non-believers. And since this is apparently so important to them, I let them.
If you feel you can not cope with the natural world, and a supernatural one on top of it helps you, you are free to do so. It is when you start asking me to believe in the same supernatural world that you do, that I draw the line. Especially when the asking is done at the point of a sword.
Actually, if you look in the situation that caused all this, you'll find that even if you used open source software, you were still raided. Basically they said, no Microsoft license, has computers, raid the office. (Or more accurate, we don't like what they are saying, the 'BSA' people from Microsoft don't tell us no, we go raid their computers and hinder them in their opposition to our points of view.)
This will remove the current blank cheque that the police in Russia is using to raid whoever they don't like, and search the computers 'when they have time for it' afterwards.
If you read the article, you'll notice that the 'hack' is a classic man in the middle attack, and the receiving end can receive both classic and quantum messages. The man in the middle (after reading the quantum message) passes it on as a classic message, and the receiving device does not give a warning that the message received is a classic message, instead of a quantum message.
So it's really an design error on the device side, not a true hack in that quantum states were undisturbed regardless of reading them.
Not just around AGW, it happens around stories about Apple or Microsoft or anything that people -feel- strongly about.
The problem is that a lot of people feel something about AGW, instead of really thinking about it. Most people just look at their own sources and ignore anything that is contrary to their belief. I can't find the link but a couple of days ago there was an article where they show that confronting people with evidence against their strongest belief strengthens it instead of making them critical and researching their own believes.
So whenever you see an article that has strong supporters and opposers, expect a lot of mod points going into raising the views of 'your side' and lowering the views of the 'other side'.
Perhaps it's time to let the researchers do the research.
Actually, it can still be very useful. The advantage of a battery is not only that it can store energy, but also makes it transportable. This would be very useful to move an energy source to a location where power generation is not (easily) possible.
Consider how solar cells, even though they might cost more energy to make than they will ever supply during their lifetime are still very useful powering a communication satellite. In the same way, this material might be interesting to send to outer space, or as power supply in other very remote locations.
My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.
The problem with a classroom is that it was not meant as a forum for theoretical discussion, but as a way to imbue knowledge into our children. Schools prepare our children by pumping them full of knowledge. The first class of math that children follow in school tells them how to add numbers, how to substract. It does not challenge them to discuss why 1 is not equal to 0, or what the relative value is of imaginary numbers. During the age till 18 (and sometimes thereafter), schools just basically pump facts and common understood theories into our children. Only at a relatively late age do they actually ask students to challenge worldviews and things taken for granted.
If you want discussion in the classroom, you should allow it everywhere. If you teach about the bible, also teach about the koran, creation stories of native americans, and the origin stories of Africa. When you talk about geology, teach them about flat earth and hollow earth. If you talk about physics, teach them about perpetuum mobile.
However, if you do that, you will find that untill a certain age, children will not be critical, and instead accept most of what is being told to them by an elder as blind fact. The same way that children are not allowed to drive because of mental instead of physical limitations (there is an age limit, not a length limit), so should we teach children facts during their formative years, AND always encourage them to challenge ideas.
However, I do not see why biology would have to be the exception to the rule, where to teach facts, and where to challenge children with different ideas.
Currently, the European Parliament doesn't hold much power, although the Lisbon treaty did increase their power somewhat. You will either see idealistic people in the European Parliament, or people who more or less just collect a paycheck. I'm somewhat afraid though what would happen should the EP get more power. This would suddenly make the members of parliament interesting for the lobbyists, and I wonder how long it will take before the bunch of them start making the same decisions that the EC is currently making. The EP might be doing its good work because it hasn't become a target yet.
This is all about liability. If your WiFi is open (aka, you are a child-eating terrorist;) then you can quite easily claim that anything that happened from your IP address was not done by you, but instead by some guest to your network. However, if you have a protected network, and something is done from the IP address registered to you, you can be sure that you will be held accountable for all the actions being taken from your IP address. Since your network wasn't open, it must have been you.
If they want to make new laws, where for example downloading music and movies is forbidden (currently, in some countries downloading is not illegal), they first need to block the escape route (I didn't download that, it was probably done by a guest on my network). This will be especially true once the great firewalls come into effect, and visiting the website of the opposition party of your government will be deemed subversive.
Which brings us back to teaching what in science class, and you can teach why when you do a course in philosophy. By the way, when you do philosophy, why not go the extra mile, and try to teach a little about every religion.
In addition, two other companies are also taking action against Microsoft over what they say are trademark infringements: a web-based shopping service called BongoBing and software company Terabyte, which has a product called BootIt Next Generation, or Bing for short.
So today we know about three possible claimants. Do you think we will hear about two more tomorrow? Three? Four? After all the term "bing" has been a huge part of the RAP scene since the beginning; probably apart of some other scene before RAP. This is all too funny, or err ironic.
I think the fact that we have three claimants, who apparently aren't suing each other, but are suing a multibillion dollar company for a quick buck does indicate what the real motives behind their trademark protection action are. I mean, all three are apparently in the same market as Microsoft's search engine, but they are not protecting their trademark from each other? Sounds like they forfeited their trademark. Or do you only need to protect your trademark from large companies with deep pockets?
The discussion is not whether his hacking of the system was legal or not. The question is about having to fix someone else's security hole, that you used to gain access. In your example, if a burglar comes into your home because you didn't have a lock on your door, and steals stuff, he is liable for the stuff he stole. But you can't make him buy you a lock if you didn't own one.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be an option anymore, since advertisers have decided to 'GET IN YOUR FACE'. I sometimes have the radio turned on in the background, but you always notice when the ads come on, because for some reason, the sound becomes much louder. Same with TV ads. Sometimes when going to the computer to look something up, I leave the TV on, which isn't bothering me, until the commercials start, and because of the increased volume and flashy lights, I am unable to concentrate on what I was doing, until I switch the thing off. For some reason they seem to think that the more obnoxious they behave, the more you will like their product? Or perhaps they think that they need to make sure that you can still hear their ad in the kitchen if you get up to get a drink once the commercials start.
Which is part of current culture's problems. It's cheaper to make some disposable piece of crap, and in 30 years time, we toss about 6 devices away, filling up a huge junkpile. We could have spend just a little more, and have something that actually keeps working, but then you'd not have the newest and most shiny device all the time, and hey, we just ship our (toxic) waste over to China anyway, so who cares. And if you don't have the money to buy the latest shiny thing, just borrow it. There's nothing wrong with spending more money than you own and can pay back your loans for, is there????
The advantage of science is, you can prove when it is corrupt. Because for something to be science, they have to open up on what they do, and how they do it. Kind of like open source. If you don't trust it, you can always read the source. Religion is more like closed source. If you think something is wrong, you're either having a lack of faith (which can be disturbing), or 'you just don't understand it'. No way to look at what is supposedly behind it, since you can't inspect it. You just have to have faith that it works correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say it is partly due to their bad OS design (administrator by default), partly due to third party software (doesn't work if user doesn't have administrative rights, often not for valid reasons) and partly due to their success (a massive amount of relatively clueless users, who click on any [OK]/[Yes] button that is presented to them).
If some of these clueless users were to move to Debian and Ubuntu, the same problem might happen there. (Popup to fill in sudo password, user gives admin rights to 'that funny animation' they just got from their uncle they hadn't spoken to in years)
So while Microsoft sure has large part in the problem (user-friendliness over security), much of the problem is also to blame on third party developers and the clueless masses that use Windows.
Fortunately, they do something about it now, although I assume that for every user that is now better protected for free, there will be another anti-virus company that will be complaining about unfair competition.
I hate to break it to you, but more expensive equipment doesn't make you a better photographer.
What will make you a better photographer is getting a sense for composition, light, colours. It is about -what- you put in your picture, not about what equipment you used to do it.
Yes, there might be some technical tricks you can do with a more expensive camera, but that is not the essence of photography.
Ohh, and talking about cell phone vs DSLR:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/k800i/index.html
Lets do a quick calculation:
1000 computers, in 5 years, would average 200 computers a year. Working 5 days a week, holidays and vacations gives you a bit over 200 workable days a year, so on average, you would be building one computer per day.
Let's assume you are very quick, so with ordering parts, unpacking, assembling and all, you have that computer build in an hour. (Building and imaging the system. I'm not even taking into account the work in preparing the correct image, and everything that needs to be done to make this work possible in your office, like workbench and tools. Or the rent of storage to keep all those components you are going to need over five years time)
So now your boss is paying one eight of your year salary, for 5 years, for you to build those machines. Unless you build them during your lunch break or during your own time after office hours (as another poster suggested by saying how he build the office computers during his weekend. Those would be fun weekends, building five computers each weekend, for five years)
Please do not underestimate the cost of labor. There is a reason why all the major computer brands have their boxes assembled in China.
There's a reason they didn't want to have that footage released. Apart from the fact that it hurts their reputation, it also suddenly paints war in a completely different way. If you remember around the first Gulf war, all the people got to see were these 'neat' camera shots made from the nose of a missile.
No dying people, no bodies lying strewn around.
All we saw was a cross-hair on a building that got bigger and bigger, followed by a breakup in communication, and a 'hilarious' comment about not wanting to be the guy in that bunker.
War was changed from a dirty business into something neat, without (at least to the perception of the CNN viewers) the hurt and suffering.
And that's exactly the same way they have been painting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. When was the last time you saw a firefight with someone getting shot on TV? They have created an image of war that they are desperate to keep.
Because if people start thinking about 'the enemy' as actual human beings, it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult to swear blind obedience to a government that goes overseas to kill people.
If you only focus on the biochemistry part of the process, you are missing out on the biological ones. The fact that two molecules can be nearly indistinguishable from a chemistry point of view does not mean that their biological impact can not be radically different. For a simple example:
Lactic acid comes is present in two stereo-isomer configurations. Chemically, they are identical during an oxidation process. However, the body metabolizes both differently.
That extra step that you mention to break down Fructose can have an impact on where in the body the molecule is being processed. Also, don't forget that before the fructose and glucose enter the metabolic cycle, a large number of processes have already taken place in the body, and those processes might have a different effect on the body. (Reaction to insulin, etc)
So, just because fructose might be (bio)chemically similar, this doesn't mean that biologically it is similar.
The problem with your supposition is that you first create a supernatural world (that which we can not observe) and then label those who do not believe in it.
The fact that you first have to construct a supernatural world, then place beings in it, is what atheists disagree with you on. They do not disagree on your supernatural beings, they disagree with your supernatural world.
If something can be observed there is no reason for belief. If something can not be observed in any way, other than some human being is convinced that something is so, there is no reason for belief. And the only reason someone is labeled an atheist is because the human being who is convinced in the supernatural world wants to put a label on those who do not.
This supernatural world can contain titans, gods, fairies, leprechauns, vampires, magic, etc. Currently, only the people who believe in a supernatural world filled with gods seem to feel a need to label the non-believers. And since this is apparently so important to them, I let them.
If you feel you can not cope with the natural world, and a supernatural one on top of it helps you, you are free to do so. It is when you start asking me to believe in the same supernatural world that you do, that I draw the line. Especially when the asking is done at the point of a sword.
Funny how people keep confusing not believing in something with believing something is not.
Actually, if you look in the situation that caused all this, you'll find that even if you used open source software, you were still raided. Basically they said, no Microsoft license, has computers, raid the office. (Or more accurate, we don't like what they are saying, the 'BSA' people from Microsoft don't tell us no, we go raid their computers and hinder them in their opposition to our points of view.)
This will remove the current blank cheque that the police in Russia is using to raid whoever they don't like, and search the computers 'when they have time for it' afterwards.
Whoops, you're about 100 years behind the time. It was Einstein in 1905 that made the connection between energy and mass, in the theory of relativity.
If you read the article, you'll notice that the 'hack' is a classic man in the middle attack, and the receiving end can receive both classic and quantum messages. The man in the middle (after reading the quantum message) passes it on as a classic message, and the receiving device does not give a warning that the message received is a classic message, instead of a quantum message.
So it's really an design error on the device side, not a true hack in that quantum states were undisturbed regardless of reading them.
Not just around AGW, it happens around stories about Apple or Microsoft or anything that people -feel- strongly about.
The problem is that a lot of people feel something about AGW, instead of really thinking about it. Most people just look at their own sources and ignore anything that is contrary to their belief. I can't find the link but a couple of days ago there was an article where they show that confronting people with evidence against their strongest belief strengthens it instead of making them critical and researching their own believes.
So whenever you see an article that has strong supporters and opposers, expect a lot of mod points going into raising the views of 'your side' and lowering the views of the 'other side'.
Perhaps it's time to let the researchers do the research.
Actually, Europe is planning to do just that, although possibly not from Qaddafi. See the following article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65J1ZO20100620
They are currently looking into receiving power from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.
Actually, it can still be very useful. The advantage of a battery is not only that it can store energy, but also makes it transportable. This would be very useful to move an energy source to a location where power generation is not (easily) possible.
Consider how solar cells, even though they might cost more energy to make than they will ever supply during their lifetime are still very useful powering a communication satellite. In the same way, this material might be interesting to send to outer space, or as power supply in other very remote locations.
My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.
The problem with a classroom is that it was not meant as a forum for theoretical discussion, but as a way to imbue knowledge into our children. Schools prepare our children by pumping them full of knowledge. The first class of math that children follow in school tells them how to add numbers, how to substract. It does not challenge them to discuss why 1 is not equal to 0, or what the relative value is of imaginary numbers. During the age till 18 (and sometimes thereafter), schools just basically pump facts and common understood theories into our children.
Only at a relatively late age do they actually ask students to challenge worldviews and things taken for granted.
If you want discussion in the classroom, you should allow it everywhere. If you teach about the bible, also teach about the koran, creation stories of native americans, and the origin stories of Africa.
When you talk about geology, teach them about flat earth and hollow earth.
If you talk about physics, teach them about perpetuum mobile.
However, if you do that, you will find that untill a certain age, children will not be critical, and instead accept most of what is being told to them by an elder as blind fact. The same way that children are not allowed to drive because of mental instead of physical limitations (there is an age limit, not a length limit), so should we teach children facts during their formative years, AND always encourage them to challenge ideas.
However, I do not see why biology would have to be the exception to the rule, where to teach facts, and where to challenge children with different ideas.
Currently, the European Parliament doesn't hold much power, although the Lisbon treaty did increase their power somewhat. You will either see idealistic people in the European Parliament, or people who more or less just collect a paycheck.
I'm somewhat afraid though what would happen should the EP get more power. This would suddenly make the members of parliament interesting for the lobbyists, and I wonder how long it will take before the bunch of them start making the same decisions that the EC is currently making. The EP might be doing its good work because it hasn't become a target yet.
a shit-ton of money
Gotta love that imperial system. Wonder how much that is in metric.
The only problem is that they just told everyone 'Don't buy our game, pirate it if you want to have a good experience'.
If this was viral marketing, I'd fire the drone... uhmm.. marketeer.
This is all about liability. If your WiFi is open (aka, you are a child-eating terrorist ;) then you can quite easily claim that anything that happened from your IP address was not done by you, but instead by some guest to your network.
However, if you have a protected network, and something is done from the IP address registered to you, you can be sure that you will be held accountable for all the actions being taken from your IP address. Since your network wasn't open, it must have been you.
If they want to make new laws, where for example downloading music and movies is forbidden (currently, in some countries downloading is not illegal), they first need to block the escape route (I didn't download that, it was probably done by a guest on my network).
This will be especially true once the great firewalls come into effect, and visiting the website of the opposition party of your government will be deemed subversive.
Which brings us back to teaching what in science class, and you can teach why when you do a course in philosophy. By the way, when you do philosophy, why not go the extra mile, and try to teach a little about every religion.
In addition, two other companies are also taking action against Microsoft over what they say are trademark infringements: a web-based shopping service called BongoBing and software company Terabyte, which has a product called BootIt Next Generation, or Bing for short.
So today we know about three possible claimants. Do you think we will hear about two more tomorrow? Three? Four? After all the term "bing" has been a huge part of the RAP scene since the beginning; probably apart of some other scene before RAP. This is all too funny, or err ironic.
I think the fact that we have three claimants, who apparently aren't suing each other, but are suing a multibillion dollar company for a quick buck does indicate what the real motives behind their trademark protection action are. I mean, all three are apparently in the same market as Microsoft's search engine, but they are not protecting their trademark from each other? Sounds like they forfeited their trademark. Or do you only need to protect your trademark from large companies with deep pockets?
The discussion is not whether his hacking of the system was legal or not.
The question is about having to fix someone else's security hole, that you used to gain access.
In your example, if a burglar comes into your home because you didn't have a lock on your door, and steals stuff, he is liable for the stuff he stole. But you can't make him buy you a lock if you didn't own one.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be an option anymore, since advertisers have decided to 'GET IN YOUR FACE'. I sometimes have the radio turned on in the background, but you always notice when the ads come on, because for some reason, the sound becomes much louder.
Same with TV ads. Sometimes when going to the computer to look something up, I leave the TV on, which isn't bothering me, until the commercials start, and because of the increased volume and flashy lights, I am unable to concentrate on what I was doing, until I switch the thing off. For some reason they seem to think that the more obnoxious they behave, the more you will like their product?
Or perhaps they think that they need to make sure that you can still hear their ad in the kitchen if you get up to get a drink once the commercials start.
Which is part of current culture's problems. It's cheaper to make some disposable piece of crap, and in 30 years time, we toss about 6 devices away, filling up a huge junkpile.
We could have spend just a little more, and have something that actually keeps working, but then you'd not have the newest and most shiny device all the time, and hey, we just ship our (toxic) waste over to China anyway, so who cares. And if you don't have the money to buy the latest shiny thing, just borrow it. There's nothing wrong with spending more money than you own and can pay back your loans for, is there????
The advantage of science is, you can prove when it is corrupt. Because for something to be science, they have to open up on what they do, and how they do it. Kind of like open source. If you don't trust it, you can always read the source.
Religion is more like closed source. If you think something is wrong, you're either having a lack of faith (which can be disturbing), or 'you just don't understand it'. No way to look at what is supposedly behind it, since you can't inspect it. You just have to have faith that it works correctly.
Actually, the EU is doing its work, and fining companies who abuse their monopoly.
http://www.sortedsites.info/general-stuff/eu-fine-telefonica.htm
(Which, in case you were wondering is an European company)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aasUT7jU_bd8
(Also European)
It doesn't matter what country your company is from, if you abuse the rules, they go after you. They might even go after all those bank bailouts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/dealAtoms/idUS391610202420090605