As far as drivers go, well, that's kind of a truism...crashes are nearly always caused by faulty drivers. But my hardware works very well, thank you. Since I've installed Mandrake, I have yet to experience a single total lockup (I have had to kill X by SSHing to my machine a couple of times, but even that has been pretty rare). So my troubles are gone (and so is Win2K, except in a VMWare session). And it wasn't power fluctuations either: the unwanted reboot (not lockup) was very reproducible.
I agree that it is rather rare: my Win2K box at work stays on for weeks, and it has only locked up two or three times in a year.
IIRC correctly, you did not propose a theory, but rather made an arbitrary assertion, something along the lines "Current Microsoft OSes don't crash." Not "rarely crash" or "crash less often than they used to" or even "crash less than other OSes". Now, to give examples that current Microsoft OSes (by that I assume you mean Win2k and WinXP) can crash, as some of us have done, is indeed proof that your assertion is in itself not true (i.e. they do crash, regardless of actual frequency of occurence). Now, if you have an actual theory to formulate, we can have an intelligent conversation. Otherwise you'll just end up offering opinion as fact, as you did in your original post.
If I played Half-Life and paused twice in a row it did a reboot (Windows 2000). I've heard of quite a few WinXP crashes as well. Don't confuse "crashes less than Windows 98" with "never crashes". Oh, and regarding "current" Microsoft operating system: according to my weblogs, as many people still use Win98 and WinMe as Win2k and WinXP...
All in all, Windows is still less stable than a well-configured Linux system (with a non-experimental kernel), IMO.
I don't want to pirate games (I'm a game designer, so that goes against my principles - I buy all of my games) but I would like to be able to watch VCDs of my student films, or play old arcade favorites using MAME, or watch Hong Kong or Japanese flicks that have yet to make it to region one.
Despite the fact that people pirate MS software, they remaine one of the most profitable game companies around. Recently, a Sony exec admitted that piracy helped sell the first PlayStation, making it one of the most successful console in gaming history. I don't buy the idea that piracy hurts business, whether it's software, games, CDs or movies. The issue here is control, not profits. They want to retain control on how the box is used, just like they want to control what you'll do with your PC with Palladium. They want us to be consumers, not participants. But they are fighting a losing battle, IMHO.
When you get to the registration page, just hit "reload", and the page should load fine.
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
I agree: because you can't disprove something doesn't mean that it's true, of course. However, when confronted with probabilities of an existing danger, even though there is nothing that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the danger is real, the wise man takes precaution to lessen the potential for danger - unless someone can prove that the danger doesn't exist.
Now, as far as global warming goes, we have:
One of the highest rate of temperature increase in history, including from deep measures in the Greenland ice shelf
Increased carbon emissions due to industrialization
Science experiments and computer models that show carbon gases can act as a greenhouse, trapping heat inside the atmosphere
So we don't have definite proof, but a collection of facts that points to a possible human-influenced warming of the global climate. This is not a murder trial, there is no need to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. Anyway, the money spent on solving the problem won't be lost in a vaccuum: part of it will go in salaries (and, unlike the Missile Defense project, against another hypothetical threat, this one will actually improve our living environments). The negative effect on the economy is both overstated and misleading, while the potential effect of doing nothing could be disastrous.
I find it ironic that many in the U.S. are ready to spend billions on bombing Saddam Hussein over a perceived threat, to which there is no conclusive evidence (i.e. that he would use weapons of mass destruction on the U.S.) while at the same time refusing to spend similar amounts of money (in a much sounder way, from an economic point of view) in order to prevent another perceived threat, whose consequences could be far worse.
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
The burden of proof is on those who deny that human activity is having an effect on global warming for two reasons: first, atmospheric science has given us a model that seems to indicate that it does - it's not 100% proof, but it is a sound model. Second, the collective risk is so high (and the material costs, as shown in the Alaska story, quite high) that we cannot afford to take the chance that the models are possibly wrong. So if you can prove that the models are wrong, fine - but until then, I insist that my elected representative act as if they were right. In any case, as China has proven, it is possible to cut your carbon emissions while improving your economy, so that shouldn't be an argument (except for those with stocks in the petrochemical industry...)
Paradoxically, the only way one could really prove that carbon emissions have nothing to do with global warming would be by severely reducing those emissions and then realizing that the warming is still taking place...And for those who try to delude themselves into thinking that this change might be natural: study of temperature variations from polar ice samples show that climate has never changed at such a quick pace over a span of a 100 years as it does now, and that's for the past 100,000 years!
All this because you want to keep driving to SUVs...
...the first being "Is using Open Source going to decrease programmer's income as a group?" and the second being "Will using and promoting Open Source for businesses benefit the OSS community?" I was clearly adressing the first issue, and thought you were too. My take is that it is not, because companies will need to hire programmers so that they can solve specific problems (in which case OSS lets programmers do more for the same amount of money). So we seem to agree on this.
On the second question, I'm not sure I follow your argument - modified OSS is not OSS until it is released, for sure. By definition the source only gets released to the outside if the binaries are - but since these are applications designed for internal use, they are not meant to be released. Is that not giving back to the community? Perhaps, but it is compliant with the GPL, and in any case the release would not bring additional income to OSS programmers, who may or may not have been already been paid for their effort. In a sense, if you release GPL'ed software, you accept that users of this program will be de facto freeloaders, since you're not going to get any money from the release (even though you may have been paid to write it). So I fail to see what your point is, other than writing OSS code and then trying to sell it won't make you rich; AFAIK, nobody said it would. And if that takes away the incentive for programmers to write good OSS software, then we don't have to do anything about it: the market will take care of it. But so far the fact that actual sales of OSS are modest hasn't prevented it from making great advances in quality, reliability and security, so there must be other economic and social forces at work.
I'll repeat it because you don't seem to understand the essential underlying point: the company does not have to release the code if it doesn't release the software. We're not talking about software companies, here, but other kind of companies which have software need. In this model, they hire programmers (either permanently, as part of a in-house team, or on a work-for-hire basis) to satisfy such a need. The team can use OSS or code everything from scratch if they want - though they'll be more competitive if they use OSS because a lot of the work will already have been done. Once the company gets the software it needs, it just keeps it for itself and enjoy its competitive advantage. It's as simple as that!
The GPL doesn't require you to release software built on GPL'ed code! (Reread this line a couple of time, it helps to dispel the FUD...for it is FUD.) The only thing that it requires is that if you decide to release the code (i.e. sell it, give it, ram it down people's throat), then you must give the source code with it.
So the moral of the story is: internal code can be built on open source software. When that code no longer gives you that competitive advantage, then you can release it for the good of the community if you want - or not. This is a fundamental misconception most people have about OSS (and one that Microsoft consciously exploits to its advantage). There, I've solved your problem. Now go out and spread the good news.
...somebody claims this. IIRC, someone in the early 80s had claimed to have done this (with "Radio Shack" parts) - I wish I remember where I read this - and of course there's Podkletnov, though the jury's still out on whether it was a hoax or not. Mind you, NASA has its own programme researching this...I'd be curious to hear their take on the issue.
Look at the antonym of proponent: opponent. You can't say that you're an "opponent against", but rather that you are an "opponent of". In the same way, you are a "proponent of" and not "for".
Not necessarily. Finding holes in software can take time - in other words, it is not very cost-effective, and not profitable from a business point of view (as long as you've cleared the most severe bugs out of the way). Black hats, however, do it for "the love of the game". As we can see in the real world, a lot of exploits are discovered not by the teams of professional coders who wrote the software, but by hackers working on their free time. So the real-world answer to your question is no.
He's right: Apache has about double the market share of IIS. Mind you, about half of those Apache servers run on Windows, but it doesn't matter: Apache is OSS. So in this it seems market exposure is not a factor in determining the number of exploits and/or viruses plaguing IIS...and the proof that OSS can be as secure (if not more) than proprietary software.
You miss the point: the government can use and modify GPL'ed software without releasing it. The GPL license only requires you to distribute the source code if you release software that uses GPL code to the public. However, it does not require you to release that software at all if you don't want to (and I assume the government won't). So, the government can use and modify GPL'ed software all it wants without releasing any of it. Same thing for the NYSE, or any other software that is not meant for public release. So the whole point is moot.
Well, actually you said it in a much more concise way than I could have, which is a precious skill! (I know, I'm a writer and I always have to rewrite stuff to make it shorter...) However we end up saying it, it really sums up why the "Open Source will starve programmers" argument is just some more FUD from Redmond. (I don't understand why you got modded as Flamebait, though...)
You're also missing an important point, one that is not often discussed but which holds the key to that "unfair competition" problem you talk about. The thing is - and correct me if I'm wrong - the GPL requires to to distribute the source code along with the binary, but it does not in fact require someone to actually distribute any new software created from GPL'ed code at all! In other words, if you build something out of GPL software and it somehow gives an advantage to your company in its industry (which I presume would not be software-related), then there's nothing to force you to reveal it and distribute it. Just keep it! But if you do release it - perhaps when the competitive edge it gave you is gone - then you have to give the source code as well.
What OSS really means is that there will be less money in the software industry itself, but more programmers working for companies in other industries, and more programming "studios" that will do work-for-hire. Anyway, do you know a lot of programmers who receive royalties on their creation? There's not going to be less money around, not even for programmers, but it's not going to move the same way. The industry will transform - that's okay, programmers will still be able to make a living; that's what's important, isn't it?
It's not about estimates, it's about understanding geopolitics and reading something else than Newsweek once in a while...Do you even understand the principle of strategic nuclear weapons? It doesn't matter if North Korea has nuclear missiles, because they CAN'T USE THEM AGAINST THE U.S. If they did, they would be completely vaporized. Now, North Koreans may be brainwashed, but their leader is actually an intelligent and reasonable (if cruel, despotic and tyrannical) man. He knows that's a no-win situation, and nothing suggest that he's particularly keen on losing all the privileges that come with the job having his country eradicated. The threat of "rogue nations" using nuclear weapons against the U.S. is just a lure designed by the military industry to keep those govt. dollars pouring in while the rest of the economy teeters on the brink of recession. Get a damn clue!
I agree with you in part (even though your lack of manners, however typical of trolls, is a sure sign that I shouldn't bother answering to your post). To be sure, the hijacking a plane - even an old-fashioned one where the primary goal is to hold hostages or simply escape a country - is probably going to become a thing of the past. As you correctly state, passengers are no longer going to risk ending up in a building. I myself have taken the plane a couple of times since 9/11, and was ready to spring into action if something happened - hey, if you're going to die anyway, might as well try to do something about it! However, that does not rule out every possible use of planes (even smaller ones) against facilities. Nor does it rule out truck bombs, dirty bombs (with radioactive material), bioterrorism (especially if it's domestic, as was the case with anthrax...hey, remember anthrax? It used to be news until they found out it probably came from a U.S. Army lab...)
The point is, low-tech terrorist attacks are much more likely to happen again than some third world nation lobbing nuclear missiles at the U.S. Realistically, the chance of such a nuclear attack is very slim to none - and there's no guarantee a missile defence system would work to ward off such an attack anyway. All in all, it seems an awful lot of money to deal with a highly improbable threat...
Let's just say that spending billions and billions on a faulty system designed to ward against manufactured (and highly improbable) threats while upsetting the nuclear balance just so that some money can be injected into the pentagon system seems like a rather stupid thing to do.
The truth is, before 9/11 the missile defense project was going nowhere. Since then, as America has abandoned rational thinking in matters of defense, it has come back with a vengeance, even though it wouldn't have prevented that awful tragedy, nor will it protect against similar attacks (more probable than missile attacks by a couple order of magnitudes) in the future.
It's quite funny to read about those things in the american media: the U.S. won't spend billions on changing energy consumption habits in order to face a threat (global warming) that - even though it's not 100% proven - has been recognized by its own government as real. But it's more than ready to spend those billions on a missile defense system that has yet to prove to be effective against a threat that most military analysts regard as highly improbable at best!
Actually, Bush and co. don't care if the missile defense system is effective or not, because it is not designed to be used - they know no country in its right mind (even schizoidal North Korea) would attack the U.S. with nuclear missile, there's just too much to lose. And yet lots of intelligent, educated people just gobble it up, it seems...ah, such is the power of propaganda.
For those who argue missile defense is just another unnecessary aggressive move on the USA's part, I'd say that defensive weapons are the least threatening because they are the ones least likely to get us involved in foreign entanglements:
Okay, then develop your missile-shield technology and give it to every single damn country in the world - hey, it's defensive technology, isn't it? Then that wouldn't represent a security risk, but just make everyone safer, right?
The problem with missile defense is that it upsets the balance of power. Which means that, to compete, nuclear powers have to build more missiles, in the hope of reaching equilibrium again (hoping that a few might get through). Why is nuclear equilibrium important? Because mutually assured destruction is the best deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. Who cares, if the U.S. has a missile shield, you say? Well, even if that missile shield was effective (which it is not guaranteed to be, despite the gigantic cost), there is this little thing called "the rest of the world"...
So, do you agree that the U.S. should share it's defensive, non-threatening missile defense technology with the rest of the world, then?
Hmm, so in fact you are advocating more government intervention into the economy? That seems like corporate welfare to me - while using OSS software would let more monies go to were it's really needed, like social services, paying off the debt, etc. I'm puzzled: are you for government saving money, or for public funding of Microsoft?(Well, perhaps you are, if you are one of their employees...)
And as for the costs of migration...Sure, there would need to be some minimal training in order to switch to Linux, altough new distros with KDE 3.0 or the soon-to-be-released Gnome 2.0 are very Windows-friendly and quite easy to use. Linux is now like a sports car: easy to drive, but more difficult/delicate to tweak/upgrade if you're not an admin (then again, users in a corporate/govt. setting should not be tweaking or upgrading their installations, so that point is moot). Definitely, some of the money saved would have to be spent on support engineers. However, these would probably cost less than what would be saved from ditching the combined Microsoft licenses, and the money spent would actually go in salaries instead of increasing MS's enormous cash pile - which, from an economic point of view, doesn't really count as "putting money in the economy". In fact, giving money to MS is putting money out of the economy, since right now it is not being spent but rather hoarded.
Of course, by resigning Eggleton is making sure that there won't be a public inquiry. Same thing with Boudria. This is all damage control so that Chretien himself will remain out of trouble.
If by "secure" you mean "100% secure", then you're right, there isn't. In any case, an OS is only as secure as the Administrator that sets it up.
However, if by "secure" you mean "a lot more secure than any Microsoft OS", then I suggest you look into the NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux. And, yes, the source code is available. The fact is, MS products were never designed with security in mind, and therefore are intrinsically less secure than many other OSes, including a well-configured Linux or BeOS installation. It's not a matter of personal opinion, now: even Allchin candidly agrees!
Slashdot Mirror
As far as drivers go, well, that's kind of a truism...crashes are nearly always caused by faulty drivers. But my hardware works very well, thank you. Since I've installed Mandrake, I have yet to experience a single total lockup (I have had to kill X by SSHing to my machine a couple of times, but even that has been pretty rare). So my troubles are gone (and so is Win2K, except in a VMWare session). And it wasn't power fluctuations either: the unwanted reboot (not lockup) was very reproducible.
I agree that it is rather rare: my Win2K box at work stays on for weeks, and it has only locked up two or three times in a year.
IIRC correctly, you did not propose a theory, but rather made an arbitrary assertion, something along the lines "Current Microsoft OSes don't crash." Not "rarely crash" or "crash less often than they used to" or even "crash less than other OSes". Now, to give examples that current Microsoft OSes (by that I assume you mean Win2k and WinXP) can crash, as some of us have done, is indeed proof that your assertion is in itself not true (i.e. they do crash, regardless of actual frequency of occurence). Now, if you have an actual theory to formulate, we can have an intelligent conversation. Otherwise you'll just end up offering opinion as fact, as you did in your original post.
If I played Half-Life and paused twice in a row it did a reboot (Windows 2000). I've heard of quite a few WinXP crashes as well. Don't confuse "crashes less than Windows 98" with "never crashes". Oh, and regarding "current" Microsoft operating system: according to my weblogs, as many people still use Win98 and WinMe as Win2k and WinXP...
All in all, Windows is still less stable than a well-configured Linux system (with a non-experimental kernel), IMO.
I don't want to pirate games (I'm a game designer, so that goes against my principles - I buy all of my games) but I would like to be able to watch VCDs of my student films, or play old arcade favorites using MAME, or watch Hong Kong or Japanese flicks that have yet to make it to region one.
Despite the fact that people pirate MS software, they remaine one of the most profitable game companies around. Recently, a Sony exec admitted that piracy helped sell the first PlayStation, making it one of the most successful console in gaming history. I don't buy the idea that piracy hurts business, whether it's software, games, CDs or movies. The issue here is control, not profits. They want to retain control on how the box is used, just like they want to control what you'll do with your PC with Palladium. They want us to be consumers, not participants. But they are fighting a losing battle, IMHO.
When you get to the registration page, just hit "reload", and the page should load fine.
Now, as far as global warming goes, we have:
- One of the highest rate of temperature increase in history, including from deep measures in the Greenland ice shelf
- Increased carbon emissions due to industrialization
- Science experiments and computer models that show carbon gases can act as a greenhouse, trapping heat inside the atmosphere
So we don't have definite proof, but a collection of facts that points to a possible human-influenced warming of the global climate. This is not a murder trial, there is no need to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. Anyway, the money spent on solving the problem won't be lost in a vaccuum: part of it will go in salaries (and, unlike the Missile Defense project, against another hypothetical threat, this one will actually improve our living environments). The negative effect on the economy is both overstated and misleading, while the potential effect of doing nothing could be disastrous.I find it ironic that many in the U.S. are ready to spend billions on bombing Saddam Hussein over a perceived threat, to which there is no conclusive evidence (i.e. that he would use weapons of mass destruction on the U.S.) while at the same time refusing to spend similar amounts of money (in a much sounder way, from an economic point of view) in order to prevent another perceived threat, whose consequences could be far worse.
The burden of proof is on those who deny that human activity is having an effect on global warming for two reasons: first, atmospheric science has given us a model that seems to indicate that it does - it's not 100% proof, but it is a sound model. Second, the collective risk is so high (and the material costs, as shown in the Alaska story, quite high) that we cannot afford to take the chance that the models are possibly wrong. So if you can prove that the models are wrong, fine - but until then, I insist that my elected representative act as if they were right. In any case, as China has proven, it is possible to cut your carbon emissions while improving your economy, so that shouldn't be an argument (except for those with stocks in the petrochemical industry...)
Paradoxically, the only way one could really prove that carbon emissions have nothing to do with global warming would be by severely reducing those emissions and then realizing that the warming is still taking place...And for those who try to delude themselves into thinking that this change might be natural: study of temperature variations from polar ice samples show that climate has never changed at such a quick pace over a span of a 100 years as it does now, and that's for the past 100,000 years!
All this because you want to keep driving to SUVs...
...the first being "Is using Open Source going to decrease programmer's income as a group?" and the second being "Will using and promoting Open Source for businesses benefit the OSS community?" I was clearly adressing the first issue, and thought you were too. My take is that it is not, because companies will need to hire programmers so that they can solve specific problems (in which case OSS lets programmers do more for the same amount of money). So we seem to agree on this.
On the second question, I'm not sure I follow your argument - modified OSS is not OSS until it is released, for sure. By definition the source only gets released to the outside if the binaries are - but since these are applications designed for internal use, they are not meant to be released. Is that not giving back to the community? Perhaps, but it is compliant with the GPL, and in any case the release would not bring additional income to OSS programmers, who may or may not have been already been paid for their effort. In a sense, if you release GPL'ed software, you accept that users of this program will be de facto freeloaders, since you're not going to get any money from the release (even though you may have been paid to write it). So I fail to see what your point is, other than writing OSS code and then trying to sell it won't make you rich; AFAIK, nobody said it would. And if that takes away the incentive for programmers to write good OSS software, then we don't have to do anything about it: the market will take care of it. But so far the fact that actual sales of OSS are modest hasn't prevented it from making great advances in quality, reliability and security, so there must be other economic and social forces at work.
I'll repeat it because you don't seem to understand the essential underlying point: the company does not have to release the code if it doesn't release the software. We're not talking about software companies, here, but other kind of companies which have software need. In this model, they hire programmers (either permanently, as part of a in-house team, or on a work-for-hire basis) to satisfy such a need. The team can use OSS or code everything from scratch if they want - though they'll be more competitive if they use OSS because a lot of the work will already have been done. Once the company gets the software it needs, it just keeps it for itself and enjoy its competitive advantage. It's as simple as that!
The GPL doesn't require you to release software built on GPL'ed code! (Reread this line a couple of time, it helps to dispel the FUD...for it is FUD.) The only thing that it requires is that if you decide to release the code (i.e. sell it, give it, ram it down people's throat), then you must give the source code with it.
So the moral of the story is: internal code can be built on open source software. When that code no longer gives you that competitive advantage, then you can release it for the good of the community if you want - or not. This is a fundamental misconception most people have about OSS (and one that Microsoft consciously exploits to its advantage). There, I've solved your problem. Now go out and spread the good news.
...somebody claims this. IIRC, someone in the early 80s had claimed to have done this (with "Radio Shack" parts) - I wish I remember where I read this - and of course there's Podkletnov, though the jury's still out on whether it was a hoax or not. Mind you, NASA has its own programme researching this...I'd be curious to hear their take on the issue.
Look at the antonym of proponent: opponent. You can't say that you're an "opponent against", but rather that you are an "opponent of". In the same way, you are a "proponent of" and not "for".
Not necessarily. Finding holes in software can take time - in other words, it is not very cost-effective, and not profitable from a business point of view (as long as you've cleared the most severe bugs out of the way). Black hats, however, do it for "the love of the game". As we can see in the real world, a lot of exploits are discovered not by the teams of professional coders who wrote the software, but by hackers working on their free time. So the real-world answer to your question is no.
He's right: Apache has about double the market share of IIS. Mind you, about half of those Apache servers run on Windows, but it doesn't matter: Apache is OSS. So in this it seems market exposure is not a factor in determining the number of exploits and/or viruses plaguing IIS...and the proof that OSS can be as secure (if not more) than proprietary software.
You miss the point: the government can use and modify GPL'ed software without releasing it. The GPL license only requires you to distribute the source code if you release software that uses GPL code to the public. However, it does not require you to release that software at all if you don't want to (and I assume the government won't). So, the government can use and modify GPL'ed software all it wants without releasing any of it. Same thing for the NYSE, or any other software that is not meant for public release. So the whole point is moot.
Well, actually you said it in a much more concise way than I could have, which is a precious skill! (I know, I'm a writer and I always have to rewrite stuff to make it shorter...) However we end up saying it, it really sums up why the "Open Source will starve programmers" argument is just some more FUD from Redmond. (I don't understand why you got modded as Flamebait, though...)
You're also missing an important point, one that is not often discussed but which holds the key to that "unfair competition" problem you talk about. The thing is - and correct me if I'm wrong - the GPL requires to to distribute the source code along with the binary, but it does not in fact require someone to actually distribute any new software created from GPL'ed code at all! In other words, if you build something out of GPL software and it somehow gives an advantage to your company in its industry (which I presume would not be software-related), then there's nothing to force you to reveal it and distribute it. Just keep it! But if you do release it - perhaps when the competitive edge it gave you is gone - then you have to give the source code as well.
What OSS really means is that there will be less money in the software industry itself, but more programmers working for companies in other industries, and more programming "studios" that will do work-for-hire. Anyway, do you know a lot of programmers who receive royalties on their creation? There's not going to be less money around, not even for programmers, but it's not going to move the same way. The industry will transform - that's okay, programmers will still be able to make a living; that's what's important, isn't it?
I think you mean average annual salary, not gross domestic product (GDP)...
It's not about estimates, it's about understanding geopolitics and reading something else than Newsweek once in a while...Do you even understand the principle of strategic nuclear weapons? It doesn't matter if North Korea has nuclear missiles, because they CAN'T USE THEM AGAINST THE U.S. If they did, they would be completely vaporized. Now, North Koreans may be brainwashed, but their leader is actually an intelligent and reasonable (if cruel, despotic and tyrannical) man. He knows that's a no-win situation, and nothing suggest that he's particularly keen on losing all the privileges that come with the job having his country eradicated. The threat of "rogue nations" using nuclear weapons against the U.S. is just a lure designed by the military industry to keep those govt. dollars pouring in while the rest of the economy teeters on the brink of recession. Get a damn clue!
I agree with you in part (even though your lack of manners, however typical of trolls, is a sure sign that I shouldn't bother answering to your post). To be sure, the hijacking a plane - even an old-fashioned one where the primary goal is to hold hostages or simply escape a country - is probably going to become a thing of the past. As you correctly state, passengers are no longer going to risk ending up in a building. I myself have taken the plane a couple of times since 9/11, and was ready to spring into action if something happened - hey, if you're going to die anyway, might as well try to do something about it! However, that does not rule out every possible use of planes (even smaller ones) against facilities. Nor does it rule out truck bombs, dirty bombs (with radioactive material), bioterrorism (especially if it's domestic, as was the case with anthrax...hey, remember anthrax? It used to be news until they found out it probably came from a U.S. Army lab...)
The point is, low-tech terrorist attacks are much more likely to happen again than some third world nation lobbing nuclear missiles at the U.S. Realistically, the chance of such a nuclear attack is very slim to none - and there's no guarantee a missile defence system would work to ward off such an attack anyway. All in all, it seems an awful lot of money to deal with a highly improbable threat...
Let's just say that spending billions and billions on a faulty system designed to ward against manufactured (and highly improbable) threats while upsetting the nuclear balance just so that some money can be injected into the pentagon system seems like a rather stupid thing to do.
The truth is, before 9/11 the missile defense project was going nowhere. Since then, as America has abandoned rational thinking in matters of defense, it has come back with a vengeance, even though it wouldn't have prevented that awful tragedy, nor will it protect against similar attacks (more probable than missile attacks by a couple order of magnitudes) in the future.
It's quite funny to read about those things in the american media: the U.S. won't spend billions on changing energy consumption habits in order to face a threat (global warming) that - even though it's not 100% proven - has been recognized by its own government as real. But it's more than ready to spend those billions on a missile defense system that has yet to prove to be effective against a threat that most military analysts regard as highly improbable at best!
Actually, Bush and co. don't care if the missile defense system is effective or not, because it is not designed to be used - they know no country in its right mind (even schizoidal North Korea) would attack the U.S. with nuclear missile, there's just too much to lose. And yet lots of intelligent, educated people just gobble it up, it seems...ah, such is the power of propaganda.
Not at all. I would actually support missile defense if it was a global effort to make sure that no one can use ICBMs.
Oh, and if it actually worked, instead of being just another corporate welfare check for the military industry.
For those who argue missile defense is just another unnecessary aggressive move on the USA's part, I'd say that defensive weapons are the least threatening because they are the ones least likely to get us involved in foreign entanglements:
Okay, then develop your missile-shield technology and give it to every single damn country in the world - hey, it's defensive technology, isn't it? Then that wouldn't represent a security risk, but just make everyone safer, right?
The problem with missile defense is that it upsets the balance of power. Which means that, to compete, nuclear powers have to build more missiles, in the hope of reaching equilibrium again (hoping that a few might get through). Why is nuclear equilibrium important? Because mutually assured destruction is the best deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. Who cares, if the U.S. has a missile shield, you say? Well, even if that missile shield was effective (which it is not guaranteed to be, despite the gigantic cost), there is this little thing called "the rest of the world"...
So, do you agree that the U.S. should share it's defensive, non-threatening missile defense technology with the rest of the world, then?
"Keep putting money into the economy?"
Hmm, so in fact you are advocating more government intervention into the economy? That seems like corporate welfare to me - while using OSS software would let more monies go to were it's really needed, like social services, paying off the debt, etc. I'm puzzled: are you for government saving money, or for public funding of Microsoft?(Well, perhaps you are, if you are one of their employees...)
And as for the costs of migration...Sure, there would need to be some minimal training in order to switch to Linux, altough new distros with KDE 3.0 or the soon-to-be-released Gnome 2.0 are very Windows-friendly and quite easy to use. Linux is now like a sports car: easy to drive, but more difficult/delicate to tweak/upgrade if you're not an admin (then again, users in a corporate/govt. setting should not be tweaking or upgrading their installations, so that point is moot). Definitely, some of the money saved would have to be spent on support engineers. However, these would probably cost less than what would be saved from ditching the combined Microsoft licenses, and the money spent would actually go in salaries instead of increasing MS's enormous cash pile - which, from an economic point of view, doesn't really count as "putting money in the economy". In fact, giving money to MS is putting money out of the economy, since right now it is not being spent but rather hoarded.
Of course, by resigning Eggleton is making sure that there won't be a public inquiry. Same thing with Boudria. This is all damage control so that Chretien himself will remain out of trouble.
Please name an operating system that is secure.
If by "secure" you mean "100% secure", then you're right, there isn't. In any case, an OS is only as secure as the Administrator that sets it up.
However, if by "secure" you mean "a lot more secure than any Microsoft OS", then I suggest you look into the NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux. And, yes, the source code is available. The fact is, MS products were never designed with security in mind, and therefore are intrinsically less secure than many other OSes, including a well-configured Linux or BeOS installation. It's not a matter of personal opinion, now: even Allchin candidly agrees!