Right, that's if you want to pander to the terrorists. If you want to cut them off at the knees, you make sure that everybody the terrorists might recruit has job, has a future.
Look, while it is not our fault (by any stretch of the imagination) that we were attacked, there are things that we could do that would decrease the number of people that are interested in attacking us.
An analogy to one part of this would be this: your neighbor is lazy and doesn't moe his lawn and this drives your sinus's crazy. You could put in the extra work and moe his lawn and ease your sinuses... or you could not do anything.
Surely you are not at fault, but would be much better off just moeing his damn lawn.
In this case, what we could do is help the rest of the world (regardless of religion) grow their economys. If people feel like they have a purpose, if they feel like there is hope for them and their children's lives could be better than theirs, they would most likely want to just settle down and prosper. This is not a zero sum game (as many thing) we can all be prosperous.
Granted there will always be crazy people, but universal healthcare (that includes mental health care) is for another day.
I'm sorry, I guess I have to spell it out for you.
Condoleeza Rice gave many many interviews with the press and even the September 11th panel where she gave the excuse for not acting on intelligence that there was "no magic bullet." Point being that she was--exactly as you point out--an ivory tower intellectual and not a person who gets stuff done. She was hamstrung by not knowing every last detail, and having a solution that took care of every last detail (a magic bullet).
Compare this to Sandy Berger who got just the hint of information about a plot to attack time squre durring the 2000 new year and he managed to stop it.
As far as the OS goes, I am a pragmatist. I go for the OS that has 0 wild worms or viruses. It may not be perfect, but it is the best thing going.
there's no way of knowing how many bugs are in a "responsible disclosure" process of slowly being patched (or not) and how many systems are being compromised by stealthy, non-worm-writing, blackhats, as we speak.
Well, there could also be bugs that the OS company doesn't know about... so I'm not sure this is even the most important type of unpatched security hole.
flame, flame... cool down. Aparently you have not installed Cygwin or understand how an OS works.
An operating system allocates resources (memory, processor time, et cetera) that are requested by applications. In OS X, the kernel is mach you may be interested in how it works.
Anyway, Cygwin is not an OS, its a set of development tools according to the authors. While it is a neat trick that win can be made to act like *nix.
BTW, my favorite NT thing... win2k claims to be built on "nt technology" which is very funny since "nt" means "new technology". I'll let you spell it out.
Unless your hedge trimmer runs sendmail, you missed the point. Why would you open up a port? Because you had a specific reason to, right? So you would know what the hell you were doing. Compare to the average windows user (still running SP1) who has no idea they are running a print server. What's more, all the controlls are in one window in the "System Preferences" and so I can go and see exactly what ports I have open on my firewall at any given time--and change them with a simple click of a box. Where is the windows equivalent?
The thing is that OS X is a great first step twords security. Getting trained on keeping an OS X box secure is easy. In fact, it comes out of the box secure and that is a magic bullet.
FYI, if you want to find where posts like this are from (i.e. who wrote it) you can google large chunks of text in quotes.
i.e. google "most contentious aspects of the text which stated that farmers" (with the quotes) and you will see that this was lifted from here This article is so long that sections may have been lifted from various places... to find them, just use google...
...you should switch to Linux or one of the BSD OSes...
Thanks for the advice, but I already did, it's a little BSD system called OS X.
The worst thing about it is that, unlike win2k, I've never had it crash, so I haven't had a chance to tweak.
Oh and also, your right, "'Uninstalling back' is a really bad idea on a Windows system." About the only thing worse is installing in the first place.
The problem with windows is that it is (as coined by MS's Jason Reindorp) a closed ecosystem. You are totally on your own when you have a problem it probably is unique to your system (as you point out).
Okay, but most people (stick with me here, it will be relevant to you) will not do the fix when the comany anounces the problem. This could easily lead to a theoretical exploit discovered by a friendly source into an actual exploit that is spreading in the wild (since most people will leave their system unaltered).
Anyway, where is the worm or virus for OS X that is spreading like mad, proving your point?
This a priori argument is cute, and often cited, but is also deeply flawed.
Why do other *nux distros have plenty of security holes that are known and exploited while OS X doesn't. Why has there only been one security hole in java since 1.2 (i.e. in the late 90s)?
Since there is no known wild worm or virus for Mac, crackers would love to claim to be the first to crack this fortress.
When I had a win2k box, I applied every ding-dong patch and one day the damn thing just stoped working. I had to spend about a day uninstalling back to SP1 before it worked. Then I discovered, adding anything more to that made it crash again (blue screen).
They may release the patch... but what if your computer is rendered useless by applying it?
I had two systems. One had 10.3 and one had 10.2. I found 10.3 so much more usable because: the finder worked the way I expected it to and the folders in the finder menu was an imense help. So I bought 10.3 for the other computer. There you go.
I realize this, I wrote a response to my own post clearing it up and didn't have time to wait for the 2 minute window to pass... so there you go, thank you slashcode.
None the less, the 200 is obviously a typo, and it doesn't make sense as a "minimum" spec anyway, why require it to do 10? if you need 100, why not just a 100 BaseT nic requirement? If 10 is okay, why put in the 100?
Theoretically, the more physical cooling you can give a chip, the more energy it can suck up (i.e. the more heat it can disipate). If anything, having less room for cooling should force energy efficiency (so that they don't have to disipate as much heat).
Since when is the G5 efficient? It is as hot as any of the others. The G4 is a cool processor, but it runs at speeds like 1 GHz. Not that it doesn't make an awesome laptop (I've never had a complaint about mine) but it isn't exactly a model of efficiency.
How were these numbers measured? What market are they for? What do they mean x% of users? x% of active machines? x% of owners own one (i.e. IBM counts as one owner)? Does VA's computer count as 1 or 1 per CPU or 0 because it is in the wrong market? Do my four machines count as one (for the house) two (me and my wife) or four (the machines)? How do you count my work computers (2 windows servers, 3 mac servers, 2 PC workstations a mac work station and 2 mac laptops)?
But most of all, I'm very interested, where did the numbers come from?
Why do you say that Java is based on 32 bit architecture?
When you pick the size of an int, you should pick it based on the needs of the program, not on the available hardware. If I have a program that assumes an int is 32 bits, damn right it had better be!
Slashdot Mirror
Bubble sort is actualy very slow in all cases check out this wonderful page on sorting.
Right, that's if you want to pander to the terrorists. If you want to cut them off at the knees, you make sure that everybody the terrorists might recruit has job, has a future.
An analogy to one part of this would be this: your neighbor is lazy and doesn't moe his lawn and this drives your sinus's crazy. You could put in the extra work and moe his lawn and ease your sinuses... or you could not do anything.
Surely you are not at fault, but would be much better off just moeing his damn lawn.
In this case, what we could do is help the rest of the world (regardless of religion) grow their economys. If people feel like they have a purpose, if they feel like there is hope for them and their children's lives could be better than theirs, they would most likely want to just settle down and prosper. This is not a zero sum game (as many thing) we can all be prosperous.
Granted there will always be crazy people, but universal healthcare (that includes mental health care) is for another day.
Condoleeza Rice gave many many interviews with the press and even the September 11th panel where she gave the excuse for not acting on intelligence that there was "no magic bullet." Point being that she was--exactly as you point out--an ivory tower intellectual and not a person who gets stuff done. She was hamstrung by not knowing every last detail, and having a solution that took care of every last detail (a magic bullet).
Compare this to Sandy Berger who got just the hint of information about a plot to attack time squre durring the 2000 new year and he managed to stop it.
As far as the OS goes, I am a pragmatist. I go for the OS that has 0 wild worms or viruses. It may not be perfect, but it is the best thing going.
An operating system allocates resources (memory, processor time, et cetera) that are requested by applications. In OS X, the kernel is mach you may be interested in how it works.
Anyway, Cygwin is not an OS, its a set of development tools according to the authors. While it is a neat trick that win can be made to act like *nix.
BTW, my favorite NT thing... win2k claims to be built on "nt technology" which is very funny since "nt" means "new technology". I'll let you spell it out.
Unless your hedge trimmer runs sendmail, you missed the point. Why would you open up a port? Because you had a specific reason to, right? So you would know what the hell you were doing. Compare to the average windows user (still running SP1) who has no idea they are running a print server. What's more, all the controlls are in one window in the "System Preferences" and so I can go and see exactly what ports I have open on my firewall at any given time--and change them with a simple click of a box. Where is the windows equivalent?
The thing is that OS X is a great first step twords security. Getting trained on keeping an OS X box secure is easy. In fact, it comes out of the box secure and that is a magic bullet.
Good point! For future reference, he can look at wikipedia's definition of troll.
i.e. google "most contentious aspects of the text which stated that farmers" (with the quotes) and you will see that this was lifted from here This article is so long that sections may have been lifted from various places... to find them, just use google...
The worst thing about it is that, unlike win2k, I've never had it crash, so I haven't had a chance to tweak.
Oh and also, your right, "'Uninstalling back' is a really bad idea on a Windows system." About the only thing worse is installing in the first place.
The problem with windows is that it is (as coined by MS's Jason Reindorp) a closed ecosystem. You are totally on your own when you have a problem it probably is unique to your system (as you point out).
Anyway, where is the worm or virus for OS X that is spreading like mad, proving your point?
Why do other *nux distros have plenty of security holes that are known and exploited while OS X doesn't. Why has there only been one security hole in java since 1.2 (i.e. in the late 90s)?
Since there is no known wild worm or virus for Mac, crackers would love to claim to be the first to crack this fortress.
Please, come up with something new next time.
They may release the patch... but what if your computer is rendered useless by applying it?
I had two systems. One had 10.3 and one had 10.2. I found 10.3 so much more usable because: the finder worked the way I expected it to and the folders in the finder menu was an imense help. So I bought 10.3 for the other computer. There you go.
Exactly, so when CPUs use big (wide) fans and huge heat sinks, its because they have tons of energy to disipate. This means that they are inefficient.
None the less, the 200 is obviously a typo, and it doesn't make sense as a "minimum" spec anyway, why require it to do 10? if you need 100, why not just a 100 BaseT nic requirement? If 10 is okay, why put in the 100?
you're conflating noise with energy usage.
- Pentium II-compatible processor, 266 MHz
- 4-GB hard disk
- 128-MB RAM
- 800x600 screen resolution
The parent is just troll, and the moderators bought it because they didn't read the article either!BTW, recomended is:
- Pentium III-compatible processor, 600 MHz or faster
- at least 4-GB hard disk
- at least 256-MB RAM
- 1024x768 screen resolution or better
Not bad.Theoretically, the more physical cooling you can give a chip, the more energy it can suck up (i.e. the more heat it can disipate). If anything, having less room for cooling should force energy efficiency (so that they don't have to disipate as much heat).
Since when is the G5 efficient? It is as hot as any of the others. The G4 is a cool processor, but it runs at speeds like 1 GHz. Not that it doesn't make an awesome laptop (I've never had a complaint about mine) but it isn't exactly a model of efficiency.
But most of all, I'm very interested, where did the numbers come from?
When you pick the size of an int, you should pick it based on the needs of the program, not on the available hardware. If I have a program that assumes an int is 32 bits, damn right it had better be!
Uh, Along came the cheaper PCs and their marketshare has decreased to the few % it is today. When was their market share larger than it is today?