If you generalize things enough then you can make almost any rule apply to fields that it wouldn't normally apply to. Of course diversity makes it harder to write viruses and spyware, but at the same time forcing diversity upon the computer industry might also make virus writers write multi-platform viruses. The motivation of evolution and that of a virus writer should not be compared since once is based on natural selection and the other is based on the conscience choice. It's not that non MS programs don't have exploits it just that most malicious programmers are not interested in writing a virus for openoffice or linux.
The comparison is really not valid at all beside that of saying DUH diversity can be advantageous. Unlike the real world however diversity in the computer field leads to confusion, lowered productivity and much harder administration.
Must a person make up a catchy phrase to claim credit for knowing that MS would get hit first my virus writers? I think anyone who knows anything about viruses already knew this information over a decade ago. This really isn't news just a fancy way of saying I told you so. Open document standards are a great idea, but it's not as big a disadvantage to MS as you would think. The competitions products simply are not that great. All MS has to do is make legacy products like Office 2000 work with open document standards to include diversity while excluding competitors.
Then why isn't iron the most abundant element in the universe and how do other elements come to exist?
I don't find it practical that fusion stops at iron, but more likely our understanding of natural fusion is flawed. Maybe thats why we suck at making fusion reactors eh.
Where does nuclear fission occur naturally since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Or did god just make it all like this.. ha. You'd think billions of years of nuclear fusion would have made iron pretty damn popular in space, but perhaps the vastness of space hides this. Or perhaps there is much more to eletromagnetic field interaction that we are aware and hence our understanding of the required temperature for fusable elements is flawed.
Re:List of "terrorist" websites is mostly Palestin
on
Al-Qaeda Hacker Caught
·
· Score: 1
I approve of any vastly oppressed demographics to fight back with violent force when presented with no other option. In fact I expect it to a degree that I think it is inevitable given the right conditions.
Terrorism is not a result of insane religious zealots. It is a valid way for poor countries without conventional military to battle rich nations which would otherwise walk all over them, take their land, take their resources and then write history books of their righteous liberations of a savage nation of suicide bombers.
Just because the average American cannot grasp the concept of being desperate enough to sacrafice their on life in an effort to bring attention to their conflict does not mean such behavious is unreasonable.
American's simply cannot relate to such behavious because they have never been in a situation where they were occupied by a superiour miltiary which was quickly encroaching upon their lands. If your family and neighbors were blown up by some misguided attempt to quell rebel uprisings. You would begin to understand the pain and hate that drives these people. But from the perspective of a computer screen in your climate controlled world of convenience it's hard to understand why anyone would take their own life isntead of just writting letters to their representatives. riight.
Terrorism is nothing more than a word that most commonly describes poor people who have formed their own make shift army to defend themselves against a oppression by a superior military. Just because their techniques are not conventional and just because they cannot afford tanks and planes does not mean they should just roll over and take it
If the US has the right to invade oil rich countries at will in the name of liberation without the people to be liberated consent, without the UN's consent and mostly without the public consent then the Palestinians can fight Isreal any damn way they please. Suggesting otherwise is foolish and shows you have no real grasp of the situation or of the basic principle of human nature that gives a person the right to defend their home.
Don't kid yourself Isrea is STEALING land from Palestine and Palestinians deserve the right to fight back.
Now if you think that suicide bombing is an invalid way to fight them then suggest what a bunch of poor people with little to no weapons are supposed to do in this situation beside just letting Isreal take their land.
Yes they target civilians, but all in all the Isreal military likely kills just as many innocent Palestinians but for some reason people think its ok to kill civilians with tanks and planes just not with suicide bombs.
This is the classic example of people being afraid and zealously labeling things they do not understand as EVIL.
In similar ignorance we constantly call the insurgent in Iraq terrorists when they are clearly targetting the Iraqi security forces and other people involved with the take over of their country. Insurgents are not terrorists even when they use bombs or research chemical weapons.
Terrorists have to be people who's real motives lie in mass murdering innocent civilians, otherwise their actions are no more terrorism than the US's military strikes are terrorism.
So in essence the possession of bomb making instructions and vital targets in DC no more constitutes terrorism explicity than does any planned military strike. The US sites on the largest supply of weapons of mass destruction and calls everyone who disagrees with them terrorists. When in fact is the US who posses the greatest threat to world peace and human life.
here is a definition of terrorism from dictionary.com:
'The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.'
According to this definition just about every US military action ever committed was to some degree an act of terrorism. The president makes common practice of threatening what we consider rouge nations wit
It shouldn't be looked down upon simply because we don't like that fact that it is effective against our country and our allies.
Maybe the US's idea to sell weapons to countries in the middle east in hopes they would endlessly battle each other was a bad idea.. Reagan and other republicans out there.
Our secret wars are here to haunt us and anyone who argue that the US and other western allies didn't have 'it coming to them' is just plain retarded.
We've killed through direct and indirect actions probably 100 times more innocent arabs than they have killed our people and vast majority of those deaths were not in response to 911 but long before bitter arabs joined together to seek revenge for the near slave like treatment we have imposed on these people and their countries.
We've been invading these people since at least the crusades if not back to the time of Alexander the great. When in history did the arabs launch a miltary assault against western powers? When in history did western power launch assaults against arab powers?
White people can sit back in their comfy overpriced disposable lifestyles whining about terrorists all they want and jumping for joy when they are caught like we have achieved some righteous goal, but there is no righteousness in our actions and there is no way to win a conflict like this with violence.
We have a war in the minds of large demographics of bitter and hateful arabian people. Children growing up without parents because their home was in the 'acceptable loss' zone of some bombing raid.
We are not winning, we are bankrupting ourselves with intangable investments that will not result in any type of return and will certainly not result in victory over terrorism (whatever that means).
We have labeled these people terrorists, but in all reality they are just groups of people making military strikes against the US. They strike at targets that can provide effective in harming the overall strength of our country. They do not randomly kill innocent people for no reason. In WW2 the fear of a Japaneese invasion created terror in the minds of the US population, however this doesn't make the Japaneese terrorsits even though they were willing to blow themselves up for the honor of victory.
Terrorism is just another meaningles catch phrase and in the vast majority of cases these people have factual and just reasons to seek vengence on the US. While not every terrorist may have been wronged directy by the west it is the knowledge of our continued meddling in their country and the muder of innocents that drives terrorism.
If Russia defeated the US military and attempted to occupy the US, we would be the ones blowing ourselves up and making makeshift bombs to defend our homeland.
It's funny how he who controls the media defines the enemy rather than letting the enemy define itself. Bin Laden cleary stated he is attack the US government for its involvement in corrupt practices with arab nations. His strike was actually quite precise and really didn't target civilians at all but rather symbols of american power and centers for government control.
American's are in denial of their involvement in the oppression of arab nations and that is why they do not realize that our position of killing 10,000+ innocent civilians a year is no differnet than Bin Ladens position of killing 3000 innocent American's on 9/11.
Just face it.. we had it coming for a long time now and they could have done a lot more damage if they really wanted. How about flying planes into nuclear power plants or a large sporting event. Obviously civilian casualties were not the goal of 9/11. It was an effective military strike which actually focused on American's response to being attacked not the actual damage done during the attack.
The real damage of 9/11 was getting the US involved in expensive wars they cannot win and effectively allowing an administration to use fear to re-write American civil rights in very short amount of time. We also alienated ourselves from our allies which in turn has led to potentially dangerous allia
Destruction of evidence is a crime.. so he is a criminal. Well first off if you were actually reading and paying attention you'd grasp the difference between personal data and evidence.
Just cuz the company owns the laptop does not make every piece of data on it theirs.
As a reader already pointed out if the company wanted to keep tabs on what their employee was doing then they should have spied on him via the company network or taken his laptop without first warning him.
Just because you use a pencil from work to write a note to your wife doesn't mean the company intrinsically owns the data simply because you produced it using their pencil or paper. So any claim that all the data on his laptop could be considered company property is a joke and is more then pushing the envelope of personal privacy.
Cases like this are great because they strengthen our rights by pointing out the continued erosion of personal privacy and getting people interested. If Americans are freaking out because they could be wiretapped imagine what they would do if we told them every note they have written and every word they have said at work or using company paper, pencils, cell phones or computers magically belongs to that company.
If there is evidence on the computer then it has to be addresses as evidence, and they must provide the burdeon of that proof and good reasons for why they waited to long to review the potential evidence to see if it was even there.
Obviously if they had ANY case what-so-ever they would have siezed the laptop from him like the police do with no questions asked. This will be a stupid move on the companies part as they have gone and gotten their private happenings into the public eye.
If the guy dropped his laptop in the pool or something are they gonna claim that as a computer crime for destroying company data.
It's not as if they don't have backups of the vast majority of work he did or else they DESERVE to lose their data as they had no reasonable plan for data backup in place.
It's also ridiculous to suggest that if a person stores personal data on their laptop they have no right to remove.
Any data worth not losing should have been backed up as company procedure. They only have their selves to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
If you generalize things enough then you can make almost any rule apply to fields that it wouldn't normally apply to. Of course diversity makes it harder to write viruses and spyware, but at the same time forcing diversity upon the computer industry might also make virus writers write multi-platform viruses. The motivation of evolution and that of a virus writer should not be compared since once is based on natural selection and the other is based on the conscience choice. It's not that non MS programs don't have exploits it just that most malicious programmers are not interested in writing a virus for openoffice or linux. The comparison is really not valid at all beside that of saying DUH diversity can be advantageous. Unlike the real world however diversity in the computer field leads to confusion, lowered productivity and much harder administration. Must a person make up a catchy phrase to claim credit for knowing that MS would get hit first my virus writers? I think anyone who knows anything about viruses already knew this information over a decade ago. This really isn't news just a fancy way of saying I told you so. Open document standards are a great idea, but it's not as big a disadvantage to MS as you would think. The competitions products simply are not that great. All MS has to do is make legacy products like Office 2000 work with open document standards to include diversity while excluding competitors.
Then why isn't iron the most abundant element in the universe and how do other elements come to exist? I don't find it practical that fusion stops at iron, but more likely our understanding of natural fusion is flawed. Maybe thats why we suck at making fusion reactors eh. Where does nuclear fission occur naturally since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Or did god just make it all like this.. ha. You'd think billions of years of nuclear fusion would have made iron pretty damn popular in space, but perhaps the vastness of space hides this. Or perhaps there is much more to eletromagnetic field interaction that we are aware and hence our understanding of the required temperature for fusable elements is flawed.
I approve of any vastly oppressed demographics to fight back with violent force when presented with no other option. In fact I expect it to a degree that I think it is inevitable given the right conditions. Terrorism is not a result of insane religious zealots. It is a valid way for poor countries without conventional military to battle rich nations which would otherwise walk all over them, take their land, take their resources and then write history books of their righteous liberations of a savage nation of suicide bombers. Just because the average American cannot grasp the concept of being desperate enough to sacrafice their on life in an effort to bring attention to their conflict does not mean such behavious is unreasonable. American's simply cannot relate to such behavious because they have never been in a situation where they were occupied by a superiour miltiary which was quickly encroaching upon their lands. If your family and neighbors were blown up by some misguided attempt to quell rebel uprisings. You would begin to understand the pain and hate that drives these people. But from the perspective of a computer screen in your climate controlled world of convenience it's hard to understand why anyone would take their own life isntead of just writting letters to their representatives. riight. Terrorism is nothing more than a word that most commonly describes poor people who have formed their own make shift army to defend themselves against a oppression by a superior military. Just because their techniques are not conventional and just because they cannot afford tanks and planes does not mean they should just roll over and take it If the US has the right to invade oil rich countries at will in the name of liberation without the people to be liberated consent, without the UN's consent and mostly without the public consent then the Palestinians can fight Isreal any damn way they please. Suggesting otherwise is foolish and shows you have no real grasp of the situation or of the basic principle of human nature that gives a person the right to defend their home. Don't kid yourself Isrea is STEALING land from Palestine and Palestinians deserve the right to fight back. Now if you think that suicide bombing is an invalid way to fight them then suggest what a bunch of poor people with little to no weapons are supposed to do in this situation beside just letting Isreal take their land. Yes they target civilians, but all in all the Isreal military likely kills just as many innocent Palestinians but for some reason people think its ok to kill civilians with tanks and planes just not with suicide bombs. This is the classic example of people being afraid and zealously labeling things they do not understand as EVIL. In similar ignorance we constantly call the insurgent in Iraq terrorists when they are clearly targetting the Iraqi security forces and other people involved with the take over of their country. Insurgents are not terrorists even when they use bombs or research chemical weapons. Terrorists have to be people who's real motives lie in mass murdering innocent civilians, otherwise their actions are no more terrorism than the US's military strikes are terrorism. So in essence the possession of bomb making instructions and vital targets in DC no more constitutes terrorism explicity than does any planned military strike. The US sites on the largest supply of weapons of mass destruction and calls everyone who disagrees with them terrorists. When in fact is the US who posses the greatest threat to world peace and human life. here is a definition of terrorism from dictionary.com: 'The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.' According to this definition just about every US military action ever committed was to some degree an act of terrorism. The president makes common practice of threatening what we consider rouge nations wit
It shouldn't be looked down upon simply because we don't like that fact that it is effective against our country and our allies. Maybe the US's idea to sell weapons to countries in the middle east in hopes they would endlessly battle each other was a bad idea.. Reagan and other republicans out there. Our secret wars are here to haunt us and anyone who argue that the US and other western allies didn't have 'it coming to them' is just plain retarded. We've killed through direct and indirect actions probably 100 times more innocent arabs than they have killed our people and vast majority of those deaths were not in response to 911 but long before bitter arabs joined together to seek revenge for the near slave like treatment we have imposed on these people and their countries. We've been invading these people since at least the crusades if not back to the time of Alexander the great. When in history did the arabs launch a miltary assault against western powers? When in history did western power launch assaults against arab powers? White people can sit back in their comfy overpriced disposable lifestyles whining about terrorists all they want and jumping for joy when they are caught like we have achieved some righteous goal, but there is no righteousness in our actions and there is no way to win a conflict like this with violence. We have a war in the minds of large demographics of bitter and hateful arabian people. Children growing up without parents because their home was in the 'acceptable loss' zone of some bombing raid. We are not winning, we are bankrupting ourselves with intangable investments that will not result in any type of return and will certainly not result in victory over terrorism (whatever that means). We have labeled these people terrorists, but in all reality they are just groups of people making military strikes against the US. They strike at targets that can provide effective in harming the overall strength of our country. They do not randomly kill innocent people for no reason. In WW2 the fear of a Japaneese invasion created terror in the minds of the US population, however this doesn't make the Japaneese terrorsits even though they were willing to blow themselves up for the honor of victory. Terrorism is just another meaningles catch phrase and in the vast majority of cases these people have factual and just reasons to seek vengence on the US. While not every terrorist may have been wronged directy by the west it is the knowledge of our continued meddling in their country and the muder of innocents that drives terrorism. If Russia defeated the US military and attempted to occupy the US, we would be the ones blowing ourselves up and making makeshift bombs to defend our homeland. It's funny how he who controls the media defines the enemy rather than letting the enemy define itself. Bin Laden cleary stated he is attack the US government for its involvement in corrupt practices with arab nations. His strike was actually quite precise and really didn't target civilians at all but rather symbols of american power and centers for government control. American's are in denial of their involvement in the oppression of arab nations and that is why they do not realize that our position of killing 10,000+ innocent civilians a year is no differnet than Bin Ladens position of killing 3000 innocent American's on 9/11. Just face it.. we had it coming for a long time now and they could have done a lot more damage if they really wanted. How about flying planes into nuclear power plants or a large sporting event. Obviously civilian casualties were not the goal of 9/11. It was an effective military strike which actually focused on American's response to being attacked not the actual damage done during the attack. The real damage of 9/11 was getting the US involved in expensive wars they cannot win and effectively allowing an administration to use fear to re-write American civil rights in very short amount of time. We also alienated ourselves from our allies which in turn has led to potentially dangerous allia
Destruction of evidence is a crime .. so he is a criminal. Well first off if you were actually reading and paying attention you'd grasp the difference between personal data and evidence.
Just cuz the company owns the laptop does not make every piece of data on it theirs.
As a reader already pointed out if the company wanted to keep tabs on what their employee was doing then they should have spied on him via the company network or taken his laptop without first warning him.
Just because you use a pencil from work to write a note to your wife doesn't mean the company intrinsically owns the data simply because you produced it using their pencil or paper. So any claim that all the data on his laptop could be considered company property is a joke and is more then pushing the envelope of personal privacy.
Cases like this are great because they strengthen our rights by pointing out the continued erosion of personal privacy and getting people interested. If Americans are freaking out because they could be wiretapped imagine what they would do if we told them every note they have written and every word they have said at work or using company paper, pencils, cell phones or computers magically belongs to that company.
If there is evidence on the computer then it has to be addresses as evidence, and they must provide the burdeon of that proof and good reasons for why they waited to long to review the potential evidence to see if it was even there.
Obviously if they had ANY case what-so-ever they would have siezed the laptop from him like the police do with no questions asked. This will be a stupid move on the companies part as they have gone and gotten their private happenings into the public eye.
If the guy dropped his laptop in the pool or something are they gonna claim that as a computer crime for destroying company data.
It's not as if they don't have backups of the vast majority of work he did or else they DESERVE to lose their data as they had no reasonable plan for data backup in place.
It's also ridiculous to suggest that if a person stores personal data on their laptop they have no right to remove.
Any data worth not losing should have been backed up as company procedure. They only have their selves to blame.