They enlisted into the Army. Saying that murdering people is "ok" because it's "appropriate to the ROE of their mission" or some other stupid military jargon (I don't even know or care about the meaning of ROE) doesn't make it right. Don't loose focus here... they enlisted into a force that exists for the sole purpose of murdering people overseas just to sell weapons.
Oh, ok then. I will go out and drive my car at 150 mph in the middle of town. If I happen to kill anyone, It won't be my fault, because I didn't see them. And if I happen to kill any kids, It won't be bad because I didn't knew they were kids, I thought I was just running over adults.
Dude, they are invading a foreign country and murdering people for absolutely no reason. No, those guys are not the ENEMY, they are DEFENDING THEIR FUCKING COUNTRY FROM INVADING FORCES.
I know you have a hard time accepting this, but put in terms a 5 year old can understand, the US military are the BAD GUYS.
Ah, I see. This medals were given to you by the same corrupt government/military that sent you there to murder all that people in the first place, right?
You invade other countries, you still their resources, and then give them a bag of food, and you are suddenly a hero. You are nothing but scam. I know there is no god, but since you are in the military you probably believe it, therefore "I hope you rot in hell".
Iraqis have the right to murder any non-Iraqi they see, because they are being invaded. They sovereign nation has been invaded by a bunch of fags with high tech and an agenda to push.
Listen to the fucking audio. They were dying to murder those guys. They knew there were children in the minivan (the minivan that came by to pick up the wounded and bury the dead) and they said "it's their own fault for bringing the kids to a war zone", and proceeded to open fire on them. They killed childs, knowingly.
This is not WWII. This is not a war at all, it's an invasion. The US invaded another sovereign nation. Also, this guys are full of technology. This wasn't some guy with a shitty riffle shooting through the jungle and hitting the wrong target. The only reason most people join the military is because they are murderers.
The "group of armed man" was actually a group of around 12 guys, all in a pretty relaxed attitude, none of them was pointing their guns at anything. Only a few of them had guns. Some of them where reporters.
They fired mercilessly destroying the whole place. They stayed to check if anyone was moving, when they saw a few still alive, wounded, agonizingly crawling on the ground, the shoot them again.
Then a minivan appeared, carrying UNARMED CHILDREN AND ADULTS, to clean up the mess, help the wounded, bury the dead. They where all shot dead. They guys in the helicopter new there were kids. And they said (over the radio) "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone".
Well, damn, that wasn't a war zone until the US military arrived. And guess what? They had no reason whatever to be there. They made up a war because they needed to sell weapons. Try defending that.
Also, you guys need a good derogatory slang for "military". In Spanish, we say "milicos de mierda". That's the only way anyone here refers to anyone even remotely linked to the murdering machine that is the military.
My primary language is Spanish, my secondary language used to be French when I was little, but I can hardly speak it now, my third language is English. I also speak a bit of Portuguese, and some Latin and Esperanto. I love learning new languages. And yet, the language I love the most, the one I wanted to learn above every other language is German. I live in Argentina (our language is Spanish), and I've been searching around for a school where I can learn German through English. I feel very comfortable with English, and I just think it would be easier to learn German from another Saxon language like English, just like it would be easier to learn French from another Latin language like Spanish. I haven't had any luck yet. Anyway, I hate the way English has been corrupting other languages. I absolutely agree with using words in other languages when there is no real word for it in your own language, or when using the original word just transmits something that the word in your language doesn't, or because of historical reasons (for example, we all use the German word Kernel, even when there are perfectly good words with the same meaning in every language). But the marketing use of English all around the world to replace perfectly good words in native languages just drives me nuts. It bothers me even more in certain languages (for instance, German). A language with such a fucking amazing sound as Ach and the ability to make up words on the fly shouldn't borrow words from any other language. Same thing happens to me on Spanish, specially when they borrow verbs and misuse them. Spanish has a very complex and rich verb conjugation, and using 'static' verbs (AKA verbs with just a few inflections) is just awful./rant
Well, I'd like to thank the times editors, and not god, because the times editors, unlike god, exist and had something to do with this.
If I had to report on something I would say that it was "published online using the tweeter.com service" or something like that. Taking brands and using them with such ubiquity is an awful practice. Specially when we are talking about stuff as retarded as tweeter/facebook or any of the other "social networks".
People consider oil/coal/whatever burning a logical approach. We need to rephrase that: Our society is based on burning a limited supply of shit that died ages ago and rocks that take millions of years to form.
Wow, that sounds ridiculous.
Burning oil/coal is the equivalent of a bunch of guys marooned on a desolate planet with just tools and books on how to build a clean energy source. Instead of reading the books and building one, they burn the books.
I see oil and coal as parts of our bootstrapping process. Coal and a steam engine were phase 1. Oil is phase 2. It is now time for phase 3, which should be nuclear + hydroelectric. Stage 4 is still unknown, but it's probably fusion.
Well, you have three groups inside all those we refer to as "greens":
1st) People that defend the interests behind everything oil-related, and therefore are against nuclear power and other sources that can mostly replace oil-based power today. This includes most of the people that is against hydroelectric, atomic, etc. 2nd) Tree-huggers, hippies, snobs, etc. They just either feel guilty, or want to look cool, or just want to belong to a group and be against something. They just like the idea of solar/wind power. "ah, mother earth and father sun gives us all we need". That kind of crap. They don't really understand anything about power production. They are against anything nuclear 3rd) People truly concerned about the environment, that understand that humans are part of the environment, and that we can't stop progress.
The problem is that even if you have properly configured GLX for your Intel GMA or similar, Flash thinks it's not a supported GL environment, and uses software rendering. That's because Flash sucks donkey balls.
Just go and edit/etc/adobe/mms.cfg, and set OverrideGPUValidation to 1.
I did that with several atom-based motherboards, including several mini-itx mobos from Intel and Foxconn (with Atom 230, 330 and 510) and several GMA cards, including the 950 and the 3150. I can play HD flash video just fine.
I maintain several VoIP servers (Asterisk) around the world, namely in the US, Brasil and Argentina. I've also had servers in Australia and the UK before. I know the price of bandwidth around the world. It varies greatly. So, yes, if you go near the Texas/Florida area, and you want to get bandwidth straight from the hose, you'll pay a fair price. Now, when you want to get that same bandwidth wireless with coverage anywhere in the world, or you want it delivered to your house, the prices will rise. The last mile is still more expensive, and it'll be that way until we switch from the current scheme to a mesh-like array. Eventually, the distinction between backbone and last mile will dissipate. Until then, you'll pay for your last mile through the nose.
You are paying for bandwidth. "Unlimited" means as much as you can download in a month. A month has ~2592000 Seconds. At, let's say, 2 mbps, you can download ~632 GB per month. If you have 2 connections with the same characteristics, you can download up to ~1265 GB. I am not defending the ISPs, I am just saying the article is unreasonable. The internet is expensive. If the internet doesn't grow, or if it's not maintained, it dies. There is no central structure, just a lot of peers. Each spends money on laying fiber, buying routers, and administrating that infrastructure. ISPs spend money on the last mile. Then, they sell each other bandwidth. That's it. Real, pure bandwidth means a symmetrical and dedicated CIR connection. ISPs cut that bandwidth, and sell it in a different way. Buying a CIR link with a nice SLA is expensive. ISPs buy those links and sell them in different, cheaper ways. When you pay for an "unlimited" data plan, you are paying for an statistically calculated share of backbone bandwidth, plus the cost of the last mile, administration, etc. You will have to pay for all those costs eventually, one way or another. If you don't want to be metered, or don't want to pay for additional things like tethering, then buy your own real bandwidth and share it however you like.
The real complain here is that ISPs are guilty of false advertising, and people have bought into that false advertising. They truly do believe you can get 10 mbps for 80 bucks a month. Guess what, there is no way you can actually get such a connection. You are paying for a 10mbps asymmetric MIR. A statistically calculated share of bandwidth. Of course, then they wonder why, oh why do they have to pay extra for a few MB on their mobile phone when they already have all the bandwidth in the world on their "unlimited" home broadband.
The real complain here should be that ISPs are just charging way too much for extremely limited services, and that their prices don't scale up nicely. When you want to buy anything better than their usual plans (for example bigger upload bandwidth) they make you pay through the nose. Asking them to drop their prices and to scale up fairly when you want a little bit more is fair. But pretending that bandwidth is a free resource and that you already paid for it in your "unlimited" data plan is ridiculous.
The reason why most tests failed with browsers other than IE:
1st) Since HTML5 is still in a very early state, many browsers (AKA Webkit, Gecko, Presto) used prefixes for most tags and CSS properties. Example: round borders is -moz-border-radius in gecko, and -webkit-border-radius in Chrome. Some latest versions have taken some out of beta and also read border-radius, but most still don't. IE obviously uses border-radius, and that's why other's don't work. 2nd) The JS is tricky at best. Go and check it out. Lots of lines of code to perform a simple task, and those lines are carefully selected to fail in other browsers. I downloaded the tests, and they work on ALL browsers (I tested Chrome, Firefox and Opera, all on GNU/Linux, all on their latest version). That JS was crafted to fail on all browsers and work only on IE 3rd) I took the time to run the source of many of their scripts through the W3C validator. Most scripts have several warnings, some errors, etc. They DO NOT VALIDATE. 4th) The tests aren't really HTML5. Only the HTML5 tests are actual HTML5, the others are XHTML 1.0 strict... except they are not, because they use HTML5 styles and tags, and they do not validate. Validator says: The document located at was tentatively checked as XHTML 1.0 Strict. This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML, HTML5 and/or XML Parser(s). In other words, the document would validate as XHTML 1.0 Strict if you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.
It's microsoft... never forget about that. This is business as usual.
Sorry to reply to myself, but this ridiculous "research" comes out a day after Google announces it's ditching windows because it's insecure. Anyone smells microsoft behind this "independent research"?
This guys installed a fucking KERNEL MODULE into that system. Well, they can make it receive calls, or they can make it play fucking tetris. It's code. You can write whatever you want, and execute it however you want, if you have access!
Being able to run code in a given processor is NOT AN EXPLOIT, it's just basic functionality. If I got ahold of your computer, installed a CD drive in it, erased your OS, then installed Ubuntu on it, and used that to play tetris, is that considered a vulnerability too?
It would be a vuln if they had the ability to install that fucking rootkit without physical access to the phone. That's the hard part.
How secure something is in itself doesn't have anything to do with how often it gets attacked.
If you leave a box out there in the woods with a million dollars inside where nobody can find it, the box is totally insecure, and yet nobody will get the money. If you instead put the money in a state of the art vault, the vault is more secure than the box, and yet more likely to get stolen.
On the other hand, I don't know where this whole "windows is more attacked than Unix" crap comes from.
Unix OSes have been around for 4 decades. They were big in servers before any other OS still in existence today was even created. Most of the important developments of the last 40 years happened in a Unix-like box. Still today, Unix is WAY bigger than windows in servers. 3 to 1. Windows doesn't really get attacked. It attacks itself. That is, malware propagates automatically. That's all it takes to get a windows box, a shitty self-propagvting script. Unix boxes, on the other hand, get shitload of targeted attacks all the time. The reason: There is valuable, important stuff going on in Unix servers, way more valuable than in porn-filled windows desktops. I administrate several GNU/Linux and OpenBSD servers. I am port-scanned tons of times every day. I run Honeypots on well known services like OpenSSH, and the real services somewhere else. I see tons of attempts every day, everything from crappy dictionary attacks to Apache exploits. I administrate many servers that move a quite important amount of minutes through Asterisk. You wouldn't believe how many SIP exploits are tried everyday in all of my servers. Everything from bruteforce with shitty dictionaries on SIP accounts, to more sophisticated dirscans, to several attempts at cracking SIP's digest auth.
So, windows gets owned by scripts written by 10 year olds, while Unix holds well against pro crackers that make a living off stealing everything from VOIP minutes to CC #s. Of course, a competent sysadmin helps a lot, but I've seen machines that have gone years unattended and still weren't touched. Last year I got a call from a customer that was having some issues with their PBX. They had a Slackware 10.1 machine running Asterisk 1.2 that I installed almost 6 fucking years ago. Then we lost contact. They never had a single issue. They contacted me last year because they wanted to add a full E1 to replace the 4 analogue lines plus a SIP truck that were feeding calls into that PBX. The machine was on the public internet the whole time, and wasn't updated a single time. It had an uptime of over 500 days. Try that with a windows machine any time.
When we speak about GNU/Linux functionality, nobody takes relative values into account. They only take into account the absolute final result. Example, nobody takes into account the great hardware compatibility considering 99% of all drivers were written by the community after reverse engineering the hardware and/or other OSes privative drivers. People (including microsoft) only mention that GNU/Linux doesn't support all features of X hardware, and windows does, and therefore it's better. Same thing for apps, marketshare, etc. They only say "More people have windows, it supports more apps, whatever, period. ".
So, why should we take into account relative values when talking about windows?
I don't care if they are trying hard, or if they have more marketshare, or about any other factor. The ONLY operating system that requires antivirus, antispyware, and other crap is windows. It is also the only operating system that is consistently, publicly and massively cracked around the world all the time. There are several botnets around the net that are the source of most spam, and this botnets consist of windows machines only.
So, in absolute terms, the most secure OS is OpenBSD. The most insecure is Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
They enlisted into the Army. Saying that murdering people is "ok" because it's "appropriate to the ROE of their mission" or some other stupid military jargon (I don't even know or care about the meaning of ROE) doesn't make it right. Don't loose focus here ... they enlisted into a force that exists for the sole purpose of murdering people overseas just to sell weapons.
Oh, ok then. I will go out and drive my car at 150 mph in the middle of town. If I happen to kill anyone, It won't be my fault, because I didn't see them. And if I happen to kill any kids, It won't be bad because I didn't knew they were kids, I thought I was just running over adults.
Dude, they are invading a foreign country and murdering people for absolutely no reason. No, those guys are not the ENEMY, they are DEFENDING THEIR FUCKING COUNTRY FROM INVADING FORCES.
I know you have a hard time accepting this, but put in terms a 5 year old can understand, the US military are the BAD GUYS.
Ah, I see. This medals were given to you by the same corrupt government/military that sent you there to murder all that people in the first place, right?
You invade other countries, you still their resources, and then give them a bag of food, and you are suddenly a hero. You are nothing but scam. I know there is no god, but since you are in the military you probably believe it, therefore "I hope you rot in hell".
Iraqis have the right to murder any non-Iraqi they see, because they are being invaded. They sovereign nation has been invaded by a bunch of fags with high tech and an agenda to push.
Listen to the fucking audio. They were dying to murder those guys. They knew there were children in the minivan (the minivan that came by to pick up the wounded and bury the dead) and they said "it's their own fault for bringing the kids to a war zone", and proceeded to open fire on them. They killed childs, knowingly.
This is not WWII. This is not a war at all, it's an invasion. The US invaded another sovereign nation. Also, this guys are full of technology. This wasn't some guy with a shitty riffle shooting through the jungle and hitting the wrong target. The only reason most people join the military is because they are murderers.
Excuse me, when you say
the hard way
, you mean murdering kids overseas, right?
What video did you see?
The "group of armed man" was actually a group of around 12 guys, all in a pretty relaxed attitude, none of them was pointing their guns at anything. Only a few of them had guns. Some of them where reporters.
They fired mercilessly destroying the whole place. They stayed to check if anyone was moving, when they saw a few still alive, wounded, agonizingly crawling on the ground, the shoot them again.
Then a minivan appeared, carrying UNARMED CHILDREN AND ADULTS, to clean up the mess, help the wounded, bury the dead. They where all shot dead. They guys in the helicopter new there were kids. And they said (over the radio) "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone".
Well, damn, that wasn't a war zone until the US military arrived. And guess what? They had no reason whatever to be there. They made up a war because they needed to sell weapons. Try defending that.
Also, you guys need a good derogatory slang for "military". In Spanish, we say "milicos de mierda". That's the only way anyone here refers to anyone even remotely linked to the murdering machine that is the military.
Are you kidding me? French is one of the most beautiful, rich and complex languages in the world. Polluting it with English is a crime.
My primary language is Spanish, my secondary language used to be French when I was little, but I can hardly speak it now, my third language is English. I also speak a bit of Portuguese, and some Latin and Esperanto. I love learning new languages. And yet, the language I love the most, the one I wanted to learn above every other language is German. I live in Argentina (our language is Spanish), and I've been searching around for a school where I can learn German through English. I feel very comfortable with English, and I just think it would be easier to learn German from another Saxon language like English, just like it would be easier to learn French from another Latin language like Spanish. I haven't had any luck yet. Anyway, I hate the way English has been corrupting other languages. I absolutely agree with using words in other languages when there is no real word for it in your own language, or when using the original word just transmits something that the word in your language doesn't, or because of historical reasons (for example, we all use the German word Kernel, even when there are perfectly good words with the same meaning in every language). But the marketing use of English all around the world to replace perfectly good words in native languages just drives me nuts. It bothers me even more in certain languages (for instance, German). A language with such a fucking amazing sound as Ach and the ability to make up words on the fly shouldn't borrow words from any other language. Same thing happens to me on Spanish, specially when they borrow verbs and misuse them. Spanish has a very complex and rich verb conjugation, and using 'static' verbs (AKA verbs with just a few inflections) is just awful. /rant
Of course they shouldn't use "to google". We all know the proper verb is "to grep" ;)
Well, I'd like to thank the times editors, and not god, because the times editors, unlike god, exist and had something to do with this.
If I had to report on something I would say that it was "published online using the tweeter.com service" or something like that. Taking brands and using them with such ubiquity is an awful practice. Specially when we are talking about stuff as retarded as tweeter/facebook or any of the other "social networks".
People consider oil/coal/whatever burning a logical approach. We need to rephrase that: Our society is based on burning a limited supply of shit that died ages ago and rocks that take millions of years to form.
Wow, that sounds ridiculous.
Burning oil/coal is the equivalent of a bunch of guys marooned on a desolate planet with just tools and books on how to build a clean energy source. Instead of reading the books and building one, they burn the books.
I see oil and coal as parts of our bootstrapping process. Coal and a steam engine were phase 1. Oil is phase 2. It is now time for phase 3, which should be nuclear + hydroelectric. Stage 4 is still unknown, but it's probably fusion.
Well, you have three groups inside all those we refer to as "greens":
1st) People that defend the interests behind everything oil-related, and therefore are against nuclear power and other sources that can mostly replace oil-based power today. This includes most of the people that is against hydroelectric, atomic, etc.
2nd) Tree-huggers, hippies, snobs, etc. They just either feel guilty, or want to look cool, or just want to belong to a group and be against something. They just like the idea of solar/wind power. "ah, mother earth and father sun gives us all we need". That kind of crap. They don't really understand anything about power production. They are against anything nuclear
3rd) People truly concerned about the environment, that understand that humans are part of the environment, and that we can't stop progress.
Sadly, the 3rd group is a minority.
You can solve that easily.
The problem is that even if you have properly configured GLX for your Intel GMA or similar, Flash thinks it's not a supported GL environment, and uses software rendering. That's because Flash sucks donkey balls.
Just go and edit /etc/adobe/mms.cfg, and set OverrideGPUValidation to 1.
I did that with several atom-based motherboards, including several mini-itx mobos from Intel and Foxconn (with Atom 230, 330 and 510) and several GMA cards, including the 950 and the 3150. I can play HD flash video just fine.
I maintain several VoIP servers (Asterisk) around the world, namely in the US, Brasil and Argentina. I've also had servers in Australia and the UK before. I know the price of bandwidth around the world. It varies greatly. So, yes, if you go near the Texas/Florida area, and you want to get bandwidth straight from the hose, you'll pay a fair price. Now, when you want to get that same bandwidth wireless with coverage anywhere in the world, or you want it delivered to your house, the prices will rise. The last mile is still more expensive, and it'll be that way until we switch from the current scheme to a mesh-like array. Eventually, the distinction between backbone and last mile will dissipate. Until then, you'll pay for your last mile through the nose.
You are paying for bandwidth. "Unlimited" means as much as you can download in a month. A month has ~2592000 Seconds. At, let's say, 2 mbps, you can download ~632 GB per month.
If you have 2 connections with the same characteristics, you can download up to ~1265 GB. I am not defending the ISPs, I am just saying the article is unreasonable. The internet is expensive. If the internet doesn't grow, or if it's not maintained, it dies. There is no central structure, just a lot of peers. Each spends money on laying fiber, buying routers, and administrating that infrastructure. ISPs spend money on the last mile. Then, they sell each other bandwidth. That's it. Real, pure bandwidth means a symmetrical and dedicated CIR connection. ISPs cut that bandwidth, and sell it in a different way. Buying a CIR link with a nice SLA is expensive. ISPs buy those links and sell them in different, cheaper ways. When you pay for an "unlimited" data plan, you are paying for an statistically calculated share of backbone bandwidth, plus the cost of the last mile, administration, etc. You will have to pay for all those costs eventually, one way or another. If you don't want to be metered, or don't want to pay for additional things like tethering, then buy your own real bandwidth and share it however you like.
The real complain here is that ISPs are guilty of false advertising, and people have bought into that false advertising. They truly do believe you can get 10 mbps for 80 bucks a month. Guess what, there is no way you can actually get such a connection. You are paying for a 10mbps asymmetric MIR. A statistically calculated share of bandwidth. Of course, then they wonder why, oh why do they have to pay extra for a few MB on their mobile phone when they already have all the bandwidth in the world on their "unlimited" home broadband.
The real complain here should be that ISPs are just charging way too much for extremely limited services, and that their prices don't scale up nicely. When you want to buy anything better than their usual plans (for example bigger upload bandwidth) they make you pay through the nose. Asking them to drop their prices and to scale up fairly when you want a little bit more is fair. But pretending that bandwidth is a free resource and that you already paid for it in your "unlimited" data plan is ridiculous.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I forgot a few things:
1st: The actual ietestcenter fails validation with 12 errors and 6 warnings: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
Including some serious ones, like no Character encoding specified.
None of the tests specify a character encoding either.
The reason why most tests failed with browsers other than IE:
1st) Since HTML5 is still in a very early state, many browsers (AKA Webkit, Gecko, Presto) used prefixes for most tags and CSS properties. Example: round borders is -moz-border-radius in gecko, and -webkit-border-radius in Chrome. Some latest versions have taken some out of beta and also read border-radius, but most still don't. IE obviously uses border-radius, and that's why other's don't work. ... except they are not, because they use HTML5 styles and tags, and they do not validate. Validator says: The document located at was tentatively checked as XHTML 1.0 Strict. This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML, HTML5 and/or XML Parser(s). In other words, the document would validate as XHTML 1.0 Strict if you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.
2nd) The JS is tricky at best. Go and check it out. Lots of lines of code to perform a simple task, and those lines are carefully selected to fail in other browsers. I downloaded the tests, and they work on ALL browsers (I tested Chrome, Firefox and Opera, all on GNU/Linux, all on their latest version). That JS was crafted to fail on all browsers and work only on IE
3rd) I took the time to run the source of many of their scripts through the W3C validator. Most scripts have several warnings, some errors, etc. They DO NOT VALIDATE.
4th) The tests aren't really HTML5. Only the HTML5 tests are actual HTML5, the others are XHTML 1.0 strict
It's microsoft ... never forget about that. This is business as usual.
Some things are better kept private [google.com]
The goggles! they do nothing!
Precisely. Windows is the most insecure OS ever in BOTH definitions.
Sorry to reply to myself, but this ridiculous "research" comes out a day after Google announces it's ditching windows because it's insecure. Anyone smells microsoft behind this "independent research"?
Film at 11.
This guys installed a fucking KERNEL MODULE into that system. Well, they can make it receive calls, or they can make it play fucking tetris. It's code. You can write whatever you want, and execute it however you want, if you have access!
Being able to run code in a given processor is NOT AN EXPLOIT, it's just basic functionality. If I got ahold of your computer, installed a CD drive in it, erased your OS, then installed Ubuntu on it, and used that to play tetris, is that considered a vulnerability too?
It would be a vuln if they had the ability to install that fucking rootkit without physical access to the phone. That's the hard part.
Article is FUD and submiter is trolling. 0/10
How secure something is in itself doesn't have anything to do with how often it gets attacked.
If you leave a box out there in the woods with a million dollars inside where nobody can find it, the box is totally insecure, and yet nobody will get the money. If you instead put the money in a state of the art vault, the vault is more secure than the box, and yet more likely to get stolen.
On the other hand, I don't know where this whole "windows is more attacked than Unix" crap comes from.
Unix OSes have been around for 4 decades. They were big in servers before any other OS still in existence today was even created. Most of the important developments of the last 40 years happened in a Unix-like box. Still today, Unix is WAY bigger than windows in servers. 3 to 1. Windows doesn't really get attacked. It attacks itself. That is, malware propagates automatically. That's all it takes to get a windows box, a shitty self-propagvting script. Unix boxes, on the other hand, get shitload of targeted attacks all the time. The reason: There is valuable, important stuff going on in Unix servers, way more valuable than in porn-filled windows desktops. I administrate several GNU/Linux and OpenBSD servers. I am port-scanned tons of times every day. I run Honeypots on well known services like OpenSSH, and the real services somewhere else. I see tons of attempts every day, everything from crappy dictionary attacks to Apache exploits. I administrate many servers that move a quite important amount of minutes through Asterisk. You wouldn't believe how many SIP exploits are tried everyday in all of my servers. Everything from bruteforce with shitty dictionaries on SIP accounts, to more sophisticated dirscans, to several attempts at cracking SIP's digest auth.
So, windows gets owned by scripts written by 10 year olds, while Unix holds well against pro crackers that make a living off stealing everything from VOIP minutes to CC #s. Of course, a competent sysadmin helps a lot, but I've seen machines that have gone years unattended and still weren't touched. Last year I got a call from a customer that was having some issues with their PBX. They had a Slackware 10.1 machine running Asterisk 1.2 that I installed almost 6 fucking years ago. Then we lost contact. They never had a single issue. They contacted me last year because they wanted to add a full E1 to replace the 4 analogue lines plus a SIP truck that were feeding calls into that PBX. The machine was on the public internet the whole time, and wasn't updated a single time. It had an uptime of over 500 days. Try that with a windows machine any time.
When we speak about GNU/Linux functionality, nobody takes relative values into account. They only take into account the absolute final result. Example, nobody takes into account the great hardware compatibility considering 99% of all drivers were written by the community after reverse engineering the hardware and/or other OSes privative drivers. People (including microsoft) only mention that GNU/Linux doesn't support all features of X hardware, and windows does, and therefore it's better.
Same thing for apps, marketshare, etc. They only say "More people have windows, it supports more apps, whatever, period. ".
So, why should we take into account relative values when talking about windows?
I don't care if they are trying hard, or if they have more marketshare, or about any other factor. The ONLY operating system that requires antivirus, antispyware, and other crap is windows. It is also the only operating system that is consistently, publicly and massively cracked around the world all the time. There are several botnets around the net that are the source of most spam, and this botnets consist of windows machines only.
So, in absolute terms, the most secure OS is OpenBSD. The most insecure is Windows.