Out of curiosity, did you put together a list of Microsoft Windows virus's?
Did a couple searches (virus info only) and found: (listed by term and count)
microsoft - 2015
windows - 2321
linux - 134
sun - 19
solaris - 6
aix - 1
hpux - 1
mac - 66
unix - 102
Now the interesting part of this is that most of the non-MS queries I did ended up in this count only because they were part of an MS virus entry that had a note about updating the DAT files for other platforms too. Essentially the numbers for non-MS searches are inflated.
And yes, I know that MS's platform dominance drives virus development, but one could certainly argue that there are enough of the other platforms to draw the occasional virus, or maybe a cross platform virus. Oh yeah, MS software doesn't usually run cross platform and things like Java appear to be mostly immune (and yes, there appears to be 1 general Java virus along with a handful of other Java virus's that are specific to the MS JVM - odd that only the MS JVM implimentation is bad).
Re:Viruses spread by stupidity not OS'es.
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The issue behind the privileged user is that the rights should not be easily accessible to a users account. My login that I use for day to day work should not include privileges associated with a root or administrator role. I should have to intentionally have to switch to that role using mechanisms like sudo, su, runas, or actually logout/login as root or administrator.
The argument people make about users (particularly home users) running with privileged accounts is generally based on the fact that poorly written software (sometmes the fault of software, sometimes the OS features used by software) requires additional privileges or the user is just too inexperienced to know the dangers or running with the privileged account. This misconception must change for home users. Most UNIX/Linux admins in commercial environments probably take this for granted while Win32 adminstrators often have to bypass this for software reasons (some applications require the privileges so they are forced into this). For home users, maybe adding a message to the/etc/motd file stating that "running as the root account for general use is a bad thing" could change this practice.
Essentially, I don't see the su, sudo, runas mechanisms going away anytime soon.
The opionion of Solaris at the desktop is just that, an opinion. To me, I like it over MS Win32 systems. I can't compare it to any of the Linux installs as I haven't used it at the desktop level other than a test a couple years ago (and at that point, it wasn't a viable desktop solution, mainly due to application availability).
Every user is going to need to determine the best system for their desktop based on their requirements. I really don't see a single system as the answer to everyone's problems. As for Solaris at the desktop, I can see it as a good solution if your developing appliations you are going to deploy to a Solaris server. That doesn't mean that it's the only way to develop, just that it can be convenient.
Out of curiosity, what in your opinion makes Solaris at the desktop blow? I've used it (as well as MS Win32, IRIX, and AIX)for years and Solaris has always worked well for me. Understand though that I deal with geospatial applications (ESRI ArcInfo, Sensor System RemoteView, ERDAS Imagine, etc...) so until the last couple of years, they were only availble on UNIX. I've become used to those environments. Maybe if I had started with MS Win32 as an OS, I'd look at things differently.
Solaris is a very good OS for servers, but blows for desktops for the most part.
Depends on what your using your desktop for. Solaris at the desktop tends to be a preference a user makes. If your developing for a Solaris environment you may want to use your local workstation as a sandbox for local development/testing. While this isn't a requirement (all depends on what your developing), it does add a level of confidence.
As for Sun pushing Java Desktop System (JDS), they are really pushing 3 solutions:
Solaris SPARC
Solaris x86
Java Desktop System
Ultimately they are trying to push applications that are binary compatible across all three solutions. This will allow the user to decide which platform meets their needs. I believe we'll see more of the JDS systems than the others at the desktop level, but that's just an opinion.
BTW - If you have a chance to sit at one of the Sun Blade systems, don't pass it up. The system works well for geospatial applications (generally CPU/graphically intense applications).
I agree with you on the driver creation. This should fall with the vendors and hopefully they would do it with some form of open source licensing.
Do you seriously expect Microsoft or Apple to write your NVidia latest/greatest card driver?
I was just relaying what the Sun presenter passed on to me about Sun figuring to fill the void where vendors may not produce their own drivers. This is not the best solution (I can't imagine Sun supporting every piece of hardware, nor them supporting them all very well), but if the driver doesn't exist, this may be the only resource available.
What I foresee with vendors is where they will support "open standards", but keep the code proprietary (well maybe you can get access with a non-disclosure agreement). While this may irritate fanatical open source developers, it may be what is available.
Consider that users still buy E-Machines (a cheaply made Win32 system). The systems may not be cutting edge, but a market definitely exist for those who don't want to pay cutting edge prices.
While I see the Java Desktop System as a good start, I am not sure the timing for consumer release is ideal. Certainly these systems will satisfy office application needs, web surfing, and multi-media, but for many consumers, the game titles on the system are important. If I can't get the next release of my favorite video game for JDS, I'm not likely to buy that system. Sun needs to work with the game industry to promote JDS.
I work with Sun hardware/software regularly at work and have met with various levels of Sun staff. Recently I was at a presentation by Sun where I had a chance to talk with a presenter covering the JDS, Solaris x86, and other Sun software. The one real question I pressured on was how is Sun working with hardware vendors to increase driver support. His response boils down to this:
Sun dropped the ball when they didn't promote support of the x86 platform. They now need to regain confidence.
Sun is working with vendors to encourage driver development. In some cases, Sun will create drivers themselves (if vendors won't).
Another interesting point from the presentation was the move to try to have binary compatibility on Solaris SPARC, Solaris x86, and JDS. The presentation wasn't real clear on how they intend to accomplish it.
I can understand them searching your items, but a visual check of the laptop probably wouldn't include an internal check. I guess they could run it through a scanner to see if anyone is concealing weapons/explosives/etc..., but that would mean adding the equipment and trainig security on proper usage. These security measures will compete with a players salary, therefore increasing the ticket prices even more.
I obviously don't attend many live sporting events (price of tickets + parking + beer not justified), but don't they limit what can be taken into these events? Wouldn't they worry about someone streaming the events content to the web, bypassing revenue generation.
On the other hand, people would probably spend more time updating their fantasy league rosters.
Ballmer said Microsoft spends about 12 percent of its media budget on online advertising, and that he orders his staff to "saturate" that market first and foremost.
"I want to make sure [a user] can't get through... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad," he said.
If they can't produce a superior product, advertise and saturate the market with what you have. With some of the larger IT vendors publicly adding more support for Linux based systems, MS almost has to advertise to this level.
Until then, say goodbye to your Windows OS, because its doom is approaching.
I do fear that some readers would see this as a biased article with a statement like that though. Hopefully readers are aware of the THG's objective viewpoint in general.
Didn't Microsoft already take us there with their Where do you want to go today? campain? I would have thought we had gotten there already. Maybe they'll get us there with the next SP or Longhorn.
Are you saying the death of the 7 astronauts is more important than a minivan crash where a family dies? If you answer either way, you'll find someone to argue with you.
I think a lot of people agree that the soldiers probably shouldn't have been sent in to Iraq in the first place, but that's with information that is available now. Obviously prior to the war, people were divided on the war, but I imagine that the numbers opposed are greater now, than before.
Soldiers do sign up to defend their country. Do most of them think that they'll really be deployed? I don't know the exact answer to this, but I'd have to guess that a good percentage of them don't expect to see real action. They are probably looking for an opportunity to get an education. Who can say that the troops deployed to Iraq are really "defending" our country. At this point, it looks like the war was a bad decision. I'm sure the efforts to track down WMD's is still under way. Will they find any, who knows. Iraq had a lot of time while the US broadcast it's intentions. I'm sure that if Iraq had anything it's long been destroyed, hidden, or moved, if they had anything. I'd like to think that if they moved it, the US would have had some capabilities to monitor the borders (I'd figure the various intelligence agencies have to be able to do that).
In time, the truth of the war will continue to become clearer. Right now it's not looking good for Bush's actions, but maybe something will come up (not likely, but possibly).
Your chain of logic is basically they got what they deserved and somehow that isn't too favorable.
I don't believe that the deaths are deserved. I don't believe I stated that, but if infered, then it wasn't my intent. From a statistics stand point, the number is not that high when compared to other death counts. If you had to rank death on a chart, would this be at the top? Everyone will have their own idea of rank. It's not that these deaths aren't important (actually everyone who was for the war should feel some degree of guilt for the lives lost, even if we do/don't find anything by the time this is complete).
Actually I do agree that accidental vs. intentional is different, but they both result in the same thing, death. When comparing the 500 deaths to other death statistics (not necessarily on cause), we can find examples that would make 500 look like a small number. Any death is of particular importance to the family/friends involved and to a less related extent, society as a whole (you can never know who would have created the next "good thing for society" - cure for cancer, but then again, they could have been the opposite of what society would like too - maybe the next mass murderer).
The cause of death is important, but that wasn't my primary focus when comparing the count.
First, there are lots of intentional deaths due to drunk drivers (although not entirely intentional, they certainly are at high risk for causing death), then you have the criminal elements (while people may see the death of criminals as less important, they are still people), and what about deaths in countries (like Haiti) where the over throwing of government occurs. These are not accidental and the number can be higher than the 500 or so soldiers in Iraq.
My previous post that had number of accidental deaths was just to put into perspective the numbers. Yes, it's comparing intentional/accidental so the situations are not identical, but the end result is that people are dead. Did any of them choose to die (excluding suicidal people)? I'm certainly not trying to lessen the importance of a single persons death, just saying that 500 isn't a lot (still important, and certainly less that I would have expected for a war environment) when compared to other death statistics.
To go with the logic of others responding, is the life of a soldier more valuable than the life of a "deadbeat drug dealer/criminal"? Even though the drug dealer/criminal is looked upon as being as criminal, don't you think that someone still has feelings/ties to that person? I'm sure that every drug dealer has parents that are disappointed but always hope for a change.
I guess I'm trying to say that everyone will see a perspective on what number of deaths is worse. As an poster stated, saying the 12 deaths at Columbine is minimal would probably stir things up but you could say the same thing about a car crash where a single person is killed or a police officer killed in the line of duty. 500 can be seen as a lot when compared to the smaller numbers like this, but consider the number killed in other wars, flooding, disease, suicide bombings, etc.... The significance of the number is relative to the perspective you put it in.
How did you come to that conclusion based on what I typed? I didn't state that death was OK in any sense. The only thing I'm saying is that in perspective of death in general, 500 is a small number. Death in any quantity affects the lives of numerous people. Parents, siblings, children, friends, etc... are all affected when someone dies. Everyone person that has died in Iraq (coalition or native Iraqi's) have a network of people affected.
Does that make it any clearer for you?
500 is just a small number. Doesn't lessen the effects caused by a single death, but in perspective, it's still a small number.
This isn't as portable as the wireless phone solution but some states publish a website with traffic sensor data (namely traffic flow average speed).
If anyone's looking for enhancements, some counties even put sensors at intersections that can detect road surface and air temperature. This should help with ice conditions. For a county I used to work at, I produced a web page that displayed this information for the transportation department geographically to assist them in determining road material (types of salts, sand, etc...) to use. The site was internal to the transportation department so I can't provide a link (and it wouldn't be much fun to check with the weather warming up anyways).
As I said, I don't mean to show any disrespect to the 500+ soldiers who have lost their lives. I consider all lives (well maybe not telemarketers j/k) to be important. When put into perspective of other events where lives are lost, is 500 going to show up near the top? Consider past military conflicts, vehicular accidents, drunk driving, gang related deaths, bee stings, etc.... (By the way, check out some statistics on various injury/death situations - a bit old, but first stat page I found). When put into perspective, 500+ lives in a dangerous environment is probably less than one would expect (that doesn't mean that anyone wants to see more).
Not to show disrespect to those losing their lives serving in the military, but is 500+ lives considered a major loss? US cities have numbers close to that on a yearly basis. Since moving to Maryland I've seen the Baltimore news channels reporting the homicide statistics in relations to previous years and the murder counts are generally around the 400 mark. That's for one US city. Add in other large cities and we're losing much more than the 500+ lives that have been lost in Iraq, but this doesn't get the same attention. Agree with the initial reasoning for war or not, the soldiers are serving the duty they signed up for, to serve in the US military.
Bush is trying to find something for everyone to unite behind (at least in the US). Obviously the war in Iraq has split opinions so space is a likely candidate for greater support on his side. His economic policy isn't exactly a high point in his term. His foreign policy isn't a selling point. Space, that's been done successfully before.
Some of the previous posters have mentioned exploring our world more and that's fine too. I just think that approaching both unknowns makes sense as long as it has the proper priority level. Should space exploration go above economic issues, probably not. Should we focus more on exploring the depths of the ocean over foreign policy, same thing. A proper amount of resources needs to be applied to any effort.
All of these may be used for authentication and storing personal information. Maybe not quite to the level of MS Passport by default, but they certainly could if configured to do so.
"Microsoft was kind of pushing Passport for a problem that didn't exist..."
The problem of single sign on (SSO) does exist, particularly in the corporate world. Vendors implimenting Web Portals (MS SharePoint, Sun Java System Portal Server, BEA WebLogic Portal, Vignette Portal, etc...) have a particular interest in SSO and identity management via Identity Services to present a single interface to various systems in an enterprise.
My main problem with MS Passport is that it's Microsoft's version of a standard rather than a community standard. Applications can connect via MS's SDK rather than publishing the standard. Using Open LDAP, Sun's Identity Server, etc... will generally follow open standards and have better compatibiltiy to other open source/standard applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Did a couple searches (virus info only) and found: (listed by term and count)
microsoft - 2015
windows - 2321
linux - 134
sun - 19
solaris - 6
aix - 1
hpux - 1
mac - 66
unix - 102
Now the interesting part of this is that most of the non-MS queries I did ended up in this count only because they were part of an MS virus entry that had a note about updating the DAT files for other platforms too. Essentially the numbers for non-MS searches are inflated.
And yes, I know that MS's platform dominance drives virus development, but one could certainly argue that there are enough of the other platforms to draw the occasional virus, or maybe a cross platform virus. Oh yeah, MS software doesn't usually run cross platform and things like Java appear to be mostly immune (and yes, there appears to be 1 general Java virus along with a handful of other Java virus's that are specific to the MS JVM - odd that only the MS JVM implimentation is bad).
The issue behind the privileged user is that the rights should not be easily accessible to a users account. My login that I use for day to day work should not include privileges associated with a root or administrator role. I should have to intentionally have to switch to that role using mechanisms like sudo, su, runas, or actually logout/login as root or administrator.
/etc/motd file stating that "running as the root account for general use is a bad thing" could change this practice.
The argument people make about users (particularly home users) running with privileged accounts is generally based on the fact that poorly written software (sometmes the fault of software, sometimes the OS features used by software) requires additional privileges or the user is just too inexperienced to know the dangers or running with the privileged account. This misconception must change for home users. Most UNIX/Linux admins in commercial environments probably take this for granted while Win32 adminstrators often have to bypass this for software reasons (some applications require the privileges so they are forced into this). For home users, maybe adding a message to the
Essentially, I don't see the su, sudo, runas mechanisms going away anytime soon.
Great, so how many of us will start reading all our SPAM to try to locate secret messages.
Guess I'll have to get that box of Cap'n Crunch to get the secret decoder ring now too. Too bad kids, Dad get's this decoder ring.
The opionion of Solaris at the desktop is just that, an opinion. To me, I like it over MS Win32 systems. I can't compare it to any of the Linux installs as I haven't used it at the desktop level other than a test a couple years ago (and at that point, it wasn't a viable desktop solution, mainly due to application availability).
Every user is going to need to determine the best system for their desktop based on their requirements. I really don't see a single system as the answer to everyone's problems. As for Solaris at the desktop, I can see it as a good solution if your developing appliations you are going to deploy to a Solaris server. That doesn't mean that it's the only way to develop, just that it can be convenient.
Out of curiosity, what in your opinion makes Solaris at the desktop blow? I've used it (as well as MS Win32, IRIX, and AIX)for years and Solaris has always worked well for me. Understand though that I deal with geospatial applications (ESRI ArcInfo, Sensor System RemoteView, ERDAS Imagine, etc...) so until the last couple of years, they were only availble on UNIX. I've become used to those environments. Maybe if I had started with MS Win32 as an OS, I'd look at things differently.
Depends on what your using your desktop for. Solaris at the desktop tends to be a preference a user makes. If your developing for a Solaris environment you may want to use your local workstation as a sandbox for local development/testing. While this isn't a requirement (all depends on what your developing), it does add a level of confidence.
As for Sun pushing Java Desktop System (JDS), they are really pushing 3 solutions:
Solaris SPARC
Solaris x86
Java Desktop System
Ultimately they are trying to push applications that are binary compatible across all three solutions. This will allow the user to decide which platform meets their needs. I believe we'll see more of the JDS systems than the others at the desktop level, but that's just an opinion.
BTW - If you have a chance to sit at one of the Sun Blade systems, don't pass it up. The system works well for geospatial applications (generally CPU/graphically intense applications).
I agree with you on the driver creation. This should fall with the vendors and hopefully they would do it with some form of open source licensing.
Do you seriously expect Microsoft or Apple to write your NVidia latest/greatest card driver?
I was just relaying what the Sun presenter passed on to me about Sun figuring to fill the void where vendors may not produce their own drivers. This is not the best solution (I can't imagine Sun supporting every piece of hardware, nor them supporting them all very well), but if the driver doesn't exist, this may be the only resource available.
What I foresee with vendors is where they will support "open standards", but keep the code proprietary (well maybe you can get access with a non-disclosure agreement). While this may irritate fanatical open source developers, it may be what is available.
While I see the Java Desktop System as a good start, I am not sure the timing for consumer release is ideal. Certainly these systems will satisfy office application needs, web surfing, and multi-media, but for many consumers, the game titles on the system are important. If I can't get the next release of my favorite video game for JDS, I'm not likely to buy that system. Sun needs to work with the game industry to promote JDS.
I work with Sun hardware/software regularly at work and have met with various levels of Sun staff. Recently I was at a presentation by Sun where I had a chance to talk with a presenter covering the JDS, Solaris x86, and other Sun software. The one real question I pressured on was how is Sun working with hardware vendors to increase driver support. His response boils down to this:
Sun dropped the ball when they didn't promote support of the x86 platform. They now need to regain confidence.
Sun is working with vendors to encourage driver development. In some cases, Sun will create drivers themselves (if vendors won't).
Another interesting point from the presentation was the move to try to have binary compatibility on Solaris SPARC, Solaris x86, and JDS. The presentation wasn't real clear on how they intend to accomplish it.
I can understand them searching your items, but a visual check of the laptop probably wouldn't include an internal check. I guess they could run it through a scanner to see if anyone is concealing weapons/explosives/etc..., but that would mean adding the equipment and trainig security on proper usage. These security measures will compete with a players salary, therefore increasing the ticket prices even more.
I obviously don't attend many live sporting events (price of tickets + parking + beer not justified), but don't they limit what can be taken into these events? Wouldn't they worry about someone streaming the events content to the web, bypassing revenue generation.
On the other hand, people would probably spend more time updating their fantasy league rosters.
I would expect to see much more MS advertisments in the future.
... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad," he said.
This CNN - Microsoft exec concedes 'worst' goof story includes:
Ballmer said Microsoft spends about 12 percent of its media budget on online advertising, and that he orders his staff to "saturate" that market first and foremost.
"I want to make sure [a user] can't get through
If they can't produce a superior product, advertise and saturate the market with what you have. With some of the larger IT vendors publicly adding more support for Linux based systems, MS almost has to advertise to this level.
I especially liked the final note.
Until then, say goodbye to your Windows OS, because its doom is approaching.
I do fear that some readers would see this as a biased article with a statement like that though. Hopefully readers are aware of the THG's objective viewpoint in general.
Didn't Microsoft already take us there with their Where do you want to go today? campain? I would have thought we had gotten there already. Maybe they'll get us there with the next SP or Longhorn.
I can see where someone will arm it with a poison dart.
Are you saying the death of the 7 astronauts is more important than a minivan crash where a family dies? If you answer either way, you'll find someone to argue with you.
I think a lot of people agree that the soldiers probably shouldn't have been sent in to Iraq in the first place, but that's with information that is available now. Obviously prior to the war, people were divided on the war, but I imagine that the numbers opposed are greater now, than before.
Soldiers do sign up to defend their country. Do most of them think that they'll really be deployed? I don't know the exact answer to this, but I'd have to guess that a good percentage of them don't expect to see real action. They are probably looking for an opportunity to get an education. Who can say that the troops deployed to Iraq are really "defending" our country. At this point, it looks like the war was a bad decision. I'm sure the efforts to track down WMD's is still under way. Will they find any, who knows. Iraq had a lot of time while the US broadcast it's intentions. I'm sure that if Iraq had anything it's long been destroyed, hidden, or moved, if they had anything. I'd like to think that if they moved it, the US would have had some capabilities to monitor the borders (I'd figure the various intelligence agencies have to be able to do that).
In time, the truth of the war will continue to become clearer. Right now it's not looking good for Bush's actions, but maybe something will come up (not likely, but possibly).
Your chain of logic is basically they got what they deserved and somehow that isn't too favorable.
I don't believe that the deaths are deserved. I don't believe I stated that, but if infered, then it wasn't my intent. From a statistics stand point, the number is not that high when compared to other death counts. If you had to rank death on a chart, would this be at the top? Everyone will have their own idea of rank. It's not that these deaths aren't important (actually everyone who was for the war should feel some degree of guilt for the lives lost, even if we do/don't find anything by the time this is complete).
Actually I do agree that accidental vs. intentional is different, but they both result in the same thing, death. When comparing the 500 deaths to other death statistics (not necessarily on cause), we can find examples that would make 500 look like a small number. Any death is of particular importance to the family/friends involved and to a less related extent, society as a whole (you can never know who would have created the next "good thing for society" - cure for cancer, but then again, they could have been the opposite of what society would like too - maybe the next mass murderer).
The cause of death is important, but that wasn't my primary focus when comparing the count.
First, there are lots of intentional deaths due to drunk drivers (although not entirely intentional, they certainly are at high risk for causing death), then you have the criminal elements (while people may see the death of criminals as less important, they are still people), and what about deaths in countries (like Haiti) where the over throwing of government occurs. These are not accidental and the number can be higher than the 500 or so soldiers in Iraq.
My previous post that had number of accidental deaths was just to put into perspective the numbers. Yes, it's comparing intentional/accidental so the situations are not identical, but the end result is that people are dead. Did any of them choose to die (excluding suicidal people)? I'm certainly not trying to lessen the importance of a single persons death, just saying that 500 isn't a lot (still important, and certainly less that I would have expected for a war environment) when compared to other death statistics.
To go with the logic of others responding, is the life of a soldier more valuable than the life of a "deadbeat drug dealer/criminal"? Even though the drug dealer/criminal is looked upon as being as criminal, don't you think that someone still has feelings/ties to that person? I'm sure that every drug dealer has parents that are disappointed but always hope for a change.
I guess I'm trying to say that everyone will see a perspective on what number of deaths is worse. As an poster stated, saying the 12 deaths at Columbine is minimal would probably stir things up but you could say the same thing about a car crash where a single person is killed or a police officer killed in the line of duty. 500 can be seen as a lot when compared to the smaller numbers like this, but consider the number killed in other wars, flooding, disease, suicide bombings, etc.... The significance of the number is relative to the perspective you put it in.
How did you come to that conclusion based on what I typed? I didn't state that death was OK in any sense. The only thing I'm saying is that in perspective of death in general, 500 is a small number. Death in any quantity affects the lives of numerous people. Parents, siblings, children, friends, etc... are all affected when someone dies. Everyone person that has died in Iraq (coalition or native Iraqi's) have a network of people affected.
Does that make it any clearer for you?
500 is just a small number. Doesn't lessen the effects caused by a single death, but in perspective, it's still a small number.
This isn't as portable as the wireless phone solution but some states publish a website with traffic sensor data (namely traffic flow average speed).
If anyone's looking for enhancements, some counties even put sensors at intersections that can detect road surface and air temperature. This should help with ice conditions. For a county I used to work at, I produced a web page that displayed this information for the transportation department geographically to assist them in determining road material (types of salts, sand, etc...) to use. The site was internal to the transportation department so I can't provide a link (and it wouldn't be much fun to check with the weather warming up anyways).
As I said, I don't mean to show any disrespect to the 500+ soldiers who have lost their lives. I consider all lives (well maybe not telemarketers j/k) to be important. When put into perspective of other events where lives are lost, is 500 going to show up near the top? Consider past military conflicts, vehicular accidents, drunk driving, gang related deaths, bee stings, etc.... (By the way, check out some statistics on various injury/death situations - a bit old, but first stat page I found). When put into perspective, 500+ lives in a dangerous environment is probably less than one would expect (that doesn't mean that anyone wants to see more).
Not to show disrespect to those losing their lives serving in the military, but is 500+ lives considered a major loss? US cities have numbers close to that on a yearly basis. Since moving to Maryland I've seen the Baltimore news channels reporting the homicide statistics in relations to previous years and the murder counts are generally around the 400 mark. That's for one US city. Add in other large cities and we're losing much more than the 500+ lives that have been lost in Iraq, but this doesn't get the same attention. Agree with the initial reasoning for war or not, the soldiers are serving the duty they signed up for, to serve in the US military.
Bush is trying to find something for everyone to unite behind (at least in the US). Obviously the war in Iraq has split opinions so space is a likely candidate for greater support on his side. His economic policy isn't exactly a high point in his term. His foreign policy isn't a selling point. Space, that's been done successfully before.
Some of the previous posters have mentioned exploring our world more and that's fine too. I just think that approaching both unknowns makes sense as long as it has the proper priority level. Should space exploration go above economic issues, probably not. Should we focus more on exploring the depths of the ocean over foreign policy, same thing. A proper amount of resources needs to be applied to any effort.
I just know I'll find a sig on Mars
LDAP - Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
Sort of like Novell's NDS or Microsoft's AD.
All of these may be used for authentication and storing personal information. Maybe not quite to the level of MS Passport by default, but they certainly could if configured to do so.
You could ask "Why can't it be 3D?".
While I don't see a current benefit to going 3D, I can see where it might be beneficial in a virtual interface as they are developed.
"Microsoft was kind of pushing Passport for a problem that didn't exist..."
The problem of single sign on (SSO) does exist, particularly in the corporate world. Vendors implimenting Web Portals (MS SharePoint, Sun Java System Portal Server, BEA WebLogic Portal, Vignette Portal, etc...) have a particular interest in SSO and identity management via Identity Services to present a single interface to various systems in an enterprise.
My main problem with MS Passport is that it's Microsoft's version of a standard rather than a community standard. Applications can connect via MS's SDK rather than publishing the standard. Using Open LDAP, Sun's Identity Server, etc... will generally follow open standards and have better compatibiltiy to other open source/standard applications.