Which is why any evidence gathered from such a recording would be immediately thrown out. It really doesn't matter that they can do it, because in the end the court should not allow it. So.. what use is the recording then? Don't forget the "fruit from he poisoned tree" wouldn't (shouldn't) be allowed either.
I have to ask, why does Britain outlaw guns? What problem was there they were trying to solve? Is it because Americans had guns and were successful in throwing out the Crown? Or was there a lot of gun violence more recently?
Um, the only way to fix this would be to disallow any ad hoc queries and force use of stored procedure calls. I don't think that would fly to well, as pretty much every platform (including LAMP) includes ways to send arbitrary text to any sql server.
Oh, and what the hell does C have to do with anything? Any language can be vunerable to sql injection attacks.
Yeah--fuck backwards compatibility. It's for sissies! I'd hate to have to reinvest significant amounts of time upgrading programs, scripts, drivers, hardware, and what-not with every new version of an OS. I mean damn--I've been running Ubuntu at home since Hoary. I can't f*cking believe the audacity of them--letting me use the same damn printer I've been using for years.
You think Linux is any better in that regard? Go search for ABI compatibility. At any rate we're talking about a script here. There should be miminal effort required. If you have a monster of a script, it probably shouldn't be a script. Scripts are hard to maintain. They are for simiplier tasks.
See previous paragraph. If I buy hardware that is 'windows compatible' or 'linux compatible', I expect it to work. I can understand if I'm trying to use a 400 year old printer that was designed for DOS 0.1 alpha, but it's a fairly new printer from 2002. I can totally understand having to upgrade a video card to work with Vista--or get a faster machine, or more memory--but I don't see why Microsoft broke compatibility with just about everything--video drivers, print drivers, and I'm sure there's more that I haven't run into yet since there are only two machines with Vista on my network.
See my previous paragraph as well. The fact is, Vista is not XP which is NOT Win2k. Until proven you should assume they are different OSes. As far as "Windows compatible" goes, if you look closely you'll see the versions of Windows which are compatable. Otherwise you wouldn't know if the hardware worked on Win95 or WinXP. As I said, Linux is worse in this regard. I've had drives stop working after a kernel REVISION number change.
As a developer, you should realize that at some point it's better to break backward compatiblity if it would improve things in the long run.
You could shorten that sentence to "Which has nothing to do with the fact that you hate working"... But it pays well--allowing me to eat, and have a roof over my head, and raise a family. I'm simply saying that I dislike certain aspects of the Windows platform. But the one thing that seems to keep it in the corporate world is backwards compatibility. Now that Vista is breaking that, I'm getting a few customers starting to ask about Linux. While I'm thrilled about that--it's not always in line with their business objectives. (Someone like an accountant who uses QuickBooks as their primary business application should probably stick to Windows--at least until Intuit provides a Linux-based or web-based version.)
Unix admins get paid more, so the "allows me to eat" argument is kind of moot. As far as backward compatiblity goes, Vista breaking it is pretty overhyped. Most people claim it's broken if they get a UAC prompt. Application developers are now be caught not following best practices. None of the applications I wrote do this (except during install) because I follow MS best practices.
If people think Vista is breaking backward compatility, wait until they try Linux. You pretty much need all new applications. I know, I tried it. I doubt Intuit will even make a Linux version; OSS people DEMAND the source code, and most closed shops don't want to give it out. If the zealots would cool it and be ok with 1) paying for software and 2) being ok without having source, I think a lot of companies may at least try. But just porting isn't good enough for a large part of the crowd, and companies hear this.
The reason I'm calling Vista garbage is NOT because I picked up a shiny new workstation without reading the specs and something didn't work. The reason I'm calling Vista garbage is that I have hardware that is listed as "Windows compatible" (and it worked under XP) and it suddenly isn't working anymore with no Vista drivers available. And to tweak your quote "Windows is stupid--because while I can figure out how to make it do X, I don't want to be bothered with having to change all my shit around because someone at Microsoft h
Eh, I wouldn't worry about it. Everyone has bad days. Those that pay to subscribe will find comments among the 6500+ I've made that prove the point.:-)
Yikes. I can assure you I'm no shill. I felt as you have about MS products, but back when XP was first coming out. I even left MS (at home, at least) for a few years. The level of frustration that trying to use Linux on a desktop exceeded that of MS... at the same time MS did make a lot of improvements, so I switched back to Windows. I actually went further, and for the first time bought a server products (SBS2003) to replace what had always been a linux server. I'm happier now, I can get things done.
The fact that in 2008, 10 YEARS after I first began to experiment with Linux, a story on the front page detailing a girlfriend's experience with Linux is pretty telling. I can sympothize with that woman, because I was trying to do more advanced stuff than an average user (programming, for instance). The software I was trying to use seemed much less usable, and I invested much more time trying to get things to work.
I'm not posting this as any kind of angry backlash; just trying to let you know I'm a real person that really would prefer MS to Linux. As a software engineer, I COULD spend a lot of time fixing minor problems getting software to work on Linux... but I do software all day, and while I love it and would try to program if it were not my full time job, I do have other interests as well. So for me it's worth it to spend some money and get something that does just work. I should probably put this huge explaination somewhere more perminant so I can just link it as a standard disclaimer whenever I support MS, but/. is just a temporary distraction for me, it's not worth the time. It'd also be nice for people on/. to not truely believe that MS is junk (it's not) and that other's may in fact like using MS software.
Anyway, have a nice day, and I hope you solved your problem.
Well, Vista runs fine on my X23800+ with only 1 GB of PC3200 ram. Of course, the CPU is the NEWEST part of that computer, and I've had the current setup for over two years now. And the 3800+ wasn't by far the fastest processor of the time either.
No--I'm scripting things properly--it's just that Microsoft decided to 'add some value' to their new OS that prevents scripts that worked perfectly under Windows 2000, 2003, and XP from working on Vista.
If your script isn't working on Vista, the problem is YOUR SCRIPT. Get over it.
And just to be clear, the Vista laptops are going away because they flat out won't print to any printer. The print spooler service constantly crashes and the printer manufacturers say they aren't releasing Vista drivers or that we will have to wait for updates before things actually work correctly.
Sorry, you're not using a Vista print driver, and blaming Vista? Hmm, what would/ers say if I just ran out and buy some new hardware and it didn't work with Linux? Oh yeah, "you should have checked hardware compatibility, noob!" Yes, I do believe that's the response I'd get. You (or the person that bought the laptop) didn't check anything and just ran out and bought it. Someone failed in their job, likely you, since you should be enforcing the notion that you should at least be consulted before buying new computer equipment.
Plus the part you couldn't have known before you dispensed with your witty advice of quitting my job was that their primary business application doesn't run well under Vista.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that you don't hate working with Windows and would rather be admining unix. So go do that.
So seeing as how Vista is a huge pile of garbage and flat-out doesn't work due to factors beyond my control, and not because I'm a n00b admin, we'll be overwriting a few installs of Vista with XP.
People calling Vista garbage pretty much have no clue. You wouldn't install BSD without making sure everything would work, yet you would with Vista. Stop blaming your adversion to learning on others and take responsiblity for yourself. I've seen people like you first hand; "Windows is stupid because I can't figure out how to make it do X, and I can't be bothered to spend five minutes looking it up and learning."
Your picking and choosing what you hear. But go on and believe that there aren't a half a million LAMP configurations that are vunerable due to crappy PHP coding.
You shouldn't have to be an admin to install a web browser, word processor , or spreadsheet. You should only be an admin if your installing it for everyone.
So a modern OS for home users should have multiple copies of the SAME applications installed locally to profile directories? I know drive space is cheaper, but it still seems to be a waste.
I'm no Microsoft fan--I'll take some *nix system any day--but when you compare XP to Vista it's like comparing eating dry dog food to having your leg sawed off by a bandsaw. Yeah dry dogfood probably tastes like crap--but I'll take it over having my leg sawed off with a bandsaw.
This is the major problem you're having. So instead of bashing MS because you can't figure out how to script things properly or even prevent someone from "introducing" a new computer to your network, quit your job and find one administering *nix.
Exploits as in number of machines comprimised. When was the last exploit IN IIS that lead to a huge number of servers being comprimised? I think it must be very early 2000s.
As it is, this particular exploit has nothing to do with either IIS or whatever sql server is being run... it has to do with the particlar IIS web application installed. The exact same exploit exist in thousands of PHP applications as well, and just as PHP can't stop crappy PHP programmers, MS can't stop crappy asp / asp.net programmers.
The summary did mention it was via a Sql injection attack. I wasn't mad about the comment, but for the OP to say he wasn't trolling when he clearly was is pretty stupid.
Except that Sql injections can happen on any web server with a poorly coded application. So you should be marked as troll, but your comments on IIS are just here to stir up MS fanboy. To be fair, it's been a long time since there was any huge number of exploits on IIS.
Look at the latest (but totally predictable) development in countries that have gone this way. Because they pay for your poor decisions they are claiming the power to totally control your life. Diet police ascendent. In AU they are actually sitting around and talking like civilized people (when they are nothing but, as this is pure fascism) about mandatory assessment of everyone and taxing people differently based on their results as a way to enforce norms of behaviour less stressful on their overloaded nationalized health system. Britain is talking about denying people access to medical care if their BMI exceeds government limits, they smoke, etc.
Why are BMI limits (assuming you allow for people with BMI's because they are muscular) or smoking bans bad? Why should people who make bad decisions drive up costs for everyone? I think any insurance, public or private, should be allowed to screen people to determine premiums.
If you're constantly doing provablely unsafe things like running red lights, your premiums are rightfully higher. If you're 400lbs of fat, you're premiums should rightly be higher. Why should MY premiums go up becuase YOU (not personally) are lazy?
Going off topic: slashdot now forces you to wait FIVE minutes between posts? For accounts with excellent karma?
Part of me does feel for you, but another part thinks you should have thought things through before you had three kids. I have a hard time feeling for someone that doesn't seem to have planned things out enough.
Um, how exactly do high deductable plans help? All it means is a LOT more money out of my pocket. It discourages preventitive care. Care is expense, regardless of who's paying for it. An HSA doesn't gain as much interest as an insurance company could investing the money elsewhere.
Limiting the laywers isn't a great idea either; many doctors deserve the lawsuits against them, because they are grossly neglegent. You're assuming doctors actually care about your health or well-being. Not a great assumption, it's actually pretty hard to find a doctor that doesn't want to get you in and out as quick as possible because that's how they make the most money.
Saying you want to be in charge of your own healthcare is kinda like saying you'd rather represent yourself in court; there's just too much for any one person to know to be able to come to some kind of reasonable conclusion.
I do agree somewhat with your post, but I believe statistically speaking the biggest health care threats now ARE preventable and have to do with being unhealthy, not being in an accident.
After all, the number one health problem right now is preventable heart disease.. I think the top five in the US are ALL preventable health problems..
Well, insurance "works" based on the assumption that MOST people pay, but won't use it. Thus the risk is spread out more evenly. The problem I see with health insurance is that you only gain a benefit if you are unhealthy; healthy people then end up paying for other people to be unhealthy.
Increasingly, insurance for EVERYONE is going up becaue our population is becoming more unhealthy.. overweight and sedentary which leads to a variety of conditions. Personally I think people that take care of themselves should be eligible for signficiant discounts. I still need insurance, because although I'm trying to stay healthy by eating right and exercising, there's always the chance that something beyond my control happens (environmental conditions I'm not aware of, accidents, etc).
People with more accidents pay more premiums than those that don't have accidents; it should be the same for health care.
Because *MOST* ID'ers (Christians, Jews, Muslims and whatever else) don't have a problem with evolution.
Yes, but those that do make your whole group look silly. Especially because I don't hear your supposed majority fighting these retards. The only vocal IDers are the nutjobs. The people in your camp seem content to let a small group make your larger group look retarded.
Besides, I haven't found any of those "nutjobs" here on slashdot. Those of you that are "sick of most IDers saying evolution can't exist" and post it here on slash are just yelling at the choir, so to speak.
You must not come here very often. Only recently have people in your position come out of the wood work.
Outside of slashdot, in many of the churches I've attended, I haven't met anyone who doesn't believe in evolution in some shape or form. I even read a Creationist book that claimed that God put animal categories on Earth and let evolution take over from there. For example, God made a bird, a fish, a cow, a lizard and so on and let evolution take over from there and make parakeets, catfish, jersey cows, iguanas and so on. I don't buy that, but it shows how even hard core creationists accept evolution on some level.
Interesting, because "birds" never existed until recently. They are dinosaur decendants. But the modern bird wasn't around pre-dinosaur. So the "bird" class isn't really valid. Again, there's a group that makes the whole look bad.
Now the problem that Creationists have is that some teach evolution as *proof* that God does not exist. This is why the "nutjobs" you refer to are so against evolution being taught. If evolution is taught as having nothing to do with religion, neither proving or disproving it, then nearly everyone can be happy with it. When I was taught evolution in Jr. High school many years ago, my teachers started it by saying "evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of higher being. It has nothing to do with it. You can believe what you want and I will never argue with that, but for the purpose of this class, you must learn what we are teaching you." No one had a problem learning evolution when it was introduced that way. I grew up in the "Bible-Belt", BTW.
I grew up in the NE, and evolution was not presented as proof god doesn't exist either. God didn't enter science class at all, and I even spent the first half of my schooling in Catholic school. I've yet to see any of your nut jobs site an example of where evolution WAS being presented in such a way. I don't even see why such a disclaimer is necessary. I was taught evolution, and "higher power" was never mentioned AT ALL. The only time evolution and religion crossed was in religion class, where one student asked how Genesis and dinosaurs could both be "correct."
An extension of that problem is people like those here on slash that call anyone religious and idiot or "dumb shit" for believing in ID. That statement is just as ignorant as the few "nutjobs" that feel threatened by evolution.
Well, think of it in this context. Evolution doesn't prove there's a god anymore than it disproves there is one. We also have no scientific evidence god exists, so there's no reason to believe in one. Especially with all the arbitrary rules that come with religion, and the problems having religions causes. Hell, Christains and Muslims belive in the SAME GOD and can't get along.
So, I think the reason some in my camp call your camp "dumb shits" is because you're believing a fairy tale. I'm sure someone that still believed in the Greek or Egyptian gods would be looked upon as silly, I don't see why Christains shouldn't be looked upon in the same light; they are all just fairy tales, yet Christains insist THEIR fairy tale is accurate. It boggles the mind of more logical people.
Personally I do equate improve with some degree of innovation otherwise what exactly is "improve" supposed to mean, only bug fixes? If there is no innovation happening on the OSS side, you are certainly implying it is all happening on the proprietary closed-source side (otherwise there is no progression at all and we would be in the computing stone age). Since the article is about Gates' opinion I use MS as an example of closed-source progress (which apparently according to Gates is the only kind possible).
An innovation is something ground-breaking that changes the playing field. Improvements are good, but they don't revolutionize anything. Similar, but seperated by degree.
If you can point to something revolutionary that came from the OSS camp, then fine. But I haven't seen anything. Many GPL people seem to admit it. Linux is an alternative to Windows. At the end of the day, they are more similar than not.
Frankly, having Gates say that OSS projects don't improve (or innovate, whichever you prefer) is the height of hypocrisy. If you look at the progression of Linux from mid-90s to today, and compare it to the progression of Windows from say Win95 to XP, which do you see as having made more innovation or progress? As an example, looking at a project like compiz, you can clearly see advancement on the Linux desktop (whereas XP, imo looks quite a lot like 95).
Huh? What has radically changed in Linux? More hardware support. It's better, sure. But it's still just a copy of Unix. You say nothing has changed from Win95 to XP. Not true. Systems that started as single user single process machines are now multi-user multi-process machines. That's a pretty big jump. Yes, it was done on other proprietary hardware before, but looking at Intel processors that's a large transition to make. Linux was able to start on hardware that supported multitasking. It didn't have to figure out how to keep all that older stuff going.
Yes the concept is not new, so why is it that the supposedly better progression of closed-source took over 10 years to integrate it into the browser, and even then only after all the OSS main competitors already had it? Lacking OSS projects with such a feature I'm sure we would be using tabless browsers today.
Actually Opera had tabs before FF, IIRC. Also, before that, another browser shell which used IE's rendering engine supported tabs. One specific case does not make your sweeping generalization that OSS innovates true.
Instead of yelling at those of us that are sick of most IDers saying evolution can't exist, why don't you yell at the nutjobs that also believe in ID but don't believe evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm sure Linux is safe. After all, it's not like you can replace parts of the kernel while the system is running or anything.
Which is why any evidence gathered from such a recording would be immediately thrown out. It really doesn't matter that they can do it, because in the end the court should not allow it. So.. what use is the recording then? Don't forget the "fruit from he poisoned tree" wouldn't (shouldn't) be allowed either.
I have to ask, why does Britain outlaw guns? What problem was there they were trying to solve? Is it because Americans had guns and were successful in throwing out the Crown? Or was there a lot of gun violence more recently?
Um, the only way to fix this would be to disallow any ad hoc queries and force use of stored procedure calls. I don't think that would fly to well, as pretty much every platform (including LAMP) includes ways to send arbitrary text to any sql server.
Oh, and what the hell does C have to do with anything? Any language can be vunerable to sql injection attacks.
Yeah--fuck backwards compatibility. It's for sissies! I'd hate to have to reinvest significant amounts of time upgrading programs, scripts, drivers, hardware, and what-not with every new version of an OS. I mean damn--I've been running Ubuntu at home since Hoary. I can't f*cking believe the audacity of them--letting me use the same damn printer I've been using for years.
You think Linux is any better in that regard? Go search for ABI compatibility. At any rate we're talking about a script here. There should be miminal effort required. If you have a monster of a script, it probably shouldn't be a script. Scripts are hard to maintain. They are for simiplier tasks.
See previous paragraph. If I buy hardware that is 'windows compatible' or 'linux compatible', I expect it to work. I can understand if I'm trying to use a 400 year old printer that was designed for DOS 0.1 alpha, but it's a fairly new printer from 2002. I can totally understand having to upgrade a video card to work with Vista--or get a faster machine, or more memory--but I don't see why Microsoft broke compatibility with just about everything--video drivers, print drivers, and I'm sure there's more that I haven't run into yet since there are only two machines with Vista on my network.
See my previous paragraph as well. The fact is, Vista is not XP which is NOT Win2k. Until proven you should assume they are different OSes. As far as "Windows compatible" goes, if you look closely you'll see the versions of Windows which are compatable. Otherwise you wouldn't know if the hardware worked on Win95 or WinXP. As I said, Linux is worse in this regard. I've had drives stop working after a kernel REVISION number change.
As a developer, you should realize that at some point it's better to break backward compatiblity if it would improve things in the long run.
You could shorten that sentence to "Which has nothing to do with the fact that you hate working"...
But it pays well--allowing me to eat, and have a roof over my head, and raise a family. I'm simply saying that I dislike certain aspects of the Windows platform. But the one thing that seems to keep it in the corporate world is backwards compatibility. Now that Vista is breaking that, I'm getting a few customers starting to ask about Linux. While I'm thrilled about that--it's not always in line with their business objectives. (Someone like an accountant who uses QuickBooks as their primary business application should probably stick to Windows--at least until Intuit provides a Linux-based or web-based version.)
Unix admins get paid more, so the "allows me to eat" argument is kind of moot. As far as backward compatiblity goes, Vista breaking it is pretty overhyped. Most people claim it's broken if they get a UAC prompt. Application developers are now be caught not following best practices. None of the applications I wrote do this (except during install) because I follow MS best practices.
If people think Vista is breaking backward compatility, wait until they try Linux. You pretty much need all new applications. I know, I tried it. I doubt Intuit will even make a Linux version; OSS people DEMAND the source code, and most closed shops don't want to give it out. If the zealots would cool it and be ok with 1) paying for software and 2) being ok without having source, I think a lot of companies may at least try. But just porting isn't good enough for a large part of the crowd, and companies hear this.
The reason I'm calling Vista garbage is NOT because I picked up a shiny new workstation without reading the specs and something didn't work. The reason I'm calling Vista garbage is that I have hardware that is listed as "Windows compatible" (and it worked under XP) and it suddenly isn't working anymore with no Vista drivers available. And to tweak your quote "Windows is stupid--because while I can figure out how to make it do X, I don't want to be bothered with having to change all my shit around because someone at Microsoft h
Eh, I wouldn't worry about it. Everyone has bad days. Those that pay to subscribe will find comments among the 6500+ I've made that prove the point. :-)
Yikes. I can assure you I'm no shill. I felt as you have about MS products, but back when XP was first coming out. I even left MS (at home, at least) for a few years. The level of frustration that trying to use Linux on a desktop exceeded that of MS... at the same time MS did make a lot of improvements, so I switched back to Windows. I actually went further, and for the first time bought a server products (SBS2003) to replace what had always been a linux server. I'm happier now, I can get things done.
/. is just a temporary distraction for me, it's not worth the time. It'd also be nice for people on /. to not truely believe that MS is junk (it's not) and that other's may in fact like using MS software.
The fact that in 2008, 10 YEARS after I first began to experiment with Linux, a story on the front page detailing a girlfriend's experience with Linux is pretty telling. I can sympothize with that woman, because I was trying to do more advanced stuff than an average user (programming, for instance). The software I was trying to use seemed much less usable, and I invested much more time trying to get things to work.
I'm not posting this as any kind of angry backlash; just trying to let you know I'm a real person that really would prefer MS to Linux. As a software engineer, I COULD spend a lot of time fixing minor problems getting software to work on Linux... but I do software all day, and while I love it and would try to program if it were not my full time job, I do have other interests as well. So for me it's worth it to spend some money and get something that does just work. I should probably put this huge explaination somewhere more perminant so I can just link it as a standard disclaimer whenever I support MS, but
Anyway, have a nice day, and I hope you solved your problem.
Well, Vista runs fine on my X23800+ with only 1 GB of PC3200 ram. Of course, the CPU is the NEWEST part of that computer, and I've had the current setup for over two years now. And the 3800+ wasn't by far the fastest processor of the time either.
No--I'm scripting things properly--it's just that Microsoft decided to 'add some value' to their new OS that prevents scripts that worked perfectly under Windows 2000, 2003, and XP from working on Vista.
/ers say if I just ran out and buy some new hardware and it didn't work with Linux? Oh yeah, "you should have checked hardware compatibility, noob!" Yes, I do believe that's the response I'd get. You (or the person that bought the laptop) didn't check anything and just ran out and bought it. Someone failed in their job, likely you, since you should be enforcing the notion that you should at least be consulted before buying new computer equipment.
If your script isn't working on Vista, the problem is YOUR SCRIPT. Get over it.
And just to be clear, the Vista laptops are going away because they flat out won't print to any printer. The print spooler service constantly crashes and the printer manufacturers say they aren't releasing Vista drivers or that we will have to wait for updates before things actually work correctly.
Sorry, you're not using a Vista print driver, and blaming Vista? Hmm, what would
Plus the part you couldn't have known before you dispensed with your witty advice of quitting my job was that their primary business application doesn't run well under Vista.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that you don't hate working with Windows and would rather be admining unix. So go do that.
So seeing as how Vista is a huge pile of garbage and flat-out doesn't work due to factors beyond my control, and not because I'm a n00b admin, we'll be overwriting a few installs of Vista with XP.
People calling Vista garbage pretty much have no clue. You wouldn't install BSD without making sure everything would work, yet you would with Vista. Stop blaming your adversion to learning on others and take responsiblity for yourself. I've seen people like you first hand; "Windows is stupid because I can't figure out how to make it do X, and I can't be bothered to spend five minutes looking it up and learning."
Your picking and choosing what you hear. But go on and believe that there aren't a half a million LAMP configurations that are vunerable due to crappy PHP coding.
Your post is nonsense.
You shouldn't have to be an admin to install a web browser, word processor , or spreadsheet. You should only be an admin if your installing it for everyone.
So a modern OS for home users should have multiple copies of the SAME applications installed locally to profile directories? I know drive space is cheaper, but it still seems to be a waste.
I'm no Microsoft fan--I'll take some *nix system any day--but when you compare XP to Vista it's like comparing eating dry dog food to having your leg sawed off by a bandsaw. Yeah dry dogfood probably tastes like crap--but I'll take it over having my leg sawed off with a bandsaw.
This is the major problem you're having. So instead of bashing MS because you can't figure out how to script things properly or even prevent someone from "introducing" a new computer to your network, quit your job and find one administering *nix.
What is your thoughts on drunk driving checkpoints? Because government seems to think it IS ok to pull someone over just for driving down the street.
Exploits as in number of machines comprimised. When was the last exploit IN IIS that lead to a huge number of servers being comprimised? I think it must be very early 2000s.
As it is, this particular exploit has nothing to do with either IIS or whatever sql server is being run... it has to do with the particlar IIS web application installed. The exact same exploit exist in thousands of PHP applications as well, and just as PHP can't stop crappy PHP programmers, MS can't stop crappy asp / asp.net programmers.
The summary did mention it was via a Sql injection attack. I wasn't mad about the comment, but for the OP to say he wasn't trolling when he clearly was is pretty stupid.
Except that Sql injections can happen on any web server with a poorly coded application. So you should be marked as troll, but your comments on IIS are just here to stir up MS fanboy. To be fair, it's been a long time since there was any huge number of exploits on IIS.
Well, this is /., home of OSS FUD.
Look at the latest (but totally predictable) development in countries that have gone this way. Because they pay for your poor decisions they are claiming the power to totally control your life. Diet police ascendent. In AU they are actually sitting around and talking like civilized people (when they are nothing but, as this is pure fascism) about mandatory assessment of everyone and taxing people differently based on their results as a way to enforce norms of behaviour less stressful on their overloaded nationalized health system. Britain is talking about denying people access to medical care if their BMI exceeds government limits, they smoke, etc.
Why are BMI limits (assuming you allow for people with BMI's because they are muscular) or smoking bans bad? Why should people who make bad decisions drive up costs for everyone? I think any insurance, public or private, should be allowed to screen people to determine premiums.
If you're constantly doing provablely unsafe things like running red lights, your premiums are rightfully higher. If you're 400lbs of fat, you're premiums should rightly be higher. Why should MY premiums go up becuase YOU (not personally) are lazy?
Going off topic: slashdot now forces you to wait FIVE minutes between posts? For accounts with excellent karma?
Part of me does feel for you, but another part thinks you should have thought things through before you had three kids. I have a hard time feeling for someone that doesn't seem to have planned things out enough.
Um, how exactly do high deductable plans help? All it means is a LOT more money out of my pocket. It discourages preventitive care. Care is expense, regardless of who's paying for it. An HSA doesn't gain as much interest as an insurance company could investing the money elsewhere.
Limiting the laywers isn't a great idea either; many doctors deserve the lawsuits against them, because they are grossly neglegent. You're assuming doctors actually care about your health or well-being. Not a great assumption, it's actually pretty hard to find a doctor that doesn't want to get you in and out as quick as possible because that's how they make the most money.
Saying you want to be in charge of your own healthcare is kinda like saying you'd rather represent yourself in court; there's just too much for any one person to know to be able to come to some kind of reasonable conclusion.
I do agree somewhat with your post, but I believe statistically speaking the biggest health care threats now ARE preventable and have to do with being unhealthy, not being in an accident.
After all, the number one health problem right now is preventable heart disease.. I think the top five in the US are ALL preventable health problems..
Well, insurance "works" based on the assumption that MOST people pay, but won't use it. Thus the risk is spread out more evenly. The problem I see with health insurance is that you only gain a benefit if you are unhealthy; healthy people then end up paying for other people to be unhealthy.
Increasingly, insurance for EVERYONE is going up becaue our population is becoming more unhealthy.. overweight and sedentary which leads to a variety of conditions. Personally I think people that take care of themselves should be eligible for signficiant discounts. I still need insurance, because although I'm trying to stay healthy by eating right and exercising, there's always the chance that something beyond my control happens (environmental conditions I'm not aware of, accidents, etc).
People with more accidents pay more premiums than those that don't have accidents; it should be the same for health care.
Because *MOST* ID'ers (Christians, Jews, Muslims and whatever else) don't have a problem with evolution.
Yes, but those that do make your whole group look silly. Especially because I don't hear your supposed majority fighting these retards. The only vocal IDers are the nutjobs. The people in your camp seem content to let a small group make your larger group look retarded.
Besides, I haven't found any of those "nutjobs" here on slashdot. Those of you that are "sick of most IDers saying evolution can't exist" and post it here on slash are just yelling at the choir, so to speak.
You must not come here very often. Only recently have people in your position come out of the wood work.
Outside of slashdot, in many of the churches I've attended, I haven't met anyone who doesn't believe in evolution in some shape or form. I even read a Creationist book that claimed that God put animal categories on Earth and let evolution take over from there. For example, God made a bird, a fish, a cow, a lizard and so on and let evolution take over from there and make parakeets, catfish, jersey cows, iguanas and so on. I don't buy that, but it shows how even hard core creationists accept evolution on some level.
Interesting, because "birds" never existed until recently. They are dinosaur decendants. But the modern bird wasn't around pre-dinosaur. So the "bird" class isn't really valid. Again, there's a group that makes the whole look bad.
Now the problem that Creationists have is that some teach evolution as *proof* that God does not exist. This is why the "nutjobs" you refer to are so against evolution being taught. If evolution is taught as having nothing to do with religion, neither proving or disproving it, then nearly everyone can be happy with it. When I was taught evolution in Jr. High school many years ago, my teachers started it by saying "evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of higher being. It has nothing to do with it. You can believe what you want and I will never argue with that, but for the purpose of this class, you must learn what we are teaching you." No one had a problem learning evolution when it was introduced that way. I grew up in the "Bible-Belt", BTW.
I grew up in the NE, and evolution was not presented as proof god doesn't exist either. God didn't enter science class at all, and I even spent the first half of my schooling in Catholic school. I've yet to see any of your nut jobs site an example of where evolution WAS being presented in such a way. I don't even see why such a disclaimer is necessary. I was taught evolution, and "higher power" was never mentioned AT ALL. The only time evolution and religion crossed was in religion class, where one student asked how Genesis and dinosaurs could both be "correct."
An extension of that problem is people like those here on slash that call anyone religious and idiot or "dumb shit" for believing in ID. That statement is just as ignorant as the few "nutjobs" that feel threatened by evolution.
Well, think of it in this context. Evolution doesn't prove there's a god anymore than it disproves there is one. We also have no scientific evidence god exists, so there's no reason to believe in one. Especially with all the arbitrary rules that come with religion, and the problems having religions causes. Hell, Christains and Muslims belive in the SAME GOD and can't get along.
So, I think the reason some in my camp call your camp "dumb shits" is because you're believing a fairy tale. I'm sure someone that still believed in the Greek or Egyptian gods would be looked upon as silly, I don't see why Christains shouldn't be looked upon in the same light; they are all just fairy tales, yet Christains insist THEIR fairy tale is accurate. It boggles the mind of more logical people.
Personally I do equate improve with some degree of innovation otherwise what exactly is "improve" supposed to mean, only bug fixes? If there is no innovation happening on the OSS side, you are certainly implying it is all happening on the proprietary closed-source side (otherwise there is no progression at all and we would be in the computing stone age). Since the article is about Gates' opinion I use MS as an example of closed-source progress (which apparently according to Gates is the only kind possible).
An innovation is something ground-breaking that changes the playing field. Improvements are good, but they don't revolutionize anything. Similar, but seperated by degree.
If you can point to something revolutionary that came from the OSS camp, then fine. But I haven't seen anything. Many GPL people seem to admit it. Linux is an alternative to Windows. At the end of the day, they are more similar than not.
Frankly, having Gates say that OSS projects don't improve (or innovate, whichever you prefer) is the height of hypocrisy. If you look at the progression of Linux from mid-90s to today, and compare it to the progression of Windows from say Win95 to XP, which do you see as having made more innovation or progress? As an example, looking at a project like compiz, you can clearly see advancement on the Linux desktop (whereas XP, imo looks quite a lot like 95).
Huh? What has radically changed in Linux? More hardware support. It's better, sure. But it's still just a copy of Unix. You say nothing has changed from Win95 to XP. Not true. Systems that started as single user single process machines are now multi-user multi-process machines. That's a pretty big jump. Yes, it was done on other proprietary hardware before, but looking at Intel processors that's a large transition to make. Linux was able to start on hardware that supported multitasking. It didn't have to figure out how to keep all that older stuff going.
Yes the concept is not new, so why is it that the supposedly better progression of closed-source took over 10 years to integrate it into the browser, and even then only after all the OSS main competitors already had it? Lacking OSS projects with such a feature I'm sure we would be using tabless browsers today.
Actually Opera had tabs before FF, IIRC. Also, before that, another browser shell which used IE's rendering engine supported tabs. One specific case does not make your sweeping generalization that OSS innovates true.
Instead of yelling at those of us that are sick of most IDers saying evolution can't exist, why don't you yell at the nutjobs that also believe in ID but don't believe evolution.