Here I come Intel, if this is true. Just because ATI drivers are horsecrap on Linux. I'm not going to support that company. Especially that Intel looks quite good with that Conroe stuff...
A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be injected into any other running application or service in the same session, that makes use of a message loop.
Microsoft says this does not fit their criteria/definition of a security vulnerability.
Technically, it is true, since it is a grave design error. The impact is much worse though, as it is not something that can be easily fixed. They missed the boat again with Vista.
I'm starting to be afraid that PR is crushing what dare I say, used to be, a geek browser.
Firefox 2.0 gives us, what:
- Builtin spellchecking. Woohoo! I don't want that in Firefox. There is already an extension to do just exactly what this feature does. If someone wants spellchecking, go install the extension.
- Firefox friends. I don't want this much evangelisation. I will most likely never look at the thousands of names listed. Why would I? I want a technological masterpiece not a PR one.
This PR push makes my approval towards FF dwindle, what do you think an average people would say? "Geez, it's just a friggin browser...".
Separate PR from the browser. That is why spreadfirefox.com, NY time ads and stuff like that aren't totally useless, but as soon as you touch the maximalist geek perfection idea of mine how a browser should be like, you lose the rubber stamp of geek approval.
I want a secure, fast, technically elegant, standards supporting browser with a flexible extension system. That's it. Stop the bloat. Stop the PR. I don't even need extra special tabbing, just some basic one, if it doesn't suck ram like a madman.
I know feature creep is tempting. It gives you a nice feeling that you've implemented something, etc. BUT IT LEADS TO BLOAT. I think inevitably the Netscape -> Mozilla -> Firefox cycle will start again soon. "Hey, let's create a new fast , slim browser and let's call it firebird!" What an innovative idea...
Re:Wow, an explanation I've been waiting for so lo
on
World Firefox Day
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
It was a joke.
Although Gentoo users will experience bigger downloads.
Wow, an explanation I've been waiting for so long.
on
World Firefox Day
·
· Score: 5, Funny
you'll both be immortalized in Firefox 2.0's source code
This finally explains the recent bloat in Firefox.:-)
Exactly. In most of the serious government/corporate places, giving data access to admins would be unimaginable.
Most mainframes above C classification clearly separate data and system.
I'd like to see some IT admin demand access to government secrets because he needs it to administer the system, or demanding access to banking details just because he administers the system. He'd get escorted out of the building and probably get imprisoned. Of course no systems use Windows where data - system separation is important.
I thought my parent post would be an obvious joke, but apparently it ain't so.
"But of course you can" is a reply to 'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,' and 'First post!' is the practical demonstration of that knowledge that someone needs in order to succeed in society.
Look! I even added "(an essential skill...)", to hilight, that I was joking, not trying to "Fristy piss".
So, I'd kindly take issue with moderating my post into oblivion for stupid reasons. I'll include the following guide for beginner moderators' convenience:
If my post were:
"But of course you can faggotz lolololz!!!!!!444 Fristy PISS" - Troll.
"But of course this is all the idiot Bush's fault..." - Flamebait
"I went down yesterday to the park and bought an icecream" - Offtopic
"But of course...[insert awfully bad joke here]" - Overrated
IF you think my joke was absolutely not funny, moderate overrated, otherwise leave it alone. Thanks.
I went there to check, too. The "Microsoft fined 280m over EU antitrust ruling" article seems to be quick, syndicated news. The Microsoft calls EU fine unjust is headline news at the international business section.
Also, information about how BBC links to external articles: here.
FROM OTHER NEWS SITES
Telegraph EU fines Microsoft,280.5m - 30 mins ago
Guardian Unlimited EU hits Microsoft with 280.5m antitrust fine - 34 mins ago MSNBC Microsoft calls EU fine unjust - 37 mins ago
vnunet.com EC slaps 280m fine on Microsoft - 38 mins ago
The Register Commission beats Microsoft with,280m stick - 41 mins ago
You can almost believe in bias free journalism, can you?:)
Well, you're certainly able to parrot exactly what thousands of other people^Wanonymous trolls have said thousands of times, so well done on that count...but I'm not sure what its relevance is to this article, especially seeing as the post you criticise wasn't written to you anyway...
Yes, you are. I didn't say Microsoft acts like this, but rather what their behaviour reminds me of.
Specifically, my issue is with the "It appears Microsoft is really going all out to get Windows Vista secured before it's release date in 2007." sentence, and that somehow presenting a system for security experts would make it more security, as a direct causality.
Security is not a product, it is a process. If one chain in the link fails, the whole chain fails. And MS can continue to give presentations about their system and abstract design concepts, and if security experts spot weakness in the design they can tell all about it to MS, but it's throwing peas at a wall. They never listened, and I see no reason why would they listen. This is just a cheap PR stunt to reassure some less in-the-know folk. That is why I compared the situation to the example in my original post. It has nothing to do with encryption. Encryption isn't the issue. Design, security principles and how MS responds to security issues are.
...when companies "invent" some home brewn encryption and offer $100,000 or so to anyone who can crack it.
When noone does the company calls his product uncrackable. These events and claims are without credibility, security doesn't get manufactured this way.
...(after 25 minutes of uncontrollable laughter)...
You're not serious are you? Coming from the same company that makes it a living hell to code for the web, which implements such solutions (undisclosed, subtle breakage of API calls) that puts competitors in extremely difficult positions. The one that has a 2 million euro / day fine, for not being friendly to developers.
So come again? Microsoft friendly to developers? The only reason they have backwards compatibility, is that their user base would be gone if they wouldn't do so, not because they appreciate developers one bit.
About their incredible array of supported hardware, aren't those the ones that Linux support much better?
Also, backwards compatibility is only applied to their OS, not Office. Care to count the myriad format/compatibility issues that had arisen with Office?
What you're saying is a crock of shit and you're most likely astroturfing.
I couldn't care less about when Vista gets released, but I have to flat out refuse your propaganda about "Microsoft" being friendly to developers. They are not. Also, most likely Vista will be a flop, only carried along by the monopoly momentum they have and agreements with Dell and similar companies.
1. Security. I feel that lately Firefox has slipped on their security record. I want them to audit more, design it better to be secure.
2. No memory leaks. Yes, it still does leak memory.
3. NO BLOAT. NO BLOAT. NO BLOAT. The integrated spellchecker and various shit is something I don't want. If someone wants it, they can just install the extension to provide that functionality. That is the whole point of the extension system. I don't want beginner-user-oriented feel-good features, tyvm.
4. Better standards support. ACID2, etc.
Basically, that's my wish list. I am afraid they are slowly creating another Mozilla suite though. This is my take from an engineering viewpoint.
Everyone seems to be missing this angle what you didn't say but imply: copyright is broken.
Is there an exception that a "copy" or "derivate work" cannot be contained inside a human's mind? If no, then every parent is a felon, as the state of their mind after watching a work would be derivative work. It is quite easy to see how a parent would distribute that "derivative work" to their children, therefor violating the copyright laws.
But apart from this, copyright is also unconstitutional, as copyright is defined as a limited "right" given to content producers to increase innovation and creativity. Currently the limited is not true, as limited would mean less than the lifetime of an average person in any reasonable interpretation, or at least it couldn't be perpetually extended, the term I mean.
Make no mistake, the damage is enormous from this stupid copyright system. Our culture from the last century slowly disappears as it fades into physically nothing because copyright prevents the preservation of it. Copyright prevents derivative works, which is an absolutely stupid and highly limiting feature of the whole system. Copyright was created originally in an age where printing was expensive, so basically copyright was a government subsidy. The right to create derivative works existed and under the old system, unregulated uses vastly outnumbered the control of the copyright holder. Today "printing", so creating intellectual works is cheap and there is strong economic incentive to do so apart from copyright! Society doesn't _need_ copyright anymore, on the contrary, getting rid of copyright would start an unprecedented era of innovation.
Currently copyright is 1 (as in, it stands alone, isn't a derivative work in legal sense), in a lucky case, it is 1 -> 1 (where the copyright holder creates a derivative work from some other work either by owning the copyright to that or by buying the right). Thing is, this is really really limiting. It would be like reinventing the wheel every time you want to create a new car model. It would be like reinventing mathematics from the ancient greek level every time you want to prove a conjecture. These fields wouldn't even exist, if we would apply copyright-style derivative rules on them. The damage created by copyright is enormous, but it's much more hidden than it would be in the scientific community or in the engineering community if we were to apply such rules to their work. I predict though, that we'll be slowly reaching the point where the damage is almost as obvious, due to new technologies like the internet and modern computing. We need the freedom to create derivative works, because progress is incremental. If we want to have culture, we need to allow creation of derivative works from multiple works, and the creation of multiple derivative works from a work. The more, the better.
Recombination, combining, experimenting is the basis of why are we here at the moment: it is the way to evolve.
Make no mistake: corporations don't innovate unless they are forced to. The best scenario for them is where nothing changes, that includes innovation aswell. They would love to sell the same piece of technology over an over again, forever. Actually that is exactly the case in the content producing industry. There was some opinion piece a while back about how "Superman", as a character would need to be corrected to be compatible with today's world. They cannot do that, but wouldn't the result be better, wouldn't there be more choice if someone or anyone could do that? Then we could have thousands of different Supermans, and the most appealing, the best ideas would be the popular ones, instead of only one outdated one we have today.
Going from a fake-communist society to capitalism is progress? Certainly. Is Capitalism the ideal? Hell no.
The most important progress is capitalism in China? That's the pinnacle of stupidity. Going from a dictatorship to a democracy, that would be progress instead of turning them into a consumer.
(...), and offering your share of criticisms, without offering anything resembling a solution.
Why would I offered a solution in my grandparent post? I was debunking a misconception. It is a complete argument on its own.
But since...
So, please finish the rest of your comment and enlighten us, what is your solution?
...you're asking for my opinion, I'll elaborate on it a bit.
A new agency/organization in charge of the DNS system would have to satisfy the following in my opinion:
Be a fair representation, relative to the number of the people using the Internet. That rules out the influence of dictatorships totally. There is more than enough weight from Europe, US and India to counter any negative effect.
Be technically-savvy. It shouldn't be the business comittee ICANN is, rather it should be managing the root DNS servers. That rules out Verisign profiteering, because they wouldn't be let to sell domains at $7 compared to $0.03 in their expenses. This is kind of similar to the idea you cited in your post, about appointing people of technical merit to lead the organization. I find that a good solution.
Their primary goal should be the current operation, future improving and even research for a better DNS system.
Now we only have to figure out where to find such organization.
Personally, I don't think the fears from the UN are justified. The UN already has a lot of worldwide organizations, doing excellent work (do I need to cite ITU, WHO, UNICEF, etc?). If the organization is set up like I've described above, then it is basically independent from any other influence described. The organization would only belong in title to the UN and financially. It would be really distant from the General Assembly of the UN, which is where the dictators lurk. Noone could influence the organization once its set up from the General Assembly, as the USA has the veto power to block any resolutions coming from there.
It is certainly the lesser of two evils and I don't think it would be too far fetched to say that most likely it would even be a positive approach.
or is it time to move to IPv6 and an international organization for the Domains and IPs out there.
Just to clarify if someone misunderstood (the sentence is a bit ambigous), but domains are underlying protocol independent. There isn't another set of domains for IPv6.
It was created by the American government if I understand everything, so maybe The Internet should remain in the hands of the American government.
Yes, the friendly government of the USA came to my country in 1992 or whatever, and started laying cables, connecting routers. In around 2001 when I wanted to get broadband, they came around, and gave me the computer I'm writing this post on, then commenced to deploy a cable modem and wire the whole area with cable network. Those handy americans even maintain the whole thing since then. NOT.
Where did the US create the majority of what makes up Internet? The majority of physical wiring, routers, computers, stored content, users, etc. are all outside the US of A. So who got to create what?
This argument does not stand, as everyone did create their own little wan, and they just connected it each other. The argument that the USA created the first WAN and everyone linked to it is irrelevant, except from a historical viewpoint.
The USA didn't wire the whole world, fund the whole process and doesn't _maintain_ the whole thing, so this argument is moot. The idea that somehow creating/inventing it alone (which is not true, but let's not go there) would give you the right to control it, even though others are maintaining/building/improving it too, is basically a patent idea on what? Mathematics and networking protocols? Anyway, you didn't patent it, and even if you did, it would have expired long ago, and even if it wouldn't have, other countries wouldn't consider them valid, and even if they would, I would still consider them stupid if they would have existed in the first place.
Weird, I know that sharing seems to be some kind of leftist hippy idea, but that is the only thing bringing our civilisation forward: sharing of information (especially the beneficital ones, like science). You don't get to "create" mathematics. It existed before, you merely discovered it.
Your (and those who tout the 'we created it, we own it' argument) biggest problem is misdirected patriotism. Be proud of your country in different ways. Similarly this is also the problem with your foreign policy: unilaterialism. I don't have to enlist the problems and disaster that policy lead to in regards your country.
Seriously, put this argument to death. I'm sick and tired to hear it every time this issue comes up.
Or maybe you should just stop infringing the british-created legal system.;)
That'd be pretty damn impossible since we DID have evidence and we presented it to the U.N. along with more secret documents that were undoubtably only shared with our closest allies like the U.K.
BZZZT! Wrong. What you did is to show fabricated and blatlantly false evidence to the UN, nothing more. Please check your facts.
So anyway, this is all pointless in hindsight since Al Qaeda certainly DOES have ties in Iraq now and we are fighting terrorism there.
It is funny that you're saying that, given that Al Qaeda as an organization DOES NOT EXIST. I would recommend the eye opener The Power of Nightmares, a BBC documentary about the issue. I'd like to stress the importance that Al Qaeda never existed, it was made up by a guy escaping from Bin Laden because he stole his money, so while on the run the Feds stumbled upon him and the whole Al Qaeda name was born in 2001 January in a court in Massachussets. While there are terrorists (I'd rather to label them resistance movement inside Iraq), they a.) use the Al Qaeda name as a publicity tool b.) are fighting a national issue. International terrorism is extremely rare and negligible.
Slashdot Mirror
You're supposed to eat 3 packages of hot dogs with 4 packages of buns. There you have it.
Captain Obvious rides on...
Here I come Intel, if this is true. Just because ATI drivers are horsecrap on Linux. I'm not going to support that company. Especially that Intel looks quite good with that Conroe stuff...
I'm starting to be afraid that PR is crushing what dare I say, used to be, a geek browser.
Firefox 2.0 gives us, what:
- Builtin spellchecking. Woohoo! I don't want that in Firefox. There is already an extension to do just exactly what this feature does. If someone wants spellchecking, go install the extension. - Firefox friends. I don't want this much evangelisation. I will most likely never look at the thousands of names listed. Why would I? I want a technological masterpiece not a PR one.
This PR push makes my approval towards FF dwindle, what do you think an average people would say? "Geez, it's just a friggin browser...". Separate PR from the browser. That is why spreadfirefox.com, NY time ads and stuff like that aren't totally useless, but as soon as you touch the maximalist geek perfection idea of mine how a browser should be like, you lose the rubber stamp of geek approval.
I want a secure, fast, technically elegant, standards supporting browser with a flexible extension system. That's it. Stop the bloat. Stop the PR. I don't even need extra special tabbing, just some basic one, if it doesn't suck ram like a madman.
I know feature creep is tempting. It gives you a nice feeling that you've implemented something, etc. BUT IT LEADS TO BLOAT. I think inevitably the Netscape -> Mozilla -> Firefox cycle will start again soon. "Hey, let's create a new fast , slim browser and let's call it firebird!" What an innovative idea...
It was a joke.
Although Gentoo users will experience bigger downloads.
Exactly. In most of the serious government/corporate places, giving data access to admins would be unimaginable.
Most mainframes above C classification clearly separate data and system.
I'd like to see some IT admin demand access to government secrets because he needs it to administer the system, or demanding access to banking details just because he administers the system. He'd get escorted out of the building and probably get imprisoned. Of course no systems use Windows where data - system separation is important.
I thought my parent post would be an obvious joke, but apparently it ain't so.
...[insert awfully bad joke here]" - Overrated
"But of course you can" is a reply to 'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,' and 'First post!' is the practical demonstration of that knowledge that someone needs in order to succeed in society.
Look! I even added "(an essential skill...)", to hilight, that I was joking, not trying to "Fristy piss".
So, I'd kindly take issue with moderating my post into oblivion for stupid reasons. I'll include the following guide for beginner moderators' convenience:
If my post were:
"But of course you can faggotz lolololz!!!!!!444 Fristy PISS" - Troll.
"But of course this is all the idiot Bush's fault..." - Flamebait
"I went down yesterday to the park and bought an icecream" - Offtopic
"But of course
IF you think my joke was absolutely not funny, moderate overrated, otherwise leave it alone. Thanks.
First post!
(an essential skill...)
I went there to check, too. The "Microsoft fined 280m over EU antitrust ruling" article seems to be quick, syndicated news. The Microsoft calls EU fine unjust is headline news at the international business section.
Also, information about how BBC links to external articles: here.
Well, you're certainly able to parrot exactly what thousands of other people^Wanonymous trolls have said thousands of times, so well done on that count...but I'm not sure what its relevance is to this article, especially seeing as the post you criticise wasn't written to you anyway...
Specifically, my issue is with the "It appears Microsoft is really going all out to get Windows Vista secured before it's release date in 2007." sentence, and that somehow presenting a system for security experts would make it more security, as a direct causality.
Security is not a product, it is a process. If one chain in the link fails, the whole chain fails. And MS can continue to give presentations about their system and abstract design concepts, and if security experts spot weakness in the design they can tell all about it to MS, but it's throwing peas at a wall. They never listened, and I see no reason why would they listen. This is just a cheap PR stunt to reassure some less in-the-know folk. That is why I compared the situation to the example in my original post. It has nothing to do with encryption. Encryption isn't the issue. Design, security principles and how MS responds to security issues are.
...when companies "invent" some home brewn encryption and offer $100,000 or so to anyone who can crack it.
When noone does the company calls his product uncrackable. These events and claims are without credibility, security doesn't get manufactured this way.
Hehehehe heheh BWHAHAHAHAHAHAA...
You're not serious are you? Coming from the same company that makes it a living hell to code for the web, which implements such solutions (undisclosed, subtle breakage of API calls) that puts competitors in extremely difficult positions. The one that has a 2 million euro / day fine, for not being friendly to developers.
So come again? Microsoft friendly to developers? The only reason they have backwards compatibility, is that their user base would be gone if they wouldn't do so, not because they appreciate developers one bit.
About their incredible array of supported hardware, aren't those the ones that Linux support much better? Also, backwards compatibility is only applied to their OS, not Office. Care to count the myriad format/compatibility issues that had arisen with Office?
What you're saying is a crock of shit and you're most likely astroturfing.
I couldn't care less about when Vista gets released, but I have to flat out refuse your propaganda about "Microsoft" being friendly to developers. They are not. Also, most likely Vista will be a flop, only carried along by the monopoly momentum they have and agreements with Dell and similar companies.
1. Security. I feel that lately Firefox has slipped on their security record. I want them to audit more, design it better to be secure.
2. No memory leaks. Yes, it still does leak memory.
3. NO BLOAT. NO BLOAT. NO BLOAT. The integrated spellchecker and various shit is something I don't want. If someone wants it, they can just install the extension to provide that functionality. That is the whole point of the extension system. I don't want beginner-user-oriented feel-good features, tyvm.
4. Better standards support. ACID2, etc.
Basically, that's my wish list. I am afraid they are slowly creating another Mozilla suite though. This is my take from an engineering viewpoint.
Everyone seems to be missing this angle what you didn't say but imply: copyright is broken.
Is there an exception that a "copy" or "derivate work" cannot be contained inside a human's mind? If no, then every parent is a felon, as the state of their mind after watching a work would be derivative work. It is quite easy to see how a parent would distribute that "derivative work" to their children, therefor violating the copyright laws.
But apart from this, copyright is also unconstitutional, as copyright is defined as a limited "right" given to content producers to increase innovation and creativity. Currently the limited is not true, as limited would mean less than the lifetime of an average person in any reasonable interpretation, or at least it couldn't be perpetually extended, the term I mean.
Make no mistake, the damage is enormous from this stupid copyright system. Our culture from the last century slowly disappears as it fades into physically nothing because copyright prevents the preservation of it. Copyright prevents derivative works, which is an absolutely stupid and highly limiting feature of the whole system. Copyright was created originally in an age where printing was expensive, so basically copyright was a government subsidy. The right to create derivative works existed and under the old system, unregulated uses vastly outnumbered the control of the copyright holder. Today "printing", so creating intellectual works is cheap and there is strong economic incentive to do so apart from copyright! Society doesn't _need_ copyright anymore, on the contrary, getting rid of copyright would start an unprecedented era of innovation.
Currently copyright is 1 (as in, it stands alone, isn't a derivative work in legal sense), in a lucky case, it is 1 -> 1 (where the copyright holder creates a derivative work from some other work either by owning the copyright to that or by buying the right). Thing is, this is really really limiting. It would be like reinventing the wheel every time you want to create a new car model. It would be like reinventing mathematics from the ancient greek level every time you want to prove a conjecture. These fields wouldn't even exist, if we would apply copyright-style derivative rules on them. The damage created by copyright is enormous, but it's much more hidden than it would be in the scientific community or in the engineering community if we were to apply such rules to their work. I predict though, that we'll be slowly reaching the point where the damage is almost as obvious, due to new technologies like the internet and modern computing. We need the freedom to create derivative works, because progress is incremental. If we want to have culture, we need to allow creation of derivative works from multiple works, and the creation of multiple derivative works from a work. The more, the better.
Recombination, combining, experimenting is the basis of why are we here at the moment: it is the way to evolve.
Make no mistake: corporations don't innovate unless they are forced to. The best scenario for them is where nothing changes, that includes innovation aswell. They would love to sell the same piece of technology over an over again, forever. Actually that is exactly the case in the content producing industry. There was some opinion piece a while back about how "Superman", as a character would need to be corrected to be compatible with today's world. They cannot do that, but wouldn't the result be better, wouldn't there be more choice if someone or anyone could do that? Then we could have thousands of different Supermans, and the most appealing, the best ideas would be the popular ones, instead of only one outdated one we have today.
WTF?
Going from a fake-communist society to capitalism is progress? Certainly. Is Capitalism the ideal? Hell no.
The most important progress is capitalism in China? That's the pinnacle of stupidity. Going from a dictatorship to a democracy, that would be progress instead of turning them into a consumer.
But since...
A new agency/organization in charge of the DNS system would have to satisfy the following in my opinion:
- Be a fair representation, relative to the number of the people using the Internet. That rules out the influence of dictatorships totally. There is more than enough weight from Europe, US and India to counter any negative effect.
- Be technically-savvy. It shouldn't be the business comittee ICANN is, rather it should be managing the root DNS servers. That rules out Verisign profiteering, because they wouldn't be let to sell domains at $7 compared to $0.03 in their expenses. This is kind of similar to the idea you cited in your post, about appointing people of technical merit to lead the organization. I find that a good solution.
- Their primary goal should be the current operation, future improving and even research for a better DNS system.
Now we only have to figure out where to find such organization.Personally, I don't think the fears from the UN are justified. The UN already has a lot of worldwide organizations, doing excellent work (do I need to cite ITU, WHO, UNICEF, etc?). If the organization is set up like I've described above, then it is basically independent from any other influence described. The organization would only belong in title to the UN and financially. It would be really distant from the General Assembly of the UN, which is where the dictators lurk. Noone could influence the organization once its set up from the General Assembly, as the USA has the veto power to block any resolutions coming from there.
It is certainly the lesser of two evils and I don't think it would be too far fetched to say that most likely it would even be a positive approach.
Captain Obvious explains.
Where did the US create the majority of what makes up Internet? The majority of physical wiring, routers, computers, stored content, users, etc. are all outside the US of A. So who got to create what?
This argument does not stand, as everyone did create their own little wan, and they just connected it each other. The argument that the USA created the first WAN and everyone linked to it is irrelevant, except from a historical viewpoint.
;)
The USA didn't wire the whole world, fund the whole process and doesn't _maintain_ the whole thing, so this argument is moot. The idea that somehow creating/inventing it alone (which is not true, but let's not go there) would give you the right to control it, even though others are maintaining/building/improving it too, is basically a patent idea on what? Mathematics and networking protocols? Anyway, you didn't patent it, and even if you did, it would have expired long ago, and even if it wouldn't have, other countries wouldn't consider them valid, and even if they would, I would still consider them stupid if they would have existed in the first place.
Weird, I know that sharing seems to be some kind of leftist hippy idea, but that is the only thing bringing our civilisation forward: sharing of information (especially the beneficital ones, like science). You don't get to "create" mathematics. It existed before, you merely discovered it.
Your (and those who tout the 'we created it, we own it' argument) biggest problem is misdirected patriotism. Be proud of your country in different ways. Similarly this is also the problem with your foreign policy: unilaterialism. I don't have to enlist the problems and disaster that policy lead to in regards your country.
Seriously, put this argument to death. I'm sick and tired to hear it every time this issue comes up.
Or maybe you should just stop infringing the british-created legal system.
It is funny that you're saying that, given that Al Qaeda as an organization DOES NOT EXIST. I would recommend the eye opener The Power of Nightmares, a BBC documentary about the issue. I'd like to stress the importance that Al Qaeda never existed, it was made up by a guy escaping from Bin Laden because he stole his money, so while on the run the Feds stumbled upon him and the whole Al Qaeda name was born in 2001 January in a court in Massachussets. While there are terrorists (I'd rather to label them resistance movement inside Iraq), they a.) use the Al Qaeda name as a publicity tool b.) are fighting a national issue. International terrorism is extremely rare and negligible.