For poor people, even the ingredients that they can afford tend to be shit. High in fats, sugars and/or salt. Low quality meat and pre-processed canned/boxed foods are also much cheaper than fresh ingredients.
Not to mention that some people's mothers are busy working two or more jobs and don't have time for anything besides a McDonalds quality dinner.
That's a crock of shit. In my late 20's when I got tired of working for a living and decided to go back to school, I lived 4 years where I was making maybe $8,000 to $12,000 dollars a year. I worked 40 to 50 hours a week and and carried from 12 to 18 hours a semester in college year around. I lived in a sleazy apartment, didn't use air conditioning and bought a cord of wood for heat in the winter. I had no car and walked everywhere. I spent maybe an hour every 2 to 3 days making food. That's less time than it would take to drive to McDonalds every day. I bought rice in large volumes and would often make a pound of hamburger last a week. Vegetables and beans are really cheap in larger volumes. I made biscuits from scratch (good biscuits are an art form) rather than bread. I used spices and cheese sparingly to make things non-monotonous. On rare occasions I would splurge and make something fancy like Chicken Kiev (my specialty) which is fairly cheap to make from scratch but is time consuming. There was no way I could afford McDonalds more than occasionally. If your frugal it's always cheaper and healthier to buy raw and cook than to buy prepared foods and it usually takes less time than going out and eating.
I didn't say googling for the answer doesn't work. I said that in a corporate environment it is frequently not an acceptable technical support program. I didn't say why, I said that's how it is. And I stand by my assertion that if you don't believe that, you're sticking your head in the sand.
Yeah, I have a tendency towards looking at support from the perspective of fixing a problem expeditiously and then looking for the root cause to make sure they don't bother me with that problem again. I think you're referring to what I like call "ISO 9000 Syndrome". You must have a documented plan even if the plan as documented is completely useless. But even from that perspective where the plan says "call vendor to fix the problem" why can't it say "pull out the source and fix the problem". In either one you're going to cheat and use google or usenet to fix 99.99% (number out my ass) of the problems. This should fulfill the "ISO 9000 Syndrome" requirements and, at least in my mind, from my experience with vendor support it will actually provide something that will get the problem solved expeditiously rather than praying the vendor can and will figure it out and fix it.
Well, no. A competent experienced engineer or the author themselves are the best support plan, with holiday coverage. But even the author doesn't know sometimes. I've been that author, and gone googling for help myself.
Hmmm... I'll add one caveat to this: "a competent experienced engineer with the source code". I've had a number of times in my career where having the source allowed finding a solution before the vendor even returned the support call. But in cases where it was a proprietary tool they charged a fortune for source access which really pissed me off because we had to pay for the privilege of fixing their bugs for them.
You might want to take some reading comprehension classes. Let me see if I can help you here.
Yeah, it's really stupid to call someone an idiot because they spend thousands or even millions of the companies money to license someones proprietary solution to a simple problem that locks them to the whims and fate of the vendor providing that solution rather than teaching one of their own technical people how to do a "man cryptsetup" or "man losetup". Wow, I could even google "ubuntu encrypt home partition" and find all kinds of detailed information on a dozens of different ways to do it.
The only mention of simple in that comment was that the problem presented was a "simple problem" and that FOSS provided tools to solve that "simple problem". Nowhere did I state or even imply that the "FOSS" solution was simpler than any proprietary solution just that a proprietary solution would cost more money and lock you in to the whims and fate of the vendor providing the solution. Now I did imply that finding a "FOSS" solution isn't difficult but I offered no opinion on the simplicity of the of any solution. In response you stated:
Sorry, won't work for a large enterprise. When you are talking about maintaining a massive and complex (in terms of seats, requirements, hosted apps, etc.) network, support becomes a LOT more important than "simple" setups.
You see, this doesn't mention "FOSS" at all. It seems to imply that large environments require complex setups and that support is more important than a simple setup. And I replied:
You're contradicting yourself. In a large enterprise environment support is a lot more important. That's an argument for simple not against it. Simple is by definition easier and cheaper to support. That's why it's called simple.
See, once again no mention of "FOSS" anywhere let alone any implications that "FOSS" solutions are simpler. I simple state that large environments don't preclude simple solutions and that simple solutions almost by definition are easier to support.
And in reply you started dick measuring and name calling. I'd use centimeters so I guess I'd win.
Encryption is actually a really amusing example...
How the hell can anyone possibly trust a proprietary implementation of encryption?
Yeah, this was a perfect example where various European governments were caught with their pants down using a proprietary supposedly secure USB stick at $175 a pop.
If you don't see that "googling for the answer" is not always an acceptable support plan, you're Not Getting It.
This is the kind of idiotic arguments you get from clueless PHBs. The internet is by far the best support plan available for any price. Have you ever tried calling Oracle with a database problem? I guarantee you google is quicker and more accurate. The only exception is if you manage to find a bug that there is no answer for on the internet but if you find one of those Oracle isn't going to have an answer either. Well, they might three months from now but by then you would have probably found some one on usenet to help. I know this from many years of experience. Calling a vendor for support is a last resort. I've been doing this stuff since before the WWW existed and back then usenet was almost always better than calling the vendor. So you see speaking from decades of experience in the trenches I do get it. Now I realize there may be some very rare exceptions to this but in the vast majority of the cases that it is claimed that a supporting vendor is required it really isn't.
Sorry, won't work for a large enterprise. When you are talking about maintaining a massive and complex (in terms of seats, requirements, hosted apps, etc.) network, support becomes a LOT more important than "simple" setups.
You're contradicting yourself. In a large enterprise environment support is a lot more important. That's an argument for simple not against it. Simple is by definition easier and cheaper to support. That's why it's called simple.
You firmly believe that you could never bring a lawsuit against a TV station for something that was advertised on it? IANAL, but such an action (falsely advertising one company then redirecting to another) is illegal. If they were totally not liable (at least in the US), then TV stations could accept ads from drug dealers, prostitutes, bookies, chop-shops, cock fighters, doctors who loosely write prescriptions, Chinese toothpaste manufacturers, etc.
Yet, for some reason, they don't...
"I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through." I think it may possible be because persons placing such adds may have a limited ability to pay for the adds since their stupid asses would likely be working in the prison laundry for a dollar a day shortly after the add came out.
Do you realize that over 70% of the keywords bought on Google and Yahoo and MSN are for copyrighted words?
Wait a minute. When did they start giving copyrights for individual words? That's gonna make writing ANYTHING kinda tricky. I get a picture in my head of a lawyers version of the "Knights of Nee". Can I get the copyright for "the"?.
like encrypted home directories or , only, none of the techs they can afford know anything about setting it up. But they know that 5 years from now if they want some weird solution, probably one of the big vendors will be around to sell it to them, along with a consultant to walk the Remedy monkeys through troubleshooting it.
obviously everyone who doesn't agree that it's perfect for a 10,000 seat enterprise network must be an "idiot." Le sigh!
Yeah, it's really stupid to call someone an idiot because they spend thousands or even millions of the companies money to license someones proprietary solution to a simple problem that locks them to the whims and fate of the vendor providing that solution rather than teaching one of their own technical people how to do a "man cryptsetup" or "man losetup". Wow, I could even google "ubuntu encrypt home partition" and find all kinds of detailed information on a dozens of different ways to do it.
She is not. That G-string is way to small to hide something like that behind it and I've never seen a guy with boobies that big...Wait, have you been to Caligula's?
If the aircraft is experiencing extreme conditions which are bending the wing excessively, then you _want_ to lose lift, rather than stress the wing and airframe more. Kind of like how sailors change to smaller sails during storms.
Hmmmmm. That might not necessarily be the case. Losing lift in airplane can sometimes mean collisions with nasty things like the ground. If that were imminent I would think you would want those wings lifting until the whole damn thing came apart.
It is not extortion because extortion is done to make money. There is absolutely no chance the RIAA is making any money with all the legal fees they are spending here. Typically they ask people to settle for very small amounts. Lawyers cost hundreds of thousands or even millions just to hire a few.
I think you might want to read the definition of extortion because you obviously don't have a clue what it is. Nowhere in any definition I found is the word profit mentioned. Just because you're stupid enough to run an extortion operation that's not directly profitable doesn't mean it's not extortion. In this case they pushed a clearly wrongful prosecution for no other reason than to try and increase the defendants court cost to the point she was forced to settle. In other words they tried to bankrupt her and only dropped it when they were clearly about to lose. Oh, and tell that college student the RIAA told to drop out of college so he could pay the RIAA extortion that they're not really out to hurt anyone.
It's true that Linux has more server-oriented features than Vista but that doesn't make it more secure.
No the ability to have complete control of every aspect of the operation of a linux/unix computer makes it more secure, I can shut off everything that remotely access the computer except ssh and run that on a non-standard port.
For example, since hardly anybody wants to run Vista headless, the fact that it can't do it isn't important - it's certainly not important in a discussion on security.
I know plenty of cases of applications that would be better without a windowing interface but all that additional stuff is there because there is no other way under Windows. The fact that they are forced to run all that additional software isn't relevant to a discussion on security? So I guess your claim is that all that unneeded software is perfect and bug free.
But bash v command.com isn't fair: it's bash, WMI, Group Policy or Powershell.
Linux still wins with a long list of scripting tools tailored for a verity of different uses.
And Vista has plenty of functionality that Linux doesn't:
Windows Presentation Foundation
There are a number of frameworks that provide similar functionality. I haven't used WPF so can't speak to how much better it is.
the encrypted filesystem
You've got to be kidding. Linux has for years provided for filesystem encryption far more advance and flexible than that provided by Windows.
Actually the original article compared only features in Vista that were also installed by *nixes. So since Vista doesn't have a mail server, all the vulnerbilities in relation to mail servers was NOT INCLUDED in the *nix distributions.
So if the feature wasn't in Vista or installed by default in Vista, it wasn't compared, so things like Apache, etc were omitted from the *nixes.
So you are basically making a good point, but the original articles and comparison already took this into account and took them out of the *nix pool. So they did what you ask, even though you didn't seem to read that far.
Again I call BS. Are you going to try and tell me that for example iptables is equivalent of the Vista firewall or that bash is the equivalent of command.com? In the vast majority of the equivalent apps the linux app will provide orders of magnitude more functionality. So even trying to compare equivalent apps isn't fair. I would need to see a package list, which wasn't provided, to determine how good a job he did excluding everything that isn't included in a Vista install. There are a lot of packages install in a default RHEL install that aren't in Vista. Just as an example which file systems did he count since default RHEL includes many more than the 2 that come with Vista.
How much would like to wager on this?
I would bet a years salary.
Show me one *nix distribution that has a GPU model that allows pre-emptive multi-tasking of the GPU or will do SMP across multiple GPUs and also virtualize GPU RAM for gaming. Um, ya none exist.
Ok, I'm being a dick here, but there are lot of things that Vista does that truly cannot be done on other OSes at this time. People forget this, and it has a bit of importance in the upcoming technologies of the next few years.
And the majority of the things you can do on a linux/unix system can't be done or can be only very basically done on Vista. Just to name a few off the top of my head: bash, packet filtering, encrypted file systems, running off a serial console, LVM, RAID. I could probably fill pages if I wanted to take the time. You could probably count the things Vista does that linux/unix doesn't without taking your shoes off.
I've got 100's of linux boxes with no keyboard/monitor deployed exposed to the public internet. I don't have to worry about them because I was able to secure the systems such that even with a determined effort by experts it would be difficult if not impossible to crack them. They only needed limited functionality so I was able to only start exactly what was needed and know that was all that was running. You most assuredly can't do anything like that with Vista.
Numbers are out there... Dare I suggest, "Open up and say ahh.";)
And the "numbers" people like you point to are complete BS. Vista is simple an operating system and a very basic one at that. Yet you compare the number of vulnerabilities in it to the number of vulnerabilities in a full blown linux distro that provides a million times as much functionality. Lets see, Vista, very basic OS functionality, linux distro, very advance OS functionality plus 1000 applications. Yeah, that's a valid comparison. Hell, even the most basic linux or unix setup provides far more functionality than Vista. And even worse than that in many comparisons the linux vulnerabilities are counted multiple times. They count the same vulnerability in a dozen different distros. So you keep trotting out your "numbers" while those of us who actually have experience and know a little about security sit back in our digital fortresses and watch you Vista fools scramble every time the next IE 0-day comes to light. The scary part is that most PHBs buy your disingenuous numbers rather than listen to the people who actually know what they're about.
That's what the C4/Thermite is for. Debris isn't worth much when all that's left won't even fill a teaspoon.
You know, at 4000mph I really don't think C4 or Thermite would be needed. I think friction would do the trick if there were to be any unplanned aerodynamic manipulations.
You are sold privacy by those who are advantaged by it in the exact way I describe. But it is not in your best interest.
So I guess you would have no problem if the newspaper published how many times you masturbated every week or put videos of it on their web sight. Yeah, right dumbass, you would really love that wouldn't you. And democracy works so much better when how everyone voted is published rather than a secret ballot.
Listen dumbass. Privacy is what makes a free society possible. Look at the historic societies that limited privacy and you'll find they are the ones where everyone was terrified of the controlling authorities. You'll also find that the crimes that were committed where generally far worse than in any free society that support strong privacy rights and were mostly committed by those controlling authorities.
The problem is that electronics in the engine increases the complexity to the point where a failure is almost guaranteed.
Yeah, cars were so much more reliable and easier to keep running back in the days when you had points and distributors and mechanical timing and carburetors and all that stuff you had to fiddle with to keep them running. Yeah right. Are you even old enough to remember? Buy yourself a 60's era car and give it a try. Ever try and get the ignition timing right? Also it's impossible to get anywhere near the mileage modern cars get without electronic control. Both the efficiency and maintenance of electronic controlled engines are a vast improvement over mechanical controls. The engine tuneup is history.
I can go into more detail with more modern history if you'd like, but you're probably well aware of the world (outside America)'s increasing dissatisfaction with Israel's foreign policy.
I would be curious to here your opinion of what type of foreign policy you think Israel should be pursuing. Looking at it from the Israeli view, from a historical perspective I would say Israeli foreign policy has been pretty damn successful over the past 50 years. Your own description of the worldwide change in attitude towards Jews seems to also support this. They've gone from a scattered group that were hated oppressed scapegoats for all the worlds woes to a respected, if not liked by all, nation. Although a number of nations still profess it as an objective, the destruction of Israel is no longer looked upon as a realistic threat by those who experience reality (this excludes Iran). This wasn't the case as recent as 30 years ago. Graph the number of human torpedoes directed at Israel over the last 10 years. It would seem to point to success also. Except for a few mistakes that were fairly quickly corrected I don't see much negative coming from Israeli foreign policy looking at it from an Israeli point of view.
According to zionists, the uniqueness of the European holocaust must not be considered - and is the defining, central theme of the Second World War.
Yeah, because we all know there has never been another period or place where Jews were oppressed even to the point of advocated murder. I don't know, but in my humble opinion the attempted systematic slaughter of an entire race of people whether unique or not is a pretty important theme. It's even more so since this objective was taken up by a modern industrialize nation in a period of time in which this kind of thing is frowned upon as rather barbaric at best.
Israeli colonial oppression today?
You know, I read a recent Reuters article on the latest Israeli incursion into the Golan. It was a three page article explaining in minute detail the actions of the Israeli and consequences to the Golan Palestinians. It wasn't until the second to the last paragraph on the third page that there was one sentence explaining that the incursion was in response to dozens of rockets fired at Israeli settlements that had injured several Israelis. What do you think France's response would be to a group in Luxemburg continuously firing rockets at Thionville and injuring several French citizens (I know, I know surrender, ha, ha) and not only will the Luxemburg government not stop them but it actually supports them? Somehow I don't think negotiations wouldn't high on the list for long and a few collateral casualties incurred wouldn't be much of a deterrent to France using force to stop them.
Hypothetically, let us say that a researcher independently discovered a new algorithm which performed discrete Fourier transformations 2x faster than anything we have today. The commercial and societal value of this discovery is pretty huge. Two or three years of exclusivity couldn't do justice to the impact of this huge discovery.
So what you're saying is math should be patentable. I'm going to patent 2 + 2 = 4. You're a moron.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a crock of shit. In my late 20's when I got tired of working for a living and decided to go back to school, I lived 4 years where I was making maybe $8,000 to $12,000 dollars a year. I worked 40 to 50 hours a week and and carried from 12 to 18 hours a semester in college year around. I lived in a sleazy apartment, didn't use air conditioning and bought a cord of wood for heat in the winter. I had no car and walked everywhere. I spent maybe an hour every 2 to 3 days making food. That's less time than it would take to drive to McDonalds every day. I bought rice in large volumes and would often make a pound of hamburger last a week. Vegetables and beans are really cheap in larger volumes. I made biscuits from scratch (good biscuits are an art form) rather than bread. I used spices and cheese sparingly to make things non-monotonous. On rare occasions I would splurge and make something fancy like Chicken Kiev (my specialty) which is fairly cheap to make from scratch but is time consuming. There was no way I could afford McDonalds more than occasionally. If your frugal it's always cheaper and healthier to buy raw and cook than to buy prepared foods and it usually takes less time than going out and eating.
Yeah, I have a tendency towards looking at support from the perspective of fixing a problem expeditiously and then looking for the root cause to make sure they don't bother me with that problem again. I think you're referring to what I like call "ISO 9000 Syndrome". You must have a documented plan even if the plan as documented is completely useless. But even from that perspective where the plan says "call vendor to fix the problem" why can't it say "pull out the source and fix the problem". In either one you're going to cheat and use google or usenet to fix 99.99% (number out my ass) of the problems. This should fulfill the "ISO 9000 Syndrome" requirements and, at least in my mind, from my experience with vendor support it will actually provide something that will get the problem solved expeditiously rather than praying the vendor can and will figure it out and fix it.
Hmmm... I'll add one caveat to this: "a competent experienced engineer with the source code". I've had a number of times in my career where having the source allowed finding a solution before the vendor even returned the support call. But in cases where it was a proprietary tool they charged a fortune for source access which really pissed me off because we had to pay for the privilege of fixing their bugs for them.
A very justified rant. When I reread it I felt like posting the same rant. Man, that was annoying. I have no idea where that brain fart came from.
You might want to take some reading comprehension classes. Let me see if I can help you here.
Yeah, it's really stupid to call someone an idiot because they spend thousands or even millions of the companies money to license someones proprietary solution to a simple problem that locks them to the whims and fate of the vendor providing that solution rather than teaching one of their own technical people how to do a "man cryptsetup" or "man losetup". Wow, I could even google "ubuntu encrypt home partition" and find all kinds of detailed information on a dozens of different ways to do it.The only mention of simple in that comment was that the problem presented was a "simple problem" and that FOSS provided tools to solve that "simple problem". Nowhere did I state or even imply that the "FOSS" solution was simpler than any proprietary solution just that a proprietary solution would cost more money and lock you in to the whims and fate of the vendor providing the solution. Now I did imply that finding a "FOSS" solution isn't difficult but I offered no opinion on the simplicity of the of any solution. In response you stated:
Sorry, won't work for a large enterprise. When you are talking about maintaining a massive and complex (in terms of seats, requirements, hosted apps, etc.) network, support becomes a LOT more important than "simple" setups.You see, this doesn't mention "FOSS" at all. It seems to imply that large environments require complex setups and that support is more important than a simple setup. And I replied:
You're contradicting yourself. In a large enterprise environment support is a lot more important. That's an argument for simple not against it. Simple is by definition easier and cheaper to support. That's why it's called simple.See, once again no mention of "FOSS" anywhere let alone any implications that "FOSS" solutions are simpler. I simple state that large environments don't preclude simple solutions and that simple solutions almost by definition are easier to support.
And in reply you started dick measuring and name calling. I'd use centimeters so I guess I'd win.
Yeah, this was a perfect example where various European governments were caught with their pants down using a proprietary supposedly secure USB stick at $175 a pop.
This is the kind of idiotic arguments you get from clueless PHBs. The internet is by far the best support plan available for any price. Have you ever tried calling Oracle with a database problem? I guarantee you google is quicker and more accurate. The only exception is if you manage to find a bug that there is no answer for on the internet but if you find one of those Oracle isn't going to have an answer either. Well, they might three months from now but by then you would have probably found some one on usenet to help. I know this from many years of experience. Calling a vendor for support is a last resort. I've been doing this stuff since before the WWW existed and back then usenet was almost always better than calling the vendor. So you see speaking from decades of experience in the trenches I do get it. Now I realize there may be some very rare exceptions to this but in the vast majority of the cases that it is claimed that a supporting vendor is required it really isn't.
You're contradicting yourself. In a large enterprise environment support is a lot more important. That's an argument for simple not against it. Simple is by definition easier and cheaper to support. That's why it's called simple.
"I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through." I think it may possible be because persons placing such adds may have a limited ability to pay for the adds since their stupid asses would likely be working in the prison laundry for a dollar a day shortly after the add came out.
Wait a minute. When did they start giving copyrights for individual words? That's gonna make writing ANYTHING kinda tricky. I get a picture in my head of a lawyers version of the "Knights of Nee". Can I get the copyright for "the"?.
Yeah, it's really stupid to call someone an idiot because they spend thousands or even millions of the companies money to license someones proprietary solution to a simple problem that locks them to the whims and fate of the vendor providing that solution rather than teaching one of their own technical people how to do a "man cryptsetup" or "man losetup". Wow, I could even google "ubuntu encrypt home partition" and find all kinds of detailed information on a dozens of different ways to do it.
She is not. That G-string is way to small to hide something like that behind it and I've never seen a guy with boobies that big...Wait, have you been to Caligula's?
Hmmmmm. That might not necessarily be the case. Losing lift in airplane can sometimes mean collisions with nasty things like the ground. If that were imminent I would think you would want those wings lifting until the whole damn thing came apart.
I think you might want to read the definition of extortion because you obviously don't have a clue what it is. Nowhere in any definition I found is the word profit mentioned. Just because you're stupid enough to run an extortion operation that's not directly profitable doesn't mean it's not extortion. In this case they pushed a clearly wrongful prosecution for no other reason than to try and increase the defendants court cost to the point she was forced to settle. In other words they tried to bankrupt her and only dropped it when they were clearly about to lose. Oh, and tell that college student the RIAA told to drop out of college so he could pay the RIAA extortion that they're not really out to hurt anyone.
No the ability to have complete control of every aspect of the operation of a linux/unix computer makes it more secure, I can shut off everything that remotely access the computer except ssh and run that on a non-standard port.
For example, since hardly anybody wants to run Vista headless, the fact that it can't do it isn't important - it's certainly not important in a discussion on security.I know plenty of cases of applications that would be better without a windowing interface but all that additional stuff is there because there is no other way under Windows. The fact that they are forced to run all that additional software isn't relevant to a discussion on security? So I guess your claim is that all that unneeded software is perfect and bug free.
But bash v command.com isn't fair: it's bash, WMI, Group Policy or Powershell.Linux still wins with a long list of scripting tools tailored for a verity of different uses.
And Vista has plenty of functionality that Linux doesn't: Windows Presentation FoundationThere are a number of frameworks that provide similar functionality. I haven't used WPF so can't speak to how much better it is.
the encrypted filesystemYou've got to be kidding. Linux has for years provided for filesystem encryption far more advance and flexible than that provided by Windows.
Again I call BS. Are you going to try and tell me that for example iptables is equivalent of the Vista firewall or that bash is the equivalent of command.com? In the vast majority of the equivalent apps the linux app will provide orders of magnitude more functionality. So even trying to compare equivalent apps isn't fair. I would need to see a package list, which wasn't provided, to determine how good a job he did excluding everything that isn't included in a Vista install. There are a lot of packages install in a default RHEL install that aren't in Vista. Just as an example which file systems did he count since default RHEL includes many more than the 2 that come with Vista.
How much would like to wager on this?I would bet a years salary.
Show me one *nix distribution that has a GPU model that allows pre-emptive multi-tasking of the GPU or will do SMP across multiple GPUs and also virtualize GPU RAM for gaming. Um, ya none exist. Ok, I'm being a dick here, but there are lot of things that Vista does that truly cannot be done on other OSes at this time. People forget this, and it has a bit of importance in the upcoming technologies of the next few years.And the majority of the things you can do on a linux/unix system can't be done or can be only very basically done on Vista. Just to name a few off the top of my head: bash, packet filtering, encrypted file systems, running off a serial console, LVM, RAID. I could probably fill pages if I wanted to take the time. You could probably count the things Vista does that linux/unix doesn't without taking your shoes off.
I've got 100's of linux boxes with no keyboard/monitor deployed exposed to the public internet. I don't have to worry about them because I was able to secure the systems such that even with a determined effort by experts it would be difficult if not impossible to crack them. They only needed limited functionality so I was able to only start exactly what was needed and know that was all that was running. You most assuredly can't do anything like that with Vista.
And the "numbers" people like you point to are complete BS. Vista is simple an operating system and a very basic one at that. Yet you compare the number of vulnerabilities in it to the number of vulnerabilities in a full blown linux distro that provides a million times as much functionality. Lets see, Vista, very basic OS functionality, linux distro, very advance OS functionality plus 1000 applications. Yeah, that's a valid comparison. Hell, even the most basic linux or unix setup provides far more functionality than Vista. And even worse than that in many comparisons the linux vulnerabilities are counted multiple times. They count the same vulnerability in a dozen different distros. So you keep trotting out your "numbers" while those of us who actually have experience and know a little about security sit back in our digital fortresses and watch you Vista fools scramble every time the next IE 0-day comes to light. The scary part is that most PHBs buy your disingenuous numbers rather than listen to the people who actually know what they're about.
You know, at 4000mph I really don't think C4 or Thermite would be needed. I think friction would do the trick if there were to be any unplanned aerodynamic manipulations.
So I guess you would have no problem if the newspaper published how many times you masturbated every week or put videos of it on their web sight. Yeah, right dumbass, you would really love that wouldn't you. And democracy works so much better when how everyone voted is published rather than a secret ballot.
Listen dumbass. Privacy is what makes a free society possible. Look at the historic societies that limited privacy and you'll find they are the ones where everyone was terrified of the controlling authorities. You'll also find that the crimes that were committed where generally far worse than in any free society that support strong privacy rights and were mostly committed by those controlling authorities.
Yeah, cars were so much more reliable and easier to keep running back in the days when you had points and distributors and mechanical timing and carburetors and all that stuff you had to fiddle with to keep them running. Yeah right. Are you even old enough to remember? Buy yourself a 60's era car and give it a try. Ever try and get the ignition timing right? Also it's impossible to get anywhere near the mileage modern cars get without electronic control. Both the efficiency and maintenance of electronic controlled engines are a vast improvement over mechanical controls. The engine tuneup is history.
Yeah, I was visiting visiting relatives in the city that day so I know they're off by at least one.
I would be curious to here your opinion of what type of foreign policy you think Israel should be pursuing. Looking at it from the Israeli view, from a historical perspective I would say Israeli foreign policy has been pretty damn successful over the past 50 years. Your own description of the worldwide change in attitude towards Jews seems to also support this. They've gone from a scattered group that were hated oppressed scapegoats for all the worlds woes to a respected, if not liked by all, nation. Although a number of nations still profess it as an objective, the destruction of Israel is no longer looked upon as a realistic threat by those who experience reality (this excludes Iran). This wasn't the case as recent as 30 years ago. Graph the number of human torpedoes directed at Israel over the last 10 years. It would seem to point to success also. Except for a few mistakes that were fairly quickly corrected I don't see much negative coming from Israeli foreign policy looking at it from an Israeli point of view.
Yeah, because we all know there has never been another period or place where Jews were oppressed even to the point of advocated murder. I don't know, but in my humble opinion the attempted systematic slaughter of an entire race of people whether unique or not is a pretty important theme. It's even more so since this objective was taken up by a modern industrialize nation in a period of time in which this kind of thing is frowned upon as rather barbaric at best.
Israeli colonial oppression today?You know, I read a recent Reuters article on the latest Israeli incursion into the Golan. It was a three page article explaining in minute detail the actions of the Israeli and consequences to the Golan Palestinians. It wasn't until the second to the last paragraph on the third page that there was one sentence explaining that the incursion was in response to dozens of rockets fired at Israeli settlements that had injured several Israelis. What do you think France's response would be to a group in Luxemburg continuously firing rockets at Thionville and injuring several French citizens (I know, I know surrender, ha, ha) and not only will the Luxemburg government not stop them but it actually supports them? Somehow I don't think negotiations wouldn't high on the list for long and a few collateral casualties incurred wouldn't be much of a deterrent to France using force to stop them.
So what you're saying is math should be patentable. I'm going to patent 2 + 2 = 4. You're a moron.
What would you bet they've got this patented already?