Indeed. At this point I won't recommend Intel products for home/personal usage, but more importantly I won't recommend them to my clients for business usage.
Most businesses relying on computer systems cannot afford to have downtime caused by nonsense such as this. A laptop unexpectedly running out of battery while writing an important email, or even dying during a presentation to potential clients, could prove to be a massive disaster.
Until things change an Intel, I will only recommend AMD-based systems, and possibly PPC- or SPARC-based systems. Business users need solidly engineered chips. Recent news would suggest that Intel no longer does that sufficiently.
Actually, a baseless ad hominem attack used against an opponent during a debate or a discussion does automatically prove that opponent correct. Indeed, for if you could prove the opponent wrong via facts and honesty, you could win the debate. But since you are wrong, you are unable to resort to fact. Thus you must fall back on personal attacks, which prove that you are in the wrong. And the end result is that the opponent is victorious, much like I always am when we talk, and you toss out ad hominems.
Your ad hominem attack in the parent post to this one further proves that I am correct. I am still the victor!
If you no longer trust Google, the best thing to do would be not use their services.
When it comes to searching, you could always try one of the numerous independent search engines. There's Gigablast, Entireweb, and Mojeek, just to name a few.
Of course, there are numerous other news and email services out there, so you don't have to use GMail.
That's not a very good solution. A far better one would be to just let the market work. If Sony decides to pull such stunts, and it annoys enough people, then their future revenue (and hence their profits) will decrease as people opt not to buy products from Sony. But apparently people are still buying Sony's products, so they feel what happened was acceptable.
To ban what is considered widely acceptable is not a very good idea. It will be costly to enforce the ban, and even then it just won't be effective in stopping what it was intended to stop.
One little-heard story in the West is concerned with how many Polish workers fought back against communism during the last 1970s and early 1980s. I think it may hold relevent in America these days, since the oppressor is quite the same (even if it's called called an "industry association", rather than a "government").
Since many Polish workers were limited in what they could write, they couldn't necessarily make signs or posters. So what they did was launch mass verbal assaults. Not a protest, per se, since they were still working or going about their everyday lives. As they were building ships, or working in a factory, or while heading to work, they would sing chants.
The songs/chants were quite varied. One particular song basically translated to: "We are the people. United we stand." Over and over they would repeat those verses. Other times they were just overtly obscene. Chants which translate to "Penis, anus, defecation!" were commonplace.
Would such protests work in American record stores, for instance?
Indeed, such inexperienced programmers are a well-known problem in the PHP community. As such, the PHP team should better take into account such programmers when they're designing the language and then actually implementing it.
A technical solution to SQL injections, for instance, may be quite difficult to find. But yet the PHP team still should work towards making the software build upon and using theirs as secure as possible, even if it is difficult.
When an application is vulnerable to the bug, there is always the chance that the language could have prevented it. And so I do place at least some of the blame on the developers of PHP, as they could probably do quite a bit more to prevent many of the well-known problems that people run into when building software using PHP.
Your suggestion that "security is a function of the developer, not the language" is incorrect. It depends on both.
Many languages offer security benefits over others. C is often vulnerable to buffer overflows, while the runtimes of other languages explicitly check for such issues.
Now let's focus on PHP. When you consider where it is mostly used, the often hostile World Wide web, one would expect security to be very high on its list of concerns. But alas, that is often not the case. Go check out the many security bulletins issues by various parties. PHP more often than not does suffer from serious security-related issues. When it comes to constructing serious web sites, that is just plain unacceptable.
I've set up several such systems for various groups people, and the one thing I've found to work best is to avoid those which use PHP. While PHP may be good for some uses, I don't think it offers the security, stability and reliability inherent for sites that must maintain a high degree of uptime.
It's quite a hassle, and very embarassing, to set up a system for somebody, only to have a security warning come out a week later. Their system needs upgrading only a week after being initially set up, and that reflects badly on whoever set it up.
As such, I've tended to go with Java-, Python-, Perl- or Ruby-based solutions, just because I feel I can trust those platforms more than I can trust PHP.
Why do you let such comments from such people bother you? If somebody says something like that to you, just stick your tongue out at them. If you're really bold, wiggle your cock in their general direction. Such calm protest will often infuriate the type of people who publically insult others. Your best attack against them would be to make it appear that you don't care what they think.
Are you sure about that? Often times, especially in the programming world, those who think and openly suggest that they are better than their peers turn out to actually be far worse.
Re:Yay, Slashdot!
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 0, Troll
In the end, Microsoft and Firefox are still drawing features from the truly cutting-edge browsers like Konqueror and Opera.
Indeed, that is because Konqueror and Opera do not have the marketshare of the other browsers. They can afford to implement and test out new functionality on a whim, whereas IE and Firefox often cannot.
In the end, that's perhaps the most beneficial way to do things. Innovative developments such as tabbed browsing, for instance, are conceived and pioneered by Opera and Konqueror. Then Firefox and IE copy, bringing the use of such features to the general public.
What has most likely happened is that the Internet Explorer user just thinks he has not been exploited. But it has been happening, and happening for years. He's just unaware of that fact.
While it may not be trolling to suggest that Internet Explorer is secure, it is an incorrect opinion to hold. Experience shows that Internet Explorer is anything but secure.
How are you "trolling"?
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 1
You're obviously not "trolling" in any way. Your point is completely backed up by fact, and thus is valid. Indeed, numerous versions of Internet Explorer are known to suffer from many sorts of security flaws. Often times these flaws have been easily exploited, causing millions (if not billions) of dollars in damages. To say that you will avoid this software based on your past negative experiences with earlier versions is not "trolling" in any way.
If anyone takes offense to your statements, the problem is not with you. It is with those who cannot, will not, or choose not to see the situation as it is.
Regardless of the outcome, the end result is still wasted resources. Years of legal action costs quite a bit. Even just the financial resources, let alone the time, wasted on such endeavours could be better put towards technical research. At least then we'd have something productive to show in the end.
While many claim that patents strive to increase the efficiency of the market, it is quite clear they do not. Indeed, the resources funneled off to deal with this legal battle could have actually been used for useful means. Anyone who strives for an efficient market cannot condone this sort of wasteful behaviour.
Barry, we have finally found something we are both in agreement about: the homoerotic tendencies of World of Warcraft. While the penis whipping that takes place in these 40-man dungeons intrigues me, alas I cannot say I wish to receive such punishment.
My greatest fear would be getting frozen, and then being successfully thawed, except that the freezing process leads to permanent impotency. Frostbite of the cock, one might say.
Then again, I have not sustained, let alone maintained, an erection in a couple of decades. So maybe getting cryogenically frozen wouldn't be that harmful after all.
What you're not considering is the massive growth that China has experienced in even just the past year. That means that data that is a year or two old isn't very useful today.
Again, look at the difference between the numbers the original poster gave. We're talking about 60 million or so people. While that's a fair chunk of the American population, it is less than 10% of the population of China.
While Internet access has likely reached a plateau in the US (those who can afford or want access have such access), while the growth in China is just beginning! So while they may hold an absolute lead over the US a year or two ago, two or three years from now they will likely be a far larger market. As such, the age of the data is quite relevant. Two years can make a massive difference.
First all, your data is several years old. So to suggest it is relevant today is incorrect. Second of all, it is from the CIA. After the whole Iraq debacle, many people are suspect of any data from such groups, be it intelligence about the weaponry of other nations, or even data in their Fact Book.
What you're not taking into account is the current state of the US economy. While it may not look bad at this point, there is much speculation that it will tank in the near future. The billions upon billons spent on the various wars the US is now involved in are really starting to strain the economy. The mass media isn't really covering this, but then again, it's not in their benefit to do so. Economists and those in the financial field know that things just aren't right, however.
Even if the Chinese market doesn't grow significantly (which is very unlikely), a decline in the American economy could easily lead to the Chinese market becoming relatively larger than the American market.
It depends on your region. It's customary in several European nations to put the percentage sign first. The benefit is that you immediately know what follows is a percentage, much as is the case with the American tradition of putting the dollar sign before a dollar value.
Remember, the "really bad ones" are all relative. That is why this sort of data is collected slowly. It starts out relatively benign. Then the next time around it's just slightly more probing, but not so much as to get people riled up. That process repeats for a while. Soon enough, BAM. There goes your once free nation.
Anyone with even the smallest background in world history will know how that that sort of situation has happened time and time again. And the outcome is always the same: tyranny. To think anything but is foolishness.
1. Give away the service 2. ???? 3. Take over market share 4. Raise prices again 5. Profit!
So they just need to figure out how to steal the market share and they are good to go.
Step 2 is "Wait while the market works."
Indeed, at this point all they would have to do is outlast their competition. The market itself will likely lead to consumers going with the lowest-cost option. So there are no unknown steps in this plan.
Thank you kindly for the ad hominem attack! It just proves that I am correct. You cannot debate with fact, so you must resort to insults. Yet again, I am the victor, and again I am completely correct!
You realize that this could be the first of numerous future requests, right? And there's nothing stopping the future requests from being far more probing.
With the first request they: CAN see how frequently some query terms occurred. CANNOT look up an IP and see what they queried CANNOT look for users who queried for both TERM A and TERM B.
With the second request they: CAN see how frequently some query terms occurred. CAN look up an IP and see what they queried CANNOT look for users who queried for both TERM A and TERM B.
And with the third request they: CAN see how frequently some query terms occurred. CAN look up an IP and see what they queried CAN look for users who queried for both TERM A and TERM B.
At that point censorship and persecution is far too close.
Indeed. And as is often shown, spamming is a very lucrative business. If you can base your business around a large volume sales, even at a few pence per sale, you'll often be very well off.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. At this point I won't recommend Intel products for home/personal usage, but more importantly I won't recommend them to my clients for business usage.
Most businesses relying on computer systems cannot afford to have downtime caused by nonsense such as this. A laptop unexpectedly running out of battery while writing an important email, or even dying during a presentation to potential clients, could prove to be a massive disaster.
Until things change an Intel, I will only recommend AMD-based systems, and possibly PPC- or SPARC-based systems. Business users need solidly engineered chips. Recent news would suggest that Intel no longer does that sufficiently.
Actually, a baseless ad hominem attack used against an opponent during a debate or a discussion does automatically prove that opponent correct. Indeed, for if you could prove the opponent wrong via facts and honesty, you could win the debate. But since you are wrong, you are unable to resort to fact. Thus you must fall back on personal attacks, which prove that you are in the wrong. And the end result is that the opponent is victorious, much like I always am when we talk, and you toss out ad hominems.
Your ad hominem attack in the parent post to this one further proves that I am correct. I am still the victor!
If you no longer trust Google, the best thing to do would be not use their services.
When it comes to searching, you could always try one of the numerous independent search engines. There's Gigablast, Entireweb, and Mojeek, just to name a few.
Of course, there are numerous other news and email services out there, so you don't have to use GMail.
That's not a very good solution. A far better one would be to just let the market work. If Sony decides to pull such stunts, and it annoys enough people, then their future revenue (and hence their profits) will decrease as people opt not to buy products from Sony. But apparently people are still buying Sony's products, so they feel what happened was acceptable.
To ban what is considered widely acceptable is not a very good idea. It will be costly to enforce the ban, and even then it just won't be effective in stopping what it was intended to stop.
One little-heard story in the West is concerned with how many Polish workers fought back against communism during the last 1970s and early 1980s. I think it may hold relevent in America these days, since the oppressor is quite the same (even if it's called called an "industry association", rather than a "government").
Since many Polish workers were limited in what they could write, they couldn't necessarily make signs or posters. So what they did was launch mass verbal assaults. Not a protest, per se, since they were still working or going about their everyday lives. As they were building ships, or working in a factory, or while heading to work, they would sing chants.
The songs/chants were quite varied. One particular song basically translated to: "We are the people. United we stand." Over and over they would repeat those verses. Other times they were just overtly obscene. Chants which translate to "Penis, anus, defecation!" were commonplace.
Would such protests work in American record stores, for instance?
Indeed, such inexperienced programmers are a well-known problem in the PHP community. As such, the PHP team should better take into account such programmers when they're designing the language and then actually implementing it.
A technical solution to SQL injections, for instance, may be quite difficult to find. But yet the PHP team still should work towards making the software build upon and using theirs as secure as possible, even if it is difficult.
When an application is vulnerable to the bug, there is always the chance that the language could have prevented it. And so I do place at least some of the blame on the developers of PHP, as they could probably do quite a bit more to prevent many of the well-known problems that people run into when building software using PHP.
Your suggestion that "security is a function of the developer, not the language" is incorrect. It depends on both.
Many languages offer security benefits over others. C is often vulnerable to buffer overflows, while the runtimes of other languages explicitly check for such issues.
Now let's focus on PHP. When you consider where it is mostly used, the often hostile World Wide web, one would expect security to be very high on its list of concerns. But alas, that is often not the case. Go check out the many security bulletins issues by various parties. PHP more often than not does suffer from serious security-related issues. When it comes to constructing serious web sites, that is just plain unacceptable.
I've set up several such systems for various groups people, and the one thing I've found to work best is to avoid those which use PHP. While PHP may be good for some uses, I don't think it offers the security, stability and reliability inherent for sites that must maintain a high degree of uptime.
It's quite a hassle, and very embarassing, to set up a system for somebody, only to have a security warning come out a week later. Their system needs upgrading only a week after being initially set up, and that reflects badly on whoever set it up.
As such, I've tended to go with Java-, Python-, Perl- or Ruby-based solutions, just because I feel I can trust those platforms more than I can trust PHP.
Why do you let such comments from such people bother you? If somebody says something like that to you, just stick your tongue out at them. If you're really bold, wiggle your cock in their general direction. Such calm protest will often infuriate the type of people who publically insult others. Your best attack against them would be to make it appear that you don't care what they think.
Are you sure about that? Often times, especially in the programming world, those who think and openly suggest that they are better than their peers turn out to actually be far worse.
In the end, Microsoft and Firefox are still drawing features from the truly cutting-edge browsers like Konqueror and Opera.
Indeed, that is because Konqueror and Opera do not have the marketshare of the other browsers. They can afford to implement and test out new functionality on a whim, whereas IE and Firefox often cannot.
In the end, that's perhaps the most beneficial way to do things. Innovative developments such as tabbed browsing, for instance, are conceived and pioneered by Opera and Konqueror. Then Firefox and IE copy, bringing the use of such features to the general public.
Maybe you don't know what a rimjob is.
Put simply, it is when one person takes his or her tongue, and runs it around (and possibly into) the anus of another individual, or even an animal.
There, now the humour should be obvious to you.
What has most likely happened is that the Internet Explorer user just thinks he has not been exploited. But it has been happening, and happening for years. He's just unaware of that fact.
While it may not be trolling to suggest that Internet Explorer is secure, it is an incorrect opinion to hold. Experience shows that Internet Explorer is anything but secure.
You're obviously not "trolling" in any way. Your point is completely backed up by fact, and thus is valid. Indeed, numerous versions of Internet Explorer are known to suffer from many sorts of security flaws. Often times these flaws have been easily exploited, causing millions (if not billions) of dollars in damages. To say that you will avoid this software based on your past negative experiences with earlier versions is not "trolling" in any way.
If anyone takes offense to your statements, the problem is not with you. It is with those who cannot, will not, or choose not to see the situation as it is.
Regardless of the outcome, the end result is still wasted resources. Years of legal action costs quite a bit. Even just the financial resources, let alone the time, wasted on such endeavours could be better put towards technical research. At least then we'd have something productive to show in the end.
While many claim that patents strive to increase the efficiency of the market, it is quite clear they do not. Indeed, the resources funneled off to deal with this legal battle could have actually been used for useful means. Anyone who strives for an efficient market cannot condone this sort of wasteful behaviour.
Barry, we have finally found something we are both in agreement about: the homoerotic tendencies of World of Warcraft. While the penis whipping that takes place in these 40-man dungeons intrigues me, alas I cannot say I wish to receive such punishment.
My greatest fear would be getting frozen, and then being successfully thawed, except that the freezing process leads to permanent impotency. Frostbite of the cock, one might say.
Then again, I have not sustained, let alone maintained, an erection in a couple of decades. So maybe getting cryogenically frozen wouldn't be that harmful after all.
What you're not considering is the massive growth that China has experienced in even just the past year. That means that data that is a year or two old isn't very useful today.
Again, look at the difference between the numbers the original poster gave. We're talking about 60 million or so people. While that's a fair chunk of the American population, it is less than 10% of the population of China.
While Internet access has likely reached a plateau in the US (those who can afford or want access have such access), while the growth in China is just beginning! So while they may hold an absolute lead over the US a year or two ago, two or three years from now they will likely be a far larger market. As such, the age of the data is quite relevant. Two years can make a massive difference.
First all, your data is several years old. So to suggest it is relevant today is incorrect. Second of all, it is from the CIA. After the whole Iraq debacle, many people are suspect of any data from such groups, be it intelligence about the weaponry of other nations, or even data in their Fact Book.
What you're not taking into account is the current state of the US economy. While it may not look bad at this point, there is much speculation that it will tank in the near future. The billions upon billons spent on the various wars the US is now involved in are really starting to strain the economy. The mass media isn't really covering this, but then again, it's not in their benefit to do so. Economists and those in the financial field know that things just aren't right, however.
Even if the Chinese market doesn't grow significantly (which is very unlikely), a decline in the American economy could easily lead to the Chinese market becoming relatively larger than the American market.
It depends on your region. It's customary in several European nations to put the percentage sign first. The benefit is that you immediately know what follows is a percentage, much as is the case with the American tradition of putting the dollar sign before a dollar value.
Remember, the "really bad ones" are all relative. That is why this sort of data is collected slowly. It starts out relatively benign. Then the next time around it's just slightly more probing, but not so much as to get people riled up. That process repeats for a while. Soon enough, BAM. There goes your once free nation.
Anyone with even the smallest background in world history will know how that that sort of situation has happened time and time again. And the outcome is always the same: tyranny. To think anything but is foolishness.
1. Give away the service
2. ????
3. Take over market share
4. Raise prices again
5. Profit!
So they just need to figure out how to steal the market share and they are good to go.
Step 2 is "Wait while the market works."
Indeed, at this point all they would have to do is outlast their competition. The market itself will likely lead to consumers going with the lowest-cost option. So there are no unknown steps in this plan.
Thank you kindly for the ad hominem attack! It just proves that I am correct. You cannot debate with fact, so you must resort to insults. Yet again, I am the victor, and again I am completely correct!
You realize that this could be the first of numerous future requests, right? And there's nothing stopping the future requests from being far more probing.
With the first request they:
CAN see how frequently some query terms occurred.
CANNOT look up an IP and see what they queried
CANNOT look for users who queried for both TERM A and TERM B.
With the second request they:
CAN see how frequently some query terms occurred.
CAN look up an IP and see what they queried
CANNOT look for users who queried for both TERM A and TERM B.
And with the third request they:
CAN see how frequently some query terms occurred.
CAN look up an IP and see what they queried
CAN look for users who queried for both TERM A and TERM B.
At that point censorship and persecution is far too close.
Indeed. And as is often shown, spamming is a very lucrative business. If you can base your business around a large volume sales, even at a few pence per sale, you'll often be very well off.