I agree with you wholeheartedly. All of the free market crowd should recognize that a free market is predicated upon all participants having enough information to make informed decisions. So access to information is critical for the market participants to know what they are consenting to in an agreement. All of the arguments from economists about market efficiency are based upon perfect information by all parties. This is clearly an idealization, but it underscores the need for widely accessed, shared information in the running of a free market. A free market is not a natural state of the economy, it is a highly refined construction based upon thousands of years of social evolution. Communication and access to information are essential infrastructure.

This is a ridiculous statement. There is no country that is best in everything, just like there is no athlete that is best at everything. The United States may excel at personal liberties, but the French are clearly better at Egality, and probably Fraternity. French healthcare is excellent - I had children born in the US and France, and I strongly prefer the French system. US doctors have offices that look like advertisements for drug companies and doctors offices are almost always centered around clerks that file insurance. French doctors have simpler offices with far fewer assistants, and those assistances are more likely to be medical staff than clerks. I want a medical system that spends money on medical, not bureaucracies. We in the use have a medical system that is collapsing under its own weight.

As to the Napoleonic Era, it is important to point out that they were the first European power to establish a Republic free of a Monarch. They were also trying to form democratic institutions on a continent dominated by Monarchs that wanted nothing more than to see France's attempt fail. We in the US were under the Articles of Confederation from November 1777 to June 21, 1788. Cornwall surrendered on October, 1781. So we had over six years to work on democratic institutions under relatively peaceful conditions. But the French fleet continued to combat the British in the West Indies. There was also the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780-1784) that was sparked by the American Revolution. All of this made the Treaty of Paris a rather complicated affair. But as a result of their rather expensive support of our revolution, the French government was under great financial hardship. This was one of the lead-ups to the French Revolution, which began on 14 July 1789 with the storming of the Bastille. By 1792, the French were in wars with Austria and Prussia at a time when their government and armies were disintegrating. By 9 November 1788, Napoleon had seized power.

So in our first decade, we gained significant allies and were able to deliberate on forming The Constitution, which is a truly remarkable document. In contrast, France's first decade faced powerful enemies, the Reign of Terror and the ascent of Napoleon. Relatively speaking, we had it easy.

Americans don't recognize the absolute genius of Napoleon. In addition to being one of the finest military commanders in history, he also established the Napoleonic Code. Frankly, the Napoleonic Code is a far more rational basis for a legal system than British Common Law. He also advanced the fledgling École Polytechnique, which is still one of the finest technical universities in the world - certainly a peer of MIT or CalTech. He also advanced their banking system and post office.

I do not state that I would rather be French than American, but calling someone an 'ignorant, America-hating asshole that seems to be so pissed off because the US makes the rules for world' is just stupid. Learn about the rest of the world. Take what is best and synthesis something even better. We can use the French model to evolve and the French can use the American model to evolve.

I read

So the French Military do not seem to have this access to the source code that you are talking about. Do you have first hand knowledge of Microsoft sharing Outlook code with governments and allowing them to build modified versions?

as in, "The web developer screamed 'IEEEEEEE!' as he lept to his death in frustration." This is known as an injection attack and is becoming increasingly common.

How is this modded interesting? WAAAAAA I hate taxes. The response is 'interesting'? Why not just say 'grow up and be part of society'? Do you want to get rid of scientific research? Has that not been as valuable at the free market in increasing our standard of living? Communists with science are more effective than capitalists without. Perhaps we should do without public health services or sanitation? I would rather pay taxes that endure Hobson's 'nasty, brutish and short' life before there were modern sewers or modern medicine. Perhaps we can forget the police, if you want protection, lets just rely on rent-a-cops or organized crime. Maybe we should get rid of paved roads? Public schools can be private: Why do I care if my co-workers can do basic arithmetic? I think that I can be more effective in a society where I can count on others being educated. I don't need the fire department at least 99% of the time, should I be willing to cut that 99% percent of the time?

I went to TFA (the fine article, in this case) and it made perfect sense. Windows 7 isn't virus compatible in 2 cases. In another case, UAC actually works as expected. I was actually a bit depressed that the other seven 'old' viruses worked just fine. Like some other slashdotters, home is OS/X and Linux, but I still have to go to work and put up with servers and workstations that halt when the virus checker goes off. This is at least as bad as the garbage collector delays of early Java.

If you are trying to be safe, you have to realize that 'safe' is a probability, not a certainty. What is the frequency of this vulnerability relative to the frequency of compromised computers? If you want absolute safety,well you can't. If you decide to bank in person, you have to drive to the bank - risking your life by getting behind the wheel. If the average user has a choice between using his 'regular' browser that was downloading free porn and free photoshop via some torrent, or using a clean browser from a bootable CD, I'm willing to bet long odds that the frequency of attack will go way down with the live CD option. A frequently updated Live CD would seem to be a fairly practical solution for most users. I would also suggest that a bank supplied live cd that prevents surfing to other sites would be even better. The CD could have a jailed browser and a jailed 'something you have' key/value map that allows the bank to ask you for the value for their key. There may still be attacks, but the frequency with such a 2-factor authentication must be quite low, but not zero.

The triangle in the upper left corner points up when up is good (operations per second). It points down when down is good ( seconds to complete test suite). Seems pretty clear to me.

The parent's article goes into more detail and even points out other features. This seems to be the source of the other article, and it also looks like the other article cherry picked the results: rather than mentioning the four sections of software improvements, the Computerworld article focused on the one area of disappointment. Oh well, what is journalism without a little baiting to improve ratings?

The parent post's reference to OpenBSD seem spot on to me. See OpenBSD Security Features. This uses a BSD license and is written for a BSD 4.4 derivative (just like OS/X). Why doesn't Apple just adopt the OpenBSD mmap and just close this hole?

They do not use rewritable disks. They have disks that are evaporated aluminum on a plastic substrate. They have to remaster a new disk image and start running a separate batch for the non-Window version. This will also make for one more option to manage. They didn't say it was impossible, they just wanted to tell the judge that his decision has consequences that effect a major Texas high tech company.

eXclusively Microsoft's Language.

I was wondering that too.

I thought this was insightful.

This may seem to be common sense, bur there simply is no empirical evidence for this in medicine. I don't go to the doctor because I have some disposable income and I don't feel like seeing a movie. I go to the doctor because I am sick or because it is time for a check up. If I don't do either of these things, the overall cost of healthcare actually goes up. When is the last time you heard somebody say, I was going to have cancer, but I realized I couldn't afford it? The economics of health care simply don't map well to the sort of market system we have set up in the U.S.