How many other tools, apart from PHP, did you properly try?
I use C#, Java(EE), Python, AS3, PHP, MySQL, Linux on all my projects. It just happens that each of them for me has it good purpose for specific tasks. I use technology by its benefits(performance and interoperability) and speed of development not by plain preference (like I know that and I stick to it).
To me, this just smacks of general disdain for "computer people". It's a subtle insult and an effort at class differentiation.
Do your building maintenance or janitorial workers have to wear such things?
The only way I'd say this is even remotely acceptable is if:
a) you work in a hospital environment where many of the other workers are wearing smocks or similar over their clothes.
b) the shirts are partially subsidized by the company and/or inexpensive
c) There is an actual reason for the uniforms aside from some managerial BS. IE, you do a lot of crawling around on the ground and get dirty throughout the day, and having a clean shirt bin to clean into to keep you presentable is necessary.
As a whole, it's a stupid idea. It decreases morale, especially in a decidedly 'independent' field like IT (even if it's just helpdesk).
Now, if the uniforms are being pushed down your throats because your 'independently minded' help desk has a repeated reputation for not dressing to 'business casual' (as i'm sure is the case with many IT types), that's another story. But then, that's also the issue which needs to be addressed - not making another, special-case rule for a certain segment of people.
Nokia has been "protecting its patents" all along, through cross-licensing agreements with the handset manufacturers. It's know for fact that they've been engaging Apple in talks since at least last spring. It was likely earlier than that.
So dear Anonymous Coward, I don't know what the point of your post was.
I would pay more for less security and less waiting/lines when I travel domestically by air.
The problem with that is that it makes it unbalanced. Not only will people want to be on the "defending" side since they get a chance at respawn, but it ultimately means that defenders will have a higher chance at winning.
Many games have those respawn timers, usually including some sort of flag or point capture (Battlefront, Day of Defeat, I could go on) - but these don't exactly make for the most realistic of playing either.
CDMA uses the CMEA and ORYX algorithms, which are pretty weak as well, as shown in the linked papers. However, CDMA has somewhat of an advantage, because it's difficult to obtain the encrypted data stream in the first place: the nature of CDMA transmission means you can't pull a signal out of the noise unless you know the codes being used by the base station and handset.
Here are a few references from people smarter than me who do a good job of explaining the differences and why Windows is not (and never will be) Unix.
For your sake, I really hope the authors of those articles aren't smarter than you.
The first one makes these points:
1. Some Windows applications are designed with the assumption that they'll be running as administrator. But as you know, recent versions of Windows no longer log the user in as an administrator; they temporarily grant admin privileges when needed, with the user's consent, which is also how Linux and OS X desktops work. Since the release of Vista, developers have had a big incentive to write software that plays nice as a normal user: avoiding the dreaded UAC popup.
2. Windows is more popular and thus more of a target. That's true, but getting people to switch to some other system will make that one a bigger target; this isn't a point in any OS's favor.
3. The author finds chmod easier to use than the Windows file security dialog box. That's his problem.
4. The author thinks Windows defaults to world-readable and -writable files, unless you go out of your way to lock down your home directory, but that's not actually true.
The second article makes some of the same mistakes -- some of which are understandable, since it's now two major releases out of date!
1. The author thinks Windows has "only recently evolved from a single-user design to a multi-user model". This is false. The author demonstrates his ignorance again by claiming "Windows XP was the first version of Windows to reflect a serious effort to isolate users from the system" -- apparently he hadn't heard of NT 3, NT 4, or Windows 2000. After that, I have a hard time taking anything he writes seriously, but I'll press on for one more...
2. The author, for some reason, uses "monolithic" to refer to integration between different components, e.g. integrating IE into Explorer. That's actually the opposite of monolithic. While this has consequences for reliability -- a flaw in IE's rendering component becomes a flaw in every app that incorporates that component -- it has no effect on multi-user separation. (Also, this affects any system with shared components, including Linux: a flaw in libjpeg becomes a flaw in every app that links to libjpeg.)
due to the underlying fundamental flaws of the OS architecture, there will always be another hole just waiting to be exploited.
This claim is not supported by anything you've said here, or by either of the linked articles.
Windows was designed as a single-user monolithic system with no mechanism to prevent malware from accessing the full machine.
Somehow you got +1 Informative for spouting this misinformed FUD. Congratulations, you tricked a moderator.
Windows 9x was designed as a single-user system. Windows NT, however, was multiuser from the beginning, and contains security measures at a fundamental level, just like Linux, Unix, VMS, etc. And Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7 trace their lineage back to NT, not 9x.
In a monolithic system a security breach anywhere compromises the entire system. Monolithic design, core access and remote procedure calls all contribute to an easily compromised system.
You keep saying "monolithic", but I don't think you know what it means. The Linux kernel is monolithic; the NT kernel is a hybrid.
Since there is still a lot of software which requires XP mode virtualization in Windows 7 and since this mode is a huge security hole which leaves the entire monolithic OS vulnerable, we are still seeing lots of malware on Windows 7. (If you run XP in a VM on Linux, it will effectively isolate the Windows VM from the rest of the Linux machine... not so on Windows.)
Do you have a citation for that, or are you just making it up? Windows 7's XP mode runs XP in a VM, just like running XP in a VM on any other operating system.
Unix was designed as a multi-user modular system with security built into the file, data, and execution modes and this gives it a secure foundation that is difficult to penetrate. By isolating files, data, and execution permissions, Linux gives each process the permissions it needs and effectively isolates the rest of the system from malware. Even poorly written Linux software will not allow access to the core of the machine. The layers of security and modular design limit the damage.
Yes, and that's also true of Windows. Every single one of those security features you mentioned was designed into NT from the start. Did you honestly not know that?
I said nothing of the sort. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else.
"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."
