It is possible to take a position that the fetus has rights, but they are subordinate to the rights of the mother.
I can agree with that.
I would say that the mother's Right to the sanctity of her own body is higher than any Rights the child has (until birth).
If the right to choose what happens to your own body is so fundamental, then why is it OK to criminalize the act of putting certain chemicals into it?
Check into the history of that. Opium was first criminalized to prevent white women from being corrupted by Chinese men. Cocaine was criminalized to prevent "cocainized negroes" from assaulting white women. And so forth.
Personally, I am in favour of legalizing all drugs. With one extreme caveat.
Any crime committed while under the influence of any drug is judged as the next higher offense. If you cannot control yourself under the influence of whatever drug you use, and you become a threat to other citizens or society in general, you will be jailed. The taxes on the sale of such will pay for the treatment.
The real question is whether a fetus is a person or not - is it part of the woman's body?
Exactly. Does the fetus / baby / whatever-you-want-to-call-it have Rights in and of itself and not related to the mother's?
The problem with that approach is that it completely invalidates any question of abortion.
If the fetus (etc) does have Rights, then the circumstances of its conception do not matter. Abortion would be illegal even in cases of incest and rape. But the moralists cannot stomach the scenario of their lily white virgin daughters having to bear some crack addicted minority male's baby.
If the fetus (etc) does not have Rights, then abortion would be legal up to the moment before birth (or suitable medical procedure to remove it from the mother without injuring it). And those moralists cannot stomach that scenario.
So both sides retreat to "choice" and the woman's "actions" prior to conception. It's the old whore/madonna dichotomy. And because the decision point is no longer the fetus (etc), the fetus (etc) is no longer the deciding factor. It's pure emotion based upon the reprehensible actions or untainted innocence of the woman.
So, if I understand this correctly, the NYT (which insists that Saddam never really had any WMDs, and that any development program was phony) publishes an article critical of the administration for putting documents up the web from the so-called Iraqi development programs because they reveal too much information about bomb making?
a. No you do not "understand this correctly".
b. The NYT has never said that Saddam "never really had any WMDs". We know he had them. We sold them to him back during the Iran/Iraq war
c. The same with Saddam's development programs.
d. Yes, the documents posted contain information that might be useful.
e. But you can probably purchase the information from North Korea or Iran or Pakistan, anyway.
How (precisely) does someone get to the point of knowing enough about developing nukes that his notes are classified as sensitive, without actually trying to build those nukes himself?
I guess you missed the news about Saddam's nuclear program that was dug up after Gulf War I and when the Israelis bombed his nuclear plant and so on and so forth.
It's all available on the Internet. It's easy to find. You could also go to the "library" and read a "newspaper" from that time frame to see what was being reported.
Until Linux is pre-installed, it won't matter to the majority of home users.
That's because the majority of home users do NOT upgrade their OS. They use whatever was installed by the OEM. They use the drivers provided by the OEM. They won't even install and update anti-virus software.
Firefox 2.0 has had a couple of problems with JavaScript that can cause crashes.
This only affects you if:
a. You are running a vanilla install of Firefox and have not downloaded the NoScript extension (please do so right away). and b. You go to one of those maliciously formed pages.
Failure to follow both of the above steps will result in Firefox not crashing due to either of the JavaScript issues. Which probably explains Firefox's stability on your system, my system, and most of the rest of everyone else's systems.
Finally, someone who is addressing the root cause of why Linux continues to trail market leaders in desktop share.
And by "market leaders" you mean "Microsoft". Whether Linux trails Apple is subject to debate.
IMO - Microsoft doesn't dominate because it is better, it dominates because of great marketing and ease of use (even for groups such as the disabled).
Nope. Microsoft dominates because it has a monopoly on the desktop. That means that just about every ISV and OEM has to consider Microsoft in their business plan. If you make hardware for PC's, you need to make Windows drivers. You don't need to make Linux drivers.
My grandmother can use XP Home, but if I have Linux up, she completely freezes. Sure, there's some grandmas that know perl scripting, but who wants to jump in and start compiling code just so they can play bridge with their friends over the net?
And is Gramma's PC a spam zombie? Being able to "use" a computer means different things to different people.
There is no real difference between using a pre-installed Ubuntu machine and a pre-installed XP machine.
The only difference in the platforms comes AFTER deployment. When Gramma wants to add a peripheral or install some software that her friend told her about (it has a cute monkey!).
In addition to making it "beautiful", developers need to continue adding out-of-the-box widgets/features to prevent someone from ever needing to modify a script or enter a terminal window if they didn't want to.
Have you used Ubuntu recently? It easily matches XP for never needing to open a terminal window.
If they could address both of these 'issues', Linux would have a fighting chance against Windows desktops.
Again, no. Linux will not match Windows in the HOME MARKET until Linux is pre-installed by the OEM.
This is because the vast majority of people in the HOME MARKET do NOT install their own OS. They use whatever was pre-installed. They use it as it was pre-installed. They don't even update their anti-virus software. The PC is tool for them. Like their VCR or their TV. They plug the connection in and expect it to handle the feed.
Due to the pre-installed issue, Linux's next major advance will be in the corporate/government desktop segment. Not the home market.
For the everyday user, if they use Linux at work, they'll probably want to use Linux at home... assuming they can get a distro that's easy enough to install and maintain.
But the problem with home use is NOT about being easy to "install and maintain".
Home users tend to stick with whatever was pre-installed. Once you have a city using Linux, there is a financial incentive for OEM's to build boxes with 100% Linux friendly hardware and a nice recovery CD with all the Linux drivers on it. After all, a city buys a lot of computers and parts over the years.
But that's just the base platform. That still doesn't address the apps (games) that the home users will want to run. So the market will... slowly... be changing. As grandma gets her Linux computer with Internet access, email, web browsing and basic photo editing (look at my lovely grandchildren), more ISV's will attempt to sell software to her.
I'm on 100% Ubuntu Edgy Eft and it handles everything that the average home user would do with the exception of games and certain IE-only websites.
It depends upon the requirements of the government
on
Munich Migrating To Linux
·
· Score: 4, Informative
With so many distributions out there, how does a government decide upon which one to deploy?
First off, they have to state what their requirements are. Just as with any other project.
Then they look at what is out there and how closely it matches those requirements and how much time/money would be needed to fill in the gaps. Munich decided to go with a Debian base with KDE and OpenOffice.org.
One of Munich's requirements seems to have been to become "independent of monopolists like Microsoft." In this, Debian's social contract would have been a major plus.
And that did that AFTER they were of a size of group that was not easily quietened or disappeared. Until then you HAVE to be the silent dissent that they cant put a finger on. Only after your numbers are large enough that you can put up a fight and they have to think twice before arresting you and hanging you for treason.
So, when you have 25 people on your "friends" list, you'll publicly reveal your secret identity? Or 50? Or 100?
They may not have covered this in your history classes, but if we had lost the war, the British would have rounded them up and hanged them for treason.
Freedom is NOT about being one sheep in a flock.
The founding fathers did not sign that document and then nailed a copy to the kings door when it was only 8 of them. They did that quietly and only AFTER they had sufficient strength to overcome the oppression that would be sent when they made their intentions public.
There were 56 people who signed it. They signed their names. The British would have no trouble at all hunting down 56 people. Particularly since many of them were known to each other.
THAT is the difference. If the article's author got 30-40 researchers and professors to all stand together and say "screw you Homeland security! you give us NO security!" and then published the proof to that effect, the FBI would not have raided their homes in 24 hours, a cowardly senator would not have opened his big trap against them and the government would have had to treat them very VERY differently.
Really? Then those 30-40 other "researchers and professors" will be standing up... when? This weekend? Monday? Next month?
In the fight for Freedom, 56 people were willing to sign their names, knowing that they were signing their death warrant if they lost the war.
Now, you're advocating that one guy, fearing a court case, should hide until he can find 29-39 friends to publicly demonstrate that a process is not very secure at all and could allow bad men access to airplanes.
Let's see... a court case vs being hanged as a traitor, your possessions confiscated and any surviving family members reduced to poverty.
Somehow, I don't see the problem here.
A single person is easily opressed and removed. a larger group, specifically a group that is well known is not.
And who told you that Freedom was easy or safe?
Our forefathers believed that it was better to die Free than to live under tyranny. I agree with them. Whether or not 30-40 other people agree with me. This is about Freedom, not popularity.
Look at the bottom. Look at all those people who signed their names instead of putting "John Doe".
Freedom requires that people stand up, publicly, for what they believe in. That is why the 1st Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Simply striking against a convenient target does not get you any closer to being Free. Nor does it keep you Free.
That's my point. She seems to be saying that this is easy. And that it is undetectable.
Yet when I start pointing out the obvious benefits of her system, suddenly it isn't as "easy" or "undetectable" as it was before.
Because the "guests" can talk directly to the hardware, all of your devices are theoretically supported, as long as your client OS supports them.
No. When the guest OS's have direct access to the hardware such as the video card or network card, the "threat" breaks down.
If my "cracked" OS has direct access to the NIC, then I can monitor what is sent over it. I can tell if the "Blue Pill" has cracked my box and is calling home.
If I do not have direct access to the hardware so that I cannot monitor it, then she has solved the Linux driver issue.
Yes, I know. Next will be the "you only have some kinds of direct access to the hardware". No. In order to limit that, her crack needs to know how to talk to that hardware so it can intercept the calls the "cracked" OS is making. Any control of the hardware by her "Blue Pill" means that she has solved the Linux driver issue for that hardware.
That is why the OS's need "drivers" to talk to the hardware peripherals.
Yep, the rootkit is the host OS and it runs the original OS as a guest OS, on a virtual machine.
I just don't see how she can accomplish that. And accomplish it in an undetectable fashion. Particularly given the state of hypervisors today. If it's difficult to do in a controlled environment today (run Win2003 with SQL 2005 in a hypervisor on Linux and see what hoops you have to jump through and what your performance is) I don't see it being a threat in the wild.
Seriously. If she can do this, then she's just solved EVERY LINUX DRIVER ISSUE.
Instead of worrying that your wireless card is not supported, run her "rootkit" and use the virtualized cards. The same with audio. The same with video. The same with EVERYTHING.
If she can do this, today, every OS vendor should be chasing her down to get the rights to that technology. Their OS's would reference known stable drivers and their functionality would improve.
Modern virtualization allows for a machine on top of a machine. So I could, in theory, place a controlling bit of kit above your Operating System where it can't see it, can't modify it, and can't realize that it's being toyed with by a rootkit overlord.
I don't see how that is possible. If something is running on top of the OS, it should be subject to the OS.
Something running beneath the OS would be able to control the OS.
The "Blue Pill" stuff she's talking about starts above the OS, but then it (supposedly) moves the OS to a virtual machine while "Blue Pill" takes over the physical hardware.
I do not understand how that is possible. Nor have I seen it demonstrated anywhere else. So far it is just her statement that she has done this.
#1. In order to issue the new certificates, the Certificate Authorities (CA's) will be "required" to follow "industry standard" practices in "verifying" whomever applies for a new certificate.
#2. This additional "verification" is what will cost the additional money.
#3. Any business that does not pay the additional fees to be "verified" by "industry standard" practices will be... the same as they are today.
#4. Phishing depends upon a person making a single error in judgment, one time. This will not stop phishing.
This will not stop anything. This is stupid. You're paying EXTRA to have someone do the verification they were supposed to be doing already. Imagine trying to run a business like that.
Boss - "I paid you last week, but you barely did any work. I'm going to fire you."
Employee - "If you give me a 50% raise, I'll perform the work to industry standards."
Boss - "Okay, that sounds like a good deal to me."
IE 7 will have different icons on the location bar to indicate that a site has the "higher" level of "security" (translation: "bought the new certificate").
I'm guessing that this means an application that does only one thing. Seemingly with a limited API or hooks to link it with other apps. From TFA:
But in practice, the level to which any pure play application integrates with an infrastructure management suite can be a significant variable, and there is always the possibility that adding something like lifecycle management means adding yet more pure play applications to the maintenance list.
So, kind of a limited version of the old *nix ethic. Do one thing, but do it well.
So their point seems to be that you want to evaluate the ability to hook your apps together when you consider which ones to purchase.
You buy them from a store. The store has to have them on hand or order them. Either way, since the store you're buying them from did not make them, shipment will be required.
So just keep following each shipment back until you find the company that manufactured the parts or the company that "cannot find their records".
First off, the part you'll be authorized to use is almost exactly like Windows. Here's the login screen. Here is the "Start" button. This is your web browser, word processor, etc.
These machines will NOT run most of the applications you have at home. We want it that way.
#1. Flaws in the code that could be exploited by anyone who knew them. The classic "security via obscurity". This is just plain stupid.
#2. Trade Secrets would be revealed. So Diebold has some ingenious work in the system that it does not want revealed.
#3. Stolen code would be revealed. So Diebold illegally incorporated code from someone else in their product and doesn't want anyone to see it.
#4. Legal code re-use. So Diebold uses the same code on their ATM's as their voting machines and they worry that anyone with access to the voting code could POSSIBLY find a flaw in the ATM systems.
I like the idea of dis-infecting a machine that was trying to infect your machine.
Would it also be advantageous to have the now worm-free machine to also perform that function?
If "yes" would you want to be especially helpful and place a removal icon in the "Add/Remove Programs" section so that that functionality could be removed?
If "no", why not? Other than the bit about installing software on someone else's machine?
I would NOT want the anti-worm to probe the network. This sounds good in theory, but in practice, any amount of scanning will become a problem as the number of machines doing the scanning increases. Sure, they only consume 0.1% of your bandwidth today. But when there are 10x more machines, 100x more machines, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breakin g_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articlei d=288975
Kuwait is very happy.
Israel is quiet.
Iran supports it, but blames the US for supporting Saddam.
Most of the other countries view it as more US interference. And worse. Bush and Co could not risk the chance that Saddam would go free.
I can agree with that.
I would say that the mother's Right to the sanctity of her own body is higher than any Rights the child has (until birth).
Check into the history of that. Opium was first criminalized to prevent white women from being corrupted by Chinese men. Cocaine was criminalized to prevent "cocainized negroes" from assaulting white women. And so forth.
Personally, I am in favour of legalizing all drugs. With one extreme caveat.
Any crime committed while under the influence of any drug is judged as the next higher offense. If you cannot control yourself under the influence of whatever drug you use, and you become a threat to other citizens or society in general, you will be jailed. The taxes on the sale of such will pay for the treatment.
Exactly. Does the fetus / baby / whatever-you-want-to-call-it have Rights in and of itself and not related to the mother's?
The problem with that approach is that it completely invalidates any question of abortion.
If the fetus (etc) does have Rights, then the circumstances of its conception do not matter. Abortion would be illegal even in cases of incest and rape. But the moralists cannot stomach the scenario of their lily white virgin daughters having to bear some crack addicted minority male's baby.
If the fetus (etc) does not have Rights, then abortion would be legal up to the moment before birth (or suitable medical procedure to remove it from the mother without injuring it). And those moralists cannot stomach that scenario.
So both sides retreat to "choice" and the woman's "actions" prior to conception. It's the old whore/madonna dichotomy. And because the decision point is no longer the fetus (etc), the fetus (etc) is no longer the deciding factor. It's pure emotion based upon the reprehensible actions or untainted innocence of the woman.
Cameras merely make a record so that it is possible that the criminal may be identified later.
a. No you do not "understand this correctly".
b. The NYT has never said that Saddam "never really had any WMDs". We know he had them. We sold them to him back during the Iran/Iraq war
c. The same with Saddam's development programs.
d. Yes, the documents posted contain information that might be useful.
e. But you can probably purchase the information from North Korea or Iran or Pakistan, anyway.
I guess you missed the news about Saddam's nuclear program that was dug up after Gulf War I and when the Israelis bombed his nuclear plant and so on and so forth.
It's all available on the Internet. It's easy to find. You could also go to the "library" and read a "newspaper" from that time frame to see what was being reported.
I have many millons of dolars US from untimely death of ambasador.
Pleese go to your local hardware store and purkhase a hammer or mallot.
Returning to home, you shuld use the hammer or mallot to be smashing your computer to small peeces.
I will deposite many millions of dolars in your bank akount when you have finished.
Sincerely,
Nigerian roolaty.
Until Linux is pre-installed, it won't matter to the majority of home users.
That's because the majority of home users do NOT upgrade their OS. They use whatever was installed by the OEM. They use the drivers provided by the OEM. They won't even install and update anti-virus software.
Firefox 2.0 has had a couple of problems with JavaScript that can cause crashes.
This only affects you if:
a. You are running a vanilla install of Firefox and have not downloaded the NoScript extension (please do so right away).
and
b. You go to one of those maliciously formed pages.
Failure to follow both of the above steps will result in Firefox not crashing due to either of the JavaScript issues. Which probably explains Firefox's stability on your system, my system, and most of the rest of everyone else's systems.
And by "market leaders" you mean "Microsoft". Whether Linux trails Apple is subject to debate.
Nope. Microsoft dominates because it has a monopoly on the desktop. That means that just about every ISV and OEM has to consider Microsoft in their business plan. If you make hardware for PC's, you need to make Windows drivers. You don't need to make Linux drivers.
And is Gramma's PC a spam zombie? Being able to "use" a computer means different things to different people.
There is no real difference between using a pre-installed Ubuntu machine and a pre-installed XP machine.
The only difference in the platforms comes AFTER deployment. When Gramma wants to add a peripheral or install some software that her friend told her about (it has a cute monkey!).
Have you used Ubuntu recently? It easily matches XP for never needing to open a terminal window.
Again, no. Linux will not match Windows in the HOME MARKET until Linux is pre-installed by the OEM.
This is because the vast majority of people in the HOME MARKET do NOT install their own OS. They use whatever was pre-installed. They use it as it was pre-installed. They don't even update their anti-virus software. The PC is tool for them. Like their VCR or their TV. They plug the connection in and expect it to handle the feed.
Due to the pre-installed issue, Linux's next major advance will be in the corporate/government desktop segment. Not the home market.
But the problem with home use is NOT about being easy to "install and maintain".
Home users tend to stick with whatever was pre-installed. Once you have a city using Linux, there is a financial incentive for OEM's to build boxes with 100% Linux friendly hardware and a nice recovery CD with all the Linux drivers on it. After all, a city buys a lot of computers and parts over the years.
But that's just the base platform. That still doesn't address the apps (games) that the home users will want to run. So the market will
I'm on 100% Ubuntu Edgy Eft and it handles everything that the average home user would do with the exception of games and certain IE-only websites.
First off, they have to state what their requirements are. Just as with any other project.
Then they look at what is out there and how closely it matches those requirements and how much time/money would be needed to fill in the gaps. Munich decided to go with a Debian base with KDE and OpenOffice.org.
One of Munich's requirements seems to have been to become "independent of monopolists like Microsoft." In this, Debian's social contract would have been a major plus.
So, when you have 25 people on your "friends" list, you'll publicly reveal your secret identity? Or 50? Or 100?
They may not have covered this in your history classes, but if we had lost the war, the British would have rounded them up and hanged them for treason.
Freedom is NOT about being one sheep in a flock.
There were 56 people who signed it. They signed their names. The British would have no trouble at all hunting down 56 people. Particularly since many of them were known to each other.
Really?
Then those 30-40 other "researchers and professors" will be standing up
In the fight for Freedom, 56 people were willing to sign their names, knowing that they were signing their death warrant if they lost the war.
Now, you're advocating that one guy, fearing a court case, should hide until he can find 29-39 friends to publicly demonstrate that a process is not very secure at all and could allow bad men access to airplanes.
Let's see
Somehow, I don't see the problem here.
And who told you that Freedom was easy or safe?
Our forefathers believed that it was better to die Free than to live under tyranny. I agree with them. Whether or not 30-40 other people agree with me. This is about Freedom, not popularity.
Freedom requires that people stand up, publicly, for what they believe in. That is why the 1st Amendment reads:
Simply striking against a convenient target does not get you any closer to being Free. Nor does it keep you Free.
Freedom is not safe.
Even Saddam had elections.
It isn't whether you have elections, it's who counts the votes.
That's my point. She seems to be saying that this is easy. And that it is undetectable.
Yet when I start pointing out the obvious benefits of her system, suddenly it isn't as "easy" or "undetectable" as it was before.
No. When the guest OS's have direct access to the hardware such as the video card or network card, the "threat" breaks down.
If my "cracked" OS has direct access to the NIC, then I can monitor what is sent over it. I can tell if the "Blue Pill" has cracked my box and is calling home.
If I do not have direct access to the hardware so that I cannot monitor it, then she has solved the Linux driver issue.
Yes, I know. Next will be the "you only have some kinds of direct access to the hardware". No. In order to limit that, her crack needs to know how to talk to that hardware so it can intercept the calls the "cracked" OS is making. Any control of the hardware by her "Blue Pill" means that she has solved the Linux driver issue for that hardware.
That is why the OS's need "drivers" to talk to the hardware peripherals.
Yep, the rootkit is the host OS and it runs the original OS as a guest OS, on a virtual machine.
I just don't see how she can accomplish that. And accomplish it in an undetectable fashion. Particularly given the state of hypervisors today. If it's difficult to do in a controlled environment today (run Win2003 with SQL 2005 in a hypervisor on Linux and see what hoops you have to jump through and what your performance is) I don't see it being a threat in the wild.
Seriously. If she can do this, then she's just solved EVERY LINUX DRIVER ISSUE.
Instead of worrying that your wireless card is not supported, run her "rootkit" and use the virtualized cards. The same with audio. The same with video. The same with EVERYTHING.
If she can do this, today, every OS vendor should be chasing her down to get the rights to that technology. Their OS's would reference known stable drivers and their functionality would improve.
I don't see how that is possible. If something is running on top of the OS, it should be subject to the OS.
Something running beneath the OS would be able to control the OS.
The "Blue Pill" stuff she's talking about starts above the OS, but then it (supposedly) moves the OS to a virtual machine while "Blue Pill" takes over the physical hardware.
I do not understand how that is possible. Nor have I seen it demonstrated anywhere else. So far it is just her statement that she has done this.
If you want a smaller footprint, hire someone with smaller feet!
I for one welcome our new prepubescent, code-writing overlords.
#1. In order to issue the new certificates, the Certificate Authorities (CA's) will be "required" to follow "industry standard" practices in "verifying" whomever applies for a new certificate.
... the same as they are today.
#2. This additional "verification" is what will cost the additional money.
#3. Any business that does not pay the additional fees to be "verified" by "industry standard" practices will be
#4. Phishing depends upon a person making a single error in judgment, one time. This will not stop phishing.
This will not stop anything. This is stupid. You're paying EXTRA to have someone do the verification they were supposed to be doing already. Imagine trying to run a business like that.
Boss - "I paid you last week, but you barely did any work. I'm going to fire you."
Employee - "If you give me a 50% raise, I'll perform the work to industry standards."
Boss - "Okay, that sounds like a good deal to me."
IE 7 will have different icons on the location bar to indicate that a site has the "higher" level of "security" (translation: "bought the new certificate").
So, kind of a limited version of the old *nix ethic. Do one thing, but do it well.
So their point seems to be that you want to evaluate the ability to hook your apps together when you consider which ones to purchase.
Oh, and remember that SOA is a cool buzzword.
These are physical items. It's not like software.
You buy them from a store. The store has to have them on hand or order them. Either way, since the store you're buying them from did not make them, shipment will be required.
So just keep following each shipment back until you find the company that manufactured the parts or the company that "cannot find their records".
There, problem solved.
First off, the part you'll be authorized to use is almost exactly like Windows. Here's the login screen. Here is the "Start" button. This is your web browser, word processor, etc.
These machines will NOT run most of the applications you have at home. We want it that way.
#1. Flaws in the code that could be exploited by anyone who knew them. The classic "security via obscurity". This is just plain stupid.
#2. Trade Secrets would be revealed. So Diebold has some ingenious work in the system that it does not want revealed.
#3. Stolen code would be revealed. So Diebold illegally incorporated code from someone else in their product and doesn't want anyone to see it.
#4. Legal code re-use. So Diebold uses the same code on their ATM's as their voting machines and they worry that anyone with access to the voting code could POSSIBLY find a flaw in the ATM systems.
Anyone have any other possibilities?
I like the idea of dis-infecting a machine that was trying to infect your machine.
Would it also be advantageous to have the now worm-free machine to also perform that function?
If "yes" would you want to be especially helpful and place a removal icon in the "Add/Remove Programs" section so that that functionality could be removed?
If "no", why not? Other than the bit about installing software on someone else's machine?
I would NOT want the anti-worm to probe the network. This sounds good in theory, but in practice, any amount of scanning will become a problem as the number of machines doing the scanning increases. Sure, they only consume 0.1% of your bandwidth today. But when there are 10x more machines, 100x more machines, etc.
Any suggestions?