"I'm making the point that Apple has far more to lose revenue wise than Microsoft. I'm also making the point that this is by implication "No News" - it's not really a big deal for MS."
Yes but OS X users are running the equivilent of Vista right now. How much is Vista going to cost, and wouldn't you be willing to pay a little more to be running it about two years earlier? You are ignoring the beenfit I get for my exta feature with reduced time spent on tasks and the ability to make use of new system features.
Depends on the tasks. I play games, an OS upgrade isn't going improve that. I build web, thick and embedded applications, VS.NET is one of the best tools out there for it, an OS upgrade isn't going to save me any time. I do a lot of e-mail, Outlook is hands down the best e-mail calendar client out there, another function not dependent OS upgrades. And I surf the web, my OS isn't going to help me do that any better. Sure some extra eye candy might be cool, and upgrades are always nice, but for the most part, I really don't care.
I think it's pretty funny that you've managed to spin Microsoft's lack of ability to deliver on Vista into a major price comparison plus for Windows!
No, I'm making the point that Apple has far more to lose revenue wise than Microsoft. I'm also making the point that this is by implication "No News" - it's not really a big deal for MS.
I'm sorry, who exactly is putting a gun to the head of Mac owners and forcing them to upgrade their OS? Every non-techie Mac owner I know continues to happily use the OS that came with their computer, just like the non-techie Windows users do. Upgrade cost: $0.
How many people do you know that are still running Puma? Ummm, yeah, thought so. If you've bought another computer between now and 2001, the OS has been paid for as part of the cost of the machine.
Let me get this straight. You're trying to turn the fact that Microsoft has been too inept to get a successor OS to XP out in the last five years into a plus???
No, I'm making the point that Apple has far more to lose revenue wise than Microsoft. I'm also making the point that this is by implication "No News" - it's not really a big deal for MS.
Yeah, Apple really needs to come out with some entry level hardware to entice switchers. Maybe a small form factor machine based on those Intel Core Solo and Duo CPUs I've been hearing so much about. They could sell it for $600 or so and call it the "Mac mini" or something.
$600 bones - two hundred more than a Dell, with a free monitor and printer. The value prop of the mini just isn't there. Making the next step up to the iMac is going to cost them another grand. Finally, the people who *want* to buy don't have a ton of cash, and have kids (think tight budget). Keep in mind that iTunes works just as well on a PC as it does a Mac.
The mini makes a good "kitchen pc" for rich mac users.
The iPod has been such a great success because almost anyone can come up with ~ 300 bones to buy something that looks cool. The OS switch is much more complex, especially for most end users. The bottom line is that the people who want the high end apple products don't have the money to pay for them.
"Microsoft faces big consumer defection risk: One measure of consumers' dissatisfaction with Microsoft is seen in the 5.4 million households that gave it a brand trust of 1 (distrust a lot) or 2 (distrust a bit),"
5.4 million customers? Such a staggering number, for Apple maybe. Really folks, how much revenue are these people going to generate for MS? A hundred bucks a pc, every 5 years?
If users need office they will have to buy it either way. In addition, it will be cheaper to buy the bundled version with a Windows based PC.
The salient point the article fails to make is that the real risk is to Apple. By not converting these people they miss out on revenue generated by hardware and software. Incidently, if you are a Mac owner, and you've paid for every major release of OS X, you've paid about $500 over the last 5 years for your operating system. Compare this with $120 (assuming 2k upgrade) for the last 5 years for an XP owner.
The article goes on to say that many people don't associate the iPod with Mac Computers. An interesting point - however it is going to be difficult for Apple to upsell people on a $3K computer, from a $300 purchase.
If I have a 3d card in the machine, I want it to be used. My preferencens aside, a number of mac users taht i know, use their macs for graphics design and 3d modeling to some extent. In addtion almost all of them play some sort of 3d game. They'd likely agree with me on this point.
There is nothing fine about crippled drivers that don't fully support ones hardware. I know, I use xp 64, and it's a pain from time to time.
Xom was a good effort, however it's probably a better idea to use apples offering.
The real issue is that Dell does not carry AMD based machines.
For the last three years AMD's FX and AMD64 based gaming machines have blown intel out of the water.
Dell simply failed to capitalize on this market by not shipping amd pc's.
Alienware is a too little too late move for DELL. Alienwares machines are insanely expensive when compared to a custom built rig. Sure, you get "support" but what self respecting gaming geek is not going to be able to support his own machine? The value is in the l33tness of the hardware and not in the "value-added" services that are offered by the company.
Apple is not going to ship OS X anytime soon for everyone else. Why? One word - drivers.
It is concievable that if there were an installed base of x86 drivers that this might in fact, become a possibility. However, there are very few at the moment and there will most likely be very few for any user devices purchased in the last 6 months. In addition testing/compatibility is not something that Apple has a great deal of experience with. They prefer a more burning bridges approach.
I would even arge that boot camp heralds an end to agressive marketing of OS X as the face of "Mac" and the compelling reason to buy a mac product. By releasing boot camp Apple has effectively announced that they are a hardware company, not a software company. The reason for this is that Apple is now using the hardware to drive sales, not OS X.
In some ways I see this as a sell out, Mac has always been about Mac OS, and more recently OS X. To purchase a mac has always been about the Hardware AND Software. It was a marriage of sorts. Now, non-loyal mac users can bring another wife to bed so to speak.
The next two quarters are going to be very interesting for Apple, we will get to see how much the market really desires their hardware, over their OS.
i was a little confused at first, but this makes sense.
In the 70's and 80's, we were reducing the overall energy input into the earth ("system"). The reduction due to particulate matter on it's own would cause a cool down of the system. however, due to greenhouse gases and their insulating effect, night time temperatures remained warmer, creating an overall balance.
realizing that we are spewing junk in the air, we do our best to clean up the particulate matter. however, we don't make any significant inroads in the removal of the insulating gases. Thus, during the day time there is a higher energy input into our system, but during the night less of the heat is radiated back into space due to our gases.
Tus there is an overall increase in the stored amount of energy in our system.
This will in the "near" term lead to an increase in global sea temperatures. Rising sea levels are certainly a concern however, the biggest threat comes from the expansion of birthing zones for hurricanes and cyclones. The zones get bigger, the storms spawn sooner, last longer and have a higher intensity.
A laptop is all well and good. However, do we really have the software infrastucture to educate the people using this thing? ESPECIALLY in languages other than english? At the momement I'd have to go with no.
I think what the world needs more than anything at the moment, is a device to connect everyone. Read Steven Baxters "Manifold Time". I much prefer his conception of the global device than the idea of a laptop.
And TBH, that device could be made for under 100 bones. Add in the idea of a kiosk operator and you'd have a winning combination!
Likewise the Lotus guys, might have a really scalable backend. Can run 15-20K users on a single box.
At my last company, they had four relatively fast servers to run notes, to support less than 400 users. Notes also becomes unstable when resources are scarce.
Sure I know what you are saying, there certainly are bunk systems out there.
However, as far as i know, none of the links that you provided states an attack vector that is possible with the IBM fingerprint sensor.
The t43 fingerprint sensor requires the user to slide their finger over the sensor. An intelligent move by IBM as this elimitates the possibilty of retrieving the figerprint of the last user. Most of the commercial fingerprint scanners don't require the user to move the finger, and all of the sensors cited in your articles were of the no-slide variety.
Second, dead fingers don't work. So stealing appendages won't work either as in the case of the fellow driving the nice car in malaysia.
In addition the finger print reader is integrated into the shell, so snooping USB traffic is out as well.
Any security done poorly won't hold up. In the case of our particular laptop, it is done well - and would appear to be secure.
I too own a think pad t43. I haven't tried the jello trick, but the swipe is very good at only recognizing my finger print. Unlike other finger printer readers, the think pad version requires a swipe preventing thieves from "lifting" prints from the sensor. The sensor also responds only to live tissue from what i have tried and have read from the manual. The manual also recommends interning mutliple fingers so that in the event of limb loss, there is a backup.
I suspect that IBM's engineering on this front is up to snuff. They do afer all specialize in some pretty high end hardware such as tamperproof encryption modules. If it were any other manufacturer I'm not sure I'd "buy it".
And that is why i said music can never be copied back using *itunes*.
Because the iPod is synced to a machine... And it'd be very strange and unpredictable behavior to have it sync'd to multiple machines.
You miss my point. The ipod should know what machine it comes from. if it is connected to another machine, an attempt to sync is not made. anyone should be able to play their ipod music through any itunes.
Another way to look at it is this. Of the times that you connect your ipod to a computer, how many of them do you wish to delete all of the music on your ipod?
My answer is: almost never
So why then is "nuke the ipod" the default behavior? There is really no reasonable explanation other than Apple not really thinking about the way they designed iTunes.
Also note that if apple really didn't want us copying music, they would have put the music into an a file format that cannot be read easily or at all. As it is, itunes just reorgs the music and makes it unreadable to human eyes.
Don't think for a moment that this isn't specifically designed to cultivate a fear of plugging your iPod into someone else's computer.
I think the "Nuke" dialog is just asinine software design and not really any sort of conspiracy to train users not to plug their iPods into other computers.
However, the vast majority of cases are people copying tracks that they don't have distribution rights for.
You see, once you copy something to your iPod, you can *never* copy it back using iTunes. Including get this, Play Lists. For better or worse, the iPod is a one way device.
So really, what is the point of nuking someone's iPod? It's another example of Apple not clearly thinking through their user experience.
"... 'domain registrar Joker.com says its nameservers have been hit with a massive DDoS attack, causing outages for customers.... It's not clear why the DDoS is succeeding, as most registrars have implemented sturdy DDoS protection since the attack on the root nameserver system back in 2002.'"
Ajax when done properly includes REST, Web Services and a decoupled architectured.
AJAX: Asyncronous JavaScript and XML - no web services and no decoupled architecture. It quite tightly coupled, considering that each subsequent trip to the server updates specific pieces of a browser based UI.
Ajax is a SOA client that makes Web Service calls.
AJAX is not based on SOAs, it never will be because the client will always execute asyncronous javascript calls (read, browser) and it will (happen) to use xml as the data structure to return the information.
You seem to be pretty good with buzzwords, you should invent a new one that more aptly describes the concept you are trying to convey. AJAX was coined (by AdaptivePath) to refer to a specific style of web application in which the browser does not refesh the entire contents of a page, this in turn enhances the usabilty of the interface. AJAX was *not* coined to refer to a variety of applications that have the ability to exchange arbitrary data via WS, XML encapsulated in HTTP transmitted with TCP/IP.
It sounds like you are on to something, just stop calling it AJAX.
Ahh fantasitc answer. I didn't really think about that - there is a fixed cost associated with the creation of the master, and of course with the producion of the cd's. It's always cheaper to make more, but if they start making less - then the CD becomes very expensive to manufacture.
But if the industry determines that restricting digital sales pays off with bigger album sales, fans may soon find the instant gratification of snapping up new songs online becoming a little less instant.
Ummm bigger album sales? Digital or CD, the record companies are still selling the same damn thing. Thus it shouldn't make much of a difference if the music is sold online or otherwise.
However, if this becomes widely practiced then it begs the question of "why are cd sales preferred by the record companies?" the answer would lie in the gross profit margin. One would think that digital delivery would be cheaper as the distribution channels are "virtual" and that there are no materials involved. If cd's are preferred then cd's might have a higher margin than the downloads. Then it makes us wonder why cd's cost so much in the first place.
Hopefully this will provide more fodder for the case against the record companies and allegations of price fixing.
The second security non-incident to hit the Mac platform in as many weeks has been debunked.
This is crap. It was an "incident" for sure. The fact of the matter is that the Mac, given local access by either a process or login is very subceptible to local privledge esclation. It took someone 30 minutes to prove that this is the case.
The real concern with this is that the Mac is not truly equipped (in it's current state) to be used securely as a multi-user UNIX machine. An example of such an environment would be as a shared hosting environment on an xServe.
The "rebuttal" security challenge isn't much of one, pretty much any machine running SSH + Apache with other ports blocked by a local firewall will be similarly "secure". Even a windows machine running RDC and IIS 6 (not 5) and Wind0wz firewall would be similarly difficult to hack.
Slashdot Mirror
You miss my point:
"I'm making the point that Apple has far more to lose revenue wise than Microsoft. I'm also making the point that this is by implication "No News" - it's not really a big deal for MS."
Yes but OS X users are running the equivilent of Vista right now. How much is Vista going to cost, and wouldn't you be willing to pay a little more to be running it about two years earlier? You are ignoring the beenfit I get for my exta feature with reduced time spent on tasks and the ability to make use of new system features.
Depends on the tasks. I play games, an OS upgrade isn't going improve that. I build web, thick and embedded applications, VS.NET is one of the best tools out there for it, an OS upgrade isn't going to save me any time. I do a lot of e-mail, Outlook is hands down the best e-mail calendar client out there, another function not dependent OS upgrades. And I surf the web, my OS isn't going to help me do that any better. Sure some extra eye candy might be cool, and upgrades are always nice, but for the most part, I really don't care.
I think it's pretty funny that you've managed to spin Microsoft's lack of ability to deliver on Vista into a major price comparison plus for Windows!
No, I'm making the point that Apple has far more to lose revenue wise than Microsoft. I'm also making the point that this is by implication "No News" - it's not really a big deal for MS.
I'm sorry, who exactly is putting a gun to the head of Mac owners and forcing them to upgrade their OS? Every non-techie Mac owner I know continues to happily use the OS that came with their computer, just like the non-techie Windows users do. Upgrade cost: $0.
How many people do you know that are still running Puma? Ummm, yeah, thought so. If you've bought another computer between now and 2001, the OS has been paid for as part of the cost of the machine.
Let me get this straight. You're trying to turn the fact that Microsoft has been too inept to get a successor OS to XP out in the last five years into a plus???
No, I'm making the point that Apple has far more to lose revenue wise than Microsoft. I'm also making the point that this is by implication "No News" - it's not really a big deal for MS.
Yeah, Apple really needs to come out with some entry level hardware to entice switchers. Maybe a small form factor machine based on those Intel Core Solo and Duo CPUs I've been hearing so much about. They could sell it for $600 or so and call it the "Mac mini" or something.
$600 bones - two hundred more than a Dell, with a free monitor and printer. The value prop of the mini just isn't there. Making the next step up to the iMac is going to cost them another grand. Finally, the people who *want* to buy don't have a ton of cash, and have kids (think tight budget). Keep in mind that iTunes works just as well on a PC as it does a Mac.
The mini makes a good "kitchen pc" for rich mac users.
The iPod has been such a great success because almost anyone can come up with ~ 300 bones to buy something that looks cool. The OS switch is much more complex, especially for most end users. The bottom line is that the people who want the high end apple products don't have the money to pay for them.
"Microsoft faces big consumer defection risk: One measure of consumers' dissatisfaction with Microsoft is seen in the 5.4 million households that gave it a brand trust of 1 (distrust a lot) or 2 (distrust a bit),"
5.4 million customers? Such a staggering number, for Apple maybe. Really folks, how much revenue are these people going to generate for MS? A hundred bucks a pc, every 5 years?
If users need office they will have to buy it either way. In addition, it will be cheaper to buy the bundled version with a Windows based PC.
The salient point the article fails to make is that the real risk is to Apple. By not converting these people they miss out on revenue generated by hardware and software. Incidently, if you are a Mac owner, and you've paid for every major release of OS X, you've paid about $500 over the last 5 years for your operating system. Compare this with $120 (assuming 2k upgrade) for the last 5 years for an XP owner.
The article goes on to say that many people don't associate the iPod with Mac Computers. An interesting point - however it is going to be difficult for Apple to upsell people on a $3K computer, from a $300 purchase.
If I have a 3d card in the machine, I want it to be used. My preferencens aside, a number of mac users taht i know, use their macs for graphics design and 3d modeling to some extent. In addtion almost all of them play some sort of 3d game. They'd likely agree with me on this point.
There is nothing fine about crippled drivers that don't fully support ones hardware. I know, I use xp 64, and it's a pain from time to time.
Xom was a good effort, however it's probably a better idea to use apples offering.
LMAO.
"I was using XOM and it was fine aside from the lack of video drivers."
How is this "fine"?
It's not, no 3d excludes ones computer from being useful for a number of applications.
The real issue is that Dell does not carry AMD based machines.
For the last three years AMD's FX and AMD64 based gaming machines have blown intel out of the water.
Dell simply failed to capitalize on this market by not shipping amd pc's.
Alienware is a too little too late move for DELL. Alienwares machines are insanely expensive when compared to a custom built rig. Sure, you get "support" but what self respecting gaming geek is not going to be able to support his own machine? The value is in the l33tness of the hardware and not in the "value-added" services that are offered by the company.
This guy is a clown.
Apple is not going to ship OS X anytime soon for everyone else. Why? One word - drivers.
It is concievable that if there were an installed base of x86 drivers that this might in fact, become a possibility. However, there are very few at the moment and there will most likely be very few for any user devices purchased in the last 6 months. In addition testing/compatibility is not something that Apple has a great deal of experience with. They prefer a more burning bridges approach.
I would even arge that boot camp heralds an end to agressive marketing of OS X as the face of "Mac" and the compelling reason to buy a mac product. By releasing boot camp Apple has effectively announced that they are a hardware company, not a software company. The reason for this is that Apple is now using the hardware to drive sales, not OS X.
In some ways I see this as a sell out, Mac has always been about Mac OS, and more recently OS X. To purchase a mac has always been about the Hardware AND Software. It was a marriage of sorts. Now, non-loyal mac users can bring another wife to bed so to speak.
The next two quarters are going to be very interesting for Apple, we will get to see how much the market really desires their hardware, over their OS.
i was a little confused at first, but this makes sense.
In the 70's and 80's, we were reducing the overall energy input into the earth ("system"). The reduction due to particulate matter on it's own would cause a cool down of the system. however, due to greenhouse gases and their insulating effect, night time temperatures remained warmer, creating an overall balance.
realizing that we are spewing junk in the air, we do our best to clean up the particulate matter. however, we don't make any significant inroads in the removal of the insulating gases. Thus, during the day time there is a higher energy input into our system, but during the night less of the heat is radiated back into space due to our gases.
Tus there is an overall increase in the stored amount of energy in our system.
This will in the "near" term lead to an increase in global sea temperatures. Rising sea levels are certainly a concern however, the biggest threat comes from the expansion of birthing zones for hurricanes and cyclones. The zones get bigger, the storms spawn sooner, last longer and have a higher intensity.
*clap*
A laptop is all well and good. However, do we really have the software infrastucture to educate the people using this thing? ESPECIALLY in languages other than english? At the momement I'd have to go with no.
I think what the world needs more than anything at the moment, is a device to connect everyone. Read Steven Baxters "Manifold Time". I much prefer his conception of the global device than the idea of a laptop.
And TBH, that device could be made for under 100 bones. Add in the idea of a kiosk operator and you'd have a winning combination!
Likewise the Lotus guys, might have a really scalable backend. Can run 15-20K users on a single box.
At my last company, they had four relatively fast servers to run notes, to support less than 400 users. Notes also becomes unstable when resources are scarce.
Sure I know what you are saying, there certainly are bunk systems out there.
However, as far as i know, none of the links that you provided states an attack vector that is possible with the IBM fingerprint sensor.
The t43 fingerprint sensor requires the user to slide their finger over the sensor. An intelligent move by IBM as this elimitates the possibilty of retrieving the figerprint of the last user. Most of the commercial fingerprint scanners don't require the user to move the finger, and all of the sensors cited in your articles were of the no-slide variety.
Second, dead fingers don't work. So stealing appendages won't work either as in the case of the fellow driving the nice car in malaysia.
In addition the finger print reader is integrated into the shell, so snooping USB traffic is out as well.
Any security done poorly won't hold up. In the case of our particular laptop, it is done well - and would appear to be secure.
I too own a think pad t43. I haven't tried the jello trick, but the swipe is very good at only recognizing my finger print. Unlike other finger printer readers, the think pad version requires a swipe preventing thieves from "lifting" prints from the sensor. The sensor also responds only to live tissue from what i have tried and have read from the manual. The manual also recommends interning mutliple fingers so that in the event of limb loss, there is a backup.
I suspect that IBM's engineering on this front is up to snuff. They do afer all specialize in some pretty high end hardware such as tamperproof encryption modules. If it were any other manufacturer I'm not sure I'd "buy it".
You can copy it using other methods.
And that is why i said music can never be copied back using *itunes*.
Because the iPod is synced to a machine... And it'd be very strange and unpredictable behavior to have it sync'd to multiple machines.
You miss my point. The ipod should know what machine it comes from. if it is connected to another machine, an attempt to sync is not made. anyone should be able to play their ipod music through any itunes.
Another way to look at it is this. Of the times that you connect your ipod to a computer, how many of them do you wish to delete all of the music on your ipod?
My answer is: almost never
So why then is "nuke the ipod" the default behavior? There is really no reasonable explanation other than Apple not really thinking about the way they designed iTunes.
Also note that if apple really didn't want us copying music, they would have put the music into an a file format that cannot be read easily or at all. As it is, itunes just reorgs the music and makes it unreadable to human eyes.
To respond to both of you...
Don't think for a moment that this isn't specifically designed to cultivate a fear of plugging your iPod into someone else's computer.
I think the "Nuke" dialog is just asinine software design and not really any sort of conspiracy to train users not to plug their iPods into other computers.
However, the vast majority of cases are people copying tracks that they don't have distribution rights for.
You see, once you copy something to your iPod, you can *never* copy it back using iTunes. Including get this, Play Lists. For better or worse, the iPod is a one way device.
So really, what is the point of nuking someone's iPod? It's another example of Apple not clearly thinking through their user experience.
*Clap*
10 Years later someone brings OpenBSD's philosophy to the Linux world.
" ... 'domain registrar Joker.com says its nameservers have been hit with a massive DDoS attack, causing outages for customers. ... It's not clear why the DDoS is succeeding, as most registrars have implemented sturdy DDoS protection since the attack on the root nameserver system back in 2002.'"
Perhaps because they are jokers?
Lol, no.
His answer is, it is faster on XP ATM, because the OSX version uses Rosetta.
First Ajax does not require XML
r chives/000385.php
Wait, what? AJAX: Asyncronous JavaScript and XML.
Ajax when done properly includes REST, Web Services and a decoupled architectured.
AJAX: Asyncronous JavaScript and XML - no web services and no decoupled architecture. It quite tightly coupled, considering that each subsequent trip to the server updates specific pieces of a browser based UI.
Ajax is a SOA client that makes Web Service calls.
No. AJAX stands for Asyncronous JavaScript and XML. To further define AJAX have a read here (i have a feeling that you already have): http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/a
AJAX is not based on SOAs, it never will be because the client will always execute asyncronous javascript calls (read, browser) and it will (happen) to use xml as the data structure to return the information.
You seem to be pretty good with buzzwords, you should invent a new one that more aptly describes the concept you are trying to convey. AJAX was coined (by AdaptivePath) to refer to a specific style of web application in which the browser does not refesh the entire contents of a page, this in turn enhances the usabilty of the interface. AJAX was *not* coined to refer to a variety of applications that have the ability to exchange arbitrary data via WS, XML encapsulated in HTTP transmitted with TCP/IP.
It sounds like you are on to something, just stop calling it AJAX.
Oh wait, do you mean .NET? :-) And while you are downloading the "free" IDE, you can also pick up one of several
visual code profilers out there.
Ahh fantasitc answer. I didn't really think about that - there is a fixed cost associated with the creation of the master, and of course with the producion of the cd's. It's always cheaper to make more, but if they start making less - then the CD becomes very expensive to manufacture.
But if the industry determines that restricting digital sales pays off with bigger album sales, fans may soon find the instant gratification of snapping up new songs online becoming a little less instant.
Ummm bigger album sales? Digital or CD, the record companies are still selling the same damn thing. Thus it shouldn't make much of a difference if the music is sold online or otherwise.
However, if this becomes widely practiced then it begs the question of "why are cd sales preferred by the record companies?" the answer would lie in the gross profit margin. One would think that digital delivery would be cheaper as the distribution channels are "virtual" and that there are no materials involved. If cd's are preferred then cd's might have a higher margin than the downloads. Then it makes us wonder why cd's cost so much in the first place.
Hopefully this will provide more fodder for the case against the record companies and allegations of price fixing.
The second security non-incident to hit the Mac platform in as many weeks has been debunked.
This is crap. It was an "incident" for sure. The fact of the matter is that the Mac, given local access by either a process or login is very subceptible to local privledge esclation. It took someone 30 minutes to prove that this is the case.
The real concern with this is that the Mac is not truly equipped (in it's current state) to be used securely as a multi-user UNIX machine. An example of such an environment would be as a shared hosting environment on an xServe.
The "rebuttal" security challenge isn't much of one, pretty much any machine running SSH + Apache with other ports blocked by a local firewall will be similarly "secure". Even a windows machine running RDC and IIS 6 (not 5) and Wind0wz firewall would be similarly difficult to hack.
I guess we all need something to talk about.
No data about global warming? No global warming! Profit!
Or you might just format the hard drive and install OpenBSD.