George Bush Jr's grandfather Prescott Bush was a eugenicist, consistent with his work funding Hitler's Nazis. Prescott's law partner Tighe was the Connecticut (Bush family home state) director of the eugenics "Birth Control League". Prescott's boss Averell Harriman was one of the main promoters of American eugenics.
What kind of idiocy is this "genetic theory" from Oliver Curry? Where is the evidence for humans abandoning at least hundreds of generations of "racial" mating exclusion in favor of thousands of generations of "class" inbreeding? Where's the selection criterion forcing that division of mating opportunity by work in much more extreme degree than the millenia-old class system that has failed to produce the results Curry predicts in the future?
Humans have been dependent on "technology" to reproduce for many thousands of generations. Tech is freeing us ever more from any selection criteria except infectious disease (just more unevenly). Current tech trends make genetics ever less important to using tech, which further decouples it from evolutionary mechanics.
Curry just wants smooth-skinned women with big eyes and "pert" breasts, who he thinks will prefer "graceful" nerds like him to the exclusion of the "robust" people who like tech less. So what? So he thinks HG Wells' The Time Machine is a prediction of our future more than a social satire on Wells' Victorian classist society. He should stick to hack SF rehashes, and leave the genetics to people who are realistic enough to actually get laid.
The Port of NY & NJ basically invented the standard container system for global shipping: a single box that fits ships, trucks, rail and each other in stacks. We've got (the original) mountain range of them here, outside Newark Airport. AFAIAC, they're 8'x8'x40', with variations.
I've made all kinds of construction designs within their standard dimensions. And I've been pleased to see more designers actually executing theirs.
What's the point of a blog summary that tells more about the media types of the page to which it links than what it is linking to? Is it just an excuse for a title so it can have a typo?
Real containers are 40' long, real solar days are more than 25% average insolation, real servers are much less than 1KW, especially if using other design efficiencies. I describe an actual design in another post in this thread. I'm sure there are more possibilities.
I didn't say the solar input area was limited to the surface of one side, like its roof. Nor did I say the containers would be closely packed - rather, the only deployment I suggested was at sea, with lots of area per container.
Besides, there is actually lots of incident solar power. Even just the roof of a floating container is 8'x40' = 320ft^2 = 30m^2. Insolation in the tropics is about 1KW:m^2 at noon, probably about 400W:m^2 considering nights and weather. So each container gets over 10KW. Even 15% efficient PV means over 1.7KW. And again, that's just using the area of the roof, rather than a design using more of the surrounding space.
1.7KW+ is a lot more than PCs, especially if they're designed for low power consumption - natural cooling can help a lot. And again, if the design uses more of the surrounding space, even at lower efficiency, there's 180-725KW incoming within a containerlength or two. A pod of these containers sucking all the solar at 10% scattered just a few lengths apart can deliver 70KW to 100W computing units, or 700 units. That's about 10 units per cubic meter, which seems about right to accommodate pipes for ambient cooling. Without AC/DC losses, fans, or rotating discs (FlashRAM instead), and maybe Transmeta-style (or mobile Cells) CPUs, 100W starts to look like quite a lot. Enough to accommodate losses from generating/consuming fuelcell cycles to ensure continuous power.
I read with admiration your post's various details of your spiffy life (no sarcasm:). I wonder what you made of Jon Stewart's big benefit this past weekend to reduce autism, just as this report showing TV causes autism is released.
If Sun and Google can fit each container with enough solar cells to power it, and perhaps compact fuelcells for power storage, and several digital radio (WiMAX, etc) transceivers, these datacenters really can be deployed practically anywhere. They're gonna need onboard GPS just to find them for recycling in a decade. Or maybe they can just prepay for roundtrip shipping.
Though if they can get Greenpeace into the act, maybe they can manufacture them biodegradable. Then just dump them into the sea currents for distribution around the world. Probably stay pretty cool, and no charge for rent.
MS' obligations are spelled out in the legal decision that's forcing MS to add access to Vista for McAfee and Symantec. They have a security system that shuts out those competitors. MS created that market with security flaws, not out of any kind of opportunity they handed to those competitors. Their monopoly means they can't just operate like that, and they're being stopped. It's not a vacuum, or some other vendor which can just change APIs. This kind of complexity is one reason why just constraining Microsoft instead of actually breaking up its monopoly was a much worse solution for everyone.
Anonymous spithead Coward, what a fool you are to pretend that I am defending any of the ways Microsoft has made their OS security model worse every time it contacts reality.
And so foolish as to fail to understand any of the technical insights others regulary assign points to. I know they're insightful, others can recognize it, so your failure is of course your own fault.
What do I care about your failure to understand my posts? To fail to see that I said nothing technical about this new Microsoft insecurity screwup, except that changing it now is an afterthought that reflects on a poorly designed system (in light of legal obligations) and the typical unfair monopoly abuse by Microsoft (the source of the legal obligations).
I've got a great life. Part of which is the periodic opportunity to blast you obnoxious, foolish Anonymous Cowards when you say some new stupid thing in public. If you're thinking about life, try getting one of your own, and butt out of mine. You have nothing to add, except an occasional diversion in slapping you down.
I said MS lost a bet, a bet they could avoid their legal obligations. You turned that into ignoring the legal obligations, reducing it merely reducing a bet, without the legal reality to which my figure of speech referred. That's idiotic.
You're a Microsoft apologist trying to claim others are spreading "FUD" when Microsoft is the FUD factory. You're spreading uncertainty and doubt of Microsoft's legal obligations, and fear of Microsoft competitors which somehow have managed to gain some kind of power over the EU legal system that escapes even might Microsoft.
You're also trying to claim an argument over technical merits, when all you're doing is invoking your opposition to the EU legal process, which you then decry because it's legal, though you say there's no legal obligations. That's pretty shabby FUD. In the service of defending Microsoft's bad design that they now are making even worse. You must love that Microsoft stuff, because your way is to get nothing but more of it.
" US elections are controlled at the local level, so unfortunately such a nationwide fix would not be workable here."
So? As part of the EU, Holland is more comparable to a single state in the US. US elections are controlled at the state level, corresponding to Holland. So the Dutch fixes could certainly be a model for American states' fixing our own problems. And America's longer united history and stronger federalism make our individual state changes more transferrable to other states, when those other states want to follow their neighbors.
This Dutch reform is a signal lesson to the US. We should take it and run with it. Our elections are only 3 weeks away, on TUE November 7, 2006. Various organizations have already started reforming in the US long ago, so it might not even be too late to switch away from our untrustworthy machines. Even if it is, that makes it that much more important to watch for fraud next month, so we can discard those tainted results. And get started on testing for the 2007 elections, which at a much smaller scale are a good test case. Because 2008's elections, with so many Republican Senate seats, all House seats, and both White House offices on the line, are all too important to trust to today's untrustworthy voting machines.
MS doesn't have a responsibility to make their OS insecure. Of course their responsibility is to make it secure, as I've said and is patently obvious. Where did you get that from?
They also have a responsibility to make their OS product accessible to competitors, because they have a monopoly. There are specific laws, specific decisions, specific agreements by Microsoft that allow them to keep their monopoly without breakup or other radical remedy. But then they break those terms, expecting each time that their corporate power will let them get away with it. Often it does.
You care ignoring the reality of Microsoft's effect on the market: monopoly. That gives them obligations, which they prefer to losing their monopoly through forced breakup. Obligations they break. They didn't have to design their security model to break when Symantec and McAfee required an API to work, but they did. Now they're breaking it, as the day of reckoning comes. Which will make them all some money, at the consumers' expense. That's the problem with monopoly. Which comes from Microsoft.
No, the EU used legal requirements to force MS to accommodate these competitors at a late date after legal complaints. What kind of idiocy turns that into "losing a bet"?
They're not monopolists because of their return to a bad old security design when their new model wasn't legal. They're monopolists because they abuse their domination of the market. Or did you mis the past 20 years in Europe and the USA, where they're officially a monopoly?
Microsoft shutting out these competitors, despite the law, is evidence they're still abusing their monopoly. Their late "fix" that breaks Windows security shows they'll abuse that monopoly despite the risk they'll get stopped, despite the risk they'll break their security to finally comply with the law.
Yeah, my "preexisting prejudice" comes from living with a Microsoft monopoly that preexists this obvious issue. "Prejudice" not as much by me, as by judges on two continents.
You have nothing to say about "objectively". You deny legal facts by mere assertion. You don't understand the law, judgements, monopolies, or business. All you've got is a bunch of nonsense denials to defend your obvious preexisting prejudice preferring Microsoft's position to the law, the market, your own good, or just basic common sense. And then you take all your own incompetence and just throw it at me as if it would even make any sense. You deserve Microsoft and their crappy, dangerous software. I don't.
If I produce an OS as a product of my monopoly, I better either accommodate 3rd party competitors, or expect that I might be forced to do so only later, when those competitors finally can see from potential releases that they're being illegally excluded.
It's not a random decision forced by lawyers. It's Microsoft losing a bet that they could exclude these competitors, the usual Microsoft business model. This time, fixing it with a patch is bad for security of the entire OS, because that inclusion should have been accommodated earlier.
Hardly ridiculous. It's only your warped view of these events, ignoring all of Microsoft's monopoly history and their competitors' long history of often forcing themselves in under court order, that lets you see it Microsoft's way.
It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their security model complete and integrated. They clearly ignored the requirement to accommodate 3rd party security vendors. Those vendors have been complaining for a long time - I heard about it from public comments at latest months ago, and I'm just a member of the public.
So the vendors made their insistence late? Their problem has been true and valid since Vista was started, and it's Microsoft's responsiblity to make sure the model doesn't have this problem. That's basic product engineering. And MS has to be even more sensitive about designs excluding 3rd parties, especially competitors, when they're a monopoly. Especially when the EU has persisted in requiring MS to open their platform to 3rd party competitors, like the MediaPlayer conflict that's still going on.
Now MS has to accommodate them, and is changing its security model at the last minute, rather than using one that could accommodate them from the beginning.
MS has the responsiblility, as OS developer and monopoly, to ensure they don't further exclude competitors from their monopoly platform. It's clear that they will try to exclude them, even when failing means revising a security model that should have been complete and tested a long time ago. Instead, they'll release an OS without much testing of its final security model. The users will suffer, and MS will continue to enjoy its monopoly, because MS never pays the costs of these bad development processes that are part of its business model.
Oh, right, because that's the time to design the security model of your operating system: after a few betas, several years into development, when the product is already late, as a token gesture to some competitors only after government pressure.</SNARK>
This is the OS that the vast majority of PC users will depend on for their privacy and data security. Billions of people, many in essential services like healthcare, defense, banking, emergency response, depending on it every day to work reliably, despite a threatening world of attacks. Counting votes, running stock exchanges, publishing journalism. It's the beginning of a new era of MS OSes, which will probably define the next decade or so, extending from embedded systems through mobile phones and PCs all the way through high-performace computing.
After so much loss due to Microsoft OS insecurity so far, MS should have designed the security model first, the way professionals serious about security always do. Instead, they throw propaganda about "shutting down all operations to concentrate on security", then tack on a security model literally as an afterthought.
The Microsoft nightmare never seems to end. They never seem to use the lessons of past disasters, except in selling more new products, despite the costs. Probably because their business model puts all those insecurity costs on the consumer, and never on Microsoft itself. Why shouldn't a corporation that will stop at nothing to protect its monopoly pay any attention to "intangibles" like exposing the world to costly, dangerous insecurity all the time? Stop at nothing, except fixing those insecurities when it gets a chance to roll out a new OS every 3-5 years.
That patent doesn't give Cisco the sole rights to any "triple play". The patent claims sole rights to
A method for providing integrated voice, video, and data content in an integrated service offering to one or more customer premises includes receiving television programming from a programming source, receiving data from a data network, and receiving telephone communications from a telephone network.
That's "A" method. Their method, specified in their patent. If the patent doesn't describe a specific working method, making specific choices (and thereby excluding others) in SW, HW, network connections, configs and usage scenarios, then it's too broad. If its methods were used before, then it's not novel. Either way, it's not a valid patent.
But it just might be valid, protecting Cisco from others just copying their specific invention - the only legit purpose of a patent. It really looks like the narrow claim to a single instance was distorted from the PTO filing, by Phil Harvey in his Light Reading column, then exaggerated (as usual) in the Slashdot summary. That doesn't mean Cisco and its lawyers won't make the same exaggerated claims. But only if a judge makes the same serious mistake is this patent dangerous to anyone but real copycats. If they do, they must be kept from the serious business of judging patent law. If it does hold up on actual legal merits, without finding fault with a fireable patent examiner, then the patent system itself must be ripped out by the roots, as is probably the consensus of the threads in this discussion.
What if N Korea has some kind of weapons tech that isn't nukes, but still can make kiloton-scale explosions? It wouldn't break the nuke taboo, or any treaties. And it might not be held back from using these really powerful weapons by their baggage.
Maybe its enemies, including the US, has no defense against an unknown new class of weapons like this.
And without needing nuclear fuel, maybe N Korea can make an unlimited amount of them, on as many missiles as it can make to fire.
While it would be good news if there isn't a new, batshit-crazy member of the "nuclear club" in this world, it's still bad news that N Korea can cause 4.2-scale earthquakes on demand.
As more tech is more available around the world to so many, it's ever more important not to isolate countries that can see destruction as their only way to get "status" or "power". Afghanistan, Iraq, N Korea, now Iran... the attraction of the benefits of inclusion in the global society is the only way to influence people into constructive behavior. Pretending we can shut them down by shutting them out is an arrogance now very obviously too lethal for us to afford any longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe POKE 755,4 would shake some sense into his "theory". Evolutionary psychologist, my ass.
George Bush Jr's grandfather Prescott Bush was a eugenicist, consistent with his work funding Hitler's Nazis. Prescott's law partner Tighe was the Connecticut (Bush family home state) director of the eugenics "Birth Control League". Prescott's boss Averell Harriman was one of the main promoters of American eugenics.
What kind of idiocy is this "genetic theory" from Oliver Curry? Where is the evidence for humans abandoning at least hundreds of generations of "racial" mating exclusion in favor of thousands of generations of "class" inbreeding? Where's the selection criterion forcing that division of mating opportunity by work in much more extreme degree than the millenia-old class system that has failed to produce the results Curry predicts in the future?
Humans have been dependent on "technology" to reproduce for many thousands of generations. Tech is freeing us ever more from any selection criteria except infectious disease (just more unevenly). Current tech trends make genetics ever less important to using tech, which further decouples it from evolutionary mechanics.
Curry just wants smooth-skinned women with big eyes and "pert" breasts, who he thinks will prefer "graceful" nerds like him to the exclusion of the "robust" people who like tech less. So what? So he thinks HG Wells' The Time Machine is a prediction of our future more than a social satire on Wells' Victorian classist society. He should stick to hack SF rehashes, and leave the genetics to people who are realistic enough to actually get laid.
The Port of NY & NJ basically invented the standard container system for global shipping: a single box that fits ships, trucks, rail and each other in stacks. We've got (the original) mountain range of them here, outside Newark Airport. AFAIAC, they're 8'x8'x40', with variations.
I've made all kinds of construction designs within their standard dimensions. And I've been pleased to see more designers actually executing theirs.
What's the point of a blog summary that tells more about the media types of the page to which it links than what it is linking to? Is it just an excuse for a title so it can have a typo?
Real containers are 40' long, real solar days are more than 25% average insolation, real servers are much less than 1KW, especially if using other design efficiencies. I describe an actual design in another post in this thread. I'm sure there are more possibilities.
I didn't say the solar input area was limited to the surface of one side, like its roof. Nor did I say the containers would be closely packed - rather, the only deployment I suggested was at sea, with lots of area per container.
Besides, there is actually lots of incident solar power. Even just the roof of a floating container is 8'x40' = 320ft^2 = 30m^2. Insolation in the tropics is about 1KW:m^2 at noon, probably about 400W:m^2 considering nights and weather. So each container gets over 10KW. Even 15% efficient PV means over 1.7KW. And again, that's just using the area of the roof, rather than a design using more of the surrounding space.
1.7KW+ is a lot more than PCs, especially if they're designed for low power consumption - natural cooling can help a lot. And again, if the design uses more of the surrounding space, even at lower efficiency, there's 180-725KW incoming within a containerlength or two. A pod of these containers sucking all the solar at 10% scattered just a few lengths apart can deliver 70KW to 100W computing units, or 700 units. That's about 10 units per cubic meter, which seems about right to accommodate pipes for ambient cooling. Without AC/DC losses, fans, or rotating discs (FlashRAM instead), and maybe Transmeta-style (or mobile Cells) CPUs, 100W starts to look like quite a lot. Enough to accommodate losses from generating/consuming fuelcell cycles to ensure continuous power.
I read with admiration your post's various details of your spiffy life (no sarcasm :). I wonder what you made of Jon Stewart's big benefit this past weekend to reduce autism, just as this report showing TV causes autism is released.
If Sun and Google can fit each container with enough solar cells to power it, and perhaps compact fuelcells for power storage, and several digital radio (WiMAX, etc) transceivers, these datacenters really can be deployed practically anywhere. They're gonna need onboard GPS just to find them for recycling in a decade. Or maybe they can just prepay for roundtrip shipping.
Though if they can get Greenpeace into the act, maybe they can manufacture them biodegradable. Then just dump them into the sea currents for distribution around the world. Probably stay pretty cool, and no charge for rent.
" Boot Linux, BSD, and OS X from Vista"
That's not "from" Vista, it's despite Vista.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." - Dean Wormer
MS' obligations are spelled out in the legal decision that's forcing MS to add access to Vista for McAfee and Symantec. They have a security system that shuts out those competitors. MS created that market with security flaws, not out of any kind of opportunity they handed to those competitors. Their monopoly means they can't just operate like that, and they're being stopped. It's not a vacuum, or some other vendor which can just change APIs. This kind of complexity is one reason why just constraining Microsoft instead of actually breaking up its monopoly was a much worse solution for everyone.
Anonymous spithead Coward, what a fool you are to pretend that I am defending any of the ways Microsoft has made their OS security model worse every time it contacts reality.
And so foolish as to fail to understand any of the technical insights others regulary assign points to. I know they're insightful, others can recognize it, so your failure is of course your own fault.
What do I care about your failure to understand my posts? To fail to see that I said nothing technical about this new Microsoft insecurity screwup, except that changing it now is an afterthought that reflects on a poorly designed system (in light of legal obligations) and the typical unfair monopoly abuse by Microsoft (the source of the legal obligations).
I've got a great life. Part of which is the periodic opportunity to blast you obnoxious, foolish Anonymous Cowards when you say some new stupid thing in public. If you're thinking about life, try getting one of your own, and butt out of mine. You have nothing to add, except an occasional diversion in slapping you down.
I said MS lost a bet, a bet they could avoid their legal obligations. You turned that into ignoring the legal obligations, reducing it merely reducing a bet, without the legal reality to which my figure of speech referred. That's idiotic.
You're a Microsoft apologist trying to claim others are spreading "FUD" when Microsoft is the FUD factory. You're spreading uncertainty and doubt of Microsoft's legal obligations, and fear of Microsoft competitors which somehow have managed to gain some kind of power over the EU legal system that escapes even might Microsoft.
You're also trying to claim an argument over technical merits, when all you're doing is invoking your opposition to the EU legal process, which you then decry because it's legal, though you say there's no legal obligations. That's pretty shabby FUD. In the service of defending Microsoft's bad design that they now are making even worse. You must love that Microsoft stuff, because your way is to get nothing but more of it.
" US elections are controlled at the local level, so unfortunately such a nationwide fix would not be workable here."
So? As part of the EU, Holland is more comparable to a single state in the US. US elections are controlled at the state level, corresponding to Holland. So the Dutch fixes could certainly be a model for American states' fixing our own problems. And America's longer united history and stronger federalism make our individual state changes more transferrable to other states, when those other states want to follow their neighbors.
This Dutch reform is a signal lesson to the US. We should take it and run with it. Our elections are only 3 weeks away, on TUE November 7, 2006. Various organizations have already started reforming in the US long ago, so it might not even be too late to switch away from our untrustworthy machines. Even if it is, that makes it that much more important to watch for fraud next month, so we can discard those tainted results. And get started on testing for the 2007 elections, which at a much smaller scale are a good test case. Because 2008's elections, with so many Republican Senate seats, all House seats, and both White House offices on the line, are all too important to trust to today's untrustworthy voting machines.
MS doesn't have a responsibility to make their OS insecure. Of course their responsibility is to make it secure, as I've said and is patently obvious. Where did you get that from?
They also have a responsibility to make their OS product accessible to competitors, because they have a monopoly. There are specific laws, specific decisions, specific agreements by Microsoft that allow them to keep their monopoly without breakup or other radical remedy. But then they break those terms, expecting each time that their corporate power will let them get away with it. Often it does.
You care ignoring the reality of Microsoft's effect on the market: monopoly. That gives them obligations, which they prefer to losing their monopoly through forced breakup. Obligations they break. They didn't have to design their security model to break when Symantec and McAfee required an API to work, but they did. Now they're breaking it, as the day of reckoning comes. Which will make them all some money, at the consumers' expense. That's the problem with monopoly. Which comes from Microsoft.
No, the EU used legal requirements to force MS to accommodate these competitors at a late date after legal complaints. What kind of idiocy turns that into "losing a bet"?
They're not monopolists because of their return to a bad old security design when their new model wasn't legal. They're monopolists because they abuse their domination of the market. Or did you mis the past 20 years in Europe and the USA, where they're officially a monopoly?
Microsoft shutting out these competitors, despite the law, is evidence they're still abusing their monopoly. Their late "fix" that breaks Windows security shows they'll abuse that monopoly despite the risk they'll get stopped, despite the risk they'll break their security to finally comply with the law.
Yeah, my "preexisting prejudice" comes from living with a Microsoft monopoly that preexists this obvious issue. "Prejudice" not as much by me, as by judges on two continents.
You have nothing to say about "objectively". You deny legal facts by mere assertion. You don't understand the law, judgements, monopolies, or business. All you've got is a bunch of nonsense denials to defend your obvious preexisting prejudice preferring Microsoft's position to the law, the market, your own good, or just basic common sense. And then you take all your own incompetence and just throw it at me as if it would even make any sense. You deserve Microsoft and their crappy, dangerous software. I don't.
If I produce an OS as a product of my monopoly, I better either accommodate 3rd party competitors, or expect that I might be forced to do so only later, when those competitors finally can see from potential releases that they're being illegally excluded.
It's not a random decision forced by lawyers. It's Microsoft losing a bet that they could exclude these competitors, the usual Microsoft business model. This time, fixing it with a patch is bad for security of the entire OS, because that inclusion should have been accommodated earlier.
Hardly ridiculous. It's only your warped view of these events, ignoring all of Microsoft's monopoly history and their competitors' long history of often forcing themselves in under court order, that lets you see it Microsoft's way.
It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their security model complete and integrated. They clearly ignored the requirement to accommodate 3rd party security vendors. Those vendors have been complaining for a long time - I heard about it from public comments at latest months ago, and I'm just a member of the public.
So the vendors made their insistence late? Their problem has been true and valid since Vista was started, and it's Microsoft's responsiblity to make sure the model doesn't have this problem. That's basic product engineering. And MS has to be even more sensitive about designs excluding 3rd parties, especially competitors, when they're a monopoly. Especially when the EU has persisted in requiring MS to open their platform to 3rd party competitors, like the MediaPlayer conflict that's still going on.
Now MS has to accommodate them, and is changing its security model at the last minute, rather than using one that could accommodate them from the beginning.
MS has the responsiblility, as OS developer and monopoly, to ensure they don't further exclude competitors from their monopoly platform. It's clear that they will try to exclude them, even when failing means revising a security model that should have been complete and tested a long time ago. Instead, they'll release an OS without much testing of its final security model. The users will suffer, and MS will continue to enjoy its monopoly, because MS never pays the costs of these bad development processes that are part of its business model.
Not preparing the security model for that change at design time, years ago, is a stupid mistake by Microsoft.
Letting 3rd parties bypass PatchGuard is a change to the security model. And at this point, any changes like that are afterthoughts.
Oh, right, because that's the time to design the security model of your operating system: after a few betas, several years into development, when the product is already late, as a token gesture to some competitors only after government pressure.</SNARK>
This is the OS that the vast majority of PC users will depend on for their privacy and data security. Billions of people, many in essential services like healthcare, defense, banking, emergency response, depending on it every day to work reliably, despite a threatening world of attacks. Counting votes, running stock exchanges, publishing journalism. It's the beginning of a new era of MS OSes, which will probably define the next decade or so, extending from embedded systems through mobile phones and PCs all the way through high-performace computing.
After so much loss due to Microsoft OS insecurity so far, MS should have designed the security model first, the way professionals serious about security always do. Instead, they throw propaganda about "shutting down all operations to concentrate on security", then tack on a security model literally as an afterthought.
The Microsoft nightmare never seems to end. They never seem to use the lessons of past disasters, except in selling more new products, despite the costs. Probably because their business model puts all those insecurity costs on the consumer, and never on Microsoft itself. Why shouldn't a corporation that will stop at nothing to protect its monopoly pay any attention to "intangibles" like exposing the world to costly, dangerous insecurity all the time? Stop at nothing, except fixing those insecurities when it gets a chance to roll out a new OS every 3-5 years.
That's "A" method. Their method, specified in their patent. If the patent doesn't describe a specific working method, making specific choices (and thereby excluding others) in SW, HW, network connections, configs and usage scenarios, then it's too broad. If its methods were used before, then it's not novel. Either way, it's not a valid patent.
But it just might be valid, protecting Cisco from others just copying their specific invention - the only legit purpose of a patent. It really looks like the narrow claim to a single instance was distorted from the PTO filing, by Phil Harvey in his Light Reading column, then exaggerated (as usual) in the Slashdot summary. That doesn't mean Cisco and its lawyers won't make the same exaggerated claims. But only if a judge makes the same serious mistake is this patent dangerous to anyone but real copycats. If they do, they must be kept from the serious business of judging patent law. If it does hold up on actual legal merits, without finding fault with a fireable patent examiner, then the patent system itself must be ripped out by the roots, as is probably the consensus of the threads in this discussion.
And what Friday the 13th could be creepier than one in October?
The Catholics who made our modern calendar had a wicked sense of humor.
What if N Korea has some kind of weapons tech that isn't nukes, but still can make kiloton-scale explosions? It wouldn't break the nuke taboo, or any treaties. And it might not be held back from using these really powerful weapons by their baggage.
Maybe its enemies, including the US, has no defense against an unknown new class of weapons like this.
And without needing nuclear fuel, maybe N Korea can make an unlimited amount of them, on as many missiles as it can make to fire.
While it would be good news if there isn't a new, batshit-crazy member of the "nuclear club" in this world, it's still bad news that N Korea can cause 4.2-scale earthquakes on demand.
As more tech is more available around the world to so many, it's ever more important not to isolate countries that can see destruction as their only way to get "status" or "power". Afghanistan, Iraq, N Korea, now Iran... the attraction of the benefits of inclusion in the global society is the only way to influence people into constructive behavior. Pretending we can shut them down by shutting them out is an arrogance now very obviously too lethal for us to afford any longer.