Nanotech can't be here in ten years.... ...just like 640k will be enough for everybody. With the pace of technology nowadays, you can't say how long it will take. Think about it: Ten years ago, what would you think of an operating system created by some nobody hacker in Finland?
Millions of Windows users tired of IRQ conflicts, eternal consultant visits, convoluted interface design, and painful aesthetics can now install Mac OS X on their existing computer, keeping their data and their applications. Millions do.
Apple's hardware sales decline as people take advantage of cheap PC hardware, then increase again as the platform gains momentum and former Intel users upgrade to Apple hardware. In any case, Apple can do without it's hardware entirely, as it makes more money as an operating system vendor than it ever did as a hardware manufacturer. Apple hadn't been concerned about that anyway, because a certain company in Redmond had already proven there was gold in operating systems.
With it's BSD/mach core and Aqua interface, Mac OS X starts to make serious inroads as a server operating system. Companies requiring high-end hardware redundancy can now use the Mac OS on suitable Intel-based server hardware. With the availability of single-rack-unit servers, Mac OS X finds a place in major hosting farms, as Mac OS users outsourcing their hosting needs begin to demand it.
Newsline, 2004: A recent study conducted by a consumers group has identified seventeen companies as monopolies, among them noted Apple Computer Corporation...
Newsline, 2007: Apple Corporation's profits have dropped heavily after the new Linux kernal, version 4.1.31, has been perfected as a cross platform, free operating system. Over fifteen thousand high quality programs are available for Linux, running under the X Windowing System. Apple's MacOS Z, based on the latest revision of the BSD kernal, is still lacking in benchmark tests, due to the overhead from a persistant graphical interface...
Newsline, 2008: A Linux users group in the Silicon Valley has perfected the first perfect emulator of both the Windows, Linux, BSD and MacOS environments. The emulator can merge filesystems dynamically, and using the Transmedia Crusoe Chip Mk III, can run the executable files from any of the operating systems. Using the X Windowing System as a core, the user can customize their interface however they want, be able to run applications from any of the operating systems, etc. Apple stock has plunged after the recent announcement, due to their lack of constant progress on all fronts. Experts say that compared to Microsoft, way back when, Apple was strong, but a private company cannot compare to the power of Open Source...
Newsline 2015: A DOJ investigation into abuse of the Sherman Antitrust Act by Apple Computer Corporation has caused Apple stock to plunge lately, as people remember the late days of Microsoft corporation. Apple is accused of using its monopoly over Operating Systems to attempt to prevent Linux Companies, such as Red Hat corporation, from negotiating with hardware vendors. "They [Apple] just came in one day, and said that if we didn't stop selling Linux-preinstalled servers, they were going to cut off our contract. We just couldn't survive if they did that." --Anonymous Compaq Manager. Some believe that Apple's hand was forced, being that Linux is consistantly advancing at a rate faster than Apple in benchmarks and compatibility. Ironically, Linux is the only system that provides full Windows support, so that consumers can run archaic Windows software like 'Microsoft Office' and 'Internet Explorer'. Some believe that if Apple didn't use force, they were going to completely lose their hold on server software. Currently, a Mac OS SX9 costs around $250, while Linux is completely free and downloadable over the Airnet (or over the older, wire-based Internet). Consumers don't believe that the DOJ investigations will be a big thing, but Linux radicals are hoping that this might allow Linux to finally have a shot at the consumer market...
...into 1024 seperate companies. Yes, you read that right. 1024 seperate mini-Microsofts. Not two or three or even four, but 1024 of them. My thinking goes like this:
As it has been stated before, Microsoft isn't really been defanged. It's just been broken up into two hopefully competing smaller monopolies. They missed several major areas of monopolistic potential, including server-client stuff, and quite a number of protocols.
Nobody besides Slashdot nerds/geeks really expected Microsoft to be broken up from the beginning. I mean, Slashdot didn't even expect Microsoft to be broken up, for the most part during the earlier bits of the trial.
Microsoft needs to be broken up in such a way that it defangs it completely, and still as tribute to the geek/nerd community.
1024 is a power of two, four, and 32. In computers, 1024Xbytes = Ybytes, where X is kilo and Y is mega, or X is mega and Y is giga, etc.
Therefore, the perfect choice is the number 1024.
Obviously, 1024 is the answer. But to completely defang Microsoft, you must shoot off anything that moves. Obviously, since Microsoft is so inately evil and incapable of anything honest or good, anything they do will be of the intent to subvert the government. Therefore, a commitee will be set up by the DOJ. It will be responsible for using thermal scanners to detect physical movement within a mini-Microsoft, and immediately raid the area and set the offender up as their own independant mini-Microsoft, unable to communicate with the others under threat of death by DOJ investigation (or incendiardy devices). Obviously, this is the only way to protect the consumers from going out to the store and buying a Microsoft product, since they cannot be trusted with the decision between Macintosh, Unix and Windows.
denial of service attacks which recently shut down the web-side operations of several American corporations have no effect. Cyberagents faced with a runaway barrage of incoming network requests close the gates of the system to prevent it from being flooded.
Hmmm... would that be no effect, besides shutting down port 80, into which the attacks were coming? Are they serious that this would keep the website up, with no effect?
...I can claim credit for the 'water'. I forgot to use the toilet before I went out to investigate the meteor, and then this all got blown way out of proportion. Oops.
Re:Isn't this a contradiction?
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
purchase the software you don't purchase the software No, they've made software into a symbolic link to license.
I have been seeing a surprising number of posts that are not compliant with this format. They are moderated down, and I do not believe that their authors are really doing anything wrong but not being aware. For the good of the many, I shall describe that standard format for a post in this story.
Subject: Microsoft {sucks, is bad, is stupid, is evil} Comment: Microsoft {is clearly wrong, is just plain evil, is just plain stupid}. I {hate, despise, spit on} them. I shall {break the laws, illegally pirate software, violate license agreements} to do what I think is {right, good, better than those stupid-heads}. Microsoft sucks. {Linux, BSD, MacOS} is far superior. I believe that this will cause most of the consumers to choose {Linux, BSD, MacOS} over the {mind numbing stupidity, complete senselessness, idiocy} inate in any Microsoft {product, excretion, filth}. All hail Slashdot.
I hope this will enhance your Slashdot experiance.
Microsoft tries to stop experimentation with Linux
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft might be using this to prevent people from experimenting with other OSes, like Linux or *BSD. Since you now cannot reinstall Windows onto a partition easily, and you get screwed over if you mess with the master boot record, Microsoft may be trying to warn people away from Linux. If Microsoft can discourage Linux as being unsafe, because it will prevent you from running Linux and Windows easily on the same machine, guess which the consumer will run?
This may be an attempt by Microsoft to take down the alternate OSes while it falls. If it effectively locks users into running Windows, when more options do open up after the Microsoft breakup is complete, consumers may still stay with Windows because they have had bad experiances with Linux screwing up their Windows setup, and then not being able to start over with a setup CD, since they don't have one. If Microsoft locks consumers in now, the two broken up companies don't need to conspire to lock users in: The users will already be trapped. And this could negate the entire benefit of the breakup to alternate operating systems. That's not a good thing, by any means.
I like the bit about backups being illegal...
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
...real smart move on Microsoft's part there. Did anybody else thing that was just outrageous?
Re:So felons CAN profit from their crimes now?
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
So felons CAN profit from their crimes now?
Had Microsoft attempted to profit from its crime, that would be a bad thing. However, they are continuing business as usual. Had their violation of the SAA allowed them to modify their EULA, then it would be another story altogether. Err... another post altogether. Microsoft isn't attempting to benefit from commiting a crime, they're just continuing business in an unrelated (well, not really, but not directly related) field. Sort of.
----------------------------------------------- Now that Microsoft has been broken up, who's fault is it that Windows sucks?
MS apparently refuses to develop software for alternative OS's that run on x86 After the MS breakup is complete, MS-Apps is going to be able to, nay, encouraged to port their software to other platforms. And where do they go after they make the IE MacOS port? If there's already a petition and demand for the product, MS-Apps would probably be more than willing to write the port to BSD. Especially if they could put it under some sort of semi-restrictive open source licence so that the community would maintain it, at no cost to them. Same with ISS (Gotta love BSD TCP stacks), Word (Bring all of those Microsoft users over to a stable platform), etc...
This is a great improvement
on
Java 2 For BSD
·
· Score: 3
Not just that Java2 is coming out for BSD, but that the better stuff is coming out right at the start for BSD. The more recognition that BSD gets, the better. Any Operating System effort that can take hold now will be competing for the market share from the Microsoft breakup, so it's great to see Open Source efforts besides Linux (not to say that Linux isn't great, but most techies have heard of it) getting more media, as opposed to closed source efforts taking over. I see this as representative of the increasing popularity of the *BSDs, and open source in general, as companies begin to turn from the giant Microsoft to the stronger, more reliable Open Source operating systems. Support like this is critical is we want to attract more good developers to the Open Source platforms.
The must give the user the choice of whether to pay for IE or not. No more claiming that it's free (beer).
Newsline, January 25, 2003. Today, Department of Justice officials have settled the ongoing trial against Redhat Corporation, for providing the browser Netscape in their Boxed Linux distribution. "Everytime you buy one of these Linux distributions, you are paying, in addition to the cost of distribution, for this browser they include. Even though it's freely available for download, it is obviously costing the consumer. We are asking Redhat corporation to remove the cost of Netscape from its Linux Distro immediately. They are cooperating with our efforts to find a price at which to set this, and have gotten over their claims that Netscape is free as in beer. Similar investigations are going into Redhat's inclusion of the X Windowing system, linuxconf, and the entire contents of the/bin and/sbin directories."
somebody else to finish this discussion and keep Zopilote informed.
Alright, now that you understand the philisophical angle of the virus, you are prepared for random-walk theory. This may be some heavy reading.
Random walk theory is based on the idea that any two people can be connected by going through six people, in a sort of link. You and Linus Torvalds are connected by: 1. You flame JonKatz in one of his articles. 2. JonKatz knows CmdrTaco. 3. CmdrTaco knows Linus Torvalds.
Now, random walk theory is the combination of the six item connection theory and randomness theory. Random walk theory states that given N items, it will take a randomly walking pointer 6N-5 or less jumps to get to all of them, given that all are linked to everything else. This implies that given a million node internet, it will take apprx six million emails to deliver a virus to every node. The thing is, when you run this through a GCC optimized sorting routine, it drops to a maximum of a million, or one jump per node. This implies that the massively interconnected structure of the internet is the perfect medium for a virus to be transmitted.
Now, perculation theory. Perculation theory relates to the chance of a certain event developing in a chemical reaction, given all of the factors present. The current perculation constant (experimental derivative from the perculation theory) is approximitely 99.919%. The inverse perculation constant is 0.081%, and it has been estimated that the trailing third digit of the percent is due to gravitational and quantum fluxes in the area at the time. That leaves the inverse perculation constant at 0.08%. Now, random walk theory tells us that the internet is the perfect medium for a virus, and given the large number of malicious programmers connected via the internet, the perculation constant seems to apply. Except that it also applies to the anti-virus companies, who have the same environment for preventing it. In total, when you work out the ratios, you have an inverse perculation constant of sucessful virus developers. Now, given the hypothetical million node internet, approximitely 8000 sucessful viruses come into existance at a constant rate. Now, the chances of one of these sucessful viruses surviving the same unit of time is calculated by continuing a constant derivation of the inverse perculation constant. That would be 1,000,000 * (.0008^days). Random walk theory says that if the virus reproduces at the maximum sustainable rate for the internet capacity (one request per infected server per hour, equalling, in the hypothetical 1,000,000 server environment approximitely n^2 while n^2 is smaller than 1,000,000 requests), meaning that the maximum capacity for a virus is, for the first day:
As you can see, it only takes six days for a virus to take over the internet if it isn't properly contained. Java container classes may help, but if even an inverse perculation constant of the requests get through, as they will any security model on a sucessful platform like this, your security is worthless. It's only a matter of time before something breaks through, through incompetent users or faulty implementation.
white holes (so called for their inverse relation to black holes as dumping grounds of matter of which black holes feed).
I believe that this is an excellent example of the racism which pervades today's scientific community. While in many other facets of life, Blacks are the same as Whites, in science, specifically physics, you claim that Black holes are bloated consumers, while White holes are the ones producing everything. This is a very disturbing additude for a professional physicist, such as Steven Hawking, to be taking. Although he might have grown up in a time when it was 'OK' to do this, today it isn't.
Will the black hole evaporate before it destroys the galaxy?
This seems to be an obvious statement that Blacks are going to destroy all that we hold good unless Whites can kill all of them. I believe that this kind of statement is horrible and detrimental to the community as a whole. The entire issue is that we need to measure and accomidate for the Black holes, not just try to kill them. I think that it is outrageous that you refuse Black holes the right to survive, while you accomidate for White holes. Who do you think we are?
The patenting of genetically engineered foods and widespread biotech food production threatens to eliminate farming as it has been practiced for 12,000 years. GE patents such as the Terminator Technology will render seeds infertile and force hundreds of millions of farmers who now save and share their seeds to purchase evermore expensive GE seeds and chemical inputs from a handful of global biotech/seed monopolies. If the trend is not stopped, the patenting of transgenic plants and food-producing animals will soon lead to universal "bioserfdom" in which farmers will lease their plants and animals from biotech conglomerates such as Monsanto and pay royalties on seeds and offspring. Family and indigenous farmers will be driven off the land and consumers' food choices will be dictated by a cartel of transnational corporations. Rural communities will be devastated. Hundreds of millions of farmers and agricultural workers worldwide will lose their livelihoods.
My italics. The technology behind how this works is explained here. Monsanto, the company that developed it, has decided not to market it, although they will continue research into this technology, to perhaps create an even more dangerous variant. The technology had the potential to create serious problems in places where farming is an important part of the economy. Enough information?
Actually, there are now several agricultural corporations working on 'one-time' genetically engineered seeds: Seeds that you plant and they grow the regular plant, but then the seeds from those plants are infertile (can't grow a second generation). They're doing this, actually, for the exact reason that you mentioned: Farmers bought one year's worth of seeds, planted them, and reaped the seeds from the plants that they grew for the second generation. Agricultural pirating, you could say. It's everywhere, just not as obvious as on the internet.
Somebody seems to have made a clever cgi script that reposts that message under your username. Congradulations to them for the hack value of it, but it's getting fscking annoying.
own the product, or the specific letter sequence: b a r b i e
They don't own the letter sequence. You can't own letter sequences. However, if shrimponthebarbie.com was about putting shrimp on barbie dolls, then you would be violating their trademark. Or if thebarbies.com was obviously attempting to appeal to the same people that buy barbie dolls, perhaps by using a cutsie font and background images. However, if they had a picture of a barbaque and maybe some text, then they wouldn't be violating anybody's rights. Just like I can't register Microsfot.com and put up a Linux site without a good reason.
But I have to wonder if a Slashdot editor had taken the 10 minutes it takes to post that story, the outcome might have been different.
However, you miss a key point here. The ChunkyMunky site was commercial: It had banner ads running. Therefore, under the law it could be seen as a dilution of the trademark of Chunky Monkey. Therefore, no amount of money (well, not that Slashdot could provide) would be able to save the site. The difference between that and this is that this site isn't commercial, therefore isn't diluting Mattel's right as a trademark holder.
The site doesn't even exist yet What the hell are you talking about? The site is right there. That's it. That's what they want. Anyhow, isn't it fairly obvious from the site that it's barbie is a reference to the doll?
mentioning anything about toys. Well, not now, anyway.
digitaldivas case however was an absolutely blatent copy exercise.
Actually it wasn't, but I'm not going to say anything critical of the Slashdot populance for fear of being 'flamebait'.
Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech can't be here in ten years....
...just like 640k will be enough for everybody. With the pace of technology nowadays, you can't say how long it will take. Think about it: Ten years ago, what would you think of an operating system created by some nobody hacker in Finland?
Apple's hardware sales decline as people take advantage of cheap PC hardware, then increase again as the platform gains momentum and former Intel users upgrade to Apple hardware. In any case, Apple can do without it's hardware entirely, as it makes more money as an operating system vendor than it ever did as a hardware manufacturer. Apple hadn't been concerned about that anyway, because a certain company in Redmond had already proven there was gold in operating systems.
With it's BSD/mach core and Aqua interface, Mac OS X starts to make serious inroads as a server operating system. Companies requiring high-end hardware redundancy can now use the Mac OS on suitable Intel-based server hardware. With the availability of single-rack-unit servers, Mac OS X finds a place in major hosting farms, as Mac OS users outsourcing their hosting needs begin to demand it.
Some things never change.
- As it has been stated before, Microsoft isn't really been defanged. It's just been broken up into two hopefully competing smaller monopolies. They missed several major areas of monopolistic potential, including server-client stuff, and quite a number of protocols.
- Nobody besides Slashdot nerds/geeks really expected Microsoft to be broken up from the beginning. I mean, Slashdot didn't even expect Microsoft to be broken up, for the most part during the earlier bits of the trial.
- Microsoft needs to be broken up in such a way that it defangs it completely, and still as tribute to the geek/nerd community.
- 1024 is a power of two, four, and 32. In computers, 1024Xbytes = Ybytes, where X is kilo and Y is mega, or X is mega and Y is giga, etc.
- Therefore, the perfect choice is the number 1024.
Obviously, 1024 is the answer. But to completely defang Microsoft, you must shoot off anything that moves. Obviously, since Microsoft is so inately evil and incapable of anything honest or good, anything they do will be of the intent to subvert the government. Therefore, a commitee will be set up by the DOJ. It will be responsible for using thermal scanners to detect physical movement within a mini-Microsoft, and immediately raid the area and set the offender up as their own independant mini-Microsoft, unable to communicate with the others under threat of death by DOJ investigation (or incendiardy devices). Obviously, this is the only way to protect the consumers from going out to the store and buying a Microsoft product, since they cannot be trusted with the decision between Macintosh, Unix and Windows.denial of service attacks which recently shut down the web-side operations of several American corporations have no effect. Cyberagents faced with a runaway barrage of incoming network requests close the gates of the system to prevent it from being flooded.
Hmmm... would that be no effect, besides shutting down port 80, into which the attacks were coming? Are they serious that this would keep the website up, with no effect?
...I can claim credit for the 'water'. I forgot to use the toilet before I went out to investigate the meteor, and then this all got blown way out of proportion. Oops.
purchase the software you don't purchase the software
No, they've made software into a symbolic link to license.
I have been seeing a surprising number of posts that are not compliant with this format. They are moderated down, and I do not believe that their authors are really doing anything wrong but not being aware. For the good of the many, I shall describe that standard format for a post in this story.
Subject: Microsoft {sucks, is bad, is stupid, is evil}
Comment: Microsoft {is clearly wrong, is just plain evil, is just plain stupid}. I {hate, despise, spit on} them. I shall {break the laws, illegally pirate software, violate license agreements} to do what I think is {right, good, better than those stupid-heads}. Microsoft sucks. {Linux, BSD, MacOS} is far superior. I believe that this will cause most of the consumers to choose {Linux, BSD, MacOS} over the {mind numbing stupidity, complete senselessness, idiocy} inate in any Microsoft {product, excretion, filth}. All hail Slashdot.
I hope this will enhance your Slashdot experiance.
Microsoft might be using this to prevent people from experimenting with other OSes, like Linux or *BSD. Since you now cannot reinstall Windows onto a partition easily, and you get screwed over if you mess with the master boot record, Microsoft may be trying to warn people away from Linux. If Microsoft can discourage Linux as being unsafe, because it will prevent you from running Linux and Windows easily on the same machine, guess which the consumer will run?
This may be an attempt by Microsoft to take down the alternate OSes while it falls. If it effectively locks users into running Windows, when more options do open up after the Microsoft breakup is complete, consumers may still stay with Windows because they have had bad experiances with Linux screwing up their Windows setup, and then not being able to start over with a setup CD, since they don't have one. If Microsoft locks consumers in now, the two broken up companies don't need to conspire to lock users in: The users will already be trapped. And this could negate the entire benefit of the breakup to alternate operating systems. That's not a good thing, by any means.
...real smart move on Microsoft's part there. Did anybody else thing that was just outrageous?
So felons CAN profit from their crimes now?
Had Microsoft attempted to profit from its crime, that would be a bad thing. However, they are continuing business as usual. Had their violation of the SAA allowed them to modify their EULA, then it would be another story altogether. Err... another post altogether. Microsoft isn't attempting to benefit from commiting a crime, they're just continuing business in an unrelated (well, not really, but not directly related) field. Sort of.
-----------------------------------------------
Now that Microsoft has been broken up, who's fault is it that Windows sucks?
How much money does Microsoft get for each copy of Windows sold?
How much money does Redhat get for each copy of Redhat sold?
How much money does Netscape get for each copy of RedHat downloaded?
How much money does Microsoft get for each copy of IE downloaded?
Thanks for losing. It proves my point.
MS apparently refuses to develop software for alternative OS's that run on x86
After the MS breakup is complete, MS-Apps is going to be able to, nay, encouraged to port their software to other platforms. And where do they go after they make the IE MacOS port? If there's already a petition and demand for the product, MS-Apps would probably be more than willing to write the port to BSD. Especially if they could put it under some sort of semi-restrictive open source licence so that the community would maintain it, at no cost to them. Same with ISS (Gotta love BSD TCP stacks), Word (Bring all of those Microsoft users over to a stable platform), etc...
Not just that Java2 is coming out for BSD, but that the better stuff is coming out right at the start for BSD. The more recognition that BSD gets, the better. Any Operating System effort that can take hold now will be competing for the market share from the Microsoft breakup, so it's great to see Open Source efforts besides Linux (not to say that Linux isn't great, but most techies have heard of it) getting more media, as opposed to closed source efforts taking over. I see this as representative of the increasing popularity of the *BSDs, and open source in general, as companies begin to turn from the giant Microsoft to the stronger, more reliable Open Source operating systems. Support like this is critical is we want to attract more good developers to the Open Source platforms.
The must give the user the choice of whether to pay for IE or not. No more claiming that it's free (beer).
/bin and /sbin directories."
Newsline, January 25, 2003.
Today, Department of Justice officials have settled the ongoing trial against Redhat Corporation, for providing the browser Netscape in their Boxed Linux distribution.
"Everytime you buy one of these Linux distributions, you are paying, in addition to the cost of distribution, for this browser they include. Even though it's freely available for download, it is obviously costing the consumer. We are asking Redhat corporation to remove the cost of Netscape from its Linux Distro immediately. They are cooperating with our efforts to find a price at which to set this, and have gotten over their claims that Netscape is free as in beer. Similar investigations are going into Redhat's inclusion of the X Windowing system, linuxconf, and the entire contents of the
somebody else to finish this discussion and keep Zopilote informed.
Alright, now that you understand the philisophical angle of the virus, you are prepared for random-walk theory. This may be some heavy reading.
Random walk theory is based on the idea that any two people can be connected by going through six people, in a sort of link. You and Linus Torvalds are connected by:
1. You flame JonKatz in one of his articles.
2. JonKatz knows CmdrTaco.
3. CmdrTaco knows Linus Torvalds.
Now, random walk theory is the combination of the six item connection theory and randomness theory. Random walk theory states that given N items, it will take a randomly walking pointer 6N-5 or less jumps to get to all of them, given that all are linked to everything else. This implies that given a million node internet, it will take apprx six million emails to deliver a virus to every node. The thing is, when you run this through a GCC optimized sorting routine, it drops to a maximum of a million, or one jump per node. This implies that the massively interconnected structure of the internet is the perfect medium for a virus to be transmitted.
Now, perculation theory. Perculation theory relates to the chance of a certain event developing in a chemical reaction, given all of the factors present. The current perculation constant (experimental derivative from the perculation theory) is approximitely 99.919%. The inverse perculation constant is 0.081%, and it has been estimated that the trailing third digit of the percent is due to gravitational and quantum fluxes in the area at the time. That leaves the inverse perculation constant at 0.08%. Now, random walk theory tells us that the internet is the perfect medium for a virus, and given the large number of malicious programmers connected via the internet, the perculation constant seems to apply. Except that it also applies to the anti-virus companies, who have the same environment for preventing it. In total, when you work out the ratios, you have an inverse perculation constant of sucessful virus developers. Now, given the hypothetical million node internet, approximitely 8000 sucessful viruses come into existance at a constant rate. Now, the chances of one of these sucessful viruses surviving the same unit of time is calculated by continuing a constant derivation of the inverse perculation constant. That would be 1,000,000 * (.0008^days). Random walk theory says that if the virus reproduces at the maximum sustainable rate for the internet capacity (one request per infected server per hour, equalling, in the hypothetical 1,000,000 server environment approximitely n^2 while n^2 is smaller than 1,000,000 requests), meaning that the maximum capacity for a virus is, for the first day:
1st Day: 8000 survive, 8000*(1) infected = 8000
2nd Day: 49 survive, 49*(4) infected = 196
3rd Day: 30 survives, 30*(9) infected = 270
4th Day: 58 survives, 58*16 infected = 928
5th Day: 689 survives, 689*25 infected = 17,223
6th Day: 237,324 survives, 237,324*36 infected = 1,000,000 (maxed out)
As you can see, it only takes six days for a virus to take over the internet if it isn't properly contained. Java container classes may help, but if even an inverse perculation constant of the requests get through, as they will any security model on a sucessful platform like this, your security is worthless. It's only a matter of time before something breaks through, through incompetent users or faulty implementation.
white holes (so called for their inverse relation to black holes as dumping grounds of matter of which black holes feed).
I believe that this is an excellent example of the racism which pervades today's scientific community. While in many other facets of life, Blacks are the same as Whites, in science, specifically physics, you claim that Black holes are bloated consumers, while White holes are the ones producing everything. This is a very disturbing additude for a professional physicist, such as Steven Hawking, to be taking. Although he might have grown up in a time when it was 'OK' to do this, today it isn't.
Will the black hole evaporate before it destroys the galaxy?
This seems to be an obvious statement that Blacks are going to destroy all that we hold good unless Whites can kill all of them. I believe that this kind of statement is horrible and detrimental to the community as a whole. The entire issue is that we need to measure and accomidate for the Black holes, not just try to kill them. I think that it is outrageous that you refuse Black holes the right to survive, while you accomidate for White holes. Who do you think we are?
Uhhhh...
/dev
/dev/null is zero bytes in size. I measured it.
cd
ls -s null
0 null
Well, it looks like
My italics. The technology behind how this works is explained here. Monsanto, the company that developed it, has decided not to market it, although they will continue research into this technology, to perhaps create an even more dangerous variant. The technology had the potential to create serious problems in places where farming is an important part of the economy. Enough information?
Oranges can be replicated.
Actually, there are now several agricultural corporations working on 'one-time' genetically engineered seeds: Seeds that you plant and they grow the regular plant, but then the seeds from those plants are infertile (can't grow a second generation). They're doing this, actually, for the exact reason that you mentioned: Farmers bought one year's worth of seeds, planted them, and reaped the seeds from the plants that they grew for the second generation. Agricultural pirating, you could say. It's everywhere, just not as obvious as on the internet.
Somebody seems to have made a clever cgi script that reposts that message under your username. Congradulations to them for the hack value of it, but it's getting fscking annoying.
own the product, or the specific letter sequence: b a r b i e
They don't own the letter sequence. You can't own letter sequences. However, if shrimponthebarbie.com was about putting shrimp on barbie dolls, then you would be violating their trademark. Or if thebarbies.com was obviously attempting to appeal to the same people that buy barbie dolls, perhaps by using a cutsie font and background images. However, if they had a picture of a barbaque and maybe some text, then they wouldn't be violating anybody's rights. Just like I can't register Microsfot.com and put up a Linux site without a good reason.
But I have to wonder if a Slashdot editor had taken the 10 minutes it takes to post that story, the outcome might have been different.
However, you miss a key point here. The ChunkyMunky site was commercial: It had banner ads running. Therefore, under the law it could be seen as a dilution of the trademark of Chunky Monkey. Therefore, no amount of money (well, not that Slashdot could provide) would be able to save the site. The difference between that and this is that this site isn't commercial, therefore isn't diluting Mattel's right as a trademark holder.
The site doesn't even exist yet
What the hell are you talking about? The site is right there. That's it. That's what they want. Anyhow, isn't it fairly obvious from the site that it's barbie is a reference to the doll?
mentioning anything about toys.
Well, not now, anyway.
digitaldivas case however was an absolutely blatent copy exercise.
Actually it wasn't, but I'm not going to say anything critical of the Slashdot populance for fear of being 'flamebait'.
set up a "linux" site devoted to Microsoft Windows
Or set up a linux site as a misspelling of microsoft.com? (Microsfot.com)
I always trust Intel to give me the absolute truth about whether I need to upgrade my processor or not.