Would be really useful if they could find a material that the sails could withstand damage done by getting hit by meteors, maybe people at NASA could actually put them to extreme uses and send them billions of years in space.
It would've also been nice if included in the article, there was a link to show how astronomers at places like NASA control these things when they're so damn far. I know they would pre-program directions, but what if something was spotted close by, how the heck do they manage to change the course of something millions of miles away to investigate it?
Competition is good. Sometimes it may seem inefficient, but in reality that redundancy is insuring that we don't get stuck at some local maximum and truely go for the global
OK... I won't dig too deep into this... Its one government we're talking about, and the NIST, is supposed to be the definitive source for standards... Not the NSA, not DARPA, not any other branch of government. So who is government competing with locally when they compete with themselves? Thats even more reason to point out the wasteful spending.
Thats like Microsoft developers in the WindowsNT department creating another version of Word to sell as a Microsoft product named... Word and you don't see a problem with this?
Or maybe misrepresented on my original post so here goes...
yes encryption IS a good thing for people like NIST to put resources into. You need people at the top of the field, and it helps that the organization's interests fall right in line with having an open, secure encryption system.
Agreed, but lets take a quick look at some of the branches of government doing the same, when one should be enough. Why can't one agency focus on this? Isn't NIST supposed to be the standard?
And theres a slew more. I agree that government should promote better standards, but instead of spending X millions on a bunch of bs, they should look to consolidate it all, which is what my main post should've stated I guess. Some of this so called research, or development never even sees the light of day due to timing situations. One part of government may intend to develop and deploy something, but it won't always happen, meaning all that money used for those projects are now gone, and they're left to ask for more money for some new project, never using their own resources to see if another agency can assist them.
NIST also has a huge budget thats been quoted to be wasteful spending at times by congress themselves.
This legislation includes $535 million in
pork-barrel spending. This is an unacceptable amount of money to spend on low-priority, unrequested, wasteful projects. Congress must curb its appetite for such unbridled spending.
Pork-barrel spending today not only robs well-deserving programs of much needed funds,
it also jeopardizes social security reform, potential tax cuts, and our fiscal well-being into the next century.
In fact I recall I think it was 20/20 or 60 minutes which had an article where researchers were being paid high salaries to test the flow of ketchup (catsup/ketsup) and if it was thick enough for the American market.
The episode went on to document millions of dollars gone to waste over some "trivial" (*cough* stupid *cough*) programs with NIST being on of the top sectors in gov. Shouldn't this money be used for useful purposes such as creating new jobs, housing, drug rehabilitation versus incarceration, etc., or am I being a troll because I find a problem with millions being spent to make sure my ketchup is thick enough?
Now not to troll even longer, but I always thought the NSA handled this... or at least they would have the most input into any of the things related to security....
enhance digital information security by publishing an advanced encryption standard and guidance for
federal agencies on its use; by extending the public key infrastructure testbed to support industry development of interoperable digital signatures and encryption applications; and by developing, extending, and disseminating standard reference guidelines for emerging biometric authentication techniques;
But what about the next one, shouldn't this be left to companies on their own to develop their own programs to meet their own needs, or is this something that just sounds good enough to push for more funding...
support business use of electronic commerce by developing and disseminating a software translator that will convert a company's internal dictionary of product terminology into the industry-standard format, thus enabling engineers and designers to compare products and check their compatibility.
How is government affected by someone's product that may not be compatible with anothers? Or let me rethink this, what defines an industry standard format, and according to whom, last I checked, I've never read anywhere that Microsoft had to make its *.doc files compatible with anything because of regulation.
Surely someone can regulate what constitutes a neccessity, but why not branch some of these things to academia, where things are always revolutionary changing constantly to keep up to date, as opposed to following standards set eons ago. Government can cut budgets by passing some of these tasks to colleges, then pay the universities to keep track of this at the fraction of a cost, keep students excited about helping government, and saving us all some money.
I know for a fact many students would love to delve into this, especially if it'd help their tuition go down slightly, while improving standards in the U.S.
The idea is that peer-to-peer is exciting because it harnesses all this unused space, power and connectivity, draws from the basic Net/hacker, free software/Open Source idea of reversing the flow of information, giving more power to individuals to control their own information lives, escaping government or corporation control and domination. Nodes of thought, conversation and data-sharing can flourish far from control of corporate lawyers, FBI agents or copyright snitches, and communications are more lateral and anonymous.
So nice for peer to peer to be marketed this way, as such a rogue technology, then we always run back and cry foul when regulatory rules, or laws come into the picture. In an instance like this, where someone was pointing out just how good of a technology this is to circumvent laws, just shy of saying "Hey kid come here... wanna break the law and sell warez? Use peer to peer".
So peer-to-peer is being championed as a technology, a business opportunity and an investment, as well as a revolutionary new means of empowering people and protecting their civil liberties and sense of individualism. Sounds pretty good.
Actually at this point it doesn't sound good. How could anyone with enough common sense to say "your totally anonymous, and free" think that investing in this technology won't cause them the heartaches of having many people who could wander anonymously free from "government", etc., (as he states) run around commiting white collar crimes such as credit card fraud using this system. Sure now there is "cracker (not to be confused with hacker) insurance" so why not make them a fortune with the possible problems I can forsee based upon the authors comments?
Peer-to-peer is useful where "the goods you're trying to get at lie at many endpoints; in other words, where the value of information lies in the contributions of many users rather than the authority of one." It's obvious that this could be valuable in research and some kinds of business development.
Again referring back to the top comments, why would I, or should I trust someone down the line if I probably won't be able to determine exactly who the person is, if that person is trustworthy. At least via a website you have limited means of determining this, based on the quality of the website, most business will probably throw on a "customers" or "partners" link, etc., as opposed to me just looking for anonymous joe in west bubblefuck to do business with.
P2P threatens to make censorship impossible. But
governments have little to fear from P2P. Since everyone is an equal content provider, goes the theory, it would be almost impossible for any significant mass of people to ever see the same message.
Hell yea it will likely introduce all kinds of horrible censorship, and again the author is dead wrong by stating all is an equal content provider. What about those offering illegal things, why would I want to be equal to their actions?
Ok so my postings so far for the day will come to a halt, but I figured this should be included in the topic, or... You could just read it anyways...
Two British astronomers have counted up to 20 "free floating" planets, drifting in the constellation of Orion. They told the National Astronomy Meeting in Cambridge yesterday that they had identified the "signature" of water vapour in the infrared spectrum of faint points of light in the Orion nebula. This is a vast cloud of gas and dust 1,300 light years from Earth, but visible as the middle "star" in the sword of the constellation of Orion.
For example, since exams will not be on-line, at least not unitl they're old.
Way I understand is, is... Even if exams are old, say from a semester or two ago, there can be instances where the same exams will be given, giving anyone with a keen sense of "where to look" the ability to memorize information.
Similarly, the comment that "Teachers may slack off on their intensity since students can just go online to learn" doesn't make sense, because currently professors can and do assume that students can "just go to the library and learn".
Agreed, but take a slacking professor, or a professor who maybe is at wits end, or has a fallout with the university, or whatever is going through his mind, but he just does not feel he has to give it all he should be giving it. His excuse in his mind may be "well they can get it from the net" it happens.
Continuing this comparison, learning on-line is not inherently easier or harder or better or worse than learning out of an (off-line) book.
Sure learning without an instructor is more difficult, you have no one to interact with, no one to point you in the right directions should you not understand something, no one to correct you from misconstruing something. Aside from that, you try telling a future employer "Hey I didn't go to MIT but yes I do know this" and we'll see how far you get.
Further, MIT currently often makes course-material available by publishing it (you've heard of the MIT Press?)
Sure you can find out what MIT teaches, shit look uo all the books you can on the site, but you won't find in which particular order to start, where to reference from while someone is teaching you, etc.
so I can't see how MIT would lose students (and they probably still have many more applicants than they accept anyway --- students are not exactly in short supply if you're MIT).
I can see how, while a student say still in high school may not be academically adept to going to MIT just yet, he can pick up what they're learning at MIT, and if he did learn it, and picked up his knowledge to another level, he may just option to go to a more prestigious university, why should he go to MIT when at this point he has a good enough knowledge to go to something like Harvard or Yale or some other catchy college, or even a foreign school... I can think of many reasons.
Sounds like an interesting plan, and hopefully I'll be able to delve deep into some of their studies, as well as others who aren't as fortunate to attend such a kick as school. So here are my thoughts...
Good ideas:
Those who cannot afford to go to MIT can still learn their courses.
Current students of MIT can get an example of what to study, intensifying their skills leading to higher learning.
Other universities can adapt to the higher levels (not saying other uni's are substandard) of teaching.
Bad ideas:
Students may be able to cheat on exams.
Teachers may slack off on their intensity since students can just go online to learn.
Students can skip more classes referring to the web and how they already "learned" something.
Learning something with the assistance of a vocal teacher is not the same as reading it.
MIT can lose students since they could go to other universities and still learn at their level.
Upkeep may be hellish
As with anything though there are pros and cons, but for the most part I think its a good idea for those who are willing to go the extra mile and learn something new, or for others to keep refreshed. Governments should give look into giving universities with plans like this free or highly reduced incentives, such as working with companies to provide free bandwidth to provide these services (which is what they are) for its citizens, after all in the U.S. your supposed to be entitled to a free education, so why not make it feasible for universities to follow MIT's move by providing added incentives.
In the end the best case scenario would be, more people learn at a higher level, earn more, become more productive citizens, as opposed to being restricted because of things like race, levels of income, etc., thereby there'd be less welfare and dependancy on government to solve problems. While the worst would be.... (keep holding while I think of this)
For the past five years, he and his company, Name.Space, have been seeking to overthrow the U.S.-sanctioned monopolies that govern the Web.
So are we to leave one for profit company, and jump to another? I could see if this was a non profit complaining and campaigning, but you have a domain registrar bringing this up, which begs questioning about the true intentions. So this company would stand to profit from a break up, which doesn't impress me, so his gripes are bascially he can't make any money with Verisign in the picture, hardly worth My Rights Online.
Why should an aspiring artist have to scrap to
be www.sculptor.com when she could just as easily be www.erotic.sculptor or www.heavenly.form?
I noticed how this turd is obfuscating politicians knowledge about technology with some of his gripes such as the above. For one its not up to any "root" servers to determine these naming convetions its up to ICANN, so why doesn't he gripe to them. The article to me is sort of a bit of snake oil written to beg for sympathy, by an author trying to get a nice sized bite of what he calls the enemy (Verisign).
Should Verisign be the sole holder of root name servers, probably not, but at least aside from occassional issues of domain squatting, the net isn't out of control with fights from domain registrars attempting to introduce tons of new names daily, simply because they're registrars. Here's a solution, create a body to handle it, but make those in charge professors at the most prestigous universities around. This way there can be no commercial control of the domain naming system, nor root servers. Maybe things will be handled ethically instead of morons bringing out suit after suit claiming infringements, unfair play, etc.,.
"The difficulty of taking on equipment, other than what your own network is designed for, is severe. There's almost no market for an arbitrary piece of equipment."
Apparently this guy has never heard of eBay. This is as good of a time as any, for just one company to pick up the slack and firesale prices as well as customers of some of these companies. Sure the market is grim right now but as history shows it cannot stay there, and should a company jump up and purchase the equipment and accounts, they could actually make money.
First off with the economy in a slow downturn, you'd save a heck of a lot more money buying surplus stuff from companies like these, at the fraction of a cost. Secondly you'd already have accounts from them as well, the question is whether or not DSL is actually a dead technology, and the answer is no.
Given the monopolization of the Bells over phone lines, this is the only issue truly affecting these companies. If customers aren't paying, then its the company's own fault, not the Bells.
All you need is one company to face the facts, sure the market is bullish, which also means no one is going to be spending an arm and a leg buying newer equipment and technologies for a while, so why not capitalize on whats in front of them right now. DSL isn't going anywhere, even if AT&T isn't buying any new DSL assets, who the hell said they were the definitive *anything* of DSL to begin with? So I truly believe there is money to be made as long as the company believes in long term growth as opposed to short term profits, which is one of the biggest problems that lead to most of the Venture Capital firms demise in funding. Everyone thought about making the fastest dollar, and shitty technologies messed things up for a lot of good business ideas, and companies.
Now for those customers using the services such as Covad, or any other that may have gone under or are going under, I saw a judge forced a company to pick up the slack, and what I would do is re-check some of those legally bonding contracts you signed when you purchased the service, and make sure these companies no matter what hold up to their end of the bargain or refund the difference.
Why the hell is it that every one of the linux zealots that read and post to slashdot BITCH AND MOAN about Microsoft products,
First off its not ALL of the Linux zealots and in fact I've noticed the majority who get caught up in that (OS name calling) mix, tend to be newer users of Linux who could barely chop up source on their own often jumping on irc channels or mailing lists with the shittiest questions.
claiming that they're the most worthless piece of
shit software company on the planet? Anyone who has to reinstall a Windows OS every god damn month is just a fucking moron. Anyone who can't keep a Windows machine up for more than a day is also a damn moron.
Actually I don't think its the most worthless piece of shit OS on the market by any means, in fact I think MS has strategically placed itself on the markets for reasons like Ease of Use, familiarity, since OS's like Linux, NSD, etc., are almost impossible for Mary Joe Homemaker, and Sally Secretary to handle, however its bullshit to think anyone can keep a Windows machine up all day is a moron. E.g. there's been plenty of times I've seen Windows go bonkers for no reason especially Windows2000k with all the patches to date for the machine.
Last year when I was tinkering with codes on a DoS paper I wrote, I slightly modified my code to connect to a non open TCP port on my Windows laptop and it still crashed it for no reason. (FYI code is here) The OS did a great job of crashing from time to time when it wasn't online, no one touched it, just pooped out on its own.
Sure, you have to reboot to patch and install
software, but who the hell cares?
I would care if I oversaw a network of 1,000 boxes which needed patch upgrades every week, only to be restarted. Think about it for a quick second as I outlined in the funny Microsoft Kills paper, 1,000 servers multiplied by about 3 minutes downtime, then you've got lost time spent and I don't think any administrator be it Microsoft or any other company is going to be kind enough to say "Hey don't worry I'll patch these on my own time, no need to pay me." Fuck no that shit costs money after a while.
Come on, get a damn clue and jump off that damn bandwagon.
I find it funny seeing OS wars go on when in reality 95% or more depend on Windows in some shape form or fashion, last time I checked accounting was looking for Excel files, secretaries were saving *.doc files... Sure Linux advocates have the right to moan its their choice, just sit back and get a kick out of it, I do.
See Microsoft played the biggest joke on everyone yet. They knew so many people would run out and download the fixes for MS' issues, so MS decided to take it to next level by issuing a `fix` which was really an April Fools joke... Read on...
MacroShaft Security Bulletin (MS99-054)
Patch Available for "Microsoft Advisory" Vulnerability
Originally Posted: December 15, 1999
Summary
Macroshaft has resolved the problems stemming from the spammage being spewed by Microsoft Advisories. It seems that MS is such a crappy and backwards product scores of exploits and crashes plague this system. While we at Macroshaft do not condone the use of Microsoft trash, we do pray daily for the users of this plague and beg of God's forgiveness
for their lack of knowledge.
Issue
Too many to list on a file without buying a 47gigabyte RAID5 storage system. Microsoft dedicated an BSD server with OC192 bandwidth to support the millions of luzers worldwide who receive Microtrash advisories on a daily basis. Actually we didn't know where to begin on this issue so we laughed all the way to the bathroom to wipe our noses from the water that erupted after the episode.
Affected Software Versions
Microsoft * (note the *boolean* symbol)
Patch Availability
The vulnerability is eliminated by downloading one of the following.
http://www.openbsd.org
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.netbsd.org
http://www.qnx.com
http://www.slackware.com
http://www.redhat.com
Frequently Asked Questions:
http://rtfm.mit.edu
Macroshaft Knowledge Base
http://microsoft-knwledge.is.a.joke.org
AntiOffline re-introduces chick of the week
http://www.antioffline.com/newflix/
Obtaining Support on this Issue
This is a fully supported patch available for download at: http://yew.must.be.j0wking.or.something.com
Acknowledgments
Gill Bates of Macroshaft.org
Revisions
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE MACROSHAFT KNOWLEDGE BASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. MACROSHAFT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE THEFT OF YOUR CAR AND OR ITS AUDIO EQUIPMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL MACROSHAFT CORPORATION OR ITS AFFILIATES CARE ABOUT ANYTHING YOU SAY OR DO. NOR DO WE CARE ABOUT ANY THREATS YOU MAKE TO US BOTH LEGALLY AND PERSONALLY. MACROSHAFT AND ITS AFFILIATES WILL SIMPLY FLY TO YOUR TOWN AND KICK
YOUR JIBRONIE ASS AND SLEEP WITH YOUR GIRLFRIEND AND HER SISTER AND MOTHER IF NECCESSARY. MACROSHAFT DENIES AND WILL CONTINUE TO DENY THAT WE SUPPORT THE GROUP KNOWN AS HACKING FOR SWEDISH CHICKS, HACKING FOR GIRLIES, AND UNITED
LONE GUNMEN. INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL
DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE MACROSHAFT CORPORATION OR ITS AFFILIATES HAVE BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR
EVEN TAKE US SERIOUS ALL YOUR PATCHES ARE BELONG TO US
(c) sil@antioffline 1999 - 2001 Macroshaft Corporation. All rights stolen anyway.
Well not to be the stickler, but one can see the gripes of SGI for contacting someone about Open*L as it does resemble (namewise) their product, although I strongly disagree with them bullying someone.
Now one of the things I would consider is, if your Open*L product/business/whatever is in line for competition with SGI in any shape form or fashion, in english... IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT, then SGI has every right in the world to bitch.
Think about a company called WindOS, which is similar sounding to Windows (to a non savvy tech person), now their business is making an OS... Do you think Mickeysoft wouldn't have a gripe about it?
Now if they're just typically pushing their weight around, then you could either ignore them, and let them use up tons of funding taking you through the legal system, the creat an outpour of support, if you win the sue the fsck out of them... Or you could comply with them... or....
And this is the best one... Ignore them, I do it all the time when I get threats about stupid spoofs I've done.
Aside from the typical Slashdotter, or other geek for that matter, I've managed to fool many people into thinking these some of the things were real.
So slashdot went a little overboard for one day... So what?! Its one day out of the year where anyone can be silly just as you were when you were a kid telling someone his shoe was untied then yelling APRIL FOOLS! Get a grip and stop bitching if April fools pranks offended you, its one day out of the year, and no one was hurt by it. (well maybe someone precious ego)
Citing a former post on this topic, I'd say its only a slight bit of time before others follow suit along with MS. Especially with the downturn the markets have taken in recent months, many companies are going to be looking to conserve their funds, as opposed to blindful spending.
Although having two antennas in close proximity can be a problem, Siep said that most users won't
actually place the two systems next to each other.
For someone to just base this statement with no supportive information is deadbeat. Just think of the typical comp user who doesn't understand upper level technology, and how to configure things.
When interference does occur, it manifests itself as slower transmission rather than a broken connection. Users are already conditioned to accept this, Siep said. It's the same problem that occurs with analog modems that sometimes connect at 33 kbits/second and sometimes at 28 kbits/s, and Siep believes consumers will be willing to live with the same experience in their wireless networks.
This notion that people are willing to accept a substandard product are misconceived. Think about the people who are moving off 56k connections to DSL, Cable, etc., they've moved because obviously their concerned with speed, so for these industry people to say, people will pay x amount of dollars when they know they're buying a substandard product... Who do they think theyy're kidding? Once people read about little quirks like this, they'll be likely to wait before diving into bluetooth, and if the problem isn't addressed fast, bluetooth will die entirely.
My two cents without going into the other issues in the article.
Lamborghini Diablo with the license plate "dot com "speeding through an S curved mountain at high speeds. In pursuit three cop cars. As they continue chasing the car, it pulls into an Internet cafe bar, out jumps a pencil pouch wearing (IPO rich) geek who runs into the Internet cafe, rents a workstation, quickly types in first post before he gets arrested.
They Might Be Giants music plays as the screen fades into "Slashdot News For Nerds" yadda yadda yadda...
www.w3c.org or a *.mil page or something... I think it'd be difficult to determine because there'd be no listing on major web indexes based on dates to my knowledge. I'd bank on it being an edu or gov related site.
This incredible German made product is the part of the future of entertainment. The ability to jump 6 feet in the air and run with incredible speed while leaping and bounding allows a look never before seen in the entertainment world.
This incredible German made product will send you visiting your local hospital in no time. Yes YOU TOO can now break your ankles, hit your head on traffic lights, rupture your hamstrings, and look mightly stupid on these banana colored geek toys for retards with little sense of safety.
As the east coast Distributors for POWERSKIP we would like to invite inquiry about this incredible new product. They are in themselves an excellent fitness activity. They have also taken certain parts of the performance world by storm. They have a look and feel all there own. While I am tempted to brag about this product, we all know that a picture is worth a thousand words.
As the east coast distributors for POWERSHIT, we would like to thank the doctors in our area for paying us to release this product as greater revenue for us, means bigger bucks for them. While I am tempted to tell you the truth, I won't because I simply won't make any money from idiots like yourself. So buy now think later when your on a hospital bed with multiple injuries!!!
While tinkering recently with Outguess, I took a simple image about 28k and used a 1k text file to combine it into a new image (steganography owns). Well in certain instances depending on what I decided to embed into the image, the image would drop in size to about 7k some times, and other times it would still drop in size. Only once did it ever go over 28k which was when I embedded about 50k worth of text into the image, which still looked crisp to the naked eye.
Just thought I would share this. At one point I was thinking about making a script to lower the sizing of the many pics I have on my porn section, but I never bothered.
I also noticed there were other tricks to saving space on files but again, never got around to mentioning them, maybe some time I will who knows.
Are you kidding... While the 2.5 talks are going on, at the rate their releasing kernels, 2.7 will be out while they speak about 2.5.
They just released 2.4.3 yesterday didn't they, I can see someone fscking up and overlapping by releasing 2 kernels on the same day...
I'll stick with the BSD's thank you
Instead of releasing something every week or month or whatever, I think the developers of Linux should make it a quarterly process, and release kernels with a slew of things fixed or added. It seems everytime something comes out in the market (new USB device, new anything) they rev up a new release and fire it out.
This (in my opinion, since I'm entitled to it whether or not you mod this down) makes Linux look like such a novelty to business managers who don't understand tech, but sign purchase orders for the geeks who do buy equipment.
Explaining why the hell you have to take about *umpteen* hours in downtime upgrading kernels every so often becomes such a hassle. At least with BSD fixes are easy, and releases aren't done everytime someone *thinks* their new revision is revolutionary enough to release another current.
Just my two cents on the Lnux side of things.
csh-2.04# uname -a
FreeBSD ritalin.deficiency.org i386
Its no surprise the Secret Service has Gone too far, but what I see happening is, they may be concerned with persons, embezzling money than using companies such as e-gold, as a means of hiding their traces.
Regardless of what the company actuall does, for those who don't keep up on privacy issues I suggest you read up on James Bell and how his "Assassination Politics" paper landed him in jail for using the same kind of anonymouse untraceable methods in theory...
As for the Secret Service using "credit card" fraud as an excuse, how come they never raid the businesses of adult sites all over the Internet? Or Amazon when someone cards them? Shady tacticts...
In an independent study conducted this month by staff at AntiOffline.com, and MacroShaft.org, it was revelead that Microsoft is killing people on
a daily basis, with the evidence verified by statisticians at New York University's Mike Hunt.
"Based on these estimated projections, it seems the Justice Department needs to begin a prompt investigation into this matter." states Mike.
Judging on data gathered on a one month term this is the output:
Windows users crash an estimated two times a day which requires
an estimated 3 minutes to reboot. Result?
(Rough estimates)
100 million Windows users x 120 seconds == 507 years lost. 6 deaths a day are attributed to this product. This alone does not include any
estimates from those users who have to reboot upon installing programs. Nor does this include time spent configuring TCP/IP reboots.
With an estimated dollar amount of about 22 million dollars lost weekly (this is a generous amount) due to these reboots, its strange
that no company has gone bankrupt.
"If anyone would care to break these figures down into dramatic
fashion, their would probably be global catastrophes." states
Sil of AntiOffline
The difference between life and death on the workplace is no
longer restricted to psychotic Postal workers, but rather a
more chilling enemy known as the Blue Screen of Death.
We've yet attempted to solidly document that *actual* numbers
out of fears our calculator could not reach the given amount,
so we actually have given Microsoft what could be an actual
death toll of 20-30 people daily.
Staff at Microsoft declined to return our e-mails repeatedly
but we will continue to pursue the numbers as time goes by.
President George W. Bush today also intervened on Microsoft's behalf stating, AntiOffline's numbers are fuzzy math. Sil could not be contacted for comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Would be really useful if they could find a material that the sails could withstand damage done by getting hit by meteors, maybe people at NASA could actually put them to extreme uses and send them billions of years in space.
It would've also been nice if included in the article, there was a link to show how astronomers at places like NASA control these things when they're so damn far. I know they would pre-program directions, but what if something was spotted close by, how the heck do they manage to change the course of something millions of miles away to investigate it?
millions of bandwidth bits away
Competition is good. Sometimes it may seem inefficient, but in reality that redundancy is insuring that we don't get stuck at some local maximum and truely go for the global
OK... I won't dig too deep into this... Its one government we're talking about, and the NIST, is supposed to be the definitive source for standards... Not the NSA, not DARPA, not any other branch of government. So who is government competing with locally when they compete with themselves? Thats even more reason to point out the wasteful spending.
Thats like Microsoft developers in the WindowsNT department creating another version of Word to sell as a Microsoft product named... Word and you don't see a problem with this?
Agreed, but lets take a quick look at some of the branches of government doing the same, when one should be enough. Why can't one agency focus on this? Isn't NIST supposed to be the standard?
Sandia researchers develop world's fastest encryptor
ORNL Helps Develop Electronic Notebooks (read article to see crypto stuff)
GRIP -- Gigabit Rate IPSec (Army)
Cancer research (I never knew cancer genes needed encryption)
WING (DARPA)
NASA (why can't they look to NIST?)
Key Agile ATM (DARPA)
And theres a slew more. I agree that government should promote better standards, but instead of spending X millions on a bunch of bs, they should look to consolidate it all, which is what my main post should've stated I guess. Some of this so called research, or development never even sees the light of day due to timing situations. One part of government may intend to develop and deploy something, but it won't always happen, meaning all that money used for those projects are now gone, and they're left to ask for more money for some new project, never using their own resources to see if another agency can assist them.
complete referendum
In fact I recall I think it was 20/20 or 60 minutes which had an article where researchers were being paid high salaries to test the flow of ketchup (catsup/ketsup) and if it was thick enough for the American market.
The episode went on to document millions of dollars gone to waste over some "trivial" (*cough* stupid *cough*) programs with NIST being on of the top sectors in gov. Shouldn't this money be used for useful purposes such as creating new jobs, housing, drug rehabilitation versus incarceration, etc., or am I being a troll because I find a problem with millions being spent to make sure my ketchup is thick enough?
Now not to troll even longer, but I always thought the NSA handled this... or at least they would have the most input into any of the things related to security.... But what about the next one, shouldn't this be left to companies on their own to develop their own programs to meet their own needs, or is this something that just sounds good enough to push for more funding... (above taken from NIST)
How is government affected by someone's product that may not be compatible with anothers? Or let me rethink this, what defines an industry standard format, and according to whom, last I checked, I've never read anywhere that Microsoft had to make its *.doc files compatible with anything because of regulation.
Surely someone can regulate what constitutes a neccessity, but why not branch some of these things to academia, where things are always revolutionary changing constantly to keep up to date, as opposed to following standards set eons ago. Government can cut budgets by passing some of these tasks to colleges, then pay the universities to keep track of this at the fraction of a cost, keep students excited about helping government, and saving us all some money.
I know for a fact many students would love to delve into this, especially if it'd help their tuition go down slightly, while improving standards in the U.S.
Ghost in the shell (hiding your data)
The idea is that peer-to-peer is exciting because it harnesses all this unused space, power and connectivity, draws from the basic Net/hacker, free software/Open Source idea of reversing the flow of information, giving more power to individuals to control their own information lives, escaping government or corporation control and domination. Nodes of thought, conversation and data-sharing can flourish far from control of corporate lawyers, FBI agents or copyright snitches, and communications are more lateral and anonymous.
So nice for peer to peer to be marketed this way, as such a rogue technology, then we always run back and cry foul when regulatory rules, or laws come into the picture. In an instance like this, where someone was pointing out just how good of a technology this is to circumvent laws, just shy of saying "Hey kid come here... wanna break the law and sell warez? Use peer to peer".
So peer-to-peer is being championed as a technology, a business opportunity and an investment, as well as a revolutionary new means of empowering people and protecting their civil liberties and sense of individualism. Sounds pretty good.
Actually at this point it doesn't sound good. How could anyone with enough common sense to say "your totally anonymous, and free" think that investing in this technology won't cause them the heartaches of having many people who could wander anonymously free from "government", etc., (as he states) run around commiting white collar crimes such as credit card fraud using this system. Sure now there is "cracker (not to be confused with hacker) insurance" so why not make them a fortune with the possible problems I can forsee based upon the authors comments?
Peer-to-peer is useful where "the goods you're trying to get at lie at many endpoints; in other words, where the value of information lies in the contributions of many users rather than the authority of one." It's obvious that this could be valuable in research and some kinds of business development.
Again referring back to the top comments, why would I, or should I trust someone down the line if I probably won't be able to determine exactly who the person is, if that person is trustworthy. At least via a website you have limited means of determining this, based on the quality of the website, most business will probably throw on a "customers" or "partners" link, etc., as opposed to me just looking for anonymous joe in west bubblefuck to do business with.
P2P threatens to make censorship impossible. But governments have little to fear from P2P. Since everyone is an equal content provider, goes the theory, it would be almost impossible for any significant mass of people to ever see the same message.
Hell yea it will likely introduce all kinds of horrible censorship, and again the author is dead wrong by stating all is an equal content provider. What about those offering illegal things, why would I want to be equal to their actions?
Privacy links (well suited for this article)
Ok so my postings so far for the day will come to a halt, but I figured this should be included in the topic, or... You could just read it anyways...
Two British astronomers have counted up to 20 "free floating" planets, drifting in the constellation of Orion. They told the National Astronomy Meeting in Cambridge yesterday that they had identified the "signature" of water vapour in the infrared spectrum of faint points of light in the Orion nebula. This is a vast cloud of gas and dust 1,300 light years from Earth, but visible as the middle "star" in the sword of the constellation of Orion.
Read on
For example, since exams will not be on-line, at least not unitl they're old.
Way I understand is, is... Even if exams are old, say from a semester or two ago, there can be instances where the same exams will be given, giving anyone with a keen sense of "where to look" the ability to memorize information.
Similarly, the comment that "Teachers may slack off on their intensity since students can just go online to learn" doesn't make sense, because currently professors can and do assume that students can "just go to the library and learn".
Agreed, but take a slacking professor, or a professor who maybe is at wits end, or has a fallout with the university, or whatever is going through his mind, but he just does not feel he has to give it all he should be giving it. His excuse in his mind may be "well they can get it from the net" it happens.
Continuing this comparison, learning on-line is not inherently easier or harder or better or worse than learning out of an (off-line) book.
Sure learning without an instructor is more difficult, you have no one to interact with, no one to point you in the right directions should you not understand something, no one to correct you from misconstruing something. Aside from that, you try telling a future employer "Hey I didn't go to MIT but yes I do know this" and we'll see how far you get.
Further, MIT currently often makes course-material available by publishing it (you've heard of the MIT Press?)
Sure you can find out what MIT teaches, shit look uo all the books you can on the site, but you won't find in which particular order to start, where to reference from while someone is teaching you, etc.
so I can't see how MIT would lose students (and they probably still have many more applicants than they accept anyway --- students are not exactly in short supply if you're MIT).
I can see how, while a student say still in high school may not be academically adept to going to MIT just yet, he can pick up what they're learning at MIT, and if he did learn it, and picked up his knowledge to another level, he may just option to go to a more prestigious university, why should he go to MIT when at this point he has a good enough knowledge to go to something like Harvard or Yale or some other catchy college, or even a foreign school... I can think of many reasons.
Good ideas:
- Those who cannot afford to go to MIT can still learn their courses.
- Current students of MIT can get an example of what to study, intensifying their skills leading to higher learning.
- Other universities can adapt to the higher levels (not saying other uni's are substandard) of teaching.
Bad ideas:- Students may be able to cheat on exams.
- Teachers may slack off on their intensity since students can just go online to learn.
- Students can skip more classes referring to the web and how they already "learned" something.
- Learning something with the assistance of a vocal teacher is not the same as reading it.
- MIT can lose students since they could go to other universities and still learn at their level.
- Upkeep may be hellish
As with anything though there are pros and cons, but for the most part I think its a good idea for those who are willing to go the extra mile and learn something new, or for others to keep refreshed. Governments should give look into giving universities with plans like this free or highly reduced incentives, such as working with companies to provide free bandwidth to provide these services (which is what they are) for its citizens, after all in the U.S. your supposed to be entitled to a free education, so why not make it feasible for universities to follow MIT's move by providing added incentives.In the end the best case scenario would be, more people learn at a higher level, earn more, become more productive citizens, as opposed to being restricted because of things like race, levels of income, etc., thereby there'd be less welfare and dependancy on government to solve problems. While the worst would be.... (keep holding while I think of this)
Ghost in the Shell hiding your data
For the past five years, he and his company, Name.Space, have been seeking to overthrow the U.S.-sanctioned monopolies that govern the Web.
So are we to leave one for profit company, and jump to another? I could see if this was a non profit complaining and campaigning, but you have a domain registrar bringing this up, which begs questioning about the true intentions. So this company would stand to profit from a break up, which doesn't impress me, so his gripes are bascially he can't make any money with Verisign in the picture, hardly worth My Rights Online.
Why should an aspiring artist have to scrap to be www.sculptor.com when she could just as easily be www.erotic.sculptor or www.heavenly.form?
I noticed how this turd is obfuscating politicians knowledge about technology with some of his gripes such as the above. For one its not up to any "root" servers to determine these naming convetions its up to ICANN, so why doesn't he gripe to them. The article to me is sort of a bit of snake oil written to beg for sympathy, by an author trying to get a nice sized bite of what he calls the enemy (Verisign).
Should Verisign be the sole holder of root name servers, probably not, but at least aside from occassional issues of domain squatting, the net isn't out of control with fights from domain registrars attempting to introduce tons of new names daily, simply because they're registrars. Here's a solution, create a body to handle it, but make those in charge professors at the most prestigous universities around. This way there can be no commercial control of the domain naming system, nor root servers. Maybe things will be handled ethically instead of morons bringing out suit after suit claiming infringements, unfair play, etc.,.
Ghost in the Shell
"The difficulty of taking on equipment, other than what your own network is designed for, is severe. There's almost no market for an arbitrary piece of equipment."
Apparently this guy has never heard of eBay. This is as good of a time as any, for just one company to pick up the slack and firesale prices as well as customers of some of these companies. Sure the market is grim right now but as history shows it cannot stay there, and should a company jump up and purchase the equipment and accounts, they could actually make money.
First off with the economy in a slow downturn, you'd save a heck of a lot more money buying surplus stuff from companies like these, at the fraction of a cost. Secondly you'd already have accounts from them as well, the question is whether or not DSL is actually a dead technology, and the answer is no.
Given the monopolization of the Bells over phone lines, this is the only issue truly affecting these companies. If customers aren't paying, then its the company's own fault, not the Bells.
All you need is one company to face the facts, sure the market is bullish, which also means no one is going to be spending an arm and a leg buying newer equipment and technologies for a while, so why not capitalize on whats in front of them right now. DSL isn't going anywhere, even if AT&T isn't buying any new DSL assets, who the hell said they were the definitive *anything* of DSL to begin with? So I truly believe there is money to be made as long as the company believes in long term growth as opposed to short term profits, which is one of the biggest problems that lead to most of the Venture Capital firms demise in funding. Everyone thought about making the fastest dollar, and shitty technologies messed things up for a lot of good business ideas, and companies.
Now for those customers using the services such as Covad, or any other that may have gone under or are going under, I saw a judge forced a company to pick up the slack, and what I would do is re-check some of those legally bonding contracts you signed when you purchased the service, and make sure these companies no matter what hold up to their end of the bargain or refund the difference.
Ghost in the Shell
Why the hell is it that every one of the linux zealots that read and post to slashdot BITCH AND MOAN about Microsoft products,
First off its not ALL of the Linux zealots and in fact I've noticed the majority who get caught up in that (OS name calling) mix, tend to be newer users of Linux who could barely chop up source on their own often jumping on irc channels or mailing lists with the shittiest questions.
claiming that they're the most worthless piece of shit software company on the planet? Anyone who has to reinstall a Windows OS every god damn month is just a fucking moron. Anyone who can't keep a Windows machine up for more than a day is also a damn moron.
Actually I don't think its the most worthless piece of shit OS on the market by any means, in fact I think MS has strategically placed itself on the markets for reasons like Ease of Use, familiarity, since OS's like Linux, NSD, etc., are almost impossible for Mary Joe Homemaker, and Sally Secretary to handle, however its bullshit to think anyone can keep a Windows machine up all day is a moron. E.g. there's been plenty of times I've seen Windows go bonkers for no reason especially Windows2000k with all the patches to date for the machine.
Last year when I was tinkering with codes on a DoS paper I wrote, I slightly modified my code to connect to a non open TCP port on my Windows laptop and it still crashed it for no reason. (FYI code is here) The OS did a great job of crashing from time to time when it wasn't online, no one touched it, just pooped out on its own.
Sure, you have to reboot to patch and install software, but who the hell cares?
I would care if I oversaw a network of 1,000 boxes which needed patch upgrades every week, only to be restarted. Think about it for a quick second as I outlined in the funny Microsoft Kills paper, 1,000 servers multiplied by about 3 minutes downtime, then you've got lost time spent and I don't think any administrator be it Microsoft or any other company is going to be kind enough to say "Hey don't worry I'll patch these on my own time, no need to pay me." Fuck no that shit costs money after a while.
Come on, get a damn clue and jump off that damn bandwagon.
I find it funny seeing OS wars go on when in reality 95% or more depend on Windows in some shape form or fashion, last time I checked accounting was looking for Excel files, secretaries were saving *.doc files... Sure Linux advocates have the right to moan its their choice, just sit back and get a kick out of it, I do.
funny you should ask... I posted Diary of an AOL user here last week (www.antioffline.com/hackers2001.html) and its funny as all hell to think people can be so dumb... Well anyways I had made another spoof recently which said Hackers stole codes to launch nukes and stuff... (antioffline.com/news/0-1003-200-5222484.html) and posted it with an obfuscated URL... I had people emailing me saying "If you know who they are, you should be a responsible citizen and turn them in", as well as a slew of *.gov and *.mil sites which were there shortly after I posted the original... Now I know it can be trivial to deal with spoofing articles like that, but clearly I would have hoped the copyright would have given it away... ©1995-2001 CN3T Networks, Inc. (Cumshot News Network) No dice some people are just... dumb
MacroShaft Security Bulletin (MS99-054)
Patch Available for "Microsoft Advisory" Vulnerability
Originally Posted: December 15, 1999
Summary
Macroshaft has resolved the problems stemming from the spammage being spewed by Microsoft Advisories. It seems that MS is such a crappy and backwards product scores of exploits and crashes plague this system. While we at Macroshaft do not condone the use of Microsoft trash, we do pray daily for the users of this plague and beg of God's forgiveness for their lack of knowledge.
Issue
Too many to list on a file without buying a 47gigabyte RAID5 storage system. Microsoft dedicated an BSD server with OC192 bandwidth to support the millions of luzers worldwide who receive Microtrash advisories on a daily basis. Actually we didn't know where to begin on this issue so we laughed all the way to the bathroom to wipe our noses from the water that erupted after the episode.
Affected Software Versions
Patch Availability
The vulnerability is eliminated by downloading one of the following.
Frequently Asked Questions:
- http://rtfm.mit.edu
Macroshaft Knowledge BaseAntiOffline re-introduces chick of the week
Obtaining Support on this Issue
This is a fully supported patch available for download at: http://yew.must.be.j0wking.or.something.com
Acknowledgments
Gill Bates of Macroshaft.org
Revisions
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE MACROSHAFT KNOWLEDGE BASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. MACROSHAFT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE THEFT OF YOUR CAR AND OR ITS AUDIO EQUIPMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL MACROSHAFT CORPORATION OR ITS AFFILIATES CARE ABOUT ANYTHING YOU SAY OR DO. NOR DO WE CARE ABOUT ANY THREATS YOU MAKE TO US BOTH LEGALLY AND PERSONALLY. MACROSHAFT AND ITS AFFILIATES WILL SIMPLY FLY TO YOUR TOWN AND KICK YOUR JIBRONIE ASS AND SLEEP WITH YOUR GIRLFRIEND AND HER SISTER AND MOTHER IF NECCESSARY. MACROSHAFT DENIES AND WILL CONTINUE TO DENY THAT WE SUPPORT THE GROUP KNOWN AS HACKING FOR SWEDISH CHICKS, HACKING FOR GIRLIES, AND UNITED LONE GUNMEN. INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE MACROSHAFT CORPORATION OR ITS AFFILIATES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR EVEN TAKE US SERIOUS ALL YOUR PATCHES ARE BELONG TO US
(c) sil@antioffline 1999 - 2001 Macroshaft
Corporation. All rights stolen anyway.
Well not to be the stickler, but one can see the gripes of SGI for contacting someone about Open*L as it does resemble (namewise) their product, although I strongly disagree with them bullying someone.
Now one of the things I would consider is, if your Open*L product/business/whatever is in line for competition with SGI in any shape form or fashion, in english... IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT, then SGI has every right in the world to bitch.
Think about a company called WindOS, which is similar sounding to Windows (to a non savvy tech person), now their business is making an OS... Do you think Mickeysoft wouldn't have a gripe about it?
Now if they're just typically pushing their weight around, then you could either ignore them, and let them use up tons of funding taking you through the legal system, the creat an outpour of support, if you win the sue the fsck out of them... Or you could comply with them... or....
And this is the best one... Ignore them, I do it all the time when I get threats about stupid spoofs I've done.
erocdrah
I've actually caught many people aside from the typical April fools pranks. Using obfuscated URL's I've spoofed everything from Slashdot, ABCnews, Napster, CNET, Republican National Committe, and others.
Aside from the typical Slashdotter, or other geek for that matter, I've managed to fool many people into thinking these some of the things were real.
So slashdot went a little overboard for one day... So what?! Its one day out of the year where anyone can be silly just as you were when you were a kid telling someone his shoe was untied then yelling APRIL FOOLS! Get a grip and stop bitching if April fools pranks offended you, its one day out of the year, and no one was hurt by it. (well maybe someone precious ego)
For someone to just base this statement with no supportive information is deadbeat. Just think of the typical comp user who doesn't understand upper level technology, and how to configure things. This notion that people are willing to accept a substandard product are misconceived. Think about the people who are moving off 56k connections to DSL, Cable, etc., they've moved because obviously their concerned with speed, so for these industry people to say, people will pay x amount of dollars when they know they're buying a substandard product... Who do they think theyy're kidding? Once people read about little quirks like this, they'll be likely to wait before diving into bluetooth, and if the problem isn't addressed fast, bluetooth will die entirely.
My two cents without going into the other issues in the article.
bluetooth free
wow just thought of these for /.
/. now?
Lamborghini Diablo with the license plate "dot com "speeding through an S curved mountain at high speeds. In pursuit three cop cars. As they continue chasing the car, it pulls into an Internet cafe bar, out jumps a pencil pouch wearing (IPO rich) geek who runs into the Internet cafe, rents a workstation, quickly types in first post before he gets arrested.
They Might Be Giants music plays as the screen fades into "Slashdot News For Nerds" yadda yadda yadda...
Where's my contract for marketing
mental deficiency
RFC 31337 you better recognize
HOW TO GET BABES -- A GUIDE FOR GEEKS
Show them your T1 lines and your modifications to the Linux kernel -- they'll be very impressed.
Grunt when they say anything to you -- remember, avoid eye contact at all costs.
Never leave your home -- any babes worthy of your attention will come knocking on your door.
Surf the net for porn, so you know what real women should look like.
Test whether they really love you; never, ever shave or shower.
Don't exercise -- the weak, pudgy mess that you are will evoke maternal feelings of sympathy.
If they talk to you, it means that they love you.
Remember, girls always prefer email to real mail.
Sitting three seats behind them on the bus is a good start.
Become a billioniare -- trade money for babes.
Write the next, killer software app -- your fame will draw them to you.
Remember, what's cool to your geek friends is cool to babes too.
Make them understand that you are more evolved than that hunky football star.
Declare that you are homosexual -- that never fails to interest them; pounce when guard is down.
Babes always go for the stronger man -- duke it out over a game of Quake.
Write a geeky web page.
Use mnemonics to aid communication e.g. Hello == main(){, Goodbye == }
Increase your "reproductive fitness" -- become the Alpha geek of your pack
The woman you're talking to on the net really is female and most likely a babe -- and remember, cybersex is as good as real sex.
chix dig us
www.w3c.org or a *.mil page or something... I think it'd be difficult to determine because there'd be no listing on major web indexes based on dates to my knowledge. I'd bank on it being an edu or gov related site.
its not this one
Personally I would reword that advertisement...
This incredible German made product will send you visiting your local hospital in no time. Yes YOU TOO can now break your ankles, hit your head on traffic lights, rupture your hamstrings, and look mightly stupid on these banana colored geek toys for retards with little sense of safety.
As the east coast distributors for POWERSHIT, we would like to thank the doctors in our area for paying us to release this product as greater revenue for us, means bigger bucks for them. While I am tempted to tell you the truth, I won't because I simply won't make any money from idiots like yourself. So buy now think later when your on a hospital bed with multiple injuries!!!
April fools its not a link
While tinkering recently with Outguess, I took a simple image about 28k and used a 1k text file to combine it into a new image (steganography owns). Well in certain instances depending on what I decided to embed into the image, the image would drop in size to about 7k some times, and other times it would still drop in size. Only once did it ever go over 28k which was when I embedded about 50k worth of text into the image, which still looked crisp to the naked eye.
Just thought I would share this. At one point I was thinking about making a script to lower the sizing of the many pics I have on my porn section, but I never bothered.
I also noticed there were other tricks to saving space on files but again, never got around to mentioning them, maybe some time I will who knows.
Are you kidding... While the 2.5 talks are going on, at the rate their releasing kernels, 2.7 will be out while they speak about 2.5.
They just released 2.4.3 yesterday didn't they, I can see someone fscking up and overlapping by releasing 2 kernels on the same day...
I'll stick with the BSD's thank you
Instead of releasing something every week or month or whatever, I think the developers of Linux should make it a quarterly process, and release kernels with a slew of things fixed or added. It seems everytime something comes out in the market (new USB device, new anything) they rev up a new release and fire it out.
This (in my opinion, since I'm entitled to it whether or not you mod this down) makes Linux look like such a novelty to business managers who don't understand tech, but sign purchase orders for the geeks who do buy equipment.
Explaining why the hell you have to take about *umpteen* hours in downtime upgrading kernels every so often becomes such a hassle. At least with BSD fixes are easy, and releases aren't done everytime someone *thinks* their new revision is revolutionary enough to release another current.
Just my two cents on the Lnux side of things.
csh-2.04# uname -a
FreeBSD ritalin.deficiency.org i386
movie starz
Its no surprise the Secret Service has Gone too far, but what I see happening is, they may be concerned with persons, embezzling money than using companies such as e-gold, as a means of hiding their traces.
Regardless of what the company actuall does, for those who don't keep up on privacy issues I suggest you read up on James Bell and how his "Assassination Politics" paper landed him in jail for using the same kind of anonymouse untraceable methods in theory...
As for the Secret Service using "credit card" fraud as an excuse, how come they never raid the businesses of adult sites all over the Internet? Or Amazon when someone cards them? Shady tacticts...
Microsoft Corporation are actually murderers.
New York, N.Y. March 30th,2001
In an independent study conducted this month by staff at AntiOffline.com, and MacroShaft.org, it was revelead that Microsoft is killing people on a daily basis, with the evidence verified by statisticians at New York University's Mike Hunt.
"Based on these estimated projections, it seems the Justice Department needs to begin a prompt investigation into this matter." states Mike.
Judging on data gathered on a one month term this is the output:
Windows users crash an estimated two times a day which requires an estimated 3 minutes to reboot. Result?
(Rough estimates)
100 million Windows users x 120 seconds == 507 years lost. 6 deaths a day are attributed to this product. This alone does not include any estimates from those users who have to reboot upon installing programs. Nor does this include time spent configuring TCP/IP reboots.
With an estimated dollar amount of about 22 million dollars lost weekly (this is a generous amount) due to these reboots, its strange that no company has gone bankrupt.
"If anyone would care to break these figures down into dramatic fashion, their would probably be global catastrophes." states Sil of AntiOffline
The difference between life and death on the workplace is no longer restricted to psychotic Postal workers, but rather a more chilling enemy known as the Blue Screen of Death.
We've yet attempted to solidly document that *actual* numbers out of fears our calculator could not reach the given amount, so we actually have given Microsoft what could be an actual death toll of 20-30 people daily.
Staff at Microsoft declined to return our e-mails repeatedly but we will continue to pursue the numbers as time goes by.
President George W. Bush today also intervened on Microsoft's behalf stating, AntiOffline's numbers are fuzzy math. Sil could not be contacted for comment.
"Windows -- When do you want to reboot today?"
who'd a thought