IMHO, it's very interesting to compare the "symptoms" of mild-autism, ADD (and ADHD), and the "hacker mentaility". Perhaps what makes geeks geeks is a different way our brains are wired.
Most of the comments below are very informative and accurate-but if all you have is 2B ISDN or fractional T-1 line, your connection to the net-at-large will choke long before the box itself is no longer capable of serving out pages.
This can be useful. If you don't want your machine dying from overload, purposly putting a bandwith throttle on it protects the machine-while denying some people access when things are busy. This is bad for an e-commerce site, but for your purposes, that may not be an issue.
If you are trying to be up all the time, regardless of load, you will have to have a pipe to the internet that can match what your server can put out. If you've only got an ISDN line, forget about a dual Alpha setup-you'll never get close to slashdotting the box.
'm not saying Microsoft doesn't still have an unfair advantage, but I'm wondering what time frame this trial is supposed to be considering. Is the question, "Does Microsoft have a monopoly today?" or is it, "Did Microsoft have a monopoly in 1997 (or whenever this thing began)?" They are different questions, and I think we need to know which one is being asked (as does the judge) before making a decision.
The question asked is "Did MS abuse monopoly powers in 1997". You cannot sue for something that *might* happen, and the DOJ is not suing MS for being a monoply-which is not against the law.
The DOJ is suing on the grounds that MS, as a de facto monopoly on the desktop O/S (which it still is today), used that monopoly to leverage other works. So, whether Red Hat in 1999 is a competitor to MS is irrelevant.
This is like saying "Well, I don't bribe cops *now*, so I'm not guilty.
I don't suppose the astronauts will be fighting these things with lightsabers
"But how am I supposed to land the shuttle with the blast shield down?"
"Your senses can deceive you. Use the force"
Re:Stop spouting bull...
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 1
If I had to choose, I would use Windows 2000 (which simply kicks ass - Beta 3 uptime: 123 days , no crashes or restarts since installation, running IIS 5, serving a live web site)
Lets see. Accoring to MS, W2KB3 was released to manufacting on April 29, 1999. (see this). 30 days Has Sep,Apr,Jun and Nov. So, That means, provided you got the FIRST disk out of manufacturing, and they got that CD made the FIRST day they had the gold master. SO, you got it on the 29th of April. And lets say you installed that day. So you're first possible up day would be April 30th. Last day of April. Lets do the math..
April, 1 day. May, 31 days, total of 32. June, 30 days, total of 62. July, 31 days, total of 93. August. Currently. its the 28th. So, 27 full days gone, 93+27=120.
You lie like the microsoft dog you are. Even if you got that disk on the day it was released, then you CANNOT run a machine for 123 days in 120 days time. And considering manufactoring, shipping and install time, I'll bet you're barely over 100-assuming, of course, you're definition of uptime includes reboots 'cause the log is full.
Those of you ranting about the iMac isn't an original box, or how the eOne is a crappy copy, are missing the point.
It is not legal, nor right, to try to "steal" a brand identity. The Coke bottle, the IBM logo, the corvette shape and logotype, hell even then name "Linux" all imply a certain value to the consumer. If you see a fluted bottle filled with a brown liquid, with a script typeface on one side and a serif typeface on the other, you are clearly looking at a bottle of "Coca-Cola"-and can choose to drink (or not-if you really hate coke, the bottle's a quick way to avoid it).
Emachines in is no way positioning thier product as a better product. In thier ideal world, they would have the eOne right next to the iMac so that uninformed customers would buy it.
Hell, even their little demonstration applet is cribbed from the iMac commercials.
Building a simple, all in one computer dosen't violate look-and-feel. Even the most ignorant user wouldn't confuse the Compaq Presario 400 series and the iMac. If they had made the case solid blue-or black-or white-or a different shape- then look-and-feel wouldn't have been violated.
But they 1) Made parts of the case transparent blue, 2) Installed the CD-ROM dead center, 3) Offer matching-color coordinated keyboards and mice-the keyboard practially looks like it is an iMac keyboard 3) Chose a simliar name (four characters, with the second capitalized. 4) Chose similar logos (Apple-Think Differerent, Emachines-Think. Learn. Play.)
What if someone put out an operating system called "Finux?" (nods to Neal Stephanson), and called the windows manager "Dwarf" -and used a handprint as the logo?
Winning by better technology (ie-two button mouse vs. one button, FDD vs. no FDD) is fine. Winning-or even competing-by stealing identity cues is wrong, and always will be.
This case is *FUD*-at it's core. They are sowing uncertainty and doubt by deliberatly aping the iMac identity-and it's wrong. If the eOne is so superior and easy to use, it should triumph on its own over the iMac. Instead, Emachines is trying to say "well, our all in one computer is just the same, but with our extensions." Does this sound familiar.
I'm against lame lawsuits as much as the next guy. Apple lost the look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft, because it was obvious, at first glance, that the Macintosh System and Windows were two different products. That's what "look and feel" means-Is a product distinctive?
In this case, no. Emachines deserves to lose. If they can make a better iMac, then they should make it look distinct-so customers wouldn't buy the iMac by mistake. The fact that they made it damn near identical means they don't think they can beat the iMac, so they are trying to snipe a few sales away.
Feh. Typical Microrwellian tacticts. Put aside your hated of Apple and realize that the tactic is wrong.
Re:But what's the benefit for science and humanity
on
Cassini visits Earth
·
· Score: 1
One the other hand, the rejection of a solar power source for Cassini meant what could have been a major push for solar power technology did not happen.
Bzzt, sorry, thank you for playing. NASA *wants* to use solar power. Solar power is cheap, easy and comes with no political headaches.
But, at Saturn, the solar flux is 1/90th that of earth's. AND-Cassini needs to broadcast data much farther than your typical geosat. If Cassini used the most efficient solar panels know at launch time (which, of course, is impossible, since it takes at least a couple of years to build/test a probe, it would have been much heavier-and thus, it couldn't be launched with the boosters then in use.
I am not making this statement as a blind advocate of solar power. But I do notice that a choice was made to spend a lot of money, officially on a basic science mission, in such a way that indirect benefits go to the military, and not to sustainable civilian uses.
No, money was spent on the only power source, know to man, that would be able to drive several instruments, record data, and transmit that data from the orbit of saturn. Furthermore, Pioneer 10 and Voyagers I and II are all RTG powered, and are still scientifically useful.
This isn't a nuclear/non nuclear or civilian/military question. This is a simple engineering exercise.
The ONLY power source capable of running the insturments aboard, and transmitting back that data, from a jovain orbit or farther, while still remaining light enough to be lauchable, is an RTG. Therefore, an RTG was used.
Furthermore, a reboot or a service restart is, in a production box, exactly the same as a crash. If a service stops working, it's the same as crash, as far as the user is concerned. A web server that cannot serve webpages is USELESS. A ecommerce site that cannot present a catalog or take a transaction is more that useless-it loses customers. Why is it that this wonder-fscking-ful operating system of yours hasn't been able to show me a page since tuesday..
-flips over, checks w2ktest-still dead- -checks crackppc, sees this in log- >Aug 7 1999 11:38AM CDT: >Machine up 3 days. 0 min. Well this is >ridiculous now isn't it.
This lousy PowerMac 9500-a 18 month old box, has been beaten on for 3 days, is showing more services that the win2k box, and hasn't died yet.
Hasn't had a service that needed to be restarted yet.
Hasn't had a reboot yet.
Oh yeah-hasn't been broken into yet, either.
This isn't FUD. This is simple fact. www.windows2000test.com has shown that Windows 2000 and IIS 5.0 are not suitable for production use. So far, it seems that LinuxPPC is much closer to ready that Win2k.
So, why don't you go tell Bill that his OS ain't ready-and why don't you get back to work and fix the problems that Win2k has?
As of 1506CST, it's not answering any http request, tho it does ping. nmap shows no open ports. Gee, useful box.
I don't know what kind of security test this turned out to be, but I fully intend to use this as a reliablity test if/when the PHB start asking for win2k
Well it is. Liquid hydrogen and Oxygen are explosives. So is the Ammonia Perchlorate in the SRBs. There are destruct packages on the SRB, but there's no need for the Main Engines. Remeber-it's a glider-a piss poor one, but a glider. In the event of an off course launch that would impact land, they would drop the SRBs and ET, destruct the SRBs if needed, and the orbiter would either A) Go back to the Cape-which is a big reason for most of the weather restrictions. B) Go across the Atlantic and land in Spain or Africa, depending C) Everyone jumps out with the parachutes they now have-and didn't then. This is called a contingency abort, and means that the orbiter is toast. NASA assumes that the chances surviving a ditch into the ocean are near nil, so the orbiter is abandoned.
Acutally, if the engines are working, but they aren't going into the right orbit, they would AOA-Abort Once Around. Go in to orbit, drop the ET and SRB, and deboost and come home.
The operations recorders are powered by the shuttle's main power system, connect to, IIRC, bus MNA. You can read about the power system here.
Note that all the power comes from the fuel cells under the payload bay. Note that the cabin was seperated from the orbiter at the moment of the expolsion. Note no batteries on the shuttle. The AC inverters were located forward-but AC would have dried up the moment DC died. So...
The power was disconnect at the moment of explosion.
The operations recorders require power to operate, therefore:
There was no voice recording following the explosion. QED
The last recorded clear voice record from the Challenger was "Rodger, go at throttle up" - this is when the shuttle is through the densest part of the atmosphere, and can push the engines back to full throttle. There is another word/sound shortlu, which in buried in static, but all you can hear are the vowels. They do sound alot like "UhOh", but with the static, there's no sure way to tell.
There were two guys on the moon-but there was a third-Michael Collins, orbiting above the moon in the CSM. Am I seriously supposed to believe that NASA could cut off communications to the LEM without the help of Collins?
Remember, according to the BBC, the astronauts had no knowledge of this plan. So, we are supposed to take the one confirmed fact-that Nixon had a speech ready in case the LEM didn't make the ascent, and blow in up into a conspiracy. This is worse than the shuttle. For all of this be true, we have to assume that.
1) The LEM was equipped with a remote kill on the transmitter. Note that the crew had a full set of schematics on board. If it was in the schematics, they'd find it. If it wasn't, they wonder what the hell that thing in the transmitter was.
2) That Collins was either in on it, or could be browbeaten into submission. He'd worked with Armstrong and Aldrin for years. I seriously doubt that he'd abandon them to silence if something happened. Of course, the conspiracy buffs will say "Collins would die too..."- but that assumes that we're willing to accept that the LEM and the CSM, currently seperated by about 50-100 miles, would fail at the same time.
I can belive that NASA did have a plan for a failed LEM ascent, and it most likely was "Bring Collins home, mourn Armstrong and Aldrin"-there wasn't much choice if the LEM didn't work-it would be months before another Saturn V/Apollo CSM/LEM would be ready to launch. And I can believe Nixon had a speech prepared for the event. He probably had one read for a failure at launch, a failure at recovery, ect. ect. ect.
Furthermore, a failed ascent would have involved one of four scenarios.
1) The engine didn't fire. NASA wouldn't cut off communcations-they'd pull late nighters to fix the damn thing. Witness Apollo 13. They might have failed, and died-but we'd have heard it live. If they did die, you could bet that Apollo 12's sole mission, if it flew, would be to bring Armstrong's and Aldrin's bodies back home. Medals of Honor, Arlington Cemetary, the whole shebang.
2) The engine fires, but without enough power to put the LEM into an orbit. Armstrong and Aldrin get a few minutes to say goodbye, then suffer an "Uncontrolled Flight into Lunar Terrain". Apollo 12 get to do the science jobs that 11 missed, and lays a wreath. If there was enough left over, see 1) above.
3) The engine blows up. Two smears on the landscape. Communications do get cut off, and Nixon makes his speach, but for obvious reasons. Wreath time again-maybe a return of remains, but not likely to be very much to return.
4) The engine fires enough to put the LEM into an orbit, but not the correct one. Here, it depends on food/air/fuel states aboard the LEM and CSM. Co mputers churn, and either they dock and rescue, or they fail and Collins comes home. Apollo 12 goes and get the remains later.
The PI is the guy who gets the grant, controls the research and gets his name first on the papers. He only responsible to whomever got the grant. They tend to be hard to work with.
He won't accept "MS bug"-he'll say "Then why did you spend my money on that piece of s**t server". He won't accept that you have a day off. There will be yelling involved-talk to anyone who works as a "grant monkey"-try your local research hospital, or large tech oriented university.
Oh-and NOBODY works hourly in a research facitlity-mainly because nobody works 40 hours.
It's not a life I'd care to live. I've done some contract work for them, and while it paid well, I'm not eager to jump back in.
Unfortunatly, not. If you site gets cracked, you can't assume anything on the machine is safe-you need to wipe it, reinstall, apply every patch that you can find, and then grovel over a backup of the hacked site to see if you find a new hole. It's an enormous PITA.
It may be funny to the joker who decided to post it, and it does seem harmless, but the sysadmin who runs that machine has just found himself with a minium 48 hour job-and then, of course explaining to the boss-no, the Primary Investigator, what the hell happened, and why he didn't stop it.
(The PI is the guy who got the grant. They are not noted for thier sense of humor-or proportion)
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. See anyone you know? ;)
IMHO, it's very interesting to compare the "symptoms" of mild-autism, ADD (and ADHD), and the "hacker mentaility". Perhaps what makes geeks geeks is a different way our brains are wired.
Most of the comments below are very informative and accurate-but if all you have is 2B ISDN or fractional T-1 line, your connection to the net-at-large will choke long before the box itself is no longer capable of serving out pages.
This can be useful. If you don't want your machine dying from overload, purposly putting a bandwith throttle on it protects the machine-while denying some people access when things are busy. This is bad for an e-commerce site, but for your purposes, that may not be an issue.
If you are trying to be up all the time, regardless of load, you will have to have a pipe to the internet that can match what your server can put out. If you've only got an ISDN line, forget about a dual Alpha setup-you'll never get close to slashdotting the box.
'm not saying Microsoft doesn't still have an unfair advantage, but I'm wondering what time frame this trial is supposed to be considering. Is the question, "Does Microsoft have a monopoly today?" or is it, "Did Microsoft have a monopoly in 1997 (or whenever this thing began)?" They are different questions, and I think we need to know which one is being asked (as does the judge) before making a decision.
The question asked is "Did MS abuse monopoly powers in 1997". You cannot sue for something that *might* happen, and the DOJ is not suing MS for being a monoply-which is not against the law.
The DOJ is suing on the grounds that MS, as a de facto monopoly on the desktop O/S (which it still is today), used that monopoly to leverage other works. So, whether Red Hat in 1999 is a competitor to MS is irrelevant.
This is like saying "Well, I don't bribe cops *now*, so I'm not guilty.
I don't suppose the astronauts will be fighting these things with lightsabers
"But how am I supposed to land the shuttle with the blast shield down?"
"Your senses can deceive you. Use the force"
If I had to choose, I would use Windows 2000 (which simply kicks ass - Beta 3 uptime: 123 days , no crashes or restarts since installation, running IIS 5, serving a live web site)
Lets see. Accoring to MS, W2KB3 was released to manufacting on April 29, 1999. (see this). 30 days Has Sep,Apr,Jun and Nov. So, That means, provided you got the FIRST disk out of manufacturing, and they got that CD made the FIRST day they had the gold master. SO, you got it on the 29th of April. And lets say you installed that day. So you're first possible up day would be April 30th. Last day of April. Lets do the math..
April, 1 day. May, 31 days, total of 32. June, 30 days, total of 62. July, 31 days, total of 93. August. Currently. its the 28th. So, 27 full days gone, 93+27=120.
You lie like the microsoft dog you are. Even if you got that disk on the day it was released, then you CANNOT run a machine for 123 days in 120 days time. And considering manufactoring, shipping and install time, I'll bet you're barely over 100-assuming, of course, you're definition of uptime includes reboots 'cause the log is full.
Back under the Bridge, Troll!
Those of you ranting about the iMac isn't an original box, or how the eOne is a crappy copy, are missing the point.
It is not legal, nor right, to try to "steal" a brand identity. The Coke bottle, the IBM logo, the corvette shape and logotype, hell even then name "Linux" all imply a certain value to the consumer. If you see a fluted bottle filled with a brown liquid, with a script typeface on one side and a serif typeface on the other, you are clearly looking at a bottle of "Coca-Cola"-and can choose to drink (or not-if you really hate coke, the bottle's a quick way to avoid it).
Emachines in is no way positioning thier product as a better product. In thier ideal world, they would have the eOne right next to the iMac so that uninformed customers would buy it.
Hell, even their little demonstration applet is cribbed from the iMac commercials.
Building a simple, all in one computer dosen't violate look-and-feel. Even the most ignorant user wouldn't confuse the Compaq Presario 400 series and the iMac. If they had made the case solid blue-or black-or white-or a different shape- then look-and-feel wouldn't have been violated.
But they 1) Made parts of the case transparent blue, 2) Installed the CD-ROM dead center, 3) Offer matching-color coordinated keyboards and mice-the keyboard practially looks like it is an iMac keyboard 3) Chose a simliar name (four characters, with the second capitalized. 4) Chose similar logos (Apple-Think Differerent, Emachines-Think. Learn. Play.)
What if someone put out an operating system called "Finux?" (nods to Neal Stephanson), and called the windows manager "Dwarf" -and used a handprint as the logo?
Winning by better technology (ie-two button mouse vs. one button, FDD vs. no FDD) is fine. Winning-or even competing-by stealing identity cues is wrong, and always will be.
This case is *FUD*-at it's core. They are sowing uncertainty and doubt by deliberatly aping the iMac identity-and it's wrong. If the eOne is so superior and easy to use, it should triumph on its own over the iMac. Instead, Emachines is trying to say "well, our all in one computer is just the same, but with our extensions." Does this sound familiar.
I'm against lame lawsuits as much as the next guy. Apple lost the look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft, because it was obvious, at first glance, that the Macintosh System and Windows were two different products. That's what "look and feel" means-Is a product distinctive?
In this case, no. Emachines deserves to lose. If they can make a better iMac, then they should make it look distinct-so customers wouldn't buy the iMac by mistake. The fact that they made it damn near identical means they don't think they can beat the iMac, so they are trying to snipe a few sales away.
Feh. Typical Microrwellian tacticts. Put aside your hated of Apple and realize that the tactic is wrong.
One the other hand, the rejection of a solar power source for Cassini meant what could have been a major push for solar power technology did not happen.
Bzzt, sorry, thank you for playing. NASA *wants* to use solar power. Solar power is cheap, easy and comes with no political headaches.
But, at Saturn, the solar flux is 1/90th that of earth's. AND-Cassini needs to broadcast data much farther than your typical geosat. If Cassini used the most efficient solar panels know at launch time (which, of course, is impossible, since it takes at least a couple of years to build/test a probe, it would have been much heavier-and thus, it couldn't be launched with the boosters then in use.
I am not making this statement as a blind advocate of solar power. But I do notice that a choice was made to spend a lot of money, officially on a basic science mission, in such a way that indirect benefits go to the military, and not to sustainable civilian uses.
No, money was spent on the only power source, know to man, that would be able to drive several instruments, record data, and transmit that data from the orbit of saturn. Furthermore, Pioneer 10 and Voyagers I and II are all RTG powered, and are still scientifically useful.
This isn't a nuclear/non nuclear or civilian/military question. This is a simple engineering exercise.
The ONLY power source capable of running the insturments aboard, and transmitting back that data, from a jovain orbit or farther, while still remaining light enough to be lauchable, is an RTG. Therefore, an RTG was used.
I tried to read the log-but I can't get in.
Furthermore, a reboot or a service restart is, in a production box, exactly the same as a crash. If a service stops working, it's the same as crash, as far as the user is concerned. A web server that cannot serve webpages is USELESS. A ecommerce site that cannot present a catalog or take a transaction is more that useless-it loses customers. Why is it that this wonder-fscking-ful operating system of yours hasn't been able to show me a page since tuesday..
-flips over, checks w2ktest-still dead-
-checks crackppc, sees this in log-
>Aug 7 1999 11:38AM CDT:
>Machine up 3 days. 0 min. Well this is >ridiculous now isn't it.
This lousy PowerMac 9500-a 18 month old box, has been beaten on for 3 days, is showing more services that the win2k box, and hasn't died yet.
Hasn't had a service that needed to be restarted yet.
Hasn't had a reboot yet.
Oh yeah-hasn't been broken into yet, either.
This isn't FUD. This is simple fact. www.windows2000test.com has shown that Windows 2000 and IIS 5.0 are not suitable for production use. So far, it seems that LinuxPPC is much closer to ready that Win2k.
So, why don't you go tell Bill that his OS ain't ready-and why don't you get back to work and fix the problems that Win2k has?
As of 1506CST, it's not answering any http request, tho it does ping. nmap shows no open ports. Gee, useful box.
I don't know what kind of security test this turned out to be, but I fully intend to use this as a reliablity test if/when the PHB start asking for win2k
Acutally, if the engines are working, but they aren't going into the right orbit, they would AOA-Abort Once Around. Go in to orbit, drop the ET and SRB, and deboost and come home.
Check out this for a comprehensive covereage of the mission profile-and the oops lists-AOA, ATO, ATL, ATLS and Contingency Aborts.
The operations recorders are powered by the shuttle's main power system, connect to, IIRC, bus MNA. You can read about the power system here.
Note that all the power comes from the fuel cells under the payload bay. Note that the cabin was seperated from the orbiter at the moment of the expolsion. Note no batteries on the shuttle. The AC inverters were located forward-but AC would have dried up the moment DC died. So...
The power was disconnect at the moment of explosion.
The operations recorders require power to operate, therefore:
There was no voice recording following the explosion. QED
The last recorded clear voice record from the Challenger was "Rodger, go at throttle up" - this is when the shuttle is through the densest part of the atmosphere, and can push the engines back to full throttle. There is another word/sound shortlu, which in buried in static, but all you can hear are the vowels. They do sound alot like "UhOh", but with the static, there's no sure way to tell.
Remember, according to the BBC, the astronauts had no knowledge of this plan. So, we are supposed to take the one confirmed fact-that Nixon had a speech ready in case the LEM didn't make the ascent, and blow in up into a conspiracy. This is worse than the shuttle. For all of this be true, we have to assume that.
1) The LEM was equipped with a remote kill on the transmitter. Note that the crew had a full set of schematics on board. If it was in the schematics, they'd find it. If it wasn't, they wonder what the hell that thing in the transmitter was.
2) That Collins was either in on it, or could be browbeaten into submission. He'd worked with Armstrong and Aldrin for years. I seriously doubt that he'd abandon them to silence if something happened. Of course, the conspiracy buffs will say "Collins would die too..."- but that assumes that we're willing to accept that the LEM and the CSM, currently seperated by about 50-100 miles, would fail at the same time.
I can belive that NASA did have a plan for a failed LEM ascent, and it most likely was "Bring Collins home, mourn Armstrong and Aldrin"-there wasn't much choice if the LEM didn't work-it would be months before another Saturn V/Apollo CSM/LEM would be ready to launch. And I can believe Nixon had a speech prepared for the event. He probably had one read for a failure at launch, a failure at recovery, ect. ect. ect.
Furthermore, a failed ascent would have involved one of four scenarios.
1) The engine didn't fire. NASA wouldn't cut off communcations-they'd pull late nighters to fix the damn thing. Witness Apollo 13. They might have failed, and died-but we'd have heard it live. If they did die, you could bet that Apollo 12's sole mission, if it flew, would be to bring Armstrong's and Aldrin's bodies back home. Medals of Honor, Arlington Cemetary, the whole shebang.
2) The engine fires, but without enough power to put the LEM into an orbit. Armstrong and Aldrin get a few minutes to say goodbye, then suffer an "Uncontrolled Flight into Lunar Terrain". Apollo 12 get to do the science jobs that 11 missed, and lays a wreath. If there was enough left over, see 1) above.
3) The engine blows up. Two smears on the landscape. Communications do get cut off, and Nixon makes his speach, but for obvious reasons. Wreath time again-maybe a return of remains, but not likely to be very much to return.
4) The engine fires enough to put the LEM into an orbit, but not the correct one. Here, it depends on food/air/fuel states aboard the LEM and CSM. Co mputers churn, and either they dock and rescue, or they fail and Collins comes home. Apollo 12 goes and get the remains later.
Occam's razor, gentleman.
You haven't worked with research folks, have you?
The PI is the guy who gets the grant, controls the research and gets his name first on the papers. He only responsible to whomever got the grant. They tend to be hard to work with.
He won't accept "MS bug"-he'll say "Then why did you spend my money on that piece of s**t server". He won't accept that you have a day off. There will be yelling involved-talk to anyone who works as a "grant monkey"-try your local research hospital, or large tech oriented university.
Oh-and NOBODY works hourly in a research facitlity-mainly because nobody works 40 hours.
It's not a life I'd care to live. I've done some contract work for them, and while it paid well, I'm not eager to jump back in.
Unfortunatly, not. If you site gets cracked, you can't assume anything on the machine is safe-you need to wipe it, reinstall, apply every patch that you can find, and then grovel over a backup of the hacked site to see if you find a new hole. It's an enormous PITA.
It may be funny to the joker who decided to post it, and it does seem harmless, but the sysadmin who runs that machine has just found himself with a minium 48 hour job-and then, of course explaining to the boss-no, the Primary Investigator, what the hell happened, and why he didn't stop it.
(The PI is the guy who got the grant. They are not noted for thier sense of humor-or proportion)