Especially under NMCI(Navy Marine Corps Intranet), Linux is not even listed as an approved legacy system, much less something EDS will agree to support.
I guess this means that if I want to mount a pirate attack on the DOD, I should make the Marines my beachhead?
Sir! The enemy is sighted, and they are using ISS!
Arrgh! Prepare to board them, and take no prisoners!
Can you beat the crap out of the guy AND charge him with wire fraud;) ?
Depends on the mood of the cops that deal with him. I was once involved in the citizens arrest of a guy that was abusing his girlfriend on the street. I was on the bus, and when we saw this, the bus driver stopped, and a bunch of us got out to help the woman. As soon as he saw that help was comming, the guy just stopped, and didn't offer any resistance. When we asked him what was going on, he said "That's OK, she's just my ex". That's when I placed him under arrest.
While we were waiting for the cops to show up (took maybe 2 minutes), another passenger got off the bus, called the guy a fu*king asshole and punched him in the face, giving him a bloody nose.
When the cops showed up, they asked about the bloody nose, and I replied, "somebody hit him". They didn't blink and they didn't bother to ask any further.
Although I'm generally anti-violence and waved off the guy that hit this bastard, I'm not completely sad about that outcome. I'm presuming that he plead guilty because I haven't heard any further from the cops about this incident.
After all, if the "hack" is "I left my password out in the open and someone took it", then that's not PayPal's fault, now is it?
From reading the PayPal agreement, it seems that a seller is supposed to only send to a verified address of the buyer. If this is the case, then the $600 camera should be going to the paypal address. If not, then they should be able to demand a payment reversal.
It would be the fault of this Jun Jiang if (s)he didn't send the camera to the proper verified address. Complicity in fraud is not innocence.
Make your choices, and have fun. But I think its stupid. If you perform 99% of all transactions with a company online, why should you switch to phone for that last 1%?
If that bad 1% costs you half the income from the other 99%, when what's the value of doing the work to begin with?? You might as well walk away from the process and save yourself the trouble of doing all that work for the benefit of some crook.
Find out that adress, go over then and beat the crap out of the guy!
My thoughts is more along the lines of: find out who it is, track them down, and have them charged with wire fraud.
Chances are that the cost to paypal of dealing with the court order, etc. would be more than the cost of them dealing with this in a more sane manner... but what the hell!
And I really do think that the cretin that did this deserves to get a criminal record for this anyways... Chances are that this isn't the only account that (s)he's robbed.
If Adam Smith was alive today, George Bush would probably dismiss him as "that socialist". He'd probably be more at home with the Green Party than the Republicans -- although the some Green Party members might baulk at having 'the father of capitalism' as a mamber.
It's not easy being misrepresented for more than a century.
-
+/-one nautical mile is one arc minute (1/60th of 1/360th of the earth)...... extremely convenient for navigation, so much [so] that I doubt navigation would ever be changed to "metric".
One kilometre is 1/10,000 of the distance from the north/south pole to the equator. Much easier to count for us 10-fingered types.
There was a lot of chatter in the press about how Afghanistan proved that an air-only war was winnable. That's a pile of garbage. If it wasn't for the Northern Alliance on the ground, the war in Afghanistan would probably still be going on.
Supposedly this was a part of the 'war on terrorism'. The US war on terrorism. What disturbed most about this was that both the president and (to a lesser degree) the press disn't seem to care less about non-US lives lost in that war.
In the friendly-fire incidents where US lives were lost, there was a big to-do about the handful of US soldiers killed and how they were so brave, etc... yet there was barely a by-the-way for the Afghani lives lost -- even though there were almost always more afghanis killed than americans.
When the Canadians were killed by a US Pilot (I'm Canadian), President Bush didn't even bother to issue a public statement for more than a day.
That kind of disregard for foreigners is the kind of thing that leaves a lot of foreigners hating Americans. If they're clear that the US doesn't give a flying fart about their lives, rights or feelings, it's pretty hard to convince them that they should have any more respect for Americans.
Justice and Democracy are not reasonable predictors of whether the US will intervene somewhere. US Financial and strategic interests are. With the US threatening to go into Iraq with or without UN agreement, claiming to be the world's policeman is little more than spin-doctoring.
Most notably: with both Iraq and North Korea possibly trying to create nuclear weapons, Bush was hot to invade Iraq, but very slow to invde North Korea. The distinction here is not which is more likely to succeed -- it's which would be a formadible enemy. Iraq's army is essentially castrated. "Going to war" against them would be more of a shooting gallery than a war.
Korea is far more likely to obtain (and may even already have) nukes. Invading them, however would leave the US with a real fight. That Bush is unwilling to go into North Korea is what leaves me thinking that Bush is being more of a bully than a policeman with Iraq.
Do what George W always like to do... Send in the US Air Force to bomb China and Korea, that should solve things.
George won't bomb Korea or China. Bullies don't attack people who can fight back.
In Iraq, the US is/was facing an enemy essentially incapable of fighting back. In Afghanistan, the Northern alliance did almost all of the dirty ground fighting
((Afghanistan was not a bloodless war, or an air-only war. If the US had taken the kinds of casualties that the Alliance did in Afghanistan, it would not have been remembered as an easy victory.))
All that supression of research does is make it harder for the good guys to research and understand the issues. This isn't much different than the 'security through obscurity' arguments in the computer security field. It's not like terrorists don't do this sort of research. The difference is that the terrorists are free to tell each other about the results of their research.
If you're not allowed to tell someone that a truck is headed at them, all you end up with is a more surprised victim.
I really think that this is an issue that we ran into with the cryptography restrictions. Research is protected speech. period.
A tax cut does not put money into the economy. It is essentially a shotgun grant who's beneficiaries are very badly documented. A lot of people have claimed that such tax grants provide a net benefit to the populace in general, but I haven't seen much more than hand-waving in support of the claim.
The aftermath of the Regan tax cut appears to have been little more than increased government defecits and a lot of services cuts. What reason is there to believe that a new round of tax cuts is going to produce different results?
+4, -4=0
We're not even close to the record for a moderation war, so I suggest people jut stop moderating this posting, and save their points for something that'll make a difference.
The logic used is a path that I've seen used by lawyers on a regular basis. -- denial and misdirction independent of the available evidence.. forcing your opponent to prove your allegations false and hoping that, by then, people watching will forget the original point.
"
My client didn't steal that money -- and if he did, he had a real good reason for doing so.
"
Actually, one of the conservatives' arguments against global warming hysteria is that if the models are true, the uneven distribution of warming is mostly beneficial!
..... given:
1) The uncertainty of the science .....
Great: Now we've got lawyers arguing science!
"We don't understand the science -- in the alternative, if we did understand the science, we would come to a different conclusion than most scientists have been suggesting!".
I'm going to equate this to two people walking on a strangly configured trail.
Scientist: You know, I think we're walking on train tracks
conservative: No proof! It's probably just the tracks of a strange animal. Besides -- we've been walking here for hours and I haven't seen any train.
Scientist: Well I think I hear a train coming
Conservative: Could be the animal's mating call -- just sounds like a train.
Scientist: Well, I can feel it coming now... and it's much more obvious if you touch the rails.
Conservative: Might be an earthquake.
Scientist: Look! Right behind us. It's a locomotive!
Conservative: Perhaps if we just stand here we could hitch a ride
Scientist: I really do wish I could get rid of the chains that bind us together....
.....What if some clever fella came up with a way to drop the average global temperature by 2 degrees over the next 10 years......
It could be that by interfering with what very well may be a normal, natural process a larger aspect of the Earth's cycles may be disrupted, thus causing more harm. That's the real problem we face here. We really don't know!
(final emphasis mine)
You're equating two very differnt proposals here. Artificially dropping the global temperature by 2 degrees might ameliorate our own (accidental) intervention in the natural process, or it might set up a nasty backlash situation. I would agree that such an additional artificial (and probably simplistic) intervention should be looked at with extreme criticality.
Things like the Kyoto agreement are intended to get us out of the way of the natural processes. The proposition here is that (as you've pointed out) we really don't understand precisely which pandora box we've opened, but it could quite possibly be very nasty. Given that we don't understand the processes that we're accidently messing with, doesn't it make sense to work to minimize the extent to which we're messing with them?
This kind of mathematical stupidity (mistaking a curve snippet for a straight line) Is the kind of stuff that gets us in deep doodoo. This is much like the problem of people who expect that global warming will just mean slightly warmer winters... It won't. It'll mean deserts in places that used to be breadbaskets and vice versa.
Whatever hits the fan, will not be distributed evenly - Murphy's extended laws
As global warming changes the jetstreams and oceanic flows, Europe could end as cold as Northern Canada (which is at the same lattitude); Kansas could end up looking like Arizona and the Sahara could do any of a number of things. The results might be pretty for some people, but I don't think that most of us are going to like the results.
...the global CO2 concentration rise doesn't follow anywhere near such a linear trend.
Just because a linear regression was done, doesn't mean that the points are following a linear path.
I got this curve fit using a simple two point bezier (with the center points at either end). pretty clearly a nice curve.
The varience from the straight line is clearly not just random error, but I'm not quite sure if there's enough data points to properly investigate the nature of the curve. (it's been sooooo long since I've done that sort of analysis) That may be why they did a simple linear regression.
Over on the right there seems to be a lack of consideration for other very localized harm burning nasty stuff can cause. As a lifelong inhabitant of Los Angeles I've seen this first hand.
OK: so we've proven, conclusively that we can make massive changes in the local ecology. The fact that we can undeniably do it on a local scale adds credence to the idea that we can do the same on a global scale, rather than taking away.
The view on the left is just as harmful though. First, the non-stop claims about so many different dangers goes a long way to desensitizing the populace, as well as policy makers. The enviromentalists are a political movement, not a scientific body. Need to do something about the problem NOW, regardless if we really understand the problem or not.
This isn't a left problem. It's a press problem and a math problem. People don't understand mathematics and statistics. The press plays on this in their sensationalism. Both the right and the left play off of this. As an example: Smoking kills 7000 people a week. This is more than twice what was killed on Sept. 11. Unfortunately someone dieing of cancer or in a smoking related fire is very hard to get sensational film on...
The problem with global warning -- like with smoking -- is that the obvious response time is not instantaneous. A kid who starts smoking in 2000 isn't likely to die of cancer for at least 20 years -- the smoking/cancer ratio also isn't 1-1. This has allowed the Tobacco companies to hide behind plausable deniablility for decades. (that and the fact that some publishers are scared of losing the very substantial and consistent income that they get from those companies, which can leave them careful about pushing the issue)
Similarly, with global warming, Driving your car 2 blocks to the corner store doesn't suddenly cause a drought. This is rather like a slow stream of water cutting through a rock. The results aren't obvious on the first day -- or even the first decade -- but we're no longer questioning whether it happens.
When it comes right down to it, I don't believe we have conclusively proven two very key points. Is the global temperature really increasing? That seems to depend on which group of scientists looking at which data, then filtered through a LOT of political interests.
GLobal warming was considered an interesting and plausable -- but unproven -- theory in the early '70s. It had, however, passed the first scientific milestone of scientific plausability. It had proven consistent with past observations and generally accepted rules. The second step was to predict certain results that hadn't been observed so far. and wouldn't happen if the theory was wrong.
This is where we run into the long response cycle of Global warming: It took years and decades to collect evidence for/against the theory of global warming, but the proponderance of evidence so far has been strongly for that global warming is really happaning. The question is no longer 'if'. It is now a question of what will be the effects and what can/should we do about it.
Like water on the stone where there is no 'the' droplet which you can not drop on the stone to prevent the wearing, Driving to the store or using hairspray does make a difference. There is that final droplet the dropping of which will cause the two halves of the rock to split apart -- but by that time it's too late to save the rock. Similarly, with global warning, by the time the results are catastrophic, it will be too late for us to reverse the process.
The map of the area lost has a nice graph showing that the area of ice has been decreasing on a pretty-much constant basis since 1911 (actually, it looks like it might even be a slightly sub-linear quadratic/geometric curve). As proof of global warming, this doesn't seem like a smoking gun. Does someone have a model of what the area should have shrunk like if we had a constant average temperature/snowfall relationship slightly off of equilibrium?
This is not to say that I don't think global warming is real. I've seen enough other proof to believe that it's real. It's just that this specific data on Kilmanjaro (at least, what I've seen so far) doesn't seem to say anything more than that the Killmanjaro glaciers are shrinking. I don't have enough data to tell if this shrinkage pattern is a good bad or neutral indicator.
Does this mean X will run slightly slower compared with an suid installation?
You shouldn't have any extra code running on most system calls. System calls could run exactly as normal. The only time you have to do any extra checking is when a call would (otherwise) cause an exception.
The first thing that the exception code would have to do is see if there is a priv exception for that call (in which case it would be allowed). Otherwise you would get a normal error. Voila! all done.
Under this model, priv elevation would only cause a real performance hit if you did a huge number of 'dangerous' calls. The standard for most current SUID programs is to front load the dangerous stuff and then drop prives. In other words, most SUID program only have a couple (or a couple dozen) 'root' calls. Any programs that do more than that are likely be non-SUID (and need you to be root before you start them).
Apache, for example, might only need an elevation check when opening port 80 and (perhaps) the log files, not on (the more numerous) write/read calls. Similarly with X.
For those of you old enough to remember, the original mac 1 came in two flavors.. One had 128K of ram, the other had 512K. The maximum memory that the hardware/software design could handle was 8Meg of ram (the 68000 was capable of handling 16MEG, but the upper half was reserved for I/O... Remember that this compares favorably with the 8086 which could handle 1meg max in 64K chunks.
The 68K series design, however, was capable of handling a 4Gig address space. The only reason why the 68000 was limited to a 16meg address space was that only 24 of the possible 32 address bits were brought out to the bus. (there was actually a 68012 which was little more than a specialty 68000 with all 32 address pins available).
When the Mac II originally came out, it ran on the 68020 which made it the first general-availability 68K system with a 32bit address space.
Unfortunately, the biggest general-availability memory chips were a whopping 1megabit. This meant that a 2Gigabyte memory module would require 16000 1meg chips. (and that's presuming no parity or ECC!)
I did some back-of-the-envelope design work, and concluded that the best design for a 2GB MacII memory module would be to camoflage it as a desk. The top of the desk would hold the memory cards and there would be two pillars.
One would be a cooling unit, the other would be the 16KiloWatt power supply. (now you know why I needed a cooling pillar)
I called my (theoretical) creation the MemDesk. Never could find an investor to pay for the development, though.
It's a lucky thing that I'm not metamoderating. I could let someone get away with calling it 'interesting', but to moderate such a convoluted and almost self-conflicting argument as 'insightful' makes my logic circuits curl.
The vast majority of people who don't run Wintendos for server applications have Office Suite running on it. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some server applications that also require users to load Office.
In any event, with such a high percentage or Windows users also having Office loaded, the security issues caused by Office are effectively a Windows problem. -- and it's a really nasty security problem.
Windows' fuzzy delineation between the user and the system doesn't help things much, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess this means that if I want to mount a pirate attack on the DOD, I should make the Marines my beachhead?
Depends on the mood of the cops that deal with him. I was once involved in the citizens arrest of a guy that was abusing his girlfriend on the street. I was on the bus, and when we saw this, the bus driver stopped, and a bunch of us got out to help the woman. As soon as he saw that help was comming, the guy just stopped, and didn't offer any resistance. When we asked him what was going on, he said "That's OK, she's just my ex". That's when I placed him under arrest.
While we were waiting for the cops to show up (took maybe 2 minutes), another passenger got off the bus, called the guy a fu*king asshole and punched him in the face, giving him a bloody nose.
When the cops showed up, they asked about the bloody nose, and I replied, "somebody hit him". They didn't blink and they didn't bother to ask any further.
Although I'm generally anti-violence and waved off the guy that hit this bastard, I'm not completely sad about that outcome. I'm presuming that he plead guilty because I haven't heard any further from the cops about this incident.
From reading the PayPal agreement, it seems that a seller is supposed to only send to a verified address of the buyer. If this is the case, then the $600 camera should be going to the paypal address. If not, then they should be able to demand a payment reversal.
It would be the fault of this Jun Jiang if (s)he didn't send the camera to the proper verified address. Complicity in fraud is not innocence.
If that bad 1% costs you half the income from the other 99%, when what's the value of doing the work to begin with?? You might as well walk away from the process and save yourself the trouble of doing all that work for the benefit of some crook.
My thoughts is more along the lines of: find out who it is, track them down, and have them charged with wire fraud.
Chances are that the cost to paypal of dealing with the court order, etc. would be more than the cost of them dealing with this in a more sane manner... but what the hell!
And I really do think that the cretin that did this deserves to get a criminal record for this anyways... Chances are that this isn't the only account that (s)he's robbed.
It's not easy being misrepresented for more than a century.
One kilometre is 1/10,000 of the distance from the north/south pole to the equator. Much easier to count for us 10-fingered types.
Probably his favorite internet radio station said to him:
"If this bill passes, so will we"
Things like that can really open up some peoples' eyes.
Supposedly this was a part of the 'war on terrorism'. The US war on terrorism. What disturbed most about this was that both the president and (to a lesser degree) the press disn't seem to care less about non-US lives lost in that war.
In the friendly-fire incidents where US lives were lost, there was a big to-do about the handful of US soldiers killed and how they were so brave, etc... yet there was barely a by-the-way for the Afghani lives lost -- even though there were almost always more afghanis killed than americans.
When the Canadians were killed by a US Pilot (I'm Canadian), President Bush didn't even bother to issue a public statement for more than a day.
That kind of disregard for foreigners is the kind of thing that leaves a lot of foreigners hating Americans. If they're clear that the US doesn't give a flying fart about their lives, rights or feelings, it's pretty hard to convince them that they should have any more respect for Americans.
Justice and Democracy are not reasonable predictors of whether the US will intervene somewhere. US Financial and strategic interests are. With the US threatening to go into Iraq with or without UN agreement, claiming to be the world's policeman is little more than spin-doctoring.
Most notably: with both Iraq and North Korea possibly trying to create nuclear weapons, Bush was hot to invade Iraq, but very slow to invde North Korea. The distinction here is not which is more likely to succeed -- it's which would be a formadible enemy. Iraq's army is essentially castrated. "Going to war" against them would be more of a shooting gallery than a war.
Korea is far more likely to obtain (and may even already have) nukes. Invading them, however would leave the US with a real fight. That Bush is unwilling to go into North Korea is what leaves me thinking that Bush is being more of a bully than a policeman with Iraq.
George won't bomb Korea or China. Bullies don't attack people who can fight back.
In Iraq, the US is/was facing an enemy essentially incapable of fighting back. In Afghanistan, the Northern alliance did almost all of the dirty ground fighting
((Afghanistan was not a bloodless war, or an air-only war. If the US had taken the kinds of casualties that the Alliance did in Afghanistan, it would not have been remembered as an easy victory.))
If you're not allowed to tell someone that a truck is headed at them, all you end up with is a more surprised victim.
I really think that this is an issue that we ran into with the cryptography restrictions. Research is protected speech. period.
The aftermath of the Regan tax cut appears to have been little more than increased government defecits and a lot of services cuts. What reason is there to believe that a new round of tax cuts is going to produce different results?
+4, -4=0
We're not even close to the record for a moderation war, so I suggest people jut stop moderating this posting, and save their points for something that'll make a difference.
" My client didn't steal that money -- and if he did, he had a real good reason for doing so. "
..... given: 1) The uncertainty of the science
.....
Great: Now we've got lawyers arguing science!
"We don't understand the science -- in the alternative, if we did understand the science, we would come to a different conclusion than most scientists have been suggesting!".
I'm going to equate this to two people walking on a strangly configured trail.
It could be that by interfering with what very well may be a normal, natural process a larger aspect of the Earth's cycles may be disrupted, thus causing more harm. That's the real problem we face here. We really don't know!
(final emphasis mine)
You're equating two very differnt proposals here. Artificially dropping the global temperature by 2 degrees might ameliorate our own (accidental) intervention in the natural process, or it might set up a nasty backlash situation. I would agree that such an additional artificial (and probably simplistic) intervention should be looked at with extreme criticality.
Things like the Kyoto agreement are intended to get us out of the way of the natural processes. The proposition here is that (as you've pointed out) we really don't understand precisely which pandora box we've opened, but it could quite possibly be very nasty. Given that we don't understand the processes that we're accidently messing with, doesn't it make sense to work to minimize the extent to which we're messing with them?
Just because a linear regression was done, doesn't mean that the points are following a linear path.
I got this curve fit using a simple two point bezier (with the center points at either end). pretty clearly a nice curve.
The varience from the straight line is clearly not just random error, but I'm not quite sure if there's enough data points to properly investigate the nature of the curve. (it's been sooooo long since I've done that sort of analysis) That may be why they did a simple linear regression.
OK: so we've proven, conclusively that we can make massive changes in the local ecology. The fact that we can undeniably do it on a local scale adds credence to the idea that we can do the same on a global scale, rather than taking away.
The view on the left is just as harmful though. First, the non-stop claims about so many different dangers goes a long way to desensitizing the populace, as well as policy makers. The enviromentalists are a political movement, not a scientific body. Need to do something about the problem NOW, regardless if we really understand the problem or not.
This isn't a left problem. It's a press problem and a math problem. People don't understand mathematics and statistics. The press plays on this in their sensationalism. Both the right and the left play off of this. As an example: Smoking kills 7000 people a week. This is more than twice what was killed on Sept. 11. Unfortunately someone dieing of cancer or in a smoking related fire is very hard to get sensational film on...
The problem with global warning -- like with smoking -- is that the obvious response time is not instantaneous. A kid who starts smoking in 2000 isn't likely to die of cancer for at least 20 years -- the smoking/cancer ratio also isn't 1-1. This has allowed the Tobacco companies to hide behind plausable deniablility for decades. (that and the fact that some publishers are scared of losing the very substantial and consistent income that they get from those companies, which can leave them careful about pushing the issue)
Similarly, with global warming, Driving your car 2 blocks to the corner store doesn't suddenly cause a drought. This is rather like a slow stream of water cutting through a rock. The results aren't obvious on the first day -- or even the first decade -- but we're no longer questioning whether it happens.
When it comes right down to it, I don't believe we have conclusively proven two very key points. Is the global temperature really increasing? That seems to depend on which group of scientists looking at which data, then filtered through a LOT of political interests.
GLobal warming was considered an interesting and plausable -- but unproven -- theory in the early '70s. It had, however, passed the first scientific milestone of scientific plausability. It had proven consistent with past observations and generally accepted rules. The second step was to predict certain results that hadn't been observed so far. and wouldn't happen if the theory was wrong.
This is where we run into the long response cycle of Global warming: It took years and decades to collect evidence for/against the theory of global warming, but the proponderance of evidence so far has been strongly for that global warming is really happaning. The question is no longer 'if'. It is now a question of what will be the effects and what can/should we do about it.
Like water on the stone where there is no 'the' droplet which you can not drop on the stone to prevent the wearing, Driving to the store or using hairspray does make a difference. There is that final droplet the dropping of which will cause the two halves of the rock to split apart -- but by that time it's too late to save the rock. Similarly, with global warning, by the time the results are catastrophic, it will be too late for us to reverse the process.
Er, um, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Posting in response to a comment doesn't necessarily mean disagreement.
This is not to say that I don't think global warming is real. I've seen enough other proof to believe that it's real. It's just that this specific data on Kilmanjaro (at least, what I've seen so far) doesn't seem to say anything more than that the Killmanjaro glaciers are shrinking. I don't have enough data to tell if this shrinkage pattern is a good bad or neutral indicator.
This was actually caused by all the hot air from people who claim that global warming is a big threat.
You shouldn't have any extra code running on most system calls. System calls could run exactly as normal. The only time you have to do any extra checking is when a call would (otherwise) cause an exception.
The first thing that the exception code would have to do is see if there is a priv exception for that call (in which case it would be allowed). Otherwise you would get a normal error. Voila! all done.
Under this model, priv elevation would only cause a real performance hit if you did a huge number of 'dangerous' calls. The standard for most current SUID programs is to front load the dangerous stuff and then drop prives. In other words, most SUID program only have a couple (or a couple dozen) 'root' calls. Any programs that do more than that are likely be non-SUID (and need you to be root before you start them).
Apache, for example, might only need an elevation check when opening port 80 and (perhaps) the log files, not on (the more numerous) write/read calls. Similarly with X.
The 68K series design, however, was capable of handling a 4Gig address space. The only reason why the 68000 was limited to a 16meg address space was that only 24 of the possible 32 address bits were brought out to the bus. (there was actually a 68012 which was little more than a specialty 68000 with all 32 address pins available).
When the Mac II originally came out, it ran on the 68020 which made it the first general-availability 68K system with a 32bit address space.
Unfortunately, the biggest general-availability memory chips were a whopping 1megabit. This meant that a 2Gigabyte memory module would require 16000 1meg chips. (and that's presuming no parity or ECC!) I did some back-of-the-envelope design work, and concluded that the best design for a 2GB MacII memory module would be to camoflage it as a desk. The top of the desk would hold the memory cards and there would be two pillars. One would be a cooling unit, the other would be the 16KiloWatt power supply. (now you know why I needed a cooling pillar)
I called my (theoretical) creation the MemDesk. Never could find an investor to pay for the development, though.
The vast majority of people who don't run Wintendos for server applications have Office Suite running on it. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some server applications that also require users to load Office.
In any event, with such a high percentage or Windows users also having Office loaded, the security issues caused by Office are effectively a Windows problem. -- and it's a really nasty security problem.
Windows' fuzzy delineation between the user and the system doesn't help things much, either.