> This is why we have seasons...and seasonal changes are quite large and result from small changes in the sun-earth distance.
What the hell!?
On Earth (may be different where you are from...:) ) in the northern hemisphere it is SUMMER (the hot time of the year) when the earth is FARTHEST from the sun in its' orbit (The orbit is elipsoidal, not round, and the Earth goes 'round and 'round the sun, mmkay?), and WINTER (that is the cold season here in the northern hemisphere) when the Earth is closest to the sun in its' orbit.
It has to do with the angle the sunlight (and other energy being received from sun) is hitting the planet, not the distance from the source (use the source, Luke!)
Amazing what you don't know when you think you know what you are talking about, isn't it! I was going from memory, and my knowledge of NO2 is from the '60s and '70s - NO2 IN CARS, YOU FREAKS!
At room temperature, N2O is quite unreactive with most substances, including alkali metals, halogens, and even ozone. It is therefore widely used as a propellant in aerosol cans in place of the CFCs which can damage the ozone layer. When heated sufficiently, however, N2O decomposes exothermically to N2 and O2. If this reaction occurs in the combustion chamber of an automobile, 3 moles of gas would be produced from 2 moles, providing an extra boost to the piston, as well as liberating more heat. It also has a number of other benefits. The increased oxygen provides more efficient combustion of fuel, the nitrogen buffers the increased cylinder pressure controlling the combustion, and the latent heat of vaporisation of the N2O reduces the intake temperature. (my emphasis) Therefore N2O is occasionally injected into the fuel lines of racing cars to give more power to the engine and to give the car exceptional acceleration.
>Ever heard of Nitrous Oxide (NO2)? Used in racing to help increase the performance of the vehicle, works by cooling the air (making it denser - more air - therefore more O2 - through the carb) before it enters the carb, does not burn or otherwise directly enhance POWER,
Actually this is about 100% wrong. Bonus points for correct grammar and spelling, nice use of paragraphs, but completely devoid of facts.
Would you consider 95% wrong? How about 97%? Hey, I almost got a fact, there, that should count for something!
Somebody mod this guy up, he is much closer to right (97%? 98%?) than I am.
I drive a '84 Nissan KingCab MPG pickup almost daily, regularly getting 30 - 36 MPG in town. I test drove a Honda InSight (a buddy then bought it - he has a longer commute than I do...) but, other than the body cancer, the truck is in good condition, and I just could not justify the purchase. Maybe after I get the 100,000 mile service done next month, I can get even better milage...
You are simply replacing some of the hydrocarbons in the fuel supply with hydrogen.
No, you are supplementing the combustable mixture in the engine. As long as you are not supplying more fuel than can be burned by the available O2, the more fuel burned completely, the better.
At the expense of a far more complicated fuel system. Since one fuel is a liquid the other is a gas.
Yeah, but...
Ever heard of Nitrous Oxide (NO2)? Used in racing to help increase the performance of the vehicle, works by cooling the air (making it denser - more air - therefore more O2 - through the carb) before it enters the carb, does not burn or otherwise directly enhance POWER, just lets the fuel that is used burn more completely, more efficiently. So how about using hydrogen under pressure instead of NO2? The expanding gas would cool the incoming air as the NO2 does, but the hydrogen would ALSO burn, potentially adding to the power produced. However, also possibly using up (enough of) the O2 so the fuel DOSEN'T burn completely, which would INCREASE emissions and could REDUCE power.
So how about injecting hydrogen AND oxygen? Other than the explosive hazard (H2 and O2 combine nicely and guickly, give the chance) and the fire hazard (hot greasy engine and pure O2 - not a safe combination!), there is the fact that this is an exothermic reaction.
I agree it doesn't take much bandwidth to send one spam email. But it does take a chunk to send millions of spam email messages.
Maybe it is possible to limit the metering to SMTP messages - but couldn't the spammers get around this by using a different protocal or a different port number?
As I said, I see several problems with this possible solution. I don't think I have it figured out, I just think there has to be a technical solution for the problem.
I agree with you that web servers should not be charged extra if the purpose is to combat spam.
On the other hand, I can see ISPs going to metered bandwidth as a change to their business plan in an effort to increase their revenues. In that case, running a web server will cost more than my fathers sporadic email reading. But I really think you use more bandwidth and SHOULD pay more than a non-webserver-running user.
If the ISP is buying X MegaGigaWhatsits from their upstream provider, and you are using 1/500 of that, while I am using 1/10,000, Then YOUR SHARE of the price is different than mine and your payment should also be different than mine.
They price access based on assumed or average usage, not on actual usage - which is one reason they are putting stuff like "no servers" in their TOC. Spammers don't fit in the average user profile; they way exceed the bandwith usage an average user would use at almost any level of service.
And that's one of the reasons why spammers pay way more than the average user for service.
Sorry, but you lost me. Most ISPs I am aware of charge based on the speed of access, not the bandwidth used. Spammers would seem to be using fairly high speed access, but trying to max out the upstream side with as many emails as possible at the speed allowed. Therefore they are paying for the same access speed as others in their service level, but using more BANDWIDTH than their peers at that service level.
...but major ISPs charge by bandwidth, and my comment was about major ISPs.
Gotcha. You are right. I am arguing that the smaller IPSs should also charge by bandwidth (which is how their upstream provider is charging them), which would shift the cost of spam back to the spammer, thus making it unprofitable to send the stuff.
All the major ISPs are happy to look the other way whenever a high paying customer sends a little spam.
I think you meant 'All the major ISPs are happy to look the other way whenever a high paying customer uses more bandwith - and pays for that bandwidth"
Its very simple to stop spam with a tech fix: Make it uneconomical.
Yep, uh'huh, and correct. I don't think your solution will work, but your analysis of the problem and the best solution for it is right on the money (pun only sorta intended;] )
I think the ONLY way to stop spammers is to hit them in the wallet (a swift kick in the balls only slows them down... "Candy gram for Mongo!"), and the best way to do that is to charge them for the bandwidth they use - probably through a metered access. Just as the Post Office charges by the piece (although some of the CBM - I think - is charged by the pound...), connections to the internet should be charged by the quantity of bandwith used - and outgoing should be at a way higher rate than incoming, possibly after some minimum is passed (i.e., basic access for $19.95/month, anything over X gigabytes OUTGOING charged at $10/Meg/Gig/whatever, anything over Y gigabytes INCOMING charged at $0.50/Meg/Gig/whatever). That way the bulk of the expense of the mailing would be on the spammer.
I immediately see several problems with this solution, but it is the best I can come up with quickly.
I hope you are trying to be funny, but I can't tell - you might be serious.
ISPs sell bandwidth. They price access based on assumed or average usage, not on actual usage - which is one reason they are putting stuff like "no servers" in their TOC. Spammers don't fit in the average user profile; they way exceed the bandwith usage an average user would use at almost any level of service. This screws the ISP because their calculations of how many users they can service with their upstream connection is off when one of the users is sending spam.
I don't know that they LOSE money (I would guess they do, as they would probably have to ante up anything over X (M/G/T)bytes per month upstream), but their service degrades for the number of users they have, and pissed off users are not pleasant to work with.
If ISPs had a service level of "SPAMMER" and charged accordingly (or had metered access, where the spammers paid for the actual bandwidth they used), then possibly they could make a profit off spam. Otherwise, no, they don't profit off spam.
As the parent post says "Make sure you have a way of billing them for any spam they send, and put it in big letters when they sign up. "
MSN is reporting a story on Opra attaining billionaire status, but I thought one side note was hillarious:
"Gates' personal wealth, much of it in company stock, has diminished by 60 percent since April 1998, when it briefly reached $100 billion. His worst year was 1999, when it plunged by a third as the government pursued an antitrust case against Microsoft. Forbes notes he is also the world's biggest giver, donating $1 billion annually to charity, largely to vaccine research."
With all the bugs and viruses his software is subject to, I was hoping he was putting more than that into vaccine research!
There is also an old saying fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you.
If you had gotten the 'old saying' correct it would have helped, as well as applied to the rest of your posting, as I think you have it straight.
The saying is "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." meaning anyone can be fooled once, but once fooled, if they are taken in again, it is their own fault. In the same vein as "once bitten, twice shy", when we are lied to time and again about funding, budgets, schedules, and results, why should me believe the current round of retoric?
...has several layers of high strength fabric separated by quite a bit of empty volume in order to soak up the kinetic energy of space debris as it will inevitably hit the station.
I have not investigated the amount of energy an empty space can absorb, but would guess it is not much. Would it not be better to fill the space with something to absorb the energy of a collision?
On the other hand, if it is space to allow the "high strength fabric" to deform as IT absorbs the energy, then it makes more sense.
I believe you can send it back to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt and they'll refund your money.
Nope, as well as nu-uh.
Now, if you had posted "I believe you can send it back to the store where you bought it and they will refund your money (if you haven't opened the box)." then I could agree with you - but if you never opened the box, how do you know if you agree or not with the EULA?
MS sells the product to the resellers, then you buy it from the middleman. MS has their money, now you have to deal with the reseller.
You don't agree to the EULA? OK, take it back to the reseller you bought it from (Don't send it to Microsoft, they don't even want to know - besides, they did not sell _you_ anything so CAN'T refund your money - they never had it in the first place; they sold to the store you bought from), and try to get a refund. Oh, you opened the box? Bzzzzzzt! Sorry, no refund. You might be one of those pesky pirates and made a copy of the software and now want your money back.
As a side note, resellers are what is saving Microsoft's ass in most states on the monopoly thing. Most states say that only the people that bought directly from Microsoft can sue them if they illegally held the prices high because they were a monopoly.
Did ANYONE buy their OS _directly_ from Microsoft? (I have not looked, does Microsoft even sell stuff directly, or do they redirect you to a reseller?)
The companies that bought in the past are hoping to buy again in the future, so are not likely to piss off the seller (Microsoft) by instituting a lawsuit, and anyone else who bought from a third party at a price held artificially high by the monopoly has no legal recourse.
I got that from (I believe) the Washington Post - which I also thought was referenced in the original article but I could have found it from some other surfing start point, but the article now does not specify the transactions "timed out", only that it made transactions "difficult".
"Gagnon said that the worm, which slows down computer networks by replicating rapidly and spreading to other servers, did not cause any damage to customer information, but slowed down or blocked access to that sensitive information, making transactions difficult. "
Other reading seems to point to the slowdown being caused, as you said, by the overlap of services that use ATM as well as public internet.
The original article stated that the worm was effectivly DDOSing the ATMs - they were timing out before the transaction was completed.
The MS SQL WORM was not hitting the terminals - front or back end - it was utilizing the bandwidth so the bank transaction could not complete in the time allotted by the bank.
Except the Whitehouse Internet servers are running on linux and are out-sourced according to a story here on/. talking about the Office of Homeland Security moving to linux for their Internet site service; the same provider does the Whitehouse (.gov, not.com;) )
And also on slashdot - a QUICK search did not find it, but I remember reading it here - something about Bill Gates stoping at their booth at whatever computer show was going on at the time (COMDEX??)...
If there are lots of germs/bacteria that are giving your child a sore throat, the total population will be affected by a prescribed antibiotic to varying degrees, almost none being totally resistant - and the immune system can take care of a certain quantity of the bacteria whatever its reaction to the antibiotic.
In few cases that I can think of does a medication work with only one dose. Almost ALL antibiotic treatment regimens are for a period of time because some of the bacteria can withstand 4-5 days of antibiotic exposure, but are killed with 7-10 days of treatment. In addition, the presence of the antibiotic can interfere with the life cycle of the bacteria, allowing the immune system more time to be effective.
Your child, for whatever reason, has a sudden increase in the number of bacteria and exhibits a sore throat. You take him/her to the doctor and get a prescription for an antibiotic. You give the first several dosed, and those bacteria most susceptible to the antibiotic are killed, as well as the immune system doing its best to deal with the infecting agent. Because of the decrease in number of bacteria, there are no more symptoms, so you stop giving the antibiotic to your child.
The bacteria that are left, even if brought back to "normal flora" levels by the immune system, are the ones that were not killed by the levels of antibiotic in the system achieved and sustained in the aborted treatment cycle - i.e., they 'resisted' the antibiotic. Therefore, if the symptoms return, it may well be because the 'resistant' bacteria have increased in number and are much tougher to eradicate with the same antibiotic the second time - the sore throat does not respond as before, because all the susceptible bacteria were killed the first time, and these are descendents of the 'resistant' germs.
How about a 62" display, seen as from 6 1/2' distance (Olympus EyeTrek)
The FMD-700 works with PC, Mac, DVD, Tv, and VCR, also has surround sound. Because it is face mounted (FMD = Face Mounted Display), it moves with the head. No VR, as I don't see that it feeds back movement to the device, but I am willing to wait for that...
Could you reference a few cases where someone has left keys in their car, had it stolen, and the thief has gotten off scot free or better yet had the case dismissed? How old are you to believe that you can take anything out in the open?
Even if the car is running and parked out front of your home, if it isn't yours and you take it, you are stealing it. See this article [minneapolis.mn.us] from the Minneapolis PD
From the article you reference:A car thief who is apprehended in a car with keys to the ignition is usually not prosecuted
Your reference does not back your statement, it refutes it. I believe you are saying that the owner having left the keys in the ignition can not be used as mitigating circumstances by the thief in court, but if the thief is not prosecuted in the first place - as stated in your reference - then yes, (s)he has gotten off scott free or, even better than having the case dismissed, never had the case brought in the first place.
Instead of creating a system where the OS must decide whether or not a piece of software may access system files based on whether or not it carries MS's digital signature, the OS could keep a list of approved signatures, modifiable by the user, that would grant a program proper permission to modify OS code and data.
...Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors....
No, we hired them to hunt down the scum sucking IP thieves and hang them by the balls until they pay up. Not our fault the IP thieves are 'our fellow Linux vendors'.
Lawyers love technicalities like that - not "No, we did not hire him", but "No, we did not hire him for that purpose" - which does not answer the question of whether he was hired or not, and,if so, for what purpose, and will he in fact go after 'our fellow Linux vendors' if that is where the money is.
Slashdot Mirror
> This is why we have seasons...and seasonal changes are quite large and result from small changes in the sun-earth distance.
What the hell!?
On Earth (may be different where you are from...:) ) in the northern hemisphere it is SUMMER (the hot time of the year) when the earth is FARTHEST from the sun in its' orbit (The orbit is elipsoidal, not round, and the Earth goes 'round and 'round the sun, mmkay?), and WINTER (that is the cold season here in the northern hemisphere) when the Earth is closest to the sun in its' orbit.
It has to do with the angle the sunlight (and other energy being received from sun) is hitting the planet, not the distance from the source (use the source, Luke!)
Nope, I don't see N2O2 listed...
:
From WebElements.com the listed Oxides of Nitrogen are
NO
N2O
N2O3
N2O4
N2O5
Note that N2O2 is missing from the list.
On the other hand, NO2 is Nitrogen Dioxide, not Nitrous Oxide (N2O).
(could N2O/2/ that have been a typo?)
Amazing what you don't know when you think you know what you are talking about, isn't it! I was going from memory, and my knowledge of NO2 is from the '60s and '70s - NO2 IN CARS, YOU FREAKS!
From Molecule of the month:
At room temperature, N2O is quite unreactive with most substances, including alkali metals, halogens, and even ozone. It is therefore widely used as a propellant in aerosol cans in place of the CFCs which can damage the ozone layer. When heated sufficiently, however, N2O decomposes exothermically to N2 and O2. If this reaction occurs in the combustion chamber of an automobile, 3 moles of gas would be produced from 2 moles, providing an extra boost to the piston, as well as liberating more heat. It also has a number of other benefits. The increased oxygen provides more efficient combustion of fuel, the nitrogen buffers the increased cylinder pressure controlling the combustion, and the latent heat of vaporisation of the N2O reduces the intake temperature. (my emphasis) Therefore N2O is occasionally injected into the fuel lines of racing cars to give more power to the engine and to give the car exceptional acceleration.
>Ever heard of Nitrous Oxide (NO2)? Used in racing to help increase the performance of the vehicle, works by cooling the air (making it denser - more air - therefore more O2 - through the carb) before it enters the carb, does not burn or otherwise directly enhance POWER,
Actually this is about 100% wrong. Bonus points for correct grammar and spelling, nice use of paragraphs, but completely devoid of facts.
Would you consider 95% wrong? How about 97%? Hey, I almost got a fact, there, that should count for something!
Somebody mod this guy up, he is much closer to right (97%? 98%?) than I am.
I agree.
I drive a '84 Nissan KingCab MPG pickup almost daily, regularly getting 30 - 36 MPG in town. I test drove a Honda InSight (a buddy then bought it - he has a longer commute than I do...) but, other than the body cancer, the truck is in good condition, and I just could not justify the purchase. Maybe after I get the 100,000 mile service done next month, I can get even better milage...
You are simply replacing some of the hydrocarbons in the fuel supply with hydrogen.
No, you are supplementing the combustable mixture in the engine. As long as you are not supplying more fuel than can be burned by the available O2, the more fuel burned completely, the better.
At the expense of a far more complicated fuel system. Since one fuel is a liquid the other is a gas.
Yeah, but...
Ever heard of Nitrous Oxide (NO2)? Used in racing to help increase the performance of the vehicle, works by cooling the air (making it denser - more air - therefore more O2 - through the carb) before it enters the carb, does not burn or otherwise directly enhance POWER, just lets the fuel that is used burn more completely, more efficiently. So how about using hydrogen under pressure instead of NO2? The expanding gas would cool the incoming air as the NO2 does, but the hydrogen would ALSO burn, potentially adding to the power produced. However, also possibly using up (enough of) the O2 so the fuel DOSEN'T burn completely, which would INCREASE emissions and could REDUCE power.
So how about injecting hydrogen AND oxygen? Other than the explosive hazard (H2 and O2 combine nicely and guickly, give the chance) and the fire hazard (hot greasy engine and pure O2 - not a safe combination!), there is the fact that this is an exothermic reaction.
"Gentlemen! Melt your engines!"
Ooops!
I agree it doesn't take much bandwidth to send one spam email. But it does take a chunk to send millions of spam email messages.
Maybe it is possible to limit the metering to SMTP messages - but couldn't the spammers get around this by using a different protocal or a different port number?
As I said, I see several problems with this possible solution. I don't think I have it figured out, I just think there has to be a technical solution for the problem.
I agree with you that web servers should not be charged extra if the purpose is to combat spam.
On the other hand, I can see ISPs going to metered bandwidth as a change to their business plan in an effort to increase their revenues. In that case, running a web server will cost more than my fathers sporadic email reading. But I really think you use more bandwidth and SHOULD pay more than a non-webserver-running user.
If the ISP is buying X MegaGigaWhatsits from their upstream provider, and you are using 1/500 of that, while I am using 1/10,000, Then YOUR SHARE of the price is different than mine and your payment should also be different than mine.
They price access based on assumed or average usage, not on actual usage - which is one reason they are putting stuff like "no servers" in their TOC. Spammers don't fit in the average user profile; they way exceed the bandwith usage an average user would use at almost any level of service.
...but major ISPs charge by bandwidth, and my comment was about major ISPs.
And that's one of the reasons why spammers pay way more than the average user for service.
Sorry, but you lost me. Most ISPs I am aware of charge based on the speed of access, not the bandwidth used. Spammers would seem to be using fairly high speed access, but trying to max out the upstream side with as many emails as possible at the speed allowed. Therefore they are paying for the same access speed as others in their service level, but using more BANDWIDTH than their peers at that service level.
Gotcha. You are right. I am arguing that the smaller IPSs should also charge by bandwidth (which is how their upstream provider is charging them), which would shift the cost of spam back to the spammer, thus making it unprofitable to send the stuff.
All the major ISPs are happy to look the other way whenever a high paying customer sends a little spam.
I think you meant 'All the major ISPs are happy to look the other way whenever a high paying customer uses more bandwith - and pays for that bandwidth"
Its very simple to stop spam with a tech fix:
;] )
Make it uneconomical.
Yep, uh'huh, and correct. I don't think your solution will work, but your analysis of the problem and the best solution for it is right on the money (pun only sorta intended
I think the ONLY way to stop spammers is to hit them in the wallet (a swift kick in the balls only slows them down... "Candy gram for Mongo!"), and the best way to do that is to charge them for the bandwidth they use - probably through a metered access. Just as the Post Office charges by the piece (although some of the CBM - I think - is charged by the pound...), connections to the internet should be charged by the quantity of bandwith used - and outgoing should be at a way higher rate than incoming, possibly after some minimum is passed (i.e., basic access for $19.95/month, anything over X gigabytes OUTGOING charged at $10/Meg/Gig/whatever, anything over Y gigabytes INCOMING charged at $0.50/Meg/Gig/whatever). That way the bulk of the expense of the mailing would be on the spammer.
I immediately see several problems with this solution, but it is the best I can come up with quickly.
...because all the major ISPs profit off spam.
I hope you are trying to be funny, but I can't tell - you might be serious.
ISPs sell bandwidth. They price access based on assumed or average usage, not on actual usage - which is one reason they are putting stuff like "no servers" in their TOC. Spammers don't fit in the average user profile; they way exceed the bandwith usage an average user would use at almost any level of service. This screws the ISP because their calculations of how many users they can service with their upstream connection is off when one of the users is sending spam.
I don't know that they LOSE money (I would guess they do, as they would probably have to ante up anything over X (M/G/T)bytes per month upstream), but their service degrades for the number of users they have, and pissed off users are not pleasant to work with.
If ISPs had a service level of "SPAMMER" and charged accordingly (or had metered access, where the spammers paid for the actual bandwidth they used), then possibly they could make a profit off spam. Otherwise, no, they don't profit off spam.
As the parent post says "Make sure you have a way of billing them for any spam they send, and put it in big letters when they sign up. "
The qualities Microsoft looks for in its interns include raw talent, passion for technology, potential and flexibility.
The same things I look for in a girlfriend!
MSN is reporting a story on Opra attaining billionaire status, but I thought one side note was hillarious:
"Gates' personal wealth, much of it in company stock, has diminished by 60 percent since April 1998, when it briefly reached $100 billion. His worst year was 1999, when it plunged by a third as the government pursued an antitrust case against Microsoft. Forbes notes he is also the world's biggest giver, donating $1 billion annually to charity, largely to vaccine research."
With all the bugs and viruses his software is subject to, I was hoping he was putting more than that into vaccine research!
There is also an old saying fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you.
If you had gotten the 'old saying' correct it would have helped, as well as applied to the rest of your posting, as I think you have it straight.
The saying is "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." meaning anyone can be fooled once, but once fooled, if they are taken in again, it is their own fault. In the same vein as "once bitten, twice shy", when we are lied to time and again about funding, budgets, schedules, and results, why should me believe the current round of retoric?
...has several layers of high strength fabric separated by quite a bit of empty volume in order to soak up the kinetic energy of space debris as it will inevitably hit the station.
I have not investigated the amount of energy an empty space can absorb, but would guess it is not much. Would it not be better to fill the space with something to absorb the energy of a collision?
On the other hand, if it is space to allow the "high strength fabric" to deform as IT absorbs the energy, then it makes more sense.
The nerd in the steam tunnels...
I believe you can send it back to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt and they'll refund your money.
Nope, as well as nu-uh.
Now, if you had posted "I believe you can send it back to the store where you bought it and they will refund your money (if you haven't opened the box)." then I could agree with you - but if you never opened the box, how do you know if you agree or not with the EULA?
MS sells the product to the resellers, then you buy it from the middleman. MS has their money, now you have to deal with the reseller.
You don't agree to the EULA? OK, take it back to the reseller you bought it from (Don't send it to Microsoft, they don't even want to know - besides, they did not sell _you_ anything so CAN'T refund your money - they never had it in the first place; they sold to the store you bought from), and try to get a refund. Oh, you opened the box? Bzzzzzzt! Sorry, no refund. You might be one of those pesky pirates and made a copy of the software and now want your money back.
As a side note, resellers are what is saving Microsoft's ass in most states on the monopoly thing. Most states say that only the people that bought directly from Microsoft can sue them if they illegally held the prices high because they were a monopoly.
Did ANYONE buy their OS _directly_ from Microsoft? (I have not looked, does Microsoft even sell stuff directly, or do they redirect you to a reseller?)
The companies that bought in the past are hoping to buy again in the future, so are not likely to piss off the seller (Microsoft) by instituting a lawsuit, and anyone else who bought from a third party at a price held artificially high by the monopoly has no legal recourse.
Hey! _MR_ Huffy is my father! :)
Sorry, I was not trying to rant in my post.
I got that from (I believe) the Washington Post - which I also thought was referenced in the original article but I could have found it from some other surfing start point, but the article now does not specify the transactions "timed out", only that it made transactions "difficult".
Washington Post
From the article (current?)
"Gagnon said that the worm, which slows down computer networks by replicating rapidly and spreading to other servers, did not cause any damage to customer information, but slowed down or blocked access to that sensitive information, making transactions difficult. "
Other reading seems to point to the slowdown being caused, as you said, by the overlap of services that use ATM as well as public internet.
READ, people READ!
The original article stated that the worm was effectivly DDOSing the ATMs - they were timing out before the transaction was completed.
The MS SQL WORM was not hitting the terminals - front or back end - it was utilizing the bandwidth so the bank transaction could not complete in the time allotted by the bank.
Except the Whitehouse Internet servers are running on linux and are out-sourced according to a story here on /. talking about the Office of Homeland Security moving to linux for their Internet site service; the same provider does the Whitehouse (.gov, not .com ;) )
And also on slashdot - a QUICK search did not find it, but I remember reading it here - something about Bill Gates stoping at their booth at whatever computer show was going on at the time (COMDEX??)...
Yes it is generally true, but why?
If there are lots of germs/bacteria that are giving your child a sore throat, the total population will be affected by a prescribed antibiotic to varying degrees, almost none being totally resistant - and the immune system can take care of a certain quantity of the bacteria whatever its reaction to the antibiotic.
In few cases that I can think of does a medication work with only one dose. Almost ALL antibiotic treatment regimens are for a period of time because some of the bacteria can withstand 4-5 days of antibiotic exposure, but are killed with 7-10 days of treatment. In addition, the presence of the antibiotic can interfere with the life cycle of the bacteria, allowing the immune system more time to be effective.
Your child, for whatever reason, has a sudden increase in the number of bacteria and exhibits a sore throat. You take him/her to the doctor and get a prescription for an antibiotic. You give the first several dosed, and those bacteria most susceptible to the antibiotic are killed, as well as the immune system doing its best to deal with the infecting agent. Because of the decrease in number of bacteria, there are no more symptoms, so you stop giving the antibiotic to your child.
The bacteria that are left, even if brought back to "normal flora" levels by the immune system, are the ones that were not killed by the levels of antibiotic in the system achieved and sustained in the aborted treatment cycle - i.e., they 'resisted' the antibiotic. Therefore, if the symptoms return, it may well be because the 'resistant' bacteria have increased in number and are much tougher to eradicate with the same antibiotic the second time - the sore throat does not respond as before, because all the susceptible bacteria were killed the first time, and these are descendents of the 'resistant' germs.
How about a 62" display, seen as from 6 1/2' distance (Olympus EyeTrek)
The FMD-700 works with PC, Mac, DVD, Tv, and VCR, also has surround sound. Because it is face mounted (FMD = Face Mounted Display), it moves with the head. No VR, as I don't see that it feeds back movement to the device, but I am willing to wait for that...
Cats can get this from ANY injection (grandparent post)
and
An alternative is to get your pet tattooed in the ear, mouth and/or belly (your post)
So you are saying several thousand injections (intra- or subdermal) of ink is better than one injection (intramuscular) of vaccine?
Could you reference a few cases where someone has left keys in their car, had it stolen, and the thief has gotten off scot free or better yet had the case dismissed? How old are you to believe that you can take anything out in the open?
Even if the car is running and parked out front of your home, if it isn't yours and you take it, you are stealing it. See this article [minneapolis.mn.us] from the Minneapolis PD
From the article you reference:A car thief who is apprehended in a car with keys to the ignition is usually not prosecuted
Your reference does not back your statement, it refutes it. I believe you are saying that the owner having left the keys in the ignition can not be used as mitigating circumstances by the thief in court, but if the thief is not prosecuted in the first place - as stated in your reference - then yes, (s)he has gotten off scott free or, even better than having the case dismissed, never had the case brought in the first place.
Instead of creating a system where the OS must decide whether or not a piece of software may access system files based on whether or not it carries MS's digital signature, the OS could keep a list of approved signatures, modifiable by the user, that would grant a program proper permission to modify OS code and data.
Sounds a lot like *nix user authentication to me.
...Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors. ...
No, we hired them to hunt down the scum sucking IP thieves and hang them by the balls until they pay up. Not our fault the IP thieves are 'our fellow Linux vendors'.
Lawyers love technicalities like that - not "No, we did not hire him", but "No, we did not hire him for that purpose " - which does not answer the question of whether he was hired or not, and,if so, for what purpose, and will he in fact go after 'our fellow Linux vendors' if that is where the money is.