After so many of the 'new ecomony' companies have gone kaput, it's interesting to see that a so-called 'old economy' company couldn't cut it against all the new technology out nowadays.
It seems to me that this argument of Hoyle's is rather circular.
He says that the statistical chance of life developing on earth is so damn small that it couldn't have happened. Therefore, he says, life must have been dropped here.
But for life to have been dropped here, it must have developed somewhere (despite the odds).
So by using his argument we come to the conclusion that life developed somewhere against great odds, which puts the kaibosh on his original statement that it couldn't have happened here merely because of the odds.
All we can really say is that life developed somewhere against large odds. Whether it started here or somewhere else (my hunch is Saturn - such a pretty planet...) we have no way of telling.
If you patched your systems on a quarterly basis, you would not have been vulnerable to a single one of the Linux worms.
I'm waiting for the time when a worm comes out that exploits a vulnerability that has yet to be 'discovered' yet.
All that has to happen is for a worm writer to be the first person to find a vunerability. Then (assuming that this person is malicious) thier worm would have a tremendous advantage. They would be garanteed that every single server running that particular OS would be open to attack. If they took the time to write a really nasty worm (say it's set to replicate itself 10 times and then try and erase everything it can reach on the networks it has access to, except itself) this would quite assuredly bring a large proportion of the internet to a grinding halt.
Look at what the Washington Post says about the studies: "...the research by three admittedly self-interested Internet publishing groups..." (3rd paragraph.) Shame on you for not reading the article more thoroughly.
"Napster's new software will convert your MP3s to its own format before putting them up on the Napster network, giving the company a large degree of control over what goes on in its own network..."
The entire reason that Napster was so succesfull in the first place was that it gave it's users the power. The power to get what they wanted, and share what they wanted free of charge, with no interference. The control was squarely in the hands of its users. How many of its former users are going to want to participate in a system where anything they want to share has to be inspected and converted by a central authority?
Slashdot Mirror
This is the beginning of the end of the file format wars. Apple has done everyone a favor by using then OPEN MPEG-4 format as the basis.
Now MS and Real have the opportunity to add support for MPEG-4. When they do then bingo, MPEG-4 wins and everyone's happy.
I remember the neo-geo.
After so many of the 'new ecomony' companies have gone kaput, it's interesting to see that a so-called 'old economy' company couldn't cut it against all the new technology out nowadays.
He says that the statistical chance of life developing on earth is so damn small that it couldn't have happened. Therefore, he says, life must have been dropped here.
But for life to have been dropped here, it must have developed somewhere (despite the odds).
So by using his argument we come to the conclusion that life developed somewhere against great odds, which puts the kaibosh on his original statement that it couldn't have happened here merely because of the odds.
All we can really say is that life developed somewhere against large odds. Whether it started here or somewhere else (my hunch is Saturn - such a pretty planet...) we have no way of telling.
I'm waiting for the time when a worm comes out that exploits a vulnerability that has yet to be 'discovered' yet.
All that has to happen is for a worm writer to be the first person to find a vunerability. Then (assuming that this person is malicious) thier worm would have a tremendous advantage. They would be garanteed that every single server running that particular OS would be open to attack. If they took the time to write a really nasty worm (say it's set to replicate itself 10 times and then try and erase everything it can reach on the networks it has access to, except itself) this would quite assuredly bring a large proportion of the internet to a grinding halt.
And you know it's got to happen some day...
Wasn't that what the Amiga was made out of?
So does this thing have a tiny flashlight attached, or just a normal camera flash?
Say cheese...
And I thought the biggest danger in parks was having my pic-a-nik basket stolen.
Look at what the Washington Post says about the studies: "...the research by three admittedly self-interested Internet publishing groups..." (3rd paragraph.) Shame on you for not reading the article more thoroughly.
"Napster's new software will convert your MP3s to its own format before putting them up on the Napster network, giving the company a large degree of control over what goes on in its own network..."
The entire reason that Napster was so succesfull in the first place was that it gave it's users the power. The power to get what they wanted, and share what they wanted free of charge, with no interference. The control was squarely in the hands of its users. How many of its former users are going to want to participate in a system where anything they want to share has to be inspected and converted by a central authority?
All I know is that I won't be among them...