A friend of mine tried writing his own auto-investment code to see if he could actually make a living at it. His plan was to dedicate a computer to doing nothing but scanning the market and making investments for him. Well, he's not doing that today, and he's probably one of the most intellegent people I know. I also rememeber a concern that, if everybody used automated investing, the market would become highly sensitive to change (or...unstable) as you'd run into situation where most, if not all, of the algorythms out there would react the same way to certain market changes.
Still, it's intriguing isn't it? I mean, one of the things I use computer programming for is to learn how things work. I look at it this way; a computer is rock-stupid, but it does exactly what you tell it to do. So, if I could write a code to do market analysis, I'd be learning the intricacies of how to do it along the way. Sure, most invesment sites have tools for you, but there is value in learning the underlying mechanisms.
Seems the best approach would be to write such a program to simply do the analysis, then you make the final commit to buy or sell. You'll have a good idea how to interpret what you get back because you told it what to do in the first place and you should be able to spot errors/weaknesses in your strategy. It could be downright symbiotic.
My dad once got in a bidding war with a bunch of other guys over another magnet motor idea. It couldn't work of course and he knew that. I imagine everyone else did as well. Yet, if you take away the fact that the person who built it missed an important detail in general physics, what was left over was pretty ingenious. He even had a mechanism to make it go in reverse.
It's not, nor will it ever be, a useful machine. Yet, in it's own way, its "art". He still has it among his gadget collection in his study and it still is quite the conversation piece as people try to figure out what it is supposed to be.
So, these guys may be charlatans, perhaps they are self-deluded, perhaps a little of both, yet it's interesting nonetheless.
It is my understanding that a magnetic field is a "potential field". In any potential field, the net energy is the same regardless of path through the field. Therefore, the net energy of any closed path is zero.
I.E. if they are getting energy, then they are saying that a magnetic field is not a potential field.....assuming I understand them correctly that is.
It's called the "Poppycock" engine. What I do is get a bunch of pseudo-intellectual geeks in a room together and present an idea for a machine that, while technical sounding, obviously breaks some major physical/thermodynamical law. This "idea" serves a catalyst for the ensuing cascade thermal-dynamical reaction as all of these pseudo-intellectuals compete to be the first one to rip my idea apart, thus showing themselves to be far more intellegent than anyone else in the room and generating massive amounts of hot air in the process.
Now...if I need more power, I can always start a discussion of the merits of Babylon 5 Vs. Farscape. However, I do run the risk of melting my thermocouples.
Understood, depending on the specifics of your beam bending problem (I assume we are talking about a multi-span beam, otherwise the problem really is trivial), you can solve it via well known tablulated solutions, the Hardy Cross method (which works great on an Excel spreadsheet), or, these days, I just use an Octave script (or Matlab if you got it). Just a matter defining the stiffness matrix and letting Octave do it's thing.
If you're talking about something a little more exotic, say a variable cross-section multi-span or a built-up intermidiate diagonal tension beam, well, there are well established methods for those as well. In the case of the IDT beam, for example, NACA has an excellent approach, and, if you have a basic grasp of shear flow, you can do some "quick and dirty" computations that will give you and idea of how well you can expect your beam to evaluate in a matter of minutes (which is great for making a go/no-go decision on a design drawing).
Incidentally, the Hardy Cross method (also called the moment distribution method), comes from the early 1900's.
Also, hand analysis of structures does not necessarily limit you to linear elastic assumptions (Cozzone's method for example) and the vast majority of FEA done in the field also assumes linear-elastic (don't be fooled by the Von-Mises output - it's a strain energy density measure, not a stress field). As far as manufacturing defects are concerned, Nastran won't help you either. You still have to know they are there and account for them regardless of the method you employ. If you are talking about multiple site damage (MSD), then you are using a statistical approach and/or a rogue flaw assumption regardless.
Testing is an excellent and even necessary validation tool. However, before you can even do the test, you must do some kind of analysis to even have an idea of what parameters are important, plus, it would be nice if you could pass the test on the first try. Yea, you can "shotgun" it if you've got time and money to burn. However, there are methods that enable you to do sufficient analysis to devise a test with even a minimal understanding of the underlying physics (see "Buckingham Pi" theorem).
Sorry to come down on you as hard as I did, but your response came across as dismissive. Furthermore, it touches on something I come across constantly in the field. That is, engineers who are clearly knowledgable, but lack even basic understanding of how to access a structure. They're smart enough, it's just that no one seems willing to teach that anymore. I can't tell you how many times I've had to reject bad FEA, or how hard that is to do in a culture that believes anything that comes out of a computer is pure gold.
Many people think in terms of using mathematics to figure out how nature behaves. What I propose is a slight change of philosophy. All your life, you've experienced and observed nature in action. Let your instincts and understanding of nature guide you to what you think is going on first, then use math to describe it.
Search Wikipedia again for "The Buckingham Pi Theorem". Sir Taylor, considered by many to be one of the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was invited to witness the first US ground test of an atomic blast. Moments before the blast, he pulls an old envelope out of his coat and starts scribbling some computations on it. Just before the blast, he tore the envelope up into small fragments and tossed them in the air as the shock wave went by. He then paces off the distance they flew through the air and made of rough estimate of their time of flight. Based upon that, he makes an estimate of the blast energy that was almost in exact agreement with what US would determine several weeks later using the best computational methods of the day.
By the way, what he came up with on "the back of that envelope" is now known as "Taylor's equation".
This is my understanding of the origin of that expression.
First off, obtaining a consistent result via two independant methods is an excellent way to cross-check your work.
Secondly, testing is a good way, but the only way. At some point, you have to make you best accessment without the benefit of testing.
Finally, you have no idea what specific analysis I was doing so have no basis to say it was too complex to do by hand.
I suggest you research the origin of the term "back of the envelope calculation", you will learn the story of one "Sir Geoffrey Taylor". Then come back and tell me again what is too complex to do by hand.
You are a perfect example of the problem I was trying to present. No ingenuity, just reliance on machines....pity you don't seem to understand how dangerous that can be.
Wierd that this comes up. Just today, at my latest gig, I had casually mentioned running some rough computation on engine cowl latching loads that showed we might be a little tight on safety margin. However, I needed to see that Nastran load simulation to cross-check the results.
The response I got stunned me a bit...
One of the most senior structural engineers there told me that the loads within an engine core are far too complex and why was I even bothering with hand computations?
It made me immediately think of two things:
1) We were building jet engines long before there was a Nastran (or a NASA for that matter)
2) Complexity!?...NASA brought Apollo 13 home using slide rules and one hell of a pilot. I'm old enough that I remember that. In fact, it's probably why I'm in the aerospace industry.
I hate to sound like an old man, but sometimes I worry that we rely too much on tools that separate the engineer from the analysis. Don't get me wrong, Nastran is great, but if you have no way to cross validate the results, how do you spot an error?
Ya, know...the method I used to evaluate those loads probably came from around the mid 1940's.
"I'm a little puzzled about why people here are getting so worked up about this. Does a 15- or 20-second inconvenience fray your nerves so much that you need to devise anti-calling plots to post on Slashdot? If that's the case, I frankly recommend a deep breath, a pleasant stroll, and a massage. I'm friendly even when commercial telemarketers or Republicans call."
No, but string 5 or 10 of these calls together around dinner time every night and I start to get a little annoyed.
No, but when the same group continues to call numerous times after you have clearly communicated that you are not interested and they've assured you that they are "taking you off their list" for the fifth time...yea, it's gets aggrivating....even harassing.
No, but when a political party calls you eight times in the space of an hour on election night to remind you to get to the polls before they close after you have repeatedly told them that you've already voted and please stop calling this number....that, can be downright infuriating.
Minor annoyances, when added up over time, become major annoyances, if not out-and-out harassment.
"The manufacturers seems to be falling over themselves trying to bring flawed, faulty, and generally unfinished products to market... presumably oblivious to the possibility the first kid on the block to get one will tell all his friends about his experiences."
"From this beginning, the RIAA gradually expanded its program, ramping up its monthly rounds of lawsuits to as many as 800 per month. To date, over 18,000 lawsuits have been filed against individuals."
Item 2:
"Because of the disproportionate financial and organizational power exhibited by the RIAA in its lawsuits, most defendants have settled rather than go to court. The settlements have ranged from $3,000 to $11,000."
Item 3:
"Absent the promise of an award of attorney's fees when the copyright holder unreasonably persists, innocent defendants have little incentive to risk the turbulent and uncharted waters of a protracted legal battle."
What's the often touted criteria for a criminal investigation? Means....Motive....and Opportunity.
$3,000 time 800 suits per month is a pretty tidy income....and that's probably conservative.
it will be comprised of a loosely connected network of underground providers running through the heart of Boston and be referred to as the "big beam"....too obscure?
Yea, it's funny that he was able to do that, but was it clever? It would seem to me that an unsecure router is a major security hazard. What if our neighbor figures out he's being screwed with and starts making illegal downloads on your internet connection? or worse, what if he starts google-searching for things like "child pornography"?. You're the one that winds up dealing with the MPAA, RIAA, or local police.
Seriously, if he's that good at setting up his network, shouldn't he just secure it an be done with it? One of my neighbors has an open wireless router and I'm trying to find him so I can help him get his locked up as well.
I am, by know means, knowledgable of such matters, but I do find them interesting nonetheless. A couple of things I've heard about degenerative brain diseases are:
1) Maintaining an active mind and constantantly challenging your cognitive abilities can actually protect you from conditions like Alzheimer's.
2) Nicotene can provide protection/relief from not only Alzheimer's but also Parkinson's and Schizophrenia.
These are just things I've heard/read, but I don't know how good the source is, thus, I have no idea as the their validity. Given the social-political climate surrounding the latter, this is one those where I'd love to hear the scientific community chime in on. I mean, if it don't work and/or it can't be rendered safe...then "game over" look for something else. However, I'd hate to think some lawyer/politician is blocking research that might ultimtely prove useful. This wouldn't be the first "poisionous plant" we've gotten medication out of (if I understand correctly).
My thing is, I tend to have more access to the political debate as opposed to scientific data. So, I wish I had more access to the raw data. I guess my opinion is the same for "medical marijuana". I don't care what the politicians/lawyers think, I want to know what the medical/scientific community thinks. I suspect I'm not alone in this.
You know, if you take the shoulder blade from a medium badger at attach it to his femur, it makes a heck of a device for flinging buffalo do-doo. We used to trap our own badgers, but sadly, the white-man killed almost all the buffalo so that's hard to find nowadays. I'm thinking about just getting my kids a large dog - for the do-doo that is, not the bones. Once you harvest the bones the animal is pretty much useless....kinda like harvesting apples by cutting down the tree if you know what I mean.
I see HotWheels going beyond the vehicle. We're just testing the waters now with toys like the Ray Gun. We also want to get kids outdoors. ========
As the father of a three year old boy and a 4 year old girl (who both play with Hot Wheels), my first thoght was, "I wonder where this puts the world in five years?"
Great, forget about buiding entire cities populated with Hot Wheels vehicles and "My Little Ponies" using Legos, Tinkertoys, and Connects to make buildings and structures for them to run through.., or figuring out how to make a track that goes through a loop, hit's one of the battery-powered car boosters (you know, with the spinning foam wheels) then circles around and jumps back through the loop eventually arriving back at the starting point so we can send it through again. No....it's much more creative to just go outside and pretend to shoot each other....any other Dad's out here shudder when they read that?
Look for "Johnny Lightning" cars....hard to find, but they still seem to make actual replicas of cars. Although, I seem to recall that Matchbox still makes construction vehicles and even Hot Wheels will have vintage hot rods (Shelby Cobra for example).
While I do write programs and utilities as part of my job (and I like tinkering with it anyways), I'm not a coder by trade. So, with that disclaimer out of the way, I'll render my admittedly uninformed opinion.
I suspect that, all else being equal, it's probably easier to find exploitable flaws in a system and write malicious code to take advantage of it as opposed to trying to defend against such attacks. Not only is it generally easier to destroy than to create, but the attacker need only find a single flaw among many to exploit where the defender must protect all vulnerabilites - known or unknown.
Then again, using that line of thought, it's probably easier to attack a largely closed operating system than an open one, which goes against McAfee's position....oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
A friend of mine tried writing his own auto-investment code to see if he could actually make a living at it. His plan was to dedicate a computer to doing nothing but scanning the market and making investments for him. Well, he's not doing that today, and he's probably one of the most intellegent people I know. I also rememeber a concern that, if everybody used automated investing, the market would become highly sensitive to change (or...unstable) as you'd run into situation where most, if not all, of the algorythms out there would react the same way to certain market changes.
Still, it's intriguing isn't it? I mean, one of the things I use computer programming for is to learn how things work. I look at it this way; a computer is rock-stupid, but it does exactly what you tell it to do. So, if I could write a code to do market analysis, I'd be learning the intricacies of how to do it along the way. Sure, most invesment sites have tools for you, but there is value in learning the underlying mechanisms.
Seems the best approach would be to write such a program to simply do the analysis, then you make the final commit to buy or sell. You'll have a good idea how to interpret what you get back because you told it what to do in the first place and you should be able to spot errors/weaknesses in your strategy. It could be downright symbiotic.
My dad once got in a bidding war with a bunch of other guys over another magnet motor idea. It couldn't work of course and he knew that. I imagine everyone else did as well. Yet, if you take away the fact that the person who built it missed an important detail in general physics, what was left over was pretty ingenious. He even had a mechanism to make it go in reverse.
It's not, nor will it ever be, a useful machine. Yet, in it's own way, its "art". He still has it among his gadget collection in his study and it still is quite the conversation piece as people try to figure out what it is supposed to be.
So, these guys may be charlatans, perhaps they are self-deluded, perhaps a little of both, yet it's interesting nonetheless.
It is my understanding that a magnetic field is a "potential field". In any potential field, the net energy is the same regardless of path through the field. Therefore, the net energy of any closed path is zero.
....assuming I understand them correctly that is.
I.E. if they are getting energy, then they are saying that a magnetic field is not a potential field.
It's called the "Poppycock" engine. What I do is get a bunch of pseudo-intellectual geeks in a room together and present an idea for a machine that, while technical sounding, obviously breaks some major physical/thermodynamical law. This "idea" serves a catalyst for the ensuing cascade thermal-dynamical reaction as all of these pseudo-intellectuals compete to be the first one to rip my idea apart, thus showing themselves to be far more intellegent than anyone else in the room and generating massive amounts of hot air in the process.
Now...if I need more power, I can always start a discussion of the merits of Babylon 5 Vs. Farscape. However, I do run the risk of melting my thermocouples.
Yours Truly,
The Amazing Sarcasmo
Understood, depending on the specifics of your beam bending problem (I assume we are talking about a multi-span beam, otherwise the problem really is trivial), you can solve it via well known tablulated solutions, the Hardy Cross method (which works great on an Excel spreadsheet), or, these days, I just use an Octave script (or Matlab if you got it). Just a matter defining the stiffness matrix and letting Octave do it's thing.
If you're talking about something a little more exotic, say a variable cross-section multi-span or a built-up intermidiate diagonal tension beam, well, there are well established methods for those as well. In the case of the IDT beam, for example, NACA has an excellent approach, and, if you have a basic grasp of shear flow, you can do some "quick and dirty" computations that will give you and idea of how well you can expect your beam to evaluate in a matter of minutes (which is great for making a go/no-go decision on a design drawing).
Incidentally, the Hardy Cross method (also called the moment distribution method), comes from the early 1900's.
Also, hand analysis of structures does not necessarily limit you to linear elastic assumptions (Cozzone's method for example) and the vast majority of FEA done in the field also assumes linear-elastic (don't be fooled by the Von-Mises output - it's a strain energy density measure, not a stress field). As far as manufacturing defects are concerned, Nastran won't help you either. You still have to know they are there and account for them regardless of the method you employ. If you are talking about multiple site damage (MSD), then you are using a statistical approach and/or a rogue flaw assumption regardless.
Testing is an excellent and even necessary validation tool. However, before you can even do the test, you must do some kind of analysis to even have an idea of what parameters are important, plus, it would be nice if you could pass the test on the first try. Yea, you can "shotgun" it if you've got time and money to burn. However, there are methods that enable you to do sufficient analysis to devise a test with even a minimal understanding of the underlying physics (see "Buckingham Pi" theorem).
Sorry to come down on you as hard as I did, but your response came across as dismissive. Furthermore, it touches on something I come across constantly in the field. That is, engineers who are clearly knowledgable, but lack even basic understanding of how to access a structure. They're smart enough, it's just that no one seems willing to teach that anymore. I can't tell you how many times I've had to reject bad FEA, or how hard that is to do in a culture that believes anything that comes out of a computer is pure gold.
You ready? Here it is:
Mathematics in not a science, it is a language
Let me explain....
Many people think in terms of using mathematics to figure out how nature behaves. What I propose is a slight change of philosophy. All your life, you've experienced and observed nature in action. Let your instincts and understanding of nature guide you to what you think is going on first, then use math to describe it.
Search Wikipedia again for "The Buckingham Pi Theorem". Sir Taylor, considered by many to be one of the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was invited to witness the first US ground test of an atomic blast. Moments before the blast, he pulls an old envelope out of his coat and starts scribbling some computations on it. Just before the blast, he tore the envelope up into small fragments and tossed them in the air as the shock wave went by. He then paces off the distance they flew through the air and made of rough estimate of their time of flight. Based upon that, he makes an estimate of the blast energy that was almost in exact agreement with what US would determine several weeks later using the best computational methods of the day.
By the way, what he came up with on "the back of that envelope" is now known as "Taylor's equation".
This is my understanding of the origin of that expression.
It actually boiled down to a variation of a pressure vessel problem. If you can obtain a copy of Bruhn, look at chapter A16. The basic idea is there.
First off, obtaining a consistent result via two independant methods is an excellent way to cross-check your work.
Secondly, testing is a good way, but the only way. At some point, you have to make you best accessment without the benefit of testing.
Finally, you have no idea what specific analysis I was doing so have no basis to say it was too complex to do by hand.
I suggest you research the origin of the term "back of the envelope calculation", you will learn the story of one "Sir Geoffrey Taylor". Then come back and tell me again what is too complex to do by hand.
You are a perfect example of the problem I was trying to present. No ingenuity, just reliance on machines....pity you don't seem to understand how dangerous that can be.
Wierd that this comes up. Just today, at my latest gig, I had casually mentioned running some rough computation on engine cowl latching loads that showed we might be a little tight on safety margin. However, I needed to see that Nastran load simulation to cross-check the results.
The response I got stunned me a bit...
One of the most senior structural engineers there told me that the loads within an engine core are far too complex and why was I even bothering with hand computations?
It made me immediately think of two things:
1) We were building jet engines long before there was a Nastran (or a NASA for that matter)
2) Complexity!?...NASA brought Apollo 13 home using slide rules and one hell of a pilot. I'm old enough that I remember that. In fact, it's probably why I'm in the aerospace industry.
I hate to sound like an old man, but sometimes I worry that we rely too much on tools that separate the engineer from the analysis. Don't get me wrong, Nastran is great, but if you have no way to cross validate the results, how do you spot an error?
Ya, know...the method I used to evaluate those loads probably came from around the mid 1940's.
From you beginning paragraph:
"I'm a little puzzled about why people here are getting so worked up about this. Does a 15- or 20-second inconvenience fray your nerves so much that you need to devise anti-calling plots to post on Slashdot? If that's the case, I frankly recommend a deep breath, a pleasant stroll, and a massage. I'm friendly even when commercial telemarketers or Republicans call."
No, but string 5 or 10 of these calls together around dinner time every night and I start to get a little annoyed.
No, but when the same group continues to call numerous times after you have clearly communicated that you are not interested and they've assured you that they are "taking you off their list" for the fifth time...yea, it's gets aggrivating....even harassing.
No, but when a political party calls you eight times in the space of an hour on election night to remind you to get to the polls before they close after you have repeatedly told them that you've already voted and please stop calling this number....that, can be downright infuriating.
Minor annoyances, when added up over time, become major annoyances, if not out-and-out harassment.
I vote for #1 :)
"The manufacturers seems to be falling over themselves trying to bring flawed, faulty, and generally unfinished products to market... presumably oblivious to the possibility the first kid on the block to get one will tell all his friends about his experiences."
I bet this is why Longhorn is taking so long.....
{...ducks....}
Item 1:
"From this beginning, the RIAA gradually expanded its program, ramping up its monthly rounds of lawsuits to as many as 800 per month. To date, over 18,000 lawsuits have been filed against individuals."
Item 2:
"Because of the disproportionate financial and organizational power exhibited by the RIAA in its lawsuits, most defendants have settled rather than go to court. The settlements have ranged from $3,000 to $11,000."
Item 3:
"Absent the promise of an award of attorney's fees when the copyright holder unreasonably persists, innocent defendants have little incentive to risk the turbulent and uncharted waters of a protracted legal battle."
What's the often touted criteria for a criminal investigation? Means....Motive....and Opportunity.
$3,000 time 800 suits per month is a pretty tidy income....and that's probably conservative.
that is, if there was a "rim shot" mod :)
it will be comprised of a loosely connected network of underground providers running through the heart of Boston and be referred to as the "big beam". ...too obscure?
Yea, it's funny that he was able to do that, but was it clever? It would seem to me that an unsecure router is a major security hazard. What if our neighbor figures out he's being screwed with and starts making illegal downloads on your internet connection? or worse, what if he starts google-searching for things like "child pornography"?. You're the one that winds up dealing with the MPAA, RIAA, or local police.
Seriously, if he's that good at setting up his network, shouldn't he just secure it an be done with it? One of my neighbors has an open wireless router and I'm trying to find him so I can help him get his locked up as well.
I am, by know means, knowledgable of such matters, but I do find them interesting nonetheless. A couple of things I've heard about degenerative brain diseases are:
1) Maintaining an active mind and constantantly challenging your cognitive abilities can actually protect you from conditions like Alzheimer's.
2) Nicotene can provide protection/relief from not only Alzheimer's but also Parkinson's and Schizophrenia.
These are just things I've heard/read, but I don't know how good the source is, thus, I have no idea as the their validity. Given the social-political climate surrounding the latter, this is one those where I'd love to hear the scientific community chime in on. I mean, if it don't work and/or it can't be rendered safe...then "game over" look for something else. However, I'd hate to think some lawyer/politician is blocking research that might ultimtely prove useful. This wouldn't be the first "poisionous plant" we've gotten medication out of (if I understand correctly).
My thing is, I tend to have more access to the political debate as opposed to scientific data. So, I wish I had more access to the raw data. I guess my opinion is the same for "medical marijuana". I don't care what the politicians/lawyers think, I want to know what the medical/scientific community thinks. I suspect I'm not alone in this.
The question I was referring to said RAY GUN....perhaps he meant radar gun, but he said RAY gun. It is either blind panic, or poor editing.
Perhaps you should read the entire article *before* making blind accusations.
You know, if you take the shoulder blade from a medium badger at attach it to his femur, it makes a heck of a device for flinging buffalo do-doo. We used to trap our own badgers, but sadly, the white-man killed almost all the buffalo so that's hard to find nowadays. I'm thinking about just getting my kids a large dog - for the do-doo that is, not the bones. Once you harvest the bones the animal is pretty much useless....kinda like harvesting apples by cutting down the tree if you know what I mean.
Whoops...5 year old boy....I think I must have channeled Monty Python ;)
From the article:
...any other Dad's out here shudder when they read that?
=======
Where will HotWheels be in five years?
I see HotWheels going beyond the vehicle. We're just testing the waters now with toys like the Ray Gun. We also want to get kids outdoors.
========
As the father of a three year old boy and a 4 year old girl (who both play with Hot Wheels), my first thoght was, "I wonder where this puts the world in five years?"
Great, forget about buiding entire cities populated with Hot Wheels vehicles and "My Little Ponies" using Legos, Tinkertoys, and Connects to make buildings and structures for them to run through.., or figuring out how to make a track that goes through a loop, hit's one of the battery-powered car boosters (you know, with the spinning foam wheels) then circles around and jumps back through the loop eventually arriving back at the starting point so we can send it through again. No....it's much more creative to just go outside and pretend to shoot each other.
Look for "Johnny Lightning" cars....hard to find, but they still seem to make actual replicas of cars. Although, I seem to recall that Matchbox still makes construction vehicles and even Hot Wheels will have vintage hot rods (Shelby Cobra for example).
There out there, my kid has over 100 of them.
While I do write programs and utilities as part of my job (and I like tinkering with it anyways), I'm not a coder by trade. So, with that disclaimer out of the way, I'll render my admittedly uninformed opinion.
I suspect that, all else being equal, it's probably easier to find exploitable flaws in a system and write malicious code to take advantage of it as opposed to trying to defend against such attacks. Not only is it generally easier to destroy than to create, but the attacker need only find a single flaw among many to exploit where the defender must protect all vulnerabilites - known or unknown.
Then again, using that line of thought, it's probably easier to attack a largely closed operating system than an open one, which goes against McAfee's position....oh well.
(off topic I know, forgive the breech of protocol)
There is always the "Blue Dog" Democrats.