Every "invention" we have is a revised,accelerated, optimized and controlled process that the nature already did.
Yes, those rocket powered four-wheeled animals are certainly a hoot to watch, skating across the savannah. Do be careful of the ones with fricken' laser beams, though. They might kill you and then microwave you before they slather you with condiments and eat you. They may be dangerous, but the little ones wearing diapers are adorable.
Squid effectively use rocket propulsion by squirting water through their bodies to move. Dung beetles were using wheels before humans were. Some stars emit laser radiation. Our own Sun emits microwave radiation.
How much of big oil profit gets spent on researching alternative energy?
They are precisely the people who need to be developing things like E85 ethanol and electric cars, but it isn't happening because with all that profit, there is no incentive.
Wrong. You asked for a single example of a Linux virus that was in the wild, I provided one.
How can I be 'wrong'? I suspect you had never heard of Ramen before I pointed it out to you - perhaps you should research things before shooting your mouth off.
I can solve the Mind-Body problem right now - the brain is the hardware, the mind is a virtual construct of the running software on that brain hardware (or wetware). In one sense they are separate in that one is virtual where the other is physical, however the mind is reliant on the brain much like a running kernel is dependant on CPU(s), RAM and other hardware - the brain can exist without the mind but the reverse is not true.
The question of 'what happens when you die?' can be answered the same as 'what happens to the game I'm playing if I turn off the computer or console without saving?'
Using this logic I can prove that a) your mind can live forever if you can find suitable hardware to run it on (however it must remain in a running state as it cannot be shut down or rebooted) and b) the people who get cryogenically frozen are wasting their money as to 'bring someone back to life' who is frozen would require saving the session state of every electron in the brain at time of death and being able to replace and re-start them as they were. If you could do that you probably wouldn't need to.
So by your logic there are 140,000 Windows exploits which will all work on Vista because it's no different from Windows 95, including having the same GUI.
I am aware of the first one there, and the second only works in beta so we have one. (I'm not denying nor would I ever deny that no exploits for Vista exist - only that past exploits for an OS that is 12 years old cannot sensibly be included against Vista - that is ridiculous).
I can't help rendering the issue through the Mac Zealot logic apology process:
"Initial indications are that in order for the attack to be successful, the attacker must already have authenticated access to the target system.
In Zealot logic, that would not count because the user would have to be authenticated, in other words, would have to have an account on the box and be able to log in, therefore the 'exploit' is a non issue and so does not exist. To the sensible people, clearly it is a serious issue but you get the idea.
As for x per month, OSX just had one a day for a month so Vista is already ahead of the game. Based on past experience this of course will not last, but the point is there are exploits for OSX, even if we only count the current version. Anyone going around saying that 'there are zero exploits for OSX' is either ignorant, delusional or in denial.
This would be mostly because the RIAA companies required it.
If you want to apologise for that then fine - but what about Apple locking Intel OSX to Mac hardware only? Why can't I just buy OSX and install it on a PC? Or were they told to do that too?
Nobody is disputing the number of exploits for all versions of Windows, but:
(along with 40 exploits for the old MacOS and Zero for OS X)
I see when talking about MacOS, suddenly you make a distinction between the old OS, and OSX. In your logic and wording, there are '40 exploits for MacOS'. There are a lot more than 'zero for OSX' actually if we look at MOAB, but that's beside the point. You can't sensibly include an exploit that only works on an OS that is 12 years old simply because it has the same name as the current version. Should we include AppleII 'exploits' against OSX and say 'Apple has xxxx exploits' when talking about OSX? It gets ridiculous.
I'm not disputing that there may be 140,000 Windows exploits if we cover all versions of Windows, but he said and I quote:
Lets see: 140,000 known Windows exploits, most of them surfacing in the last 12 years makes that at least one exploit released every 45 minutes - or there abouts. Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.
Presumably he meant Vista has more exploits than BeOS (that nobody uses relatively speaking)...yet when asked to cite some examples, simply referred me to that statement again, and was unable to provide a straight answer, or a single Vista exploit example. So I ask for an example, and am referred to the statement 'there are 140,000 Windows exploits'. As we are talking about Vista, then why mention old Windows at all (or should I start listing OS9 viruses as a problem for OSX?).
Nowdays I want to use my computer for surfing, email, photos, videos, and a Mac offers me all of these things right out of the box with 0 setup time needed.
Hear hear - this is why I have a PowerBook that I use for almost everything and I strongly recommend OSX over a PC for home users. I'm not a Windows apologist - I think Vista is terrible bloatware that nothing works on ATM TBH but I will challenge lies and misleading statements - for example, if someone claims there are '140,000' exploits for Vista, that info must come from somewhere - firstly I'd be genuinely interested to read about that but clearly that statement is obtuse as it is talking about all versions of Windows. It would be like someone saying there are xxxxx viruses and exploits for OSX while including things from OS7 etc - the majority of OS7 exploits are simply not going to cause a problem under Tiger (I'm factoring in Classic) therefore it is misleading to mention them.
Umm, in the way that you can change any component you like without having the buy a new computer.
Actually you can [change the motherboard], they're just expensive and you have more limited hardware options.
Ok smartass, you can't change it for a different one, or are you expecting me to believe I can just go and buy a new Mac Pro Intel board to upgrade my G5 tower? I don't think so.
When upgrading hardware on the mac, you never have to worry about calling Apple to get a new key, because your OS decided you are a criminal.
That would be because Apple make most of their money from the hardware - if you are installing OSX, then you are doing that on a Mac (cracked copies hacked to work on PC hardware not counted). You can't blame Microsoft for trying to prevent piracy, unless you want to criticise Apple for using DRM on iTunes because they are assuming you are going to be a criminal and file share your downloads.
You never have to worry about reinstalling the OS, or OS's in succession because you only have an "upgrade" version.
...you mean like my Tiger upgrade I bought from Apple that will only install over Panther?
Back to my original point - you simply cannot make a serious comparison between 'upgrading' a Mac (by changing the graphics card, or putting in more memory) with the amount of options that are available for PC hardware, and if you are going to seriously compare that, then you are invalidating the Apple 'surgery' ad because by your logic 'Mac' should also be in plaster as he too would be having surgery to 'upgrade'. In reality his bigger, faster replacement should appear on screen, shoot him in the head and take over from him.
So you can't cite any Vista examples. How many of those '140,000 known Windows exploits' work on Vista? Do you at least know that? Or should we count exploits that only work on Windows 95 against Vista?
We could always do the old Mac Zealot trick of redefining what an 'exploit' is rather than admit there are any problems with a platform - for example where they will redefine the meaning of 'virus' or deny that a proof of concept counts as a 'problem' because it 'doesnt do any damage', in which case I could probably get that '140,000' figure down to about 6.
I'm not apologising for Microsoft, but the bit where he says Apple's ads are misleading is talking specifically about the ad where 'PC' is having surgery to upgrade - from TFA:
How about the implication that you need surgery to upgrade?
Well, certainly we've done a better job letting you upgrade on the hardware than our competitors have done. You can choose to buy a new machine, or you can choose to do an upgrade. And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say? Does honesty matter in these things, or if you're really cool, that means you get to be a lying person whenever you feel like it? There's not even the slightest shred of truth to it.
Cue G5 tower (of which I am one) and Mac Pro users replying saying that they can be upgraded - sure they have expansion slots and you can change the graphics card - that's great but most PC's are more flexible - for example if you want you can change the motherboard etc. - can't exactly do that with a Mac tower. The other question of course is exactly why is it Microsoft's fault if PC hardware can or cannot be upgraded?
Having said all that of course, having used Vista Business for the last month, I'd advise avoiding it like the plague until at least the first service pack and for software to be fixed to work on it like Server admin tools etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, those rocket powered four-wheeled animals are certainly a hoot to watch, skating across the savannah. Do be careful of the ones with fricken' laser beams, though. They might kill you and then microwave you before they slather you with condiments and eat you. They may be dangerous, but the little ones wearing diapers are adorable.
Squid effectively use rocket propulsion by squirting water through their bodies to move. Dung beetles were using wheels before humans were. Some stars emit laser radiation. Our own Sun emits microwave radiation.
How much of big oil profit gets spent on researching alternative energy?
They are precisely the people who need to be developing things like E85 ethanol and electric cars, but it isn't happening because with all that profit, there is no incentive.
Now that the Apple / Apple court case is sorted out, why doesn't Apple Inc. just become a record label?
Wrong. You asked for a single example of a Linux virus that was in the wild, I provided one.
How can I be 'wrong'? I suspect you had never heard of Ramen before I pointed it out to you - perhaps you should research things before shooting your mouth off.
Is that the best you came up with?
You asked for quantity, not quality.
Ramen.
Sounds to me like he would be much better off with a Macintosh.
I can solve the Mind-Body problem right now - the brain is the hardware, the mind is a virtual construct of the running software on that brain hardware (or wetware). In one sense they are separate in that one is virtual where the other is physical, however the mind is reliant on the brain much like a running kernel is dependant on CPU(s), RAM and other hardware - the brain can exist without the mind but the reverse is not true.
The question of 'what happens when you die?' can be answered the same as 'what happens to the game I'm playing if I turn off the computer or console without saving?'
Using this logic I can prove that a) your mind can live forever if you can find suitable hardware to run it on (however it must remain in a running state as it cannot be shut down or rebooted) and b) the people who get cryogenically frozen are wasting their money as to 'bring someone back to life' who is frozen would require saving the session state of every electron in the brain at time of death and being able to replace and re-start them as they were. If you could do that you probably wouldn't need to.
So by your logic there are 140,000 Windows exploits which will all work on Vista because it's no different from Windows 95, including having the same GUI.
I am aware of the first one there, and the second only works in beta so we have one. (I'm not denying nor would I ever deny that no exploits for Vista exist - only that past exploits for an OS that is 12 years old cannot sensibly be included against Vista - that is ridiculous).
I can't help rendering the issue through the Mac Zealot logic apology process:
"Initial indications are that in order for the attack to be successful, the attacker must already have authenticated access to the target system.
In Zealot logic, that would not count because the user would have to be authenticated, in other words, would have to have an account on the box and be able to log in, therefore the 'exploit' is a non issue and so does not exist. To the sensible people, clearly it is a serious issue but you get the idea.
As for x per month, OSX just had one a day for a month so Vista is already ahead of the game. Based on past experience this of course will not last, but the point is there are exploits for OSX, even if we only count the current version. Anyone going around saying that 'there are zero exploits for OSX' is either ignorant, delusional or in denial.
That's what they want you to think...
I wasn't sure what to expect to be honest but I, like a number of people was simply curious.
This would be mostly because the RIAA companies required it.
If you want to apologise for that then fine - but what about Apple locking Intel OSX to Mac hardware only? Why can't I just buy OSX and install it on a PC? Or were they told to do that too?
Nobody is disputing the number of exploits for all versions of Windows, but:
(along with 40 exploits for the old MacOS and Zero for OS X)
I see when talking about MacOS, suddenly you make a distinction between the old OS, and OSX. In your logic and wording, there are '40 exploits for MacOS'. There are a lot more than 'zero for OSX' actually if we look at MOAB, but that's beside the point. You can't sensibly include an exploit that only works on an OS that is 12 years old simply because it has the same name as the current version. Should we include AppleII 'exploits' against OSX and say 'Apple has xxxx exploits' when talking about OSX? It gets ridiculous.
I'm not disputing that there may be 140,000 Windows exploits if we cover all versions of Windows, but he said and I quote:
Lets see: 140,000 known Windows exploits, most of them surfacing in the last 12 years makes that at least one exploit released every 45 minutes - or there abouts. Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.
Presumably he meant Vista has more exploits than BeOS (that nobody uses relatively speaking)...yet when asked to cite some examples, simply referred me to that statement again, and was unable to provide a straight answer, or a single Vista exploit example. So I ask for an example, and am referred to the statement 'there are 140,000 Windows exploits'. As we are talking about Vista, then why mention old Windows at all (or should I start listing OS9 viruses as a problem for OSX?).
Nowdays I want to use my computer for surfing, email, photos, videos, and a Mac offers me all of these things right out of the box with 0 setup time needed.
Hear hear - this is why I have a PowerBook that I use for almost everything and I strongly recommend OSX over a PC for home users. I'm not a Windows apologist - I think Vista is terrible bloatware that nothing works on ATM TBH but I will challenge lies and misleading statements - for example, if someone claims there are '140,000' exploits for Vista, that info must come from somewhere - firstly I'd be genuinely interested to read about that but clearly that statement is obtuse as it is talking about all versions of Windows. It would be like someone saying there are xxxxx viruses and exploits for OSX while including things from OS7 etc - the majority of OS7 exploits are simply not going to cause a problem under Tiger (I'm factoring in Classic) therefore it is misleading to mention them.
It's only really been out a couple of days.
To the public; we business customers got Vista Business back in December.
I went back to XP after two weeks - it's simply not 'there' yet.
I'd put money on that there are not 140,000 working exploits for Vista - yes.
Umm, in what way?
Umm, in the way that you can change any component you like without having the buy a new computer.
Actually you can [change the motherboard], they're just expensive and you have more limited hardware options.
Ok smartass, you can't change it for a different one, or are you expecting me to believe I can just go and buy a new Mac Pro Intel board to upgrade my G5 tower? I don't think so.
When upgrading hardware on the mac, you never have to worry about calling Apple to get a new key, because your OS decided you are a criminal.
That would be because Apple make most of their money from the hardware - if you are installing OSX, then you are doing that on a Mac (cracked copies hacked to work on PC hardware not counted). You can't blame Microsoft for trying to prevent piracy, unless you want to criticise Apple for using DRM on iTunes because they are assuming you are going to be a criminal and file share your downloads.
You never have to worry about reinstalling the OS, or OS's in succession because you only have an "upgrade" version.
...you mean like my Tiger upgrade I bought from Apple that will only install over Panther?
Back to my original point - you simply cannot make a serious comparison between 'upgrading' a Mac (by changing the graphics card, or putting in more memory) with the amount of options that are available for PC hardware, and if you are going to seriously compare that, then you are invalidating the Apple 'surgery' ad because by your logic 'Mac' should also be in plaster as he too would be having surgery to 'upgrade'. In reality his bigger, faster replacement should appear on screen, shoot him in the head and take over from him.
Sweet, when can you get started? Just as soon as you cite some Vista examples.
So you can't cite any Vista examples. How many of those '140,000 known Windows exploits' work on Vista? Do you at least know that? Or should we count exploits that only work on Windows 95 against Vista?
We could always do the old Mac Zealot trick of redefining what an 'exploit' is rather than admit there are any problems with a platform - for example where they will redefine the meaning of 'virus' or deny that a proof of concept counts as a 'problem' because it 'doesnt do any damage', in which case I could probably get that '140,000' figure down to about 6.
I'm not apologising for Microsoft, but the bit where he says Apple's ads are misleading is talking specifically about the ad where 'PC' is having surgery to upgrade - from TFA:
.
How about the implication that you need surgery to upgrade? Well, certainly we've done a better job letting you upgrade on the hardware than our competitors have done. You can choose to buy a new machine, or you can choose to do an upgrade. And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say? Does honesty matter in these things, or if you're really cool, that means you get to be a lying person whenever you feel like it? There's not even the slightest shred of truth to it.
And I'm not being funny, but it's easier to upgrade a PC than a Mac. Am reminded of You pick it up, throw it away, then go buy a new one - now that's convenience
Cue G5 tower (of which I am one) and Mac Pro users replying saying that they can be upgraded - sure they have expansion slots and you can change the graphics card - that's great but most PC's are more flexible - for example if you want you can change the motherboard etc. - can't exactly do that with a Mac tower. The other question of course is exactly why is it Microsoft's fault if PC hardware can or cannot be upgraded?
Having said all that of course, having used Vista Business for the last month, I'd advise avoiding it like the plague until at least the first service pack and for software to be fixed to work on it like Server admin tools etc.
For Vista? It's only been out a month.
Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.
Care you cite some examples?
Like many technological advances, this could find funding from the porn industry...