No, they just would have been the first killed, and not the pilots.
And how would the hijackers know WHICH two citizens are armed?
They don't find out until the big, slow bullets (that don't puncture the pressure hull or cockpit bulkhead) plow through their skulls or sternums.
Note that airlines from Israel always have at least one armed plainclothes official onboard. You don't hear about them getting hijacked very often, do you?
These guys knew exactly what they were doing to create the first unconventional building implosion of its type. Somebody put a lot of engineering work into this, calculating -- probably from public or stolen drawings of the WTC's steelwork -- how much steel (nominally fireproofed or otherwise) might be exposed in a fireball created by the ram-impact of a large airliner coming in frontally through the side, rathert than a glancing impact.
That assumes collapsing the building was the intent.
Another possibility is that they wanted to destroy a significant section of the building, its personnel, and/or its equipment and files by fire, and that a partial or total building collapse, if it were to occur, would be an "added bonus".
A fully-fuled airline could be expected to produce a several-story fire barrier, killing the people at the affected floors and blocking most of those above it from escape, as the fire and its heat and gasses worked upward, above the level where effective action could be taken against it.
You'll note that the first plane struck quite high. This is not consistent with deliberately attempting to collapse the building.
It might be interesting to identify what offices were at or above the levels of impact on each of the towers. (Though that would assume the planes hit at the levels that were intended.)
Regardless of whether it went down as intended, it certainly succeeded. Both towers and the adjacent "building 7" were destroyed totally. While the timing of the strikes let a lot of people be evacuated, it also trapped and killed a lot of fire, police, and medical personnel.
I understand that despite the cutoff of gas and electric to the affected section of Manhattan there is (or was) one large hotel on fire, and a large chunk of the fire department (including its top three officials) were killed in the collapse of the towers, along with a lot of equipment buried. So there might still be a "South Manhattan Fire" taking out the rest of the financial district.
Seriously I would love a bit of feedback when my mouse moves over a button or a link: Sorta like how modern window managers can snap borders to edges of other windows or the screen when moving or resizing...
But imagine the virtual "gravity well" sucking your mouse into the ad banners.
Brings a whole new meaning to "real time black hole".
So far, we have been ABLE TO listen to CDs on our computers, etc. Whether this is a RIGHT that we obtain from purchasing a CD is an entirely different issue.
The fact that you have been able to use CDs in this way up until now creates the expectation that this particular new CD (from the same manufacturer) can also be used in this way. The labeling does not do anything to correct the impression.
So the CD violates the "implied warranty of servicibility and fitness" - for the purpose SHE intended when she bought it - and is thus a defective product. Because this was done deliberately, the company has DELIBERATELY shipped a defective product. There's lots of nice stuff in consumer law and case-law about that. B-)
Further, if they put the CD logo on the case (I don't know if they did) it is being advertised as conforming to the Red Book standard - which it obviously does not if the error correction code is not correct. That would be false advertising as well.
When you have 1000's of people driving around trying to h4x0r 802.11b networks, it won't be the same thing anymore.
How do you know you don't ALREADY have thousands of people driving around sniffing 802.11b nets?
And how is a person supposed to distinguish nets left open deliberately, as a public service, from those left open accidentally?
The existence of public 802.11b ports gives plausabile deniability of criminal intent to anyone making parasitic but non-malicious use of an accidentally-open WLAN.
(IANAL of course. But I'd hate to be a prosecutor trying to bring a case against someone who "trespassed" on a WLAN port.)
WEP is not the answer. Tunneled SL, or some sort of VPN end to end security is the only way to protect your connect.
Hear hear.
So the thing to do is to put the wireless LAN port on the logical OUTSIDE of your firewall and let the laptops all tunnel in through it. Your firewall can also filter connections between the WLAN and your net feed.
For the open net your users can also encrypted-tunnel to the tunnel server and go out from there, to avoid eavesdroppers. With this configuration there's no reason to bother with WEP.
Go ahead and route packets between the net and the wireless port if you're feeling altruistic, or restrict WLAN connections to the tunnel server(s) if you're not.
Making it "beautiful" IS making it work.
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 2
I don't get paid to create beauty, especially not internal beauty. I need it to work, not look good.
You're paid to make it work, make it keep on working, and do so in an efficient manner.
That is WHY you must "make it beautiful". To do otherwise takes longer and costs more. A LOT more.
One of the problems with this debate is the use of the vocabularity of aesthetics. That software with certain characteristics is also "beautiful" is a side-issue. The characteristics that make it "beautiful" are also those that make it:
fast to write
low in errors
easy to debug
easy to modify, augment, and improve.
Being "beautiful" is pleasant for the programmers (which also improves productivity somewhat). But issues of "beauty" and "style" - AS beauty and style - are a red herring.
And these characteristics that are usually only describable in these terms make an ENORMOUS differece.
For instance: I habitually use these principles in my coding, and debug as I go. My work was once characterized as "... takes three times as long as anyone else, but it usually works."
Bullshit.
The techniques made my work so blazingly fast that I was able to deliver a complete, debugged, essentially error-free component in about three times what it took the other programmers to get to their first clean compile, or to do a debugging iteration. And by "essentially error-free" I mean that in over two years of work at one site, with thousands of lines of code, I had one error detected by someone else, in a preliminary internal release, before I had corrected it.
But the result was that my time-to-completion was measured against everybody else's time-to-do-a-debugging-iteration. And the administration discounted my advice in favor of that of the "most productive" - read least careful - member of the team. And the bulk of the project iterated until the sponsor turned off the money.
So this esperience was an example of how using the vocabulary of art to describe practical issues of programming methodology is actively counter-productive.
This is an example of a number game called geometria. The Hebrews (and here the early Christians) would take a word and play with its numerical value to show hidden meanings in the word....
It's also an example of using hidden encrypted information to avoid censorship.
The Roman Empire had strong censorship of criticism of its officials' actions. Death penalty for inciting revolt against the Empire. Of course the official making the call was usually the one criticized, since he'd be the one running things locally and annoying people.
But Rome had a big thing about allowing the subject people their religions, to reduce the incentive to revolt. (That's why "Carthage Must Be Destroyed!" - due in large part to their baby-roasting cult - took so long to get through the Senate.) So religious tracts could be published without restriction.
So a large amount of anti-Roman propaganda and organizational literature was disguised as religious tracts, with well-known codes, such as local-culture referances and local-language puns and rhymes, used for the encryption. The Hebrews were among the big users of this technique and a lot of their work still survives. Revalations is a typical example of the form, criticizing a Roman general, which just happens to have been disguised well enough that it made it into the Christian canon. (I don't recall which general. But it's well known in anthropological circles and the rest of the text matches what he was up to at the time.)
The "Number of the Beast" is how the Hebrew radicals identified the person being discussed. They already had this hashing function for other uses: Replace each letter with its cabalistic value and add the result. So they could identify the person by using "The Number of his Name". To see who they were talking about, apply the function to the names of each of the well-known officials in the area at the time and look for a match.
The power in any one frequency is so small that it can be considered background noise and will not interfere with conventional signals.
But send MULTIPLE pulses to transmit information and it starts adding up at some frequences and canceling at others. The more redundant the information, the more concentrated the concentrations.
(Tuned receivers integrate their input over a significant time, so they add up energy from multiple pulses so that certain pulse combinations amount to a much stronger interfering signal than the energy distribution from one pulse would appear to produce.)
You can try to randomize your energy distribution by scrambling with an unrelated function. But that just makes the concentrations intermittent in time.
Want to send data a hundred miles? Imagine you were doing this with VISIBLE light. You're modulating an arc light at your transmitter, bright enough that the output of a solar cell a hundred miles away has more signal from your arc light than from all the other light sources (including any other arc lights) combined. Now imagine somebody on your block trying to read morse-code flashes from a distant colored lightbulb, using his own solar cell and a color filter.
This is actually a bad example as light is very directional and unless that arc light is pointed to your neighbour, he should be able to see his coloured light. (perhaps in a haze of white light.)
What I had in mind was an arc light without a reflector. A bare gas-discharge lamp or a pair of carbon rods at the top of a pole.
Oh, yes. And no telescope reflector, focusing lens, or directional light shade on the solar cell, either. (I was making an analogy to omnidirectional antennas on both ends of the link.)
Want to send data a hundred miles? Imagine you were doing this with VISIBLE light. You're modulating an arc light at your transmitter, bright enough that the output of a solar cell a hundred miles away has more signal from your arc light than from all the other light sources (including any other arc lights) combined. Now imagine somebody on your block trying to read morse-code flashes from a distant colored lightbulb, using his own solar cell and a color filter.
This is actually a bad example as light is very directional and unless that arc light is pointed to your neighbour, he should be able to see his coloured light. (perhaps in a haze of white light.)
What I had in mind was an arc light without a reflector. A bare gas-discharge lamp or a pair of carbon rods at the top of a pole.
Don't stand under it, epsecially the latter, unless you want a sunburn. Don't look if you don't want to burn out your own personal "light detectors". B-)
Run a protocol so the radio versions of your "arc lights" take turns and you can run a network. (Think of running "Ethernet" in the real aether.) But that's ALL you'll be able to run. Goodbye TV, goodbye AM and FM radio, goodbye aircraft band, police band, CB,...
What about using this technology for all communications. Pie in the sky, yes definately... but would it work any better?
Switch everything over to this technology and it works. But you end up with the same amount of communication as if you didn't switch. And if you want simultaneous transmissions rather than taking turns you still end up with a hybrid where you pulse-shape to band limit and have to assign channels.
Time-domain and frequency-domain signals don't play well together. And the time-domain kids got to the playground first. Do you want ANOTHER war with broadcast media? Remember, if they lose it's their death, so they'll fight REAL HARD.
I just heard some sad news on TV, apparently Slashdot website creator, Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, was rushed to the hospital this afternoon after having his penis sliced off.
Sounds like he misread and misattributed my signature.
Where do they get these guys? First he says that it doesn't use any spectrum...then he says that anything below 2 GHz will interfere with existing Nav and Comm systems. Gotta be one or the other. Can't be both.
Yes, it can be both
No it can't.
There is only so much spectrum. The faster you change the signal, the broader the chunk of spectrum you use.
You can use it for a shorter time, and end up with the same time-bandwidth product.
You can control signal intensity more finely to encode more bits, until the ambient noise (or weaker interfering signals) would confuse the decoder.
You can direct your signal so that most of the energy goes toward the receiver rather than spreading out uniformly (though this gets harder as the bandwidth gets wider).
You can restrict its polarization to one of a complimentary pair, leaving the complimentary polarization's half of the spectrum free (or using it for a second or a return signal).
But that's IT.
If two transmitters are hitting a receiver with energy in the same chunk of spectrum they interfere. Spread the actual bits around so they're transmitted redundantly in different parts of the spectrum (not just hop the carrier to put a burst of bits in one chunk and move on) and you might be able to pull them out of some interference. But then you've used up several times as much spectrum in the first place - as have the interfering signals from other users of the same scheme.
UWB works by sending single-cycle pulses. The information is carried by when the pulse is transmitted with respect to a reference.
Since there is no carrier, it doesn't affect a specific part of the spectrum. However, since there is no carrier, it affects all parts of the spectrum by adding to the noise floor. That is what the big problem with this technology is and why the FCC is looking so closely at it. The UWB Consortium [uwb.org] has more information.
This scheme doesn't "not use spectrum". It uses the ENTIRE spectrum - up to the limit of the transmitting equipment. The shorter the pulse (so you can space them more closely and send more bits) the higher the limit. When it talks it steps on EVERYTHING - one pulse, one "POP" in a radio, one fleck of snow on a TV screen, one bright spot on a radar. The has to be above the noise floor itself to be heard - and the "noise floor" includes all those other signals it's interfering with.
If your data rate is low you can keep the signal weak - at the receiver. The pulses spread out their energy over an enromous chunk of bandwidth, so your reciever can measure the energy over the whole specrtum and recover the desired data from the other signals-assuming there is only ONE transmitter using this scheme, of course.
But electromagnetic signals fall off with inverse-square. Near the transmitter you're not just "raising the noise floor". You're generating a continuous lightning bolt.
Want to send data a hundred miles? Imagine you were doing this with VISIBLE light. You're modulating an arc light at your transmitter, bright enough that the output of a solar cell a hundred miles away has more signal from your arc light than from all the other light sources (including any other arc lights) combined. Now imagine somebody on your block trying to read morse-code flashes from a distant colored lightbulb, using his own solar cell and a color filter.
Run a protocol so the radio versions of your "arc lights" take turns and you can run a network. (Think of running "Ethernet" in the real aether.) But that's ALL you'll be able to run. Goodbye TV, goodbye AM and FM radio, goodbye aircraft band, police band, CB,... A radar (with its very directional antenna) will show only a wedge of light in the direction of your transmitter. (Which is how the authorities will find you to shut you down - if they get there before the neighbors with the torches and pitchforks.)
Meanwhile, just as the time-limited signal of time-domain modulation schemes selectively "punch a hole" in the time distribution of the signals of the frequency-domain modulation services, the frequency-domain modulation signals selectively punch holes in time-domain modulation signals. The "hole" is in the form of pattern sensitivity - selective interference with those bit patterns that correspond to the energy distribution of the frequency-domain signal. Your pulse strength has to be great enough to "shout down" this interfering signal, or those bit patterns just don't go through uncorrupted.
Time-domain and frequency-domain signals don't play well together. And the time-domain kids got to the playground first. Do you want ANOTHER war with broadcast media? Remember, if they lose it's their death, so they'll fight REAL HARD.
You can avoid the war by shaping your pulses so the energy stays in a limited band (at the cost of limiting your data rate correspondingly). But within that band you can only use time-domain schemes. You've "divided the playground". And the smaller the hunk of playground you got, the lower your data rate. Shaping your pulses stretched them out - and you have to move them farther apart to tell them apart at the receiver. How much playground do you think you can get for your gang's exclusive use?
Personally I don't see a problem with raising the noise floor for this technology because, as I understand it, it raises the floor uniformly and, if I understand this correctly, the actual number of devices transmitting doesn't play into this.
Each one of those "arc lights" raises the noise floor - by a bunch. More noise means you can't measure the signal from the desired "arc light" as accurately - which means you get less bits-per-second from it.
The total number of bits-per-second available to ALL transmitters at any given receiving antenna is a constant described by Nyquist: 2 * bandwidth in cycles-per-second * base-2 log of the signal-to-noise ratio.
But the distribution in space of the "raised noise floor" is a face-down morning-glory flower. Like those surfaces where they roll a ball bearing to demonstrate orbits, but upside-down.
Imagine a rubber sheet: You grabbed it at your transmitter and stretched it WAY up - until the sheet at the distant receiver was raised enough that the receiver could detect you yanking. And your neighbor's TV antennas are up on the peak with you. (And so is your network antenna...)
The only thing I don't quite grok is how they can get two devices to have such rock-solid stable time references (we're talking sub-picosecond jitter) without secondary clock transmitters and keep them that way. If anyone out there can help shed some light on it I'd love to hear from you.
You sacrifice a part of your bandwidth to send a pre-defined, typically repetitive, synchronization signal, to keep the receiver synchronized with the transmitter. Think of the start/stop bits on a serial line, the framing bits in T1, T3, or SONET, or the vertical and horizontal sync bars in a TV signal.
The more bandwidth you sacrifice, the faster your receiver's clock syncs up when reception starts. If you're transmitting bursts you can put most of the sync at the start of the burst to get things locked quickly (and identify the signal and its start), then use just enough to keep the receiver locked for the rest of the burst.
... given how many other companies releasing software under the GPL have croaked, can you blame them?
GPLing code allows the code to survive the death of the corporation, rather than go down with it. This keeps the customers from being totally unsupported. So a company may chose to GPL the code when it encounters financial difficulty (or to escrow it to be released GPL in the event of cessation of operation), to give potential customers less reason to resist purchase.
Provided the investors are OK with it, it also allows the former employees to do spinoff works later without legal hangups from the IP being tied up as an asset of a bankrupt company.
The original owner of the work can grant multiple licenses, including GPL, SPL, whatever.
Botton line, the original owner can do anything, other people are "infected" by the GPL. So any public forks of 4.1.1 (say) will has to stay GPL.
But note that if Sinistra merged into the new stuff any bug-fix or feature enhancement code submitted under the GPL, the owner of the copyright on THAT part is the author of the submitted code.
So if Sinistra included any outside code, such as patches or feature additions, they need to have been squeaky-clean about getting rights assignments and documenting them. The authors of such code are the copyright owners on that code, and in the absense of an assignment the only license Sinistra would have from the author is the GPL. THAT would infect the Sinistra distribution, and the author could assert this in a legal proceeding.
With the revised code open to public inspection under Sinistra's "SPL", the author could easily identify his code, too.
If Sun is getting serious about open source they might consider either:
open-sourcing the X/NeWS code, or
releasing the members of the Grasshopper group from some of their contract terms, so they can in turn open-source either their NeWS code or X/NeWS as of the point Sun pulled it inhouse and dropped Grasshopper's participation in the project.
It may be a little late for display-postscript to reenter the desktop wars. But I'd like to see it take a crack on its merits, rather than being shut out by an artifact of I.P. ancient history.
Malicious code can replicate more easily when more hosts are available, so virus creators tend to focus on widely used platforms. (That is why few viruses exist for wireless platforms right now -- and why more viruses plague Windows platforms than Mac or Linux platforms.)
Obviously Windows' market penetration is the ONLY reason Unix/Linux platforms have essentially no viruses while Windows has so many it's spawned an ENTIRE INDUSTRY of virus-protection software. The organization and quality of the software and the number of people looking for and fixing bugs have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
So if a lot of people abandoned Windows for Unix, Linux, or OSX virus writers would write viruses for them. Since only popularity matters, they'd succeed as easily with those other operating systems and app suites as they do now with Windows. So viruses would be just as much of a problem as they are now. So don't bother to switch.
It would disclosure the information that is public and would not be that intrusive.
One big reason public records are public is so they can be checked for accuracy, allowing errors and fraud to be detected and corrected. This is especially true in the case of voter registration.
Political machines have historically created large numbers of fake votes, and used these to keep themselves in power far beyond the point where the actual population would have voted them out.
Once this was done by techniques such as "keeping alive" a voter registration after the actual voter had died, an abuse so prevalent that "the graveyard vote" became a term of political discourse. This practice continues to this day. (Our next-door neighbor has been trying for years to deregister her mother - who died a while back. The clerk refuses, because she's still voting.)
But more recent changes to election laws - especially in California - have led to enormous abuse.
"Motor-Voter" registration, with stacks of mail-in forms in every public office, allows the creation of paper voters in wholesale lots.
At-poll-site registration-and-vote allows vanloads of "instant voters" to move from poll site to poll site, registering and voting multiply.
No-reason absentee ballot laws allow paper voters to vote - first time and every time - by mail, never showing a face to a poll watcher. (One address in Berkeley was recently noticed to have several THOUSAND "residents" voting absentee.)
Non-citizens are allowed - and encouraged - to vote. A poll-watcher may not ask for proof of citizenship because this is allegedly "racist" and "intimidating".
Any fraud at all can swing a close election. This sort of massive fraud can swing even non-close ones. Without such fraud would the last presidential election have been a squeaker? Would the houses of congress be closely divided and split between parties? Would the Hunter's Point park have been turned into shopping malls and condos and millions in bond money spent (to be repaid from taxes) on a stadium that was never built?
Would millions of potential voters be staying home (making the fraud still easier) because they believe their votes don't count?
Would YOUR vote make a differenc?
Changing the law starts with showing there's a problem with the existing law. Showing there's a problem requires detecting it. Detecting it requires documenting large numbers of fake voters. Documenting fake voters requires access to the names and addresses of registered voters.
So hiding the addresses of registered voters - in bulk on the internet - promotes voter fraud and political machines. Yet the privacy risk comes from the availability of the address AT ALL - and a stalker, crook, or information seller can still get the addresses he wants.
So keeping addresses off the internet is the worst of both worlds, leaving the crooks and privacy-invaders with access and the general population in the dark.
3.Even though it wasn't being used, Qwest left the HTTP server enabled and configured to accept connections on the WAN port of the router.
Actually, with that version of the Cisco firmware the router would crash due to Code Red's probe packets even if the port was disabled.
If Qwest was negligent it was because they didn't upgrade the firmware in the routers they supplied, and didn't provide the users with a notification of the need to upgrade and a convenient way to do so.
Each subsystem may have its own clock, but the subsystems are so assembled so they can run asychronously.
It sounds like they're talking about an asynchronous design.
There are two major styles of logic design: synchronous and asynchronous.
In a synchronous design you have a large number of edge-triggered D-type flip-flops driven by a common clock. This may be all the flip-flops on the chip, or the chip may be divided into several "clock domains", each with all the flip-flops driven by a common clock.
Only edge-triggered D flip-flops are used.
The flip-flops' C inputs are only driven by the domain's clock - never by combinatorial logic (except for combinatorial logic responsible for enabling/disabling a domain's clock.)
D inputs are driven by combinatorial logic from their own and other flip-flops' Q and not-Q outputs and from input pads.
Set and reset inputs are unused, except perhaps for system reset.
Combinatorial logic may not contain loops (which would oscilate if they contain an odd number of inversions, be bistable {implied R/S flip-flops} with an even number of inversions).
Propogation of a signal through the slowest path in combinatorial logic from one flop's output to another's input is enough less than one clock period that the flop's input will be "set up" properly by the next clock edge after the one which changed the driving output.
Synchronous designs tend to be orginized into pipelines - alternate layers of flops and combinatorial logic. Timing is tightly controlled and special care is taken at clock domain boundaries. Clock speed is limited by the "critical path" - the slowest path in the slowest pipeline stage.
Asynchronous logic is essentially any logic that violates one or more of the above rules. For example:
A flip-flop's C input may be driven from another flip-flop's Q or not-Q output or from combinatorial logic. (Canonical example: a ripple counter.)
R/S or J/K flip-flops or D latches may be used.
Set or reset inputs may be used for significant functionality during normal operation.
Propagation time of a signal through combinatorial logic may be semantically significant. "Races" may be deliberately created to produce desired effects, including oscilating timing loops.
Asynchronous designs are characterized by waves of state-change propagating through the logic at the logic's maximum speed, and lack of state-change when nothing interesting is happening. Asynchronous includes a hybrid approach, with large waterfalls of asynchronous circuitry occasionally hitting a register and resynchronizing with a clock ala the layer of D flops at the end of a synchronous pipeline stage.
Most large digital chips and systems today are designed using the easier synchronous style. It allows the use of a number of powerful tools to automate the design process and to automatically generate programs for the machines that test each chip as it comes off the fab. (In a synchronous design it's easy to add a multiplexer to tie some or all of the flops into a set of shift-register "scan chains". These let the tester stop the chip, shift out all the state, shift in a new state, and restart the chip.)
But asynchronous designs, though harder to do properly, have a couple major advantages:
In a synchronous design several of the gates in each flop are switching all the time. CMOS logic mostly consumes power when it switches, so power consumption is mostly proportioinal to clock speed. In a good asynchronous design the state only changes when information is being processed, and only as necessary. Power consumption is mostly proportional to work done, and can easily be a factor of ten lower than an equivalent synchronous design.
Synchronous designs run as fast as their component logic is capable of running.
Automated fabrication testing of asynchronous designs is harder, though there is (or once was) a method to do this: the "Cross Check Array" and the associated test automation tools (which can also deal with synchronous designs at less overhead than fullscan). But Cross Check's technology never caught on in the US. They merged into another company some years ago and I don't know if their technology is available to anybody but Sony - who invested early in return for an unlimited license and was using it throughout their chips as of the Play Station 1 generation.
There has already been a "D" language. It was written and used in an early phase of the Xanadu project, when C was still young. It compiled into C (essentially a preprocessor) to give it a number of features that were missing at the time. (One that sticks in my mind is long names, though there were several others of significance.)
(It led to an interesting confrontation at one point. Roger Gregory was accosted by a member of one of a cult, who gave him a flower and started on the cult's conversion spiel. When the cultist got to the first question (your occupation) he said "I'm a 'D' programmer.". Of course the cultist heard it as "deprogrammer" and ran.)
I hear that the language "BCPL" was part of the inspiration first for a language called "B" and then for "C". By that precedent the first non-superset successor to "C" should be "P".
Guess I'll have to avoid synagogues.
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
I've been reading your sig for a while now. I think the sig from Deuteronimy(sp?) might apply to you.
Guess I'll have to avoid synagogues.
But I thought Deuteronimy was a sin whose commission involved Hydrogen 2. Setting off fusion bombs, maybe?
The worm only stays resident in memory after you are infected. Therefore, you are instantly clean after a reboot. It _does_ not stay anywhere else except RAM, which is cleared when you reboot.
But the trojan modifications by the newer version of the worm are permanent, and will NOT be removed by rebooting and installing the patch. The patch just prevents reinfection by the original buffer overflow bug.
Look here for a tool to TRY to clean up the system.
But note that once the system has had the FIRST backdoor installed, that may have been used to install other backdoors, unknown to the author of the cleanout tool. And in infected machine is advertising its vulnerability to the entire net by the infection attempts it makes.
The only real solution is to reinstall the whole machine, and install the patch before going live on the net.
(And while you're at it - why not install Linux or a BSD instead, and switch to the Apache web server, which doesn't HAVE this problem.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, they just would have been the first killed, and not the pilots.
And how would the hijackers know WHICH two citizens are armed?
They don't find out until the big, slow bullets (that don't puncture the pressure hull or cockpit bulkhead) plow through their skulls or sternums.
Note that airlines from Israel always have at least one armed plainclothes official onboard. You don't hear about them getting hijacked very often, do you?
These guys knew exactly what they were doing to create the first unconventional building implosion of its type. Somebody put a lot of engineering work into this, calculating -- probably from public or stolen drawings of the WTC's steelwork -- how much steel (nominally fireproofed or otherwise) might be exposed in a fireball created by the ram-impact of a large airliner coming in frontally through the side, rathert than a glancing impact.
That assumes collapsing the building was the intent.
Another possibility is that they wanted to destroy a significant section of the building, its personnel, and/or its equipment and files by fire, and that a partial or total building collapse, if it were to occur, would be an "added bonus".
A fully-fuled airline could be expected to produce a several-story fire barrier, killing the people at the affected floors and blocking most of those above it from escape, as the fire and its heat and gasses worked upward, above the level where effective action could be taken against it.
You'll note that the first plane struck quite high. This is not consistent with deliberately attempting to collapse the building.
It might be interesting to identify what offices were at or above the levels of impact on each of the towers. (Though that would assume the planes hit at the levels that were intended.)
Regardless of whether it went down as intended, it certainly succeeded. Both towers and the adjacent "building 7" were destroyed totally. While the timing of the strikes let a lot of people be evacuated, it also trapped and killed a lot of fire, police, and medical personnel.
I understand that despite the cutoff of gas and electric to the affected section of Manhattan there is (or was) one large hotel on fire, and a large chunk of the fire department (including its top three officials) were killed in the collapse of the towers, along with a lot of equipment buried. So there might still be a "South Manhattan Fire" taking out the rest of the financial district.
Seriously I would love a bit of feedback when my mouse moves over a button or a link: Sorta like how modern window managers can snap borders to edges of other windows or the screen when moving or resizing...
But imagine the virtual "gravity well" sucking your mouse into the ad banners.
Brings a whole new meaning to "real time black hole".
So far, we have been ABLE TO listen to CDs on our computers, etc. Whether this is a RIGHT that we obtain from purchasing a CD is an entirely different issue.
The fact that you have been able to use CDs in this way up until now creates the expectation that this particular new CD (from the same manufacturer) can also be used in this way. The labeling does not do anything to correct the impression.
So the CD violates the "implied warranty of servicibility and fitness" - for the purpose SHE intended when she bought it - and is thus a defective product. Because this was done deliberately, the company has DELIBERATELY shipped a defective product. There's lots of nice stuff in consumer law and case-law about that. B-)
Further, if they put the CD logo on the case (I don't know if they did) it is being advertised as conforming to the Red Book standard - which it obviously does not if the error correction code is not correct. That would be false advertising as well.
Could get VERY interesting.
(IANAL)
When you have 1000's of people driving around trying to h4x0r 802.11b networks, it won't be the same thing anymore.
How do you know you don't ALREADY have thousands of people driving around sniffing 802.11b nets?
And how is a person supposed to distinguish nets left open deliberately, as a public service, from those left open accidentally?
The existence of public 802.11b ports gives plausabile deniability of criminal intent to anyone making parasitic but non-malicious use of an accidentally-open WLAN.
(IANAL of course. But I'd hate to be a prosecutor trying to bring a case against someone who "trespassed" on a WLAN port.)
WEP is not the answer. Tunneled SL, or some sort of VPN end to end security is the only way to protect your connect.
Hear hear.
So the thing to do is to put the wireless LAN port on the logical OUTSIDE of your firewall and let the laptops all tunnel in through it. Your firewall can also filter connections between the WLAN and your net feed.
For the open net your users can also encrypted-tunnel to the tunnel server and go out from there, to avoid eavesdroppers. With this configuration there's no reason to bother with WEP.
Go ahead and route packets between the net and the wireless port if you're feeling altruistic, or restrict WLAN connections to the tunnel server(s) if you're not.
You're paid to make it work, make it keep on working, and do so in an efficient manner.
That is WHY you must "make it beautiful". To do otherwise takes longer and costs more. A LOT more.
One of the problems with this debate is the use of the vocabularity of aesthetics. That software with certain characteristics is also "beautiful" is a side-issue. The characteristics that make it "beautiful" are also those that make it:
fast to write
low in errors
easy to debug
easy to modify, augment, and improve.
Being "beautiful" is pleasant for the programmers (which also improves productivity somewhat). But issues of "beauty" and "style" - AS beauty and style - are a red herring.
And these characteristics that are usually only describable in these terms make an ENORMOUS differece.
For instance: I habitually use these principles in my coding, and debug as I go. My work was once characterized as "... takes three times as long as anyone else, but it usually works."
Bullshit.
The techniques made my work so blazingly fast that I was able to deliver a complete, debugged, essentially error-free component in about three times what it took the other programmers to get to their first clean compile, or to do a debugging iteration. And by "essentially error-free" I mean that in over two years of work at one site, with thousands of lines of code, I had one error detected by someone else, in a preliminary internal release, before I had corrected it.
But the result was that my time-to-completion was measured against everybody else's time-to-do-a-debugging-iteration. And the administration discounted my advice in favor of that of the "most productive" - read least careful - member of the team. And the bulk of the project iterated until the sponsor turned off the money.
So this esperience was an example of how using the vocabulary of art to describe practical issues of programming methodology is actively counter-productive.
This is an example of a number game called geometria. The Hebrews (and here the early Christians) would take a word and play with its numerical value to show hidden meanings in the word. ...
It's also an example of using hidden encrypted information to avoid censorship.
The Roman Empire had strong censorship of criticism of its officials' actions. Death penalty for inciting revolt against the Empire. Of course the official making the call was usually the one criticized, since he'd be the one running things locally and annoying people.
But Rome had a big thing about allowing the subject people their religions, to reduce the incentive to revolt. (That's why "Carthage Must Be Destroyed!" - due in large part to their baby-roasting cult - took so long to get through the Senate.) So religious tracts could be published without restriction.
So a large amount of anti-Roman propaganda and organizational literature was disguised as religious tracts, with well-known codes, such as local-culture referances and local-language puns and rhymes, used for the encryption. The Hebrews were among the big users of this technique and a lot of their work still survives. Revalations is a typical example of the form, criticizing a Roman general, which just happens to have been disguised well enough that it made it into the Christian canon. (I don't recall which general. But it's well known in anthropological circles and the rest of the text matches what he was up to at the time.)
The "Number of the Beast" is how the Hebrew radicals identified the person being discussed. They already had this hashing function for other uses: Replace each letter with its cabalistic value and add the result. So they could identify the person by using "The Number of his Name". To see who they were talking about, apply the function to the names of each of the well-known officials in the area at the time and look for a match.
The power in any one frequency is so small that it can be considered background noise and will not interfere with conventional signals.
But send MULTIPLE pulses to transmit information and it starts adding up at some frequences and canceling at others. The more redundant the information, the more concentrated the concentrations.
(Tuned receivers integrate their input over a significant time, so they add up energy from multiple pulses so that certain pulse combinations amount to a much stronger interfering signal than the energy distribution from one pulse would appear to produce.)
You can try to randomize your energy distribution by scrambling with an unrelated function. But that just makes the concentrations intermittent in time.
This is actually a bad example as light is very directional and unless that arc light is pointed to your neighbour, he should be able to see his coloured light. (perhaps in a haze of white light.)
What I had in mind was an arc light without a reflector. A bare gas-discharge lamp or a pair of carbon rods at the top of a pole.
Oh, yes. And no telescope reflector, focusing lens, or directional light shade on the solar cell, either. (I was making an analogy to omnidirectional antennas on both ends of the link.)
This is actually a bad example as light is very directional and unless that arc light is pointed to your neighbour, he should be able to see his coloured light. (perhaps in a haze of white light.)
What I had in mind was an arc light without a reflector. A bare gas-discharge lamp or a pair of carbon rods at the top of a pole.
Don't stand under it, epsecially the latter, unless you want a sunburn. Don't look if you don't want to burn out your own personal "light detectors". B-)
What about using this technology for all communications. Pie in the sky, yes definately... but would it work any better?
Switch everything over to this technology and it works. But you end up with the same amount of communication as if you didn't switch. And if you want simultaneous transmissions rather than taking turns you still end up with a hybrid where you pulse-shape to band limit and have to assign channels.
You mean Frequency Domain, no?
I mean Frequency Domain, yes. B-)
I just heard some sad news on TV, apparently Slashdot website creator, Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, was rushed to the hospital this afternoon after having his penis sliced off.
Sounds like he misread and misattributed my signature.
Tisk...
Yes, it can be both
No it can't.
There is only so much spectrum. The faster you change the signal, the broader the chunk of spectrum you use.
You can use it for a shorter time, and end up with the same time-bandwidth product.
You can control signal intensity more finely to encode more bits, until the ambient noise (or weaker interfering signals) would confuse the decoder.
You can direct your signal so that most of the energy goes toward the receiver rather than spreading out uniformly (though this gets harder as the bandwidth gets wider).
You can restrict its polarization to one of a complimentary pair, leaving the complimentary polarization's half of the spectrum free (or using it for a second or a return signal).
... A radar (with its very directional antenna) will show only a wedge of light in the direction of your transmitter. (Which is how the authorities will find you to shut you down - if they get there before the neighbors with the torches and pitchforks.)
But that's IT.
If two transmitters are hitting a receiver with energy in the same chunk of spectrum they interfere. Spread the actual bits around so they're transmitted redundantly in different parts of the spectrum (not just hop the carrier to put a burst of bits in one chunk and move on) and you might be able to pull them out of some interference. But then you've used up several times as much spectrum in the first place - as have the interfering signals from other users of the same scheme.
UWB works by sending single-cycle pulses. The information is carried by when the pulse is transmitted with respect to a reference.
Since there is no carrier, it doesn't affect a specific part of the spectrum. However, since there is no carrier, it affects all parts of the spectrum by adding to the noise floor. That is what the big problem with this technology is and why the FCC is looking so closely at it. The UWB Consortium [uwb.org] has more information.
This scheme doesn't "not use spectrum". It uses the ENTIRE spectrum - up to the limit of the transmitting equipment. The shorter the pulse (so you can space them more closely and send more bits) the higher the limit. When it talks it steps on EVERYTHING - one pulse, one "POP" in a radio, one fleck of snow on a TV screen, one bright spot on a radar. The has to be above the noise floor itself to be heard - and the "noise floor" includes all those other signals it's interfering with.
If your data rate is low you can keep the signal weak - at the receiver. The pulses spread out their energy over an enromous chunk of bandwidth, so your reciever can measure the energy over the whole specrtum and recover the desired data from the other signals-assuming there is only ONE transmitter using this scheme, of course.
But electromagnetic signals fall off with inverse-square. Near the transmitter you're not just "raising the noise floor". You're generating a continuous lightning bolt.
Want to send data a hundred miles? Imagine you were doing this with VISIBLE light. You're modulating an arc light at your transmitter, bright enough that the output of a solar cell a hundred miles away has more signal from your arc light than from all the other light sources (including any other arc lights) combined. Now imagine somebody on your block trying to read morse-code flashes from a distant colored lightbulb, using his own solar cell and a color filter.
Run a protocol so the radio versions of your "arc lights" take turns and you can run a network. (Think of running "Ethernet" in the real aether.) But that's ALL you'll be able to run. Goodbye TV, goodbye AM and FM radio, goodbye aircraft band, police band, CB,
Meanwhile, just as the time-limited signal of time-domain modulation schemes selectively "punch a hole" in the time distribution of the signals of the frequency-domain modulation services, the frequency-domain modulation signals selectively punch holes in time-domain modulation signals. The "hole" is in the form of pattern sensitivity - selective interference with those bit patterns that correspond to the energy distribution of the frequency-domain signal. Your pulse strength has to be great enough to "shout down" this interfering signal, or those bit patterns just don't go through uncorrupted.
Time-domain and frequency-domain signals don't play well together. And the time-domain kids got to the playground first. Do you want ANOTHER war with broadcast media? Remember, if they lose it's their death, so they'll fight REAL HARD.
You can avoid the war by shaping your pulses so the energy stays in a limited band (at the cost of limiting your data rate correspondingly). But within that band you can only use time-domain schemes. You've "divided the playground". And the smaller the hunk of playground you got, the lower your data rate. Shaping your pulses stretched them out - and you have to move them farther apart to tell them apart at the receiver. How much playground do you think you can get for your gang's exclusive use?
Personally I don't see a problem with raising the noise floor for this technology because, as I understand it, it raises the floor uniformly and, if I understand this correctly, the actual number of devices transmitting doesn't play into this.
Each one of those "arc lights" raises the noise floor - by a bunch. More noise means you can't measure the signal from the desired "arc light" as accurately - which means you get less bits-per-second from it.
The total number of bits-per-second available to ALL transmitters at any given receiving antenna is a constant described by Nyquist: 2 * bandwidth in cycles-per-second * base-2 log of the signal-to-noise ratio.
But the distribution in space of the "raised noise floor" is a face-down morning-glory flower. Like those surfaces where they roll a ball bearing to demonstrate orbits, but upside-down.
Imagine a rubber sheet: You grabbed it at your transmitter and stretched it WAY up - until the sheet at the distant receiver was raised enough that the receiver could detect you yanking. And your neighbor's TV antennas are up on the peak with you. (And so is your network antenna...)
The only thing I don't quite grok is how they can get two devices to have such rock-solid stable time references (we're talking sub-picosecond jitter) without secondary clock transmitters and keep them that way. If anyone out there can help shed some light on it I'd love to hear from you.
You sacrifice a part of your bandwidth to send a pre-defined, typically repetitive, synchronization signal, to keep the receiver synchronized with the transmitter. Think of the start/stop bits on a serial line, the framing bits in T1, T3, or SONET, or the vertical and horizontal sync bars in a TV signal.
The more bandwidth you sacrifice, the faster your receiver's clock syncs up when reception starts. If you're transmitting bursts you can put most of the sync at the start of the burst to get things locked quickly (and identify the signal and its start), then use just enough to keep the receiver locked for the rest of the burst.
... given how many other companies releasing software under the GPL have croaked, can you blame them?
GPLing code allows the code to survive the death of the corporation, rather than go down with it. This keeps the customers from being totally unsupported. So a company may chose to GPL the code when it encounters financial difficulty (or to escrow it to be released GPL in the event of cessation of operation), to give potential customers less reason to resist purchase.
Provided the investors are OK with it, it also allows the former employees to do spinoff works later without legal hangups from the IP being tied up as an asset of a bankrupt company.
The original owner of the work can grant multiple licenses, including GPL, SPL, whatever.
Botton line, the original owner can do anything, other people are "infected" by the GPL. So any public forks of 4.1.1 (say) will has to stay GPL.
But note that if Sinistra merged into the new stuff any bug-fix or feature enhancement code submitted under the GPL, the owner of the copyright on THAT part is the author of the submitted code.
So if Sinistra included any outside code, such as patches or feature additions, they need to have been squeaky-clean about getting rights assignments and documenting them. The authors of such code are the copyright owners on that code, and in the absense of an assignment the only license Sinistra would have from the author is the GPL. THAT would infect the Sinistra distribution, and the author could assert this in a legal proceeding.
With the revised code open to public inspection under Sinistra's "SPL", the author could easily identify his code, too.
open-sourcing the X/NeWS code, or
releasing the members of the Grasshopper group from some of their contract terms, so they can in turn open-source either their NeWS code or X/NeWS as of the point Sun pulled it inhouse and dropped Grasshopper's participation in the project.
It may be a little late for display-postscript to reenter the desktop wars. But I'd like to see it take a crack on its merits, rather than being shut out by an artifact of I.P. ancient history.
Did you notice this spin?
Malicious code can replicate more easily when more hosts are available, so virus creators tend to focus on widely used platforms. (That is why few viruses exist for wireless platforms right now -- and why more viruses plague Windows platforms than Mac or Linux platforms.)
Obviously Windows' market penetration is the ONLY reason Unix/Linux platforms have essentially no viruses while Windows has so many it's spawned an ENTIRE INDUSTRY of virus-protection software. The organization and quality of the software and the number of people looking for and fixing bugs have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
So if a lot of people abandoned Windows for Unix, Linux, or OSX virus writers would write viruses for them. Since only popularity matters, they'd succeed as easily with those other operating systems and app suites as they do now with Windows. So viruses would be just as much of a problem as they are now. So don't bother to switch.
Subtle, isn't it?
Doe, John is a registred voter.
instead of
Doe, john 123 main street republican.
It would disclosure the information that is public and would not be that intrusive.
One big reason public records are public is so they can be checked for accuracy, allowing errors and fraud to be detected and corrected. This is especially true in the case of voter registration.
Political machines have historically created large numbers of fake votes, and used these to keep themselves in power far beyond the point where the actual population would have voted them out.
Once this was done by techniques such as "keeping alive" a voter registration after the actual voter had died, an abuse so prevalent that "the graveyard vote" became a term of political discourse. This practice continues to this day. (Our next-door neighbor has been trying for years to deregister her mother - who died a while back. The clerk refuses, because she's still voting.)
But more recent changes to election laws - especially in California - have led to enormous abuse.
"Motor-Voter" registration, with stacks of mail-in forms in every public office, allows the creation of paper voters in wholesale lots.
At-poll-site registration-and-vote allows vanloads of "instant voters" to move from poll site to poll site, registering and voting multiply.
No-reason absentee ballot laws allow paper voters to vote - first time and every time - by mail, never showing a face to a poll watcher. (One address in Berkeley was recently noticed to have several THOUSAND "residents" voting absentee.)
Non-citizens are allowed - and encouraged - to vote. A poll-watcher may not ask for proof of citizenship because this is allegedly "racist" and "intimidating".
Any fraud at all can swing a close election. This sort of massive fraud can swing even non-close ones. Without such fraud would the last presidential election have been a squeaker? Would the houses of congress be closely divided and split between parties? Would the Hunter's Point park have been turned into shopping malls and condos and millions in bond money spent (to be repaid from taxes) on a stadium that was never built?
Would millions of potential voters be staying home (making the fraud still easier) because they believe their votes don't count?
Would YOUR vote make a differenc?
Changing the law starts with showing there's a problem with the existing law. Showing there's a problem requires detecting it. Detecting it requires documenting large numbers of fake voters. Documenting fake voters requires access to the names and addresses of registered voters.
So hiding the addresses of registered voters - in bulk on the internet - promotes voter fraud and political machines. Yet the privacy risk comes from the availability of the address AT ALL - and a stalker, crook, or information seller can still get the addresses he wants.
So keeping addresses off the internet is the worst of both worlds, leaving the crooks and privacy-invaders with access and the general population in the dark.
Actually, with that version of the Cisco firmware the router would crash due to Code Red's probe packets even if the port was disabled.
Could I see some evidence for this claim?
I'm just quoting something I found on another site. Unfortunately, I was unable to find it again with about 10 minutes of web searching.
Sorry. (If I run across it again I'll post a followup.)
3.Even though it wasn't being used, Qwest left the HTTP server enabled and configured to accept connections on the WAN port of the router.
Actually, with that version of the Cisco firmware the router would crash due to Code Red's probe packets even if the port was disabled.
If Qwest was negligent it was because they didn't upgrade the firmware in the routers they supplied, and didn't provide the users with a notification of the need to upgrade and a convenient way to do so.
It sounds like they're talking about an asynchronous design.
There are two major styles of logic design: synchronous and asynchronous.
In a synchronous design you have a large number of edge-triggered D-type flip-flops driven by a common clock. This may be all the flip-flops on the chip, or the chip may be divided into several "clock domains", each with all the flip-flops driven by a common clock.
Only edge-triggered D flip-flops are used.
The flip-flops' C inputs are only driven by the domain's clock - never by combinatorial logic (except for combinatorial logic responsible for enabling/disabling a domain's clock.)
D inputs are driven by combinatorial logic from their own and other flip-flops' Q and not-Q outputs and from input pads.
Set and reset inputs are unused, except perhaps for system reset.
Combinatorial logic may not contain loops (which would oscilate if they contain an odd number of inversions, be bistable {implied R/S flip-flops} with an even number of inversions).
Propogation of a signal through the slowest path in combinatorial logic from one flop's output to another's input is enough less than one clock period that the flop's input will be "set up" properly by the next clock edge after the one which changed the driving output.
Synchronous designs tend to be orginized into pipelines - alternate layers of flops and combinatorial logic. Timing is tightly controlled and special care is taken at clock domain boundaries. Clock speed is limited by the "critical path" - the slowest path in the slowest pipeline stage.
Asynchronous logic is essentially any logic that violates one or more of the above rules. For example:
A flip-flop's C input may be driven from another flip-flop's Q or not-Q output or from combinatorial logic. (Canonical example: a ripple counter.)
R/S or J/K flip-flops or D latches may be used.
Set or reset inputs may be used for significant functionality during normal operation.
Propagation time of a signal through combinatorial logic may be semantically significant. "Races" may be deliberately created to produce desired effects, including oscilating timing loops.
Asynchronous designs are characterized by waves of state-change propagating through the logic at the logic's maximum speed, and lack of state-change when nothing interesting is happening. Asynchronous includes a hybrid approach, with large waterfalls of asynchronous circuitry occasionally hitting a register and resynchronizing with a clock ala the layer of D flops at the end of a synchronous pipeline stage.
Most large digital chips and systems today are designed using the easier synchronous style. It allows the use of a number of powerful tools to automate the design process and to automatically generate programs for the machines that test each chip as it comes off the fab. (In a synchronous design it's easy to add a multiplexer to tie some or all of the flops into a set of shift-register "scan chains". These let the tester stop the chip, shift out all the state, shift in a new state, and restart the chip.)
But asynchronous designs, though harder to do properly, have a couple major advantages:
In a synchronous design several of the gates in each flop are switching all the time. CMOS logic mostly consumes power when it switches, so power consumption is mostly proportioinal to clock speed. In a good asynchronous design the state only changes when information is being processed, and only as necessary. Power consumption is mostly proportional to work done, and can easily be a factor of ten lower than an equivalent synchronous design.
Synchronous designs run as fast as their component logic is capable of running.
Automated fabrication testing of asynchronous designs is harder, though there is (or once was) a method to do this: the "Cross Check Array" and the associated test automation tools (which can also deal with synchronous designs at less overhead than fullscan). But Cross Check's technology never caught on in the US. They merged into another company some years ago and I don't know if their technology is available to anybody but Sony - who invested early in return for an unlimited license and was using it throughout their chips as of the Play Station 1 generation.
Is the limit on nick size still there and still too short for "Ungrounded Lightning Rod"?
I'd like to update my Sig but I don't plan on doing that unless/until I can get the 'ol nick back.
(While we're at it, is the limit on sig size still so small that I have to abbreviate? You didn't shrink it any more did you?)
(We'll see momentarily...)
There has already been a "D" language. It was written and used in an early phase of the Xanadu project, when C was still young. It compiled into C (essentially a preprocessor) to give it a number of features that were missing at the time. (One that sticks in my mind is long names, though there were several others of significance.)
(It led to an interesting confrontation at one point. Roger Gregory was accosted by a member of one of a cult, who gave him a flower and started on the cult's conversion spiel. When the cultist got to the first question (your occupation) he said "I'm a 'D' programmer.". Of course the cultist heard it as "deprogrammer" and ran.)
I hear that the language "BCPL" was part of the inspiration first for a language called "B" and then for "C". By that precedent the first non-superset successor to "C" should be "P".
I've been reading your sig for a while now. I think the sig from Deuteronimy(sp?) might apply to you.
Guess I'll have to avoid synagogues.
But I thought Deuteronimy was a sin whose commission involved Hydrogen 2. Setting off fusion bombs, maybe?
The worm only stays resident in memory after you are infected. Therefore, you are instantly clean after a reboot. It _does_ not stay anywhere else except RAM, which is cleared when you reboot.
But the trojan modifications by the newer version of the worm are permanent, and will NOT be removed by rebooting and installing the patch. The patch just prevents reinfection by the original buffer overflow bug.
Look here for a tool to TRY to clean up the system.
But note that once the system has had the FIRST backdoor installed, that may have been used to install other backdoors, unknown to the author of the cleanout tool. And in infected machine is advertising its vulnerability to the entire net by the infection attempts it makes.
The only real solution is to reinstall the whole machine, and install the patch before going live on the net.
(And while you're at it - why not install Linux or a BSD instead, and switch to the Apache web server, which doesn't HAVE this problem.)