No sir, the terrorists will consider they have one when you are either all dead, or all hardline muslims. They're not doing this with the goal of 'making you give up your precious freedoms'. They're doing it because they hate all of you and want you to convert, or preferably die.
You mean precious freedoms like not being a hardline Muslim? Or perhaps living without fear of being arbitrarily killed by the government? You do an excellent job of undermining your own argument.
In any future discussions, please stay the hell off of my side, mmkay?
Not quite. It's an article about how people are dealing with the problem of malware. It discusses a number of approaches including paying someone to fix it learning to fix it yourself, and replacing the computer outright. The article did focus quite a bit on the "replace" option - as did the person writing the headline - because it's likely startling to many people... as you say, costs have fallen.
The writer did have an obligation to not create false impressions by omission, though. Having repeatedly referred to problems with "PCs" - a generic term not limited to Wintel - and mentioning that one of the malware victims replaced her machine with an Apple laptop, the author had, I think, an obligation to go not make cliched "expensive bells and whistles" comments (this was supposedly "News" not "Opinon", right?). And having mentioned any operating system in particular (if one wants to assert that PC = Wintel), he had an obligation to be clear and differentiate them, not tar them all with the Redmond Brush of Mediocrity.
Additionally, while not an "obligation" in my view, it would have been useful for the authors to include (perhaps as a bulleted list at the end of the article) a list of things that readers could do to avoid the problems discussed in the article. Don't click on unknown email attachments, Use an external firewall and NAT, Don't run programs from unknown sources, etc. They failed to take advantage of the opportunity to reinforce some basics to the newbies/idiots among their readership.
They also failed to address another issue: even if new computers were free, allowing your machine to become infected and spam other machines is negligent and rude. As written, the article legitimizes this behavior.
In fact, for Average Joe it can be quite a good solution - provided that the replacement computer is a Mac instead of just another Wintel.
Sadly, the NYT misses the boat once again. The only mention of Apple in the article is:
[...]She said she figured the cost difference would not be much, but she was wrong; succumbing to the seduction of all the new bells and whistles, she spent $3,000 on a new Apple laptop.
Still, she said she was happy to be starting over. In fact, she is instituting new rules to keep her home computer virus-free.
...snipes at Apple with the "bells and whistles" bit and asserts that it's a high-cost option, hints that the problems are as bad on Mac and the "rules" are as necessary there (sure, good practice on any platform), and totally neglects to make any comparison on the relative risks of various platforms.
After the shuttle program is finally shut down, of what use is the VAB?
I don't know where they currently stack Titans and Deltas. After the Shuttle retires, though, I'd like to see NASA reuse some of the components into a partly recyclable unmanned heavy booster - redesign the tank to have 3 equally spaced mount points for SRBs, extend the top upward to include a large payload area, and mount SSMEs on a detachable plate under it, with a heat shield and recovery system. Also a few smaller solids to provide a final boost into orbit after the SSME package is seperated; the entire tank goes into orbit and possibly provides fuel storage or living space after some work. It's always seemed a pity to throw away the mass of the tank after accelerating it to speeds that somewhat approach orbital.
Is such a Shuttle derivative feasible? I don't know, but if it is much of the R&D is already done for the fussier components (SSMEs in particular, SRBs to a lesser degree). If not, we still need a large booster; the VAB is the obvious place to stack it.
I was about to reject your idea of horizontal assembly as infeasible, then I recalled pictures of the (cancelled) Soviet Buran Shuttle. Perhaps there's a mindset that we've always done it this way so there is no other; that's something that should be examined, certainly.
My recollection was that the VAB was built rather swiftly and inexpensively while still adequate to withstand perhaps 140MPH winds, but I might be wrong on that.
Even if it's up to taking a 707 impact structurally, likely it'd take far less than that to rip open panels and end up with flaming fuel spraying around inside. Bad news. Even after the shuttle program is over... so they stack Titan IVs there, or in a nearby facility? Either way, a risk.
You might notice that I listed "accident" before "terrorism". Natural disaster is also a hazard, but that's not impacted by potential commercial use so I didn't mention it.
I'm sure that there's presently an exclusion zone around KSC; commercial use would relax that to a degree. By not allowing air traffic nearby, time to respond to an off course (navigation error, hijacking, mechanical failure) aircraft is provided.
I think the risk of any of these is small. But the assets at KSC are one-of-a-kind and not worth even that small additional risk. If this concern makes me an idiot in your eyes, please do us all a favor and never vote again.
Bad Idea - even a moderate sized aircraft hitting the VAB at the wrong time (with a shuttle and SRBs present) would be a hit of several billion dollars.
Either accident or terrorism, the potential damage is too great to take any chances we don't have to.
I do recall anecdotal stories about people who have drowned in freezing temperatures being revived successfully long after the "normal" length of time, with little to no brain damage, having been preserved by the extremely cold temperature to which they've fallen.
That was my initial thought as well. I seem to recall that following rescue such cold-water-drowning victims are often placed in a drug educed coma for several days, which serves to reduce cerebral edema (swelling of the brain).
I vaguely recall that it made a great difference whether it was fresh or salt water, but I can't recall which was "better"
Officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department say their inquiries on the zombie networks are exposing serious vulnerabilities in the Internet that could be exploited more widely by saboteurs to bring down Web sites or online messaging systems.
Um, no. The vulnerabilities exposed are most often in Microsoft products, which allow the user to be owned. Someone needs to thwap the "Officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department" upside the head with a clue by four.
There would be nothing stopping me from creating such a license, nor non-SCO folks from using the product. I just wouldn't be "in" with the purists i guess.
I'd think long and hard before doing that. Consider the possibility that that is a secondary goal of SCO: to fragment open (and nearly open) licensing and use that fragmentation to their own advantage.
Machiavellian? Sure. But this is SCO we're talking about...
You could have a 1,600 x 1,200 image of some pervert doing a kid. If the image source reference in HTML explicitly stated "height=1 width=1" the image would be a single blip on the browser screen
Doesn't even need to be that. Prefetching images using javascript (eg, for responsive mouseovers) is commonplace.
Your assumption that this is merely a contract for Intel to fabricate the next generation of PPC chips doesn't make sense, if the reports are correct in that the low end Macs will get them first.
Perhaps Intel has a lot of idle or unprofitable fab capacity at 130nm and is at its limit for converting other locations to 90nm? That would be well suited for making lower-end processors as a pilot program of sorts, and then if it makes economic sense they'll move toward 90/65nm production for higher-end PPC? Just random speculation. Not long until we have a bit more clarity, I hope...
I agree about the lack of incentive. How about a $10 deposit instead, with an imprint of some sort on the bottom of the device saying "Deposit Paid" - when it dies, take it to an appropriate disposal site and get the $10 back... or throw it in the dumpster and the unclaimed fees go for cleanup...
It's Apple's creator and type scheme just applied to an e-mail address.
Apple is actually most of the way toward what this patent apparently covers in Mail.app. The contextual menu on email addresses differentiates by the presence or absence of an "Add to Address Book" item. Adding a bullet or an icon (<X-Face> (?) header, or assigned locally to indicate Address Book groupings) seems a trivial next step in terms of adding functionality and feedback.
I don't recall when this first appeared in Mail.app, but I don't think it's terribly new; might date back to 2001.
Slashdot Mirror
In any future discussions, please stay the hell off of my side, mmkay?
New Years Day and July 4th. Close enough.
The writer did have an obligation to not create false impressions by omission, though. Having repeatedly referred to problems with "PCs" - a generic term not limited to Wintel - and mentioning that one of the malware victims replaced her machine with an Apple laptop, the author had, I think, an obligation to go not make cliched "expensive bells and whistles" comments (this was supposedly "News" not "Opinon", right?). And having mentioned any operating system in particular (if one wants to assert that PC = Wintel), he had an obligation to be clear and differentiate them, not tar them all with the Redmond Brush of Mediocrity.
Additionally, while not an "obligation" in my view, it would have been useful for the authors to include (perhaps as a bulleted list at the end of the article) a list of things that readers could do to avoid the problems discussed in the article. Don't click on unknown email attachments, Use an external firewall and NAT, Don't run programs from unknown sources, etc. They failed to take advantage of the opportunity to reinforce some basics to the newbies/idiots among their readership.
They also failed to address another issue: even if new computers were free, allowing your machine to become infected and spam other machines is negligent and rude. As written, the article legitimizes this behavior.
Is such a Shuttle derivative feasible? I don't know, but if it is much of the R&D is already done for the fussier components (SSMEs in particular, SRBs to a lesser degree). If not, we still need a large booster; the VAB is the obvious place to stack it.
I was about to reject your idea of horizontal assembly as infeasible, then I recalled pictures of the (cancelled) Soviet Buran Shuttle. Perhaps there's a mindset that we've always done it this way so there is no other; that's something that should be examined, certainly.
Even if it's up to taking a 707 impact structurally, likely it'd take far less than that to rip open panels and end up with flaming fuel spraying around inside. Bad news. Even after the shuttle program is over... so they stack Titan IVs there, or in a nearby facility? Either way, a risk.
I'm sure that there's presently an exclusion zone around KSC; commercial use would relax that to a degree. By not allowing air traffic nearby, time to respond to an off course (navigation error, hijacking, mechanical failure) aircraft is provided.
I think the risk of any of these is small. But the assets at KSC are one-of-a-kind and not worth even that small additional risk. If this concern makes me an idiot in your eyes, please do us all a favor and never vote again.
Either accident or terrorism, the potential damage is too great to take any chances we don't have to.
Or maybe the FCC knocking on your door? (didn't read TFA; substitute appropriate spectrum-licensing authority as needed)
Well, after the coma thing.
I vaguely recall that it made a great difference whether it was fresh or salt water, but I can't recall which was "better"
If you're at all representative of your age cohort, I weep for the future of America.
Machiavellian? Sure. But this is SCO we're talking about...
Voice like fingernails on a blackboard.
Wow. I almost had a stroke there from laughing so hard!
Presumably it would be tamper-resistant. Perhaps a sticker bearing a hologram, and steep penalties for counterfeiting.
I agree about the lack of incentive. How about a $10 deposit instead, with an imprint of some sort on the bottom of the device saying "Deposit Paid" - when it dies, take it to an appropriate disposal site and get the $10 back... or throw it in the dumpster and the unclaimed fees go for cleanup...
I don't recall when this first appeared in Mail.app, but I don't think it's terribly new; might date back to 2001.