It includes 18 peer-reviewed citations on a variety of speed-related topics, including statistical comparisions of before-and-after fatalities in jurisdictions that had major speed limit changes applied. This is as close as you're going to get to a controlled experiment in this field.
Oh, and before you respond that the IIHS is obviously biased in favor of reduced speed, consider this: their only bias is in favor of reduced insurance costs, period. If the available research indicated that it was SAFER to travel over the speed limit, then you can bet that this organization would be arguing in favor of higher speeds to reduce their costs.
Now that I've shown mine, I'm expectantly looking forward to your set of peer-reviewed citations demonstrating a negative correlation between speeding and accidents/fatalities/costs.
I'm an independent computer consultant, probably like a lot of other Slashdot readers. So, put your business hat on and consider this from that perspective.
Suppose you're bidding on a contract to upgrade/replace a computer system for a potential customer. In order to give a proper cost estimate, you'll need to know as much detail as possible about the requirements. Perhaps this would include something like the average number of transactions per day performed. If all the customer can do is say that there is "a bunch" of transactions, your estimate will be very approximate, and you'll have to pad it accordingly or add a large contingency factor.
However, if the customer could produce for you an automated log of all daily transaction counts for the last month, you would have a precise understanding of what to expect, and could estimate accordingly. This may result in a lower estimated cost, and increase your chances of winning the bid.
Essentially, this is what Progressive is doing - they are asking for more detailed information in an effort to win your continuing business. If you don't provide that information, that's fine... but then they will have to rely on a more approximate estimate of risk, and the quote they provide you with will likely be higher based on less precise information. If you're a prudent businessperson, you'd be trying to do the same thing whereever you can.
"Imagine the chaos if your power company could take money from Sony so that its appliances got a higher quality of juice - and thus worked a tad better - than those of Mitsubishi"
Actually, our local utility, BC Hydro does this already. They have lower rate schedules if you are a customer willing to be interruptible during peak demand. So, some commercial and industrial customers here do indeed have a "higher quality of juice" than others.
I'm not saying that virus-related "issues" at these organizations never happen... I'm sure they do from time to time.
What I am saying is that proficient Windows network administrators are able to prevent this from causing disruptions to the rank-and-file users. Those admins follow prudent security practices that apply to any OS. None of these organizations have a problem where "clients machines do nothing but have pop-ups", as quoted by the original comment I was replying to. Sure, the end-users are the folks who cause part of such as problem by clicking on things that they shouldn't, but these can also be prevented with proactive and competent administration procedures.
If you want a specific example, try GE. They can be a nightmare of bureaucracy to work with procedurally, but they also have literally hundreds of thousands of Windows machines in the 3.*.*.* subnet (yes, they own the whole thing). I spent a lot of time there, with zero end-user-affecting virus related issues, and I'd be suprised if you can find any specific examples where a 3.*.*.* IP addesss has been externally compromised from outside their firewall.
Why do so many less-than-fully-competent system administrators who complain that they spend all their time removing Windows viruses get modded up to +5 here?
I work as an independent contractor developing applications for large electric and gas utilities in North America. In any given year, I spend two or more weeks working hands-on with up to five different large organizations: in the past nine years, this has included over thirty organizations.
All of these organizations have primarily (or entirely) Windows workstations for their users (NT, 2000, and XP over the years). All of these organizations take computer security seriously. At none of these organizations has there ever been more than one instance of a virus or worm causing a real disruption to the rank-and-file folks using Windows. To summarize: over nine years, over thirty organizations, and none suffered even a second occurrence while I was there.
Clearly, it is possible to administer Windows-based networks proficiently. I sincerely hope that the next time you (and others like you) choose to post to Slashdot professing your inability to do that, you instead take that time to learn how to do your job effectively.
... Because in this case, a key part of the action they're trying to prevent is indeed stealing. The US Code recognizes theft of service, and it covers unauthorized use of telecommunications.
If a UF student violates their terms of service to illegally download copyrighted material, that can easily be considered to be theft of service.
"In the highly-publicised cases of "gifts" to Africa to fight diseases, the fine print informs us that these are actually loans a full market-price interest rates"
Please provide even a single reference to back up that statement. Note: if you think that the Guerrilla News article referenced elsewhere in this thread is your source... you misread it. In addition to containing misleading factual errors (i.e. the 6 billion donated by Gates represents closer to 10% of his net worth, not 2%), the article describes loans provided by the US Government, not by Gates or his foundation.
Nowhere does it say that the Gates Foundation's grants are anything other than precisely that - grants (not loans).
OK, so you're estimating $2/gallon for gas, and 100KW of output... your assumptions seem right so far. But, that works out to $0.02 per kilowatt-gallon (whatever the hell that is).
I don't know where you're getting $0.05 per kilowatt-hour, unless you're assuming that you would use 2.5 gallons per hour... which, when multiplied by $0.02 per kilowatt-gallon, would indeed be $0.05 per kilowatt-hour.
That would mean if you've got, say, a 20 gallon tank, you'd have to be able to run it for 8 hours at ABSOLUTELY FULL THROTTLE THE WHOLE TIME for your calculation to work. And I don't mean typical highway speed, where you're cruising and using only a small fraction of that 100KW output... I mean complete pedal-to-the-metal hauling-a-max-load-up-a-steep-incline type of thing. Not likely.
Or, put another way... 1 gallon of gas has an energy content of about 114,000 BTUs, At 3412 BTUs == 1 KWh, thats about $2 = 1 gallon = 33 KWH, or $0.06 per KWh. That might not sound too bad, until you consider: - your efficiency of converting this to electric energy via an internal combustion engine is way less than 100% - it doesn't include depreciation, wear and tear on your car, constant oil changes as your car engine runs 24 hours a day to keep your refrigerator running, etc. - it doesn't include environmental costs (intangible perhaps, but still substantial).
In short, you'll wind up paying a lot more than you do from your local utility, with a lot less convenience.
"I want instant communication with friends and colleagues all over the planet, but I don't want UCE. I want instant access to the world's knowledge on all topics, from crucial news to movie trivia, but I want it without viruses, interstitial ads, popups, spyware, and all that other crap."
The unstated (but pervasively implied) follow-up to the above statement is "... but I don't want to actually have to pay for any of it".
Sure it's sad to see a service that you're familiar with and like to use (like these anit-spam services) suddenly fold up shop. However, I'm curious why none of the comments anywhere in this thread bring up the idea of some type of for-profit approach (i.e. a subscription-based service).
If there really is no one who is willing to pay for these types of services... well, you get what you pay for. If you believe that "the internet becomes more worthless every day", maybe that's because when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is, you consider its worth to be $0.00.
In the circumstances of the case described here, copying software is CLEARLY a crime under the US code (there will be the opportunity for civil damages also, but saying that it generally isn't a crime is misinformation).
Copyright infringement is a criminal offense if it is A) done willfully, and B) done for commercial advantage. (US Code 17:5:506). - Done willfilly? If the system administrator received correspondence that states who, when, what IP address, and what program is being used illegally, then chooses to do nothing about it, you can hardly plead ignorance here. - For commercial advantage? Yes - this isn't you sitting in your basement listening to a couple of MP3s; the article specifically states that this is taking place at work.
Perhaps you should reread the article. The analysis that it discusses doesn't simply say "Post Frequently == Spammer". Rather, it correlates that with the ratio of new threads vs responses, variety of threads, etc.
If a user ID posts lots, and all of those posts are a new thread (instead of a response to an existing one), and if those new threads don't generate repsonses themselves, then those are characteristics that point to spamming.
However, if a user ID posts lots, and many of those posts are in response to other posts (i.e. answering questions), and many of those posts are in turn responded to (i.e. acknowledging useful information, or asking for more details), then those are characteristics that point to a guru who is a good source of information on the topic.
Hey, always nice to get the proper answer from the horse's mouth (i.e. the article author).
Seeing as how you ARE from the US, I'd simply call it "service". At least, that's what your local power company would call it:
Transmission = the 60kV and higher network that connects substations and switching stations.
Primary distribution = the 12kV to 25kV (sometimes up to 35kV, sometimes down 4kV) network leaving a substation.
Secondary distribution = the 120V/240V (sometimes 480V) network on the "low" side of distribution transformers (which will look like the 10-gallon drums you see mounted on every N-th pole if you have overhead distribution in your neighborhood).
Service = the drop from a point on the secondary distribution network to the customer.
1) There is no 220V here. Standard household service is 120V. Heavy appliances or light industrial may use 208V (3 phase), 240V, or possibly 480V. But, no 220V. This fellow will need a VERY long extension cord to find a 220V outlet.
2) No one here uses the term "mains" to describe their electrical feed. Sounds a bit like a British or Aussie thing to me.
If I was a bank (OK, maybe if I was a bank branch manager), and I had no way to verify that someone who walked in the door was the legitimate owner of a bank account, I wouldn't allow them to carry out any business with me. You would never find a bank that would do so, as they would be wide-open to any type of fraud you can think of.
If the government legislated that I (as a bank) couldn't keep any information about you - if I had to "delete it... all of it" as you say - if I couldn't retain your signature on file to verify your documents - if I couldn't perform a credit check on you to ensure you hadn't defrauded other banks - I would never be in the banking business. And neither would any other responsible person or organization.
Take your idea to its full conclusion, and we're all stuffing money under our mattresses and sleeping with a shotgun under the pillow.
I agree with your premise that this would be the perfect time to rewrite the application to be proper cross-platform. But, I think you also answered your own question (did you ask a question? Nevermind...)
Anyways, this probably came down to a business decision. One one hand, they can hire Windows developers, designers, etc, and write the code for $X million. On the other hand, they can "do it right", make it cross-platform, and write the code for 1.2 times $X million. But, from a sales perspective, this may only amount to a 1.1 times increase in the number of sales they ultimately make.
Does it make sense? Well, you can't tell from this superficial analysis, but you can bet that Adobe looked at it in much more detail than this, and they took the course that will ultimately maximize the expected return for their shareholders.
Quoting the Massacusetts AG: "In November 2002, following an appeal and several court hearings, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a judgment in the Massachusetts case prohibiting Microsoft from continuing certain unlawful conduct." [emphasis mine]
However, the final judgement entered on November 12, 2002 clearly says at the start: "AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law". That is, the final judgement does not find Microsoft guilty of any so-called "unlawful conduct".
Clearly the issuer of this press release (presumably authorized by the AG) is attempting to make up their own interpretation of the Final Judgement, without regard to the actual contents of it.
Over 600 million each donated to child health, and HIV/AIDS/TB. As staggering as the absolute magnitude of those numbers are, even in percentage terms they are quite remarkable. Given his total career earnings of, say, $50 billion or so (to date), this represents more than 1% to each of those causes.
To put it in perspective, do you know any other moderately well off computer geek, who may make $3 million in their career, pledging 1% ($30,000) to each of those causes? He's also indicated that global HIV/AIDS/health is a top priority, so expect him to give a lot more in that area before he's done.
"Well, it is optional, but as a gedankenexperiment, let's suppose it weren't. If something gets into the kernel (or any other open project), it's because people want it there. If it isn't made optional, and no one forks a version without it, it's because not enough people dislike it enough."
That statement is only true if 'people' == 'developers compentent enough to maintain kernel code'. If Linux is to gain widespread acceptance, then for 99.9%+ percent of the population, it will be equally difficult to remove an easter egg from the Linux kernel as is to remove the flight simulator from Microsoft Excel.
I believe it is the development paradigm you are espousing here that is one of the largest roadblocks to mainstream acceptance - you've implicitly excluded the large majority of the 'people' who could be using Linux, without even noticing that you did.
"Some middle-manager salesman guy writes that Linux is *the* threat..."
Actually, his quote simply said that "Linux is the threat" - no emphasis. Then, the register's article leads with the quote, adding a Nazi reference ("...memo to his Sales Brownshirts..."), and adding the "*the*" emphasis. Then, slashdot picks up the register's emphasis, puts it in the article title, and attributes it to Microsoft.
It's not news that slashdot and the register are anti-Microsoft, but they both lose credibility when they manipulate the words that they attribute as quotes from someone else.
1) The hackers themselves say "Until IBM fix the CCA software to prevent our attack...". According to the experts here, the fix is a software patch, not a hardware change-out.
2) This particular vulnerability only needs access to any single IBM 4758 running IBM's ATM. It does not depend on a whole set of them working together. In fact, given that you only need one, increased heterogeneity would increase the overall chance that a given network/organization has one exploitable system somewhere (although it does indeed decrease the overall chance that ALL your elements are exploitable).
Not to be nationalistic here (hey, I'm not even American), but it would be a mistake to disparagingly pin this on the "American Economy", since USA consititutes less than 10% of the world population, and (I'd venture to guess) a minority of the world's open source development population. If it we're just Americans who will not "develop anything without a monetary incentive", that would still leave the wide majority of the population searching for an excuse.
Better to chalk it up to human nature instead of the "American Economy".
Slashdot Mirror
It includes 18 peer-reviewed citations on a variety of speed-related topics, including statistical comparisions of before-and-after fatalities in jurisdictions that had major speed limit changes applied. This is as close as you're going to get to a controlled experiment in this field.
Oh, and before you respond that the IIHS is obviously biased in favor of reduced speed, consider this: their only bias is in favor of reduced insurance costs, period. If the available research indicated that it was SAFER to travel over the speed limit, then you can bet that this organization would be arguing in favor of higher speeds to reduce their costs.
Now that I've shown mine, I'm expectantly looking forward to your set of peer-reviewed citations demonstrating a negative correlation between speeding and accidents/fatalities/costs.
"Oh wait, there aren't any." Indeed
"This is groundreakingly important stuff"
- Jeff Bezos describes pets.com, circa 1998.
"This is groundreakingly important stuff"
- Deep Fried Geekboy describes technorati.com, circa 2005.
I think they're both equally correct.
I'm an independent computer consultant, probably like a lot of other Slashdot readers. So, put your business hat on and consider this from that perspective.
Suppose you're bidding on a contract to upgrade/replace a computer system for a potential customer. In order to give a proper cost estimate, you'll need to know as much detail as possible about the requirements. Perhaps this would include something like the average number of transactions per day performed. If all the customer can do is say that there is "a bunch" of transactions, your estimate will be very approximate, and you'll have to pad it accordingly or add a large contingency factor.
However, if the customer could produce for you an automated log of all daily transaction counts for the last month, you would have a precise understanding of what to expect, and could estimate accordingly. This may result in a lower estimated cost, and increase your chances of winning the bid.
Essentially, this is what Progressive is doing - they are asking for more detailed information in an effort to win your continuing business. If you don't provide that information, that's fine... but then they will have to rely on a more approximate estimate of risk, and the quote they provide you with will likely be higher based on less precise information. If you're a prudent businessperson, you'd be trying to do the same thing whereever you can.
"Imagine the chaos if your power company could take money from Sony so that its appliances got a higher quality of juice - and thus worked a tad better - than those of Mitsubishi"
Actually, our local utility, BC Hydro does this already. They have lower rate schedules if you are a customer willing to be interruptible during peak demand. So, some commercial and industrial customers here do indeed have a "higher quality of juice" than others.
I'm not saying that virus-related "issues" at these organizations never happen... I'm sure they do from time to time.
What I am saying is that proficient Windows network administrators are able to prevent this from causing disruptions to the rank-and-file users. Those admins follow prudent security practices that apply to any OS. None of these organizations have a problem where "clients machines do nothing but have pop-ups", as quoted by the original comment I was replying to. Sure, the end-users are the folks who cause part of such as problem by clicking on things that they shouldn't, but these can also be prevented with proactive and competent administration procedures.
If you want a specific example, try GE. They can be a nightmare of bureaucracy to work with procedurally, but they also have literally hundreds of thousands of Windows machines in the 3.*.*.* subnet (yes, they own the whole thing). I spent a lot of time there, with zero end-user-affecting virus related issues, and I'd be suprised if you can find any specific examples where a 3.*.*.* IP addesss has been externally compromised from outside their firewall.
Why do so many less-than-fully-competent system administrators who complain that they spend all their time removing Windows viruses get modded up to +5 here?
I work as an independent contractor developing applications for large electric and gas utilities in North America. In any given year, I spend two or more weeks working hands-on with up to five different large organizations: in the past nine years, this has included over thirty organizations.
All of these organizations have primarily (or entirely) Windows workstations for their users (NT, 2000, and XP over the years). All of these organizations take computer security seriously. At none of these organizations has there ever been more than one instance of a virus or worm causing a real disruption to the rank-and-file folks using Windows. To summarize: over nine years, over thirty organizations, and none suffered even a second occurrence while I was there.
Clearly, it is possible to administer Windows-based networks proficiently. I sincerely hope that the next time you (and others like you) choose to post to Slashdot professing your inability to do that, you instead take that time to learn how to do your job effectively.
... Because in this case, a key part of the action they're trying to prevent is indeed stealing. The US Code recognizes theft of service, and it covers unauthorized use of telecommunications.
If a UF student violates their terms of service to illegally download copyrighted material, that can easily be considered to be theft of service.
"In the highly-publicised cases of "gifts" to Africa to fight diseases, the fine print informs us that these are actually loans a full market-price interest rates"
Please provide even a single reference to back up that statement. Note: if you think that the Guerrilla News article referenced elsewhere in this thread is your source... you misread it. In addition to containing misleading factual errors (i.e. the 6 billion donated by Gates represents closer to 10% of his net worth, not 2%), the article describes loans provided by the US Government, not by Gates or his foundation.
Nowhere does it say that the Gates Foundation's grants are anything other than precisely that - grants (not loans).
OK, so you're estimating $2/gallon for gas, and 100KW of output... your assumptions seem right so far. But, that works out to $0.02 per kilowatt-gallon (whatever the hell that is).
I don't know where you're getting $0.05 per kilowatt-hour, unless you're assuming that you would use 2.5 gallons per hour... which, when multiplied by $0.02 per kilowatt-gallon, would indeed be $0.05 per kilowatt-hour.
That would mean if you've got, say, a 20 gallon tank, you'd have to be able to run it for 8 hours at ABSOLUTELY FULL THROTTLE THE WHOLE TIME for your calculation to work. And I don't mean typical highway speed, where you're cruising and using only a small fraction of that 100KW output... I mean complete pedal-to-the-metal hauling-a-max-load-up-a-steep-incline type of thing. Not likely.
Or, put another way... 1 gallon of gas has an energy content of about 114,000 BTUs, At 3412 BTUs == 1 KWh, thats about $2 = 1 gallon = 33 KWH, or $0.06 per KWh. That might not sound too bad, until you consider:
- your efficiency of converting this to electric energy via an internal combustion engine is way less than 100%
- it doesn't include depreciation, wear and tear on your car, constant oil changes as your car engine runs 24 hours a day to keep your refrigerator running, etc.
- it doesn't include environmental costs (intangible perhaps, but still substantial).
In short, you'll wind up paying a lot more than you do from your local utility, with a lot less convenience.
The unstated (but pervasively implied) follow-up to the above statement is "... but I don't want to actually have to pay for any of it".
Sure it's sad to see a service that you're familiar with and like to use (like these anit-spam services) suddenly fold up shop. However, I'm curious why none of the comments anywhere in this thread bring up the idea of some type of for-profit approach (i.e. a subscription-based service).
If there really is no one who is willing to pay for these types of services... well, you get what you pay for. If you believe that "the internet becomes more worthless every day", maybe that's because when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is, you consider its worth to be $0.00.
Just my $0.02 (figuratively speaking, of course)
In the circumstances of the case described here, copying software is CLEARLY a crime under the US code (there will be the opportunity for civil damages also, but saying that it generally isn't a crime is misinformation).
Copyright infringement is a criminal offense if it is A) done willfully, and B) done for commercial advantage. (US Code 17:5:506).
- Done willfilly? If the system administrator received correspondence that states who, when, what IP address, and what program is being used illegally, then chooses to do nothing about it, you can hardly plead ignorance here.
- For commercial advantage? Yes - this isn't you sitting in your basement listening to a couple of MP3s; the article specifically states that this is taking place at work.
Perhaps you should reread the article. The analysis that it discusses doesn't simply say "Post Frequently == Spammer". Rather, it correlates that with the ratio of new threads vs responses, variety of threads, etc.
If a user ID posts lots, and all of those posts are a new thread (instead of a response to an existing one), and if those new threads don't generate repsonses themselves, then those are characteristics that point to spamming.
However, if a user ID posts lots, and many of those posts are in response to other posts (i.e. answering questions), and many of those posts are in turn responded to (i.e. acknowledging useful information, or asking for more details), then those are characteristics that point to a guru who is a good source of information on the topic.
Hey, always nice to get the proper answer from the horse's mouth (i.e. the article author).
Seeing as how you ARE from the US, I'd simply call it "service". At least, that's what your local power company would call it:
Transmission = the 60kV and higher network that connects substations and switching stations.
Primary distribution = the 12kV to 25kV (sometimes up to 35kV, sometimes down 4kV) network leaving a substation.
Secondary distribution = the 120V/240V (sometimes 480V) network on the "low" side of distribution transformers (which will look like the 10-gallon drums you see mounted on every N-th pole if you have overhead distribution in your neighborhood).
Service = the drop from a point on the secondary distribution network to the customer.
From America you think? Not likely. Here's why:
1) There is no 220V here. Standard household service is 120V. Heavy appliances or light industrial may use 208V (3 phase), 240V, or possibly 480V. But, no 220V. This fellow will need a VERY long extension cord to find a 220V outlet.
2) No one here uses the term "mains" to describe their electrical feed. Sounds a bit like a British or Aussie thing to me.
If I was a bank (OK, maybe if I was a bank branch manager), and I had no way to verify that someone who walked in the door was the legitimate owner of a bank account, I wouldn't allow them to carry out any business with me. You would never find a bank that would do so, as they would be wide-open to any type of fraud you can think of.
If the government legislated that I (as a bank) couldn't keep any information about you - if I had to "delete it... all of it" as you say - if I couldn't retain your signature on file to verify your documents - if I couldn't perform a credit check on you to ensure you hadn't defrauded other banks - I would never be in the banking business. And neither would any other responsible person or organization.
Take your idea to its full conclusion, and we're all stuffing money under our mattresses and sleeping with a shotgun under the pillow.
I agree with your premise that this would be the perfect time to rewrite the application to be proper cross-platform. But, I think you also answered your own question (did you ask a question? Nevermind...)
Anyways, this probably came down to a business decision. One one hand, they can hire Windows developers, designers, etc, and write the code for $X million. On the other hand, they can "do it right", make it cross-platform, and write the code for 1.2 times $X million. But, from a sales perspective, this may only amount to a 1.1 times increase in the number of sales they ultimately make.
Does it make sense? Well, you can't tell from this superficial analysis, but you can bet that Adobe looked at it in much more detail than this, and they took the course that will ultimately maximize the expected return for their shareholders.
However, the final judgement entered on November 12, 2002 clearly says at the start: "AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law". That is, the final judgement does not find Microsoft guilty of any so-called "unlawful conduct".
Clearly the issuer of this press release (presumably authorized by the AG) is attempting to make up their own interpretation of the Final Judgement, without regard to the actual contents of it.
Over 600 million each donated to child health, and HIV/AIDS/TB. As staggering as the absolute magnitude of those numbers are, even in percentage terms they are quite remarkable. Given his total career earnings of, say, $50 billion or so (to date), this represents more than 1% to each of those causes.
To put it in perspective, do you know any other moderately well off computer geek, who may make $3 million in their career, pledging 1% ($30,000) to each of those causes? He's also indicated that global HIV/AIDS/health is a top priority, so expect him to give a lot more in that area before he's done.
"text of the advisory has been edited (not very well)..."
Hey, maybe the original troll can apply for a job as Slashdot editor?
It is hypocritical to talk about excercising your rights as a consumer not to purchase their music, and at the same time help yourself to it for free.
This isn't insightful, it's pathetic.
Yeah, when I try to smuggle one out of the country, I hope they don't find the "hidden dragon" in my pants...
"Well, it is optional, but as a gedankenexperiment, let's suppose it weren't. If something gets into the kernel (or any other open project), it's because people want it there. If it isn't made optional, and no one forks a version without it, it's because not enough people dislike it enough."
That statement is only true if 'people' == 'developers compentent enough to maintain kernel code'. If Linux is to gain widespread acceptance, then for 99.9%+ percent of the population, it will be equally difficult to remove an easter egg from the Linux kernel as is to remove the flight simulator from Microsoft Excel.
I believe it is the development paradigm you are espousing here that is one of the largest roadblocks to mainstream acceptance - you've implicitly excluded the large majority of the 'people' who could be using Linux, without even noticing that you did.
"Some middle-manager salesman guy writes that Linux is *the* threat..."
Actually, his quote simply said that "Linux is the threat" - no emphasis. Then, the register's article leads with the quote, adding a Nazi reference ("...memo to his Sales Brownshirts..."), and adding the "*the*" emphasis. Then, slashdot picks up the register's emphasis, puts it in the article title, and attributes it to Microsoft.
It's not news that slashdot and the register are anti-Microsoft, but they both lose credibility when they manipulate the words that they attribute as quotes from someone else.
At least, not relevant for this particular story.
1) The hackers themselves say "Until IBM fix the CCA software to prevent our attack...". According to the experts here, the fix is a software patch, not a hardware change-out.
2) This particular vulnerability only needs access to any single IBM 4758 running IBM's ATM. It does not depend on a whole set of them working together. In fact, given that you only need one, increased heterogeneity would increase the overall chance that a given network/organization has one exploitable system somewhere (although it does indeed decrease the overall chance that ALL your elements are exploitable).
Not to be nationalistic here (hey, I'm not even American), but it would be a mistake to disparagingly pin this on the "American Economy", since USA consititutes less than 10% of the world population, and (I'd venture to guess) a minority of the world's open source development population. If it we're just Americans who will not "develop anything without a monetary incentive", that would still leave the wide majority of the population searching for an excuse.
Better to chalk it up to human nature instead of the "American Economy".