I know you were joking, but of course, it's rather unlikely that the trojan contains the exact same 'no-virus' line that you use. If your signature contains your name, for instance, or, as others have suggested, you go the way of really signing every single mail you write, it should work pretty well. Hell, you could even add an extra mail header "X-FromMe: this mail is really from me" or something like that and tell all your geekier friends to simply let your mail through based on that line.
Well, but given a simple look in the mail headers, you can well prove that the infected mail did not come from you.
I recently got a load of Failure Notices to my University mail account that claimed the mail I had sent was infected with a virus (I think it was an earlier SoBig variant). Well, the notice included the header of the original email, which in turn included the Received: line I was looking for.
The guy's computer (in another dorm) was denied net access by the computer center after my mail to their abuse handler until he proved to the net admins in his dorm that his box was clean again.
In short: to anyone who asks you, you can effectively prove the mail did not come from you. Unless, of course, you're in via some dialup provider which happens to be the same the sender of the virus mail used; that makes it a bit harder.
Registrant: Sucks, Linux (LINUXSUCKS2-DOM) LinuxSucks 1 my way my way, TN 43365 US
Domain Name: LINUXSUCKS.COM
Administrative Contact: Sucks, Linux (KG4621) linux__sucks@HOTMAIL.COM LinuxSucks 1 my way my way, TN 43365 US (221) 261-3088 fax: (914) 296-1088 Technical Contact: Go2Net, Inc. (DA3706-ORG) dns-admin@HYPERMART.NET Go2Net, Inc. 999 Third Ave, Ste 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 US 206.447.1595F fax: - - - - - 206.447.1625
Record expires on 08-Oct-2003. Record created on 09-Oct-2002. Database last updated on 24-Aug-2003 18:10:21 EDT.
Man it really kills me how words with Germanic roots have gotten such a bad name. Why is 'feces' a more acceptable word than 'shit'? Because it come from the Latin 'faex' rather than the Old English 'scite'?
Simple. It just happened. The Old English word was just the one used by, let's say, less sophisticated people, much more often. The other one, though, was 'imported' by probably more sophisticated people, and is obviously used fewer times, and has a different connotation. 'Shit' simply happens to mean something different than 'feces', it is a more vulgar word.
Still, I think overly limiting the vocabulary ('gosh darn') is mostly hypocritical and serves no real purpose... kids, for example, say 'god damn' anyway, and on average, it doesn't make them much better or worse...
But the trick is that you have to learn where to use what kind of language, more generally -- say, when at a job interview or when at a party with your friends, and as such limiting the use of certain 'bad words' is a matter of proper education.
In my case, SpamAssassin run at my University's CS department has been working extremely well for me, even better since they updated to use Bayesian filtering. My statistics since 2003-03-05, i.e. for the last 174 days:
3324 True positives
88 False negatives
0 False positives
Somewhere around 2500 "True negatives"; though some mailing lists I receive are effectively whitelisted since mails are sorted in their respective IMAP folders by their mailing list affiliation before being filtered by their Spam status.
That gives me a 97.42% ratio of correctly classified Spam, i.e. true positives vs. false negatives.
Maybe, if such a comparison is done, they should rather configure and train each filter to the best of its abilities, using the same reference data, and then compare the results... that would be a little more real-world usable. Additionally, one could of course also look at different use cases, such as the Office worker case or the Programmer case, where the latter one is subscribed to more mailing lists, for example.
What I don't understand is all the 'Disallowed attachment', 'Mail delivery failed' and 'Failure notice' mails I get. Almost every virus spoofs the sender. Why would anti-virus software even bother to try to send a message back?
Not necessarily the anti-virus software; for instance if you use the system_filter.exim script included with Exim, it will filter risky attachments and Exim will generate a standard failure notice. If a virus scanner is run by the MTA, the MTA might also generate its default failure notices in case the scanner finds a virus. And lastly, "Mail delivery failed" mails can reach you because someone spoofed your address as his From address, and the To address was simply non-existant.
So, in short, it's most likely not the anti-virus software sending the bounces, but the standard mail server software.
but to me it seems like they only succeed because office workers, mom (my mom's comp was hit by Blaster), guy down the street, etc. *don't harden their computers*, or because they can't seem to stop clicking on attachments.
Maybe someone should write such an attachment that not only spreads, but also pops up a bunch of messages informing Joe User what he just did, something like "You shouldn't have done this... NEVER deliberately open any attachments unless you know what they are and why you received them. Your ignorance has just infected 1000 other computers with this Worm."
Not exactly a white-hat attempt, but considering the amount of worms lately popping up, why not...
True. Also, I think there is no real reason to defeat Bayesian filters... I don't think they are in such wide-spread use as some of us geeks might think. I would expect that those people using such mail filters are also generally less susceptible to viruses. So, I would estimate that the amount of cases where SoBig could successfully make a Spam filter work worse is maybe one percent of all Internet users.
Then again, I don't know how many corporate networks have Bayesian filters installed for all their employees that might be affected by this. But I don't think this was the point of SoBig, or any other such virus, for that matter.
Re:Other brands of phone - Siemens
on
Flaming Cellphones
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Heise has had an article on this as well. Translation follows.
Normally, one would only see this kind of stuff happening in rather bad secret agent movies, but now it happened to a woman in Amsterdam: Her cell phone exploded. These news about the exploded mobile phone are likely to disturb many cell phone owners: "Could this happen with my phone too?" In the Netherlands city, the woman's phone had first fallen to the ground. When she turned it on again and held it to her ear, the device exploded and caught fire. The woman suffered minor injuries. Experts, however, see no reason to be concerned: Cell phones explode extremely rarely, according to Bernd Schwencke, head of the cellular phone testing department of the German Quality Testing agency, Stiftung Warentest, in Berlin.
"Up to now, no such case was known to me," Schwencke notes. According to him, what's unusual about this event in the Netherlands is that the phone did not catch fire during recharging as in previously known cases, but while using the phone.
In previous cases where the rare case of a mobile phone catching fire occured, forged batteries were spotted as the cause. This was also the cause when a Siemens phone caught fire during recharging in a car kit. The phone manufacturer was not responsible -- the device was equipped with a bogus battery that was not properly working. "The accumulator had no overcharging protection and simply burst like a balloon filled with too much air," says Stefan Muller, spokesperson for the Siemens mobile phone division in Munich. Unfortunately, the plagiarized products mostly originating from Asia are still a problem, according to Muller. To prevent the use of such "time bombs" in cell phones, the experts advise to only buy batteries in specialized stores instead of flea markets -- even if a manufacturer's logo is on the battery.
c't: Mr. Sontag, the code snippets shown by you at the forum have been analyzed by experts. Result: They were contributed to Linux by Silicon Graphics, not IBM.
Chris Sontag: That is correct, this example is not from IBM, but one of our other licensees. I can not comment right now on who it is.
c't: This copy is also said to be far older than your rights to UNIX. Additionally, these snippets have apparently already been distributed under the BSD license by AT&T, that is, freely available, and they could have made their way into Linux from there.
Sontag: That is completely wrong. We own all files of this code with the complete version tree back to its origin in 1969. We have checked all tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question comes from the same version of UNIX System V that we have licensed and delivered to SGI under a signed contract. This version has been available to the licensee, and has never been in BSD or other releases. And the verbatim copy of the code from that file can be found in Linux. We want to point out such flagrant violation.
c't: But in the suit against IBM, these proofs will not help you?
Sontag: Correct.
c't: Then why do you show just that code publicly as a proof? You are suing IBM, after all.
Sontag: We have found many kinds of copyright infringement and breach of contract. The verbatim copying of code was the most obvious kind and we wanted to prove that. Therefore we showed it in our public statement, and we demonstrate that example under an NDA. In the case of IBM, we have not yet found such cases of verbatim copying, but we have not investigated everything just yet. IBM's case is mainly concerned with another kind of breach of contract, namely the distribution of derivative works to a great extent. The licensing contract says that all changes in the program and derivative works have to remain within the originally licensed work.
c't: Your interpretation of copyright law -- with respect to direct copies as well as derivative works -- is claimed to be nonsense and not allowed in court by Columbia University law professor Egen Moglen.
Sontag: Moglen is not exactly known as an expert for Intellectual Property (IP) law. I have talked to IP experts -- and they call Moglen's interpretation nonsense.
c't: But your lawyer, David Boies, is not an IP expert either.
Sontag: True, but his strength is contract law, and that will be the crucial weapon.
c't: You are sure you have not chosen him for his publicity in the Microsoft process?
Sontag: Let's say that aspect won't hurt us.
c't: Will you now go ahead and sue that other licensee?
Sontag: I can not comment on that right now, but we will be considering that option.
Darl McBride then commented on the involvement of SGI in the code examples shown by SCO, which had not yet been confirmed by Chris Sontag. In his c't interview, the SCO CEO had less problems calling names.
c't: The code examples shown by you have apparently been contributed to Linux by SGI, not IBM.
Darl McBride: Correct. These were examples of verbatim copying from UNIX to Linux that happened at SGI.
c't: Does SGI have to expect a billion-dollar suit as well now?
McBride: Possibly. At least they can not consider themselves safe. But right now we fully concentrate on the IBM case, as that takes us enough energy and ressources already.
c't: How does your company plan to earn the money to fight its way through such a process against IBM?
McBride: Our cash flow suffices for that. We have been profitable since two quarters, having tripled our cash assets to 13 million Dollars. Per quarter, the suit costs us about one million.
c't: Could it be that your leading share holder, Canopy Group, is going to
Well, it _could_ make things faster because you can _type_ a text message while still in the theater, but you certainly wouldn't _call_ anyone to prevent him from seeing the show starting the next 30 minutes.
So yes, text messaging is a little advance. But hell, it's in the consumer's best interest... as others said, if you produce crap, you should receive crap. The quicker people can warn each other before being ripped off, the better...
Well, to me those shots do not prove much... the first image shows identical comments. While this might prove that once there was similar code, we can not tell which was there first; and, it's just a comment, hardly anything to succeed with in a lawsuit (but IANAL of course). And the second shot seems totally worthless to me, since we see the Linux code, but have no proof that "SCO's" code contains those lines...
Anyone could easily show millions of lines of Linux kernel code and claim they're stolen from his proprietary code base. But unfortunately we can't see that code base to have further "proof," unless we sign NDAs...
Hm? The MISSING-FILES.README (see this post) says:
(For the ptrace bug, an root-shell exploit available on 17 March 2003, and a working fix was not available on linux-kernel until the following week. Evidence found on the machine indicates that were cracked during that week.)
Hmm, what's the big deal? I archive as.tar.gz under GNU, and pretty much all Windows extractors I know can handle that.
Besides, I do not expect this patent to change much. The 'default' file format will exist and stay in use; strong encryption will be more of a Bonus feature I expect...
As you pointed out very well, most of that robotic action is already taking place. So I suppose the author's emphasis then lies on the word humanoid.
And personally, I think that in most cases building a truely humanoid robot is just never going to happen -- because it simply makes no sense. If you create some machine to complete a specific task, you would never make it look and act like a human. It would be too inefficient. I do not expect that people will hold humanoid robots as a "commodity item," as the author suggested, because I think it defies logic.
We will surely see more and more robotic equipment and AI-Controlled machines, and they will be come even more ubiquitious in our daily lives than they are already. But humanoid? That would be only for entertainment reasons. For every other purpose it would be pretty senseless, I suppose.
Oh, and on a side note, I find it more than ridiculous how he cites Moore's Law to "show" how highly developed machines must be in 20 or 30 years. We all know that this so-called "Law" is basically a marketing formula by Intel, and we also know that limits are being reached already, considering how complex it is to build electronic structures on a nanometer scale (think wave lengths, product quality, necessary cleanness of production environments, energy,...), and how much energy is needed and simply wasted as heat already. I expect processors to gain maybe one or two powers of ten when it comes to speed, but by then the focus must and will switch to higher, more sophisticated parallelism and low-power computing (e.g. through circuits performing more reversible computation). But Brain's hand-waving method of "simply extrapolating" is Sci-Fi BS, in my eyes.
I think they could've shown this anti-gravity stuff to be bullshit much easier... if it were a real device defying gravity, why the hell would it lift off the ground, and why the hell should it stabilize at any certain height, such as two feet? There's nothing there that could induce an upward movement if it only "turned off gravity." It should stay at the exact same location unless it uses some extra device to accelerate it in some direction. Also, if the thing is lifted off the ground and you raise the ground below it, the thing will probably rise too - which would clearly show that it's interacting with the air most likely. A real levitating device should not change its height simply because you raise the floor below it...
No no no. You're missing the important keyword concurrent. Even for a high school with about 2,000 students, this should be enough with current computing needs. You'll hardly have more than that amount of students using the system at the same time.
I have Samba + Cyrus + Exim set up at a couple of places. I was looking into providing a central address book through OpenLDAP. So my questions to you are:
Have you found any helful webpages on setting up OpenLDAP to work with Outlook/Outlook Express? I suppose you need matching LDAP schemas, etc...
Are you using Outlook only, or OE as well? I have a client using OE currently; if I know it works from Outlook, I'll switch them over any time:)
How about editing address book entries in LDAP with O/OE? Maybe from Outlook it works, but from Express it doesn't seem to. I have looked into using LABE to allow editing address book entries, but it's not the kind of interface I want to have people use... a native windows software, or, better, native editing support from the mail app would be much preferable.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you were joking, but of course, it's rather unlikely that the trojan contains the exact same 'no-virus' line that you use. If your signature contains your name, for instance, or, as others have suggested, you go the way of really signing every single mail you write, it should work pretty well. Hell, you could even add an extra mail header "X-FromMe: this mail is really from me" or something like that and tell all your geekier friends to simply let your mail through based on that line.
Well, but given a simple look in the mail headers, you can well prove that the infected mail did not come from you.
I recently got a load of Failure Notices to my University mail account that claimed the mail I had sent was infected with a virus (I think it was an earlier SoBig variant). Well, the notice included the header of the original email, which in turn included the Received: line I was looking for.
The guy's computer (in another dorm) was denied net access by the computer center after my mail to their abuse handler until he proved to the net admins in his dorm that his box was clean again.
In short: to anyone who asks you, you can effectively prove the mail did not come from you. Unless, of course, you're in via some dialup provider which happens to be the same the sender of the virus mail used; that makes it a bit harder.
Also, whois gives this:
So, Go2Net, Inc. is a Seattle company... now that is some food for all you conspiracy theory fans out there :-)
Simple. It just happened. The Old English word was just the one used by, let's say, less sophisticated people, much more often. The other one, though, was 'imported' by probably more sophisticated people, and is obviously used fewer times, and has a different connotation. 'Shit' simply happens to mean something different than 'feces', it is a more vulgar word.
Still, I think overly limiting the vocabulary ('gosh darn') is mostly hypocritical and serves no real purpose... kids, for example, say 'god damn' anyway, and on average, it doesn't make them much better or worse...
But the trick is that you have to learn where to use what kind of language, more generally -- say, when at a job interview or when at a party with your friends, and as such limiting the use of certain 'bad words' is a matter of proper education.
In my case, SpamAssassin run at my University's CS department has been working extremely well for me, even better since they updated to use Bayesian filtering. My statistics since 2003-03-05, i.e. for the last 174 days:
That gives me a 97.42% ratio of correctly classified Spam, i.e. true positives vs. false negatives.
Maybe, if such a comparison is done, they should rather configure and train each filter to the best of its abilities, using the same reference data, and then compare the results... that would be a little more real-world usable. Additionally, one could of course also look at different use cases, such as the Office worker case or the Programmer case, where the latter one is subscribed to more mailing lists, for example.
Not necessarily the anti-virus software; for instance if you use the system_filter.exim script included with Exim, it will filter risky attachments and Exim will generate a standard failure notice. If a virus scanner is run by the MTA, the MTA might also generate its default failure notices in case the scanner finds a virus. And lastly, "Mail delivery failed" mails can reach you because someone spoofed your address as his From address, and the To address was simply non-existant.
So, in short, it's most likely not the anti-virus software sending the bounces, but the standard mail server software.
Maybe someone should write such an attachment that not only spreads, but also pops up a bunch of messages informing Joe User what he just did, something like "You shouldn't have done this... NEVER deliberately open any attachments unless you know what they are and why you received them. Your ignorance has just infected 1000 other computers with this Worm."
Not exactly a white-hat attempt, but considering the amount of worms lately popping up, why not...
True. Also, I think there is no real reason to defeat Bayesian filters... I don't think they are in such wide-spread use as some of us geeks might think. I would expect that those people using such mail filters are also generally less susceptible to viruses. So, I would estimate that the amount of cases where SoBig could successfully make a Spam filter work worse is maybe one percent of all Internet users.
Then again, I don't know how many corporate networks have Bayesian filters installed for all their employees that might be affected by this. But I don't think this was the point of SoBig, or any other such virus, for that matter.
Heise has had an article on this as well. Translation follows.
Normally, one would only see this kind of stuff happening in rather bad secret agent movies, but now it happened to a woman in Amsterdam: Her cell phone exploded. These news about the exploded mobile phone are likely to disturb many cell phone owners: "Could this happen with my phone too?" In the Netherlands city, the woman's phone had first fallen to the ground. When she turned it on again and held it to her ear, the device exploded and caught fire. The woman suffered minor injuries. Experts, however, see no reason to be concerned: Cell phones explode extremely rarely, according to Bernd Schwencke, head of the cellular phone testing department of the German Quality Testing agency, Stiftung Warentest, in Berlin.
"Up to now, no such case was known to me," Schwencke notes. According to him, what's unusual about this event in the Netherlands is that the phone did not catch fire during recharging as in previously known cases, but while using the phone. In previous cases where the rare case of a mobile phone catching fire occured, forged batteries were spotted as the cause. This was also the cause when a Siemens phone caught fire during recharging in a car kit. The phone manufacturer was not responsible -- the device was equipped with a bogus battery that was not properly working. "The accumulator had no overcharging protection and simply burst like a balloon filled with too much air," says Stefan Muller, spokesperson for the Siemens mobile phone division in Munich. Unfortunately, the plagiarized products mostly originating from Asia are still a problem, according to Muller. To prevent the use of such "time bombs" in cell phones, the experts advise to only buy batteries in specialized stores instead of flea markets -- even if a manufacturer's logo is on the battery.
$2,500... maybe that includes $699 for you-know-who, or more, respectively, for more CPUs... ;-)
c't: Mr. Sontag, the code snippets shown by you at the forum have been analyzed by experts. Result: They were contributed to Linux by Silicon Graphics, not IBM.
Chris Sontag: That is correct, this example is not from IBM, but one of our other licensees. I can not comment right now on who it is.
c't: This copy is also said to be far older than your rights to UNIX. Additionally, these snippets have apparently already been distributed under the BSD license by AT&T, that is, freely available, and they could have made their way into Linux from there.
Sontag: That is completely wrong. We own all files of this code with the complete version tree back to its origin in 1969. We have checked all tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question comes from the same version of UNIX System V that we have licensed and delivered to SGI under a signed contract. This version has been available to the licensee, and has never been in BSD or other releases. And the verbatim copy of the code from that file can be found in Linux. We want to point out such flagrant violation.
c't: But in the suit against IBM, these proofs will not help you?
Sontag: Correct.
c't: Then why do you show just that code publicly as a proof? You are suing IBM, after all.
Sontag: We have found many kinds of copyright infringement and breach of contract. The verbatim copying of code was the most obvious kind and we wanted to prove that. Therefore we showed it in our public statement, and we demonstrate that example under an NDA. In the case of IBM, we have not yet found such cases of verbatim copying, but we have not investigated everything just yet. IBM's case is mainly concerned with another kind of breach of contract, namely the distribution of derivative works to a great extent. The licensing contract says that all changes in the program and derivative works have to remain within the originally licensed work.
c't: Your interpretation of copyright law -- with respect to direct copies as well as derivative works -- is claimed to be nonsense and not allowed in court by Columbia University law professor Egen Moglen.
Sontag: Moglen is not exactly known as an expert for Intellectual Property (IP) law. I have talked to IP experts -- and they call Moglen's interpretation nonsense.
c't: But your lawyer, David Boies, is not an IP expert either.
Sontag: True, but his strength is contract law, and that will be the crucial weapon.
c't: You are sure you have not chosen him for his publicity in the Microsoft process?
Sontag: Let's say that aspect won't hurt us.
c't: Will you now go ahead and sue that other licensee?
Sontag: I can not comment on that right now, but we will be considering that option.
c't: The code examples shown by you have apparently been contributed to Linux by SGI, not IBM.
Darl McBride: Correct. These were examples of verbatim copying from UNIX to Linux that happened at SGI.
c't: Does SGI have to expect a billion-dollar suit as well now?
McBride: Possibly. At least they can not consider themselves safe. But right now we fully concentrate on the IBM case, as that takes us enough energy and ressources already.
c't: How does your company plan to earn the money to fight its way through such a process against IBM?
McBride: Our cash flow suffices for that. We have been profitable since two quarters, having tripled our cash assets to 13 million Dollars. Per quarter, the suit costs us about one million.
c't: Could it be that your leading share holder, Canopy Group, is going to
What?!? There's only two - SCO and SCO, nobody else!!
Expect to be sued.
Yours, Darl McBride
:)
Here's the page of the Computer Graphics group, including information on Anthropometric Modeling, at the Max Planck Institute.
For the Sobig.f statistics, check out the virus stats page of the University of Vienna also.
Or, for Exim, try the included system_filter.exim (see here for example)
Well, it _could_ make things faster because you can _type_ a text message while still in the theater, but you certainly wouldn't _call_ anyone to prevent him from seeing the show starting the next 30 minutes.
So yes, text messaging is a little advance. But hell, it's in the consumer's best interest... as others said, if you produce crap, you should receive crap. The quicker people can warn each other before being ripped off, the better...
Well, to me those shots do not prove much... the first image shows identical comments. While this might prove that once there was similar code, we can not tell which was there first; and, it's just a comment, hardly anything to succeed with in a lawsuit (but IANAL of course). And the second shot seems totally worthless to me, since we see the Linux code, but have no proof that "SCO's" code contains those lines...
Anyone could easily show millions of lines of Linux kernel code and claim they're stolen from his proprietary code base. But unfortunately we can't see that code base to have further "proof," unless we sign NDAs...
Hm? The MISSING-FILES.README (see this post) says:
Hmm, what's the big deal? I archive as .tar.gz under GNU, and pretty much all Windows extractors I know can handle that.
Besides, I do not expect this patent to change much. The 'default' file format will exist and stay in use; strong encryption will be more of a Bonus feature I expect...
As you pointed out very well, most of that robotic action is already taking place. So I suppose the author's emphasis then lies on the word humanoid.
And personally, I think that in most cases building a truely humanoid robot is just never going to happen -- because it simply makes no sense. If you create some machine to complete a specific task, you would never make it look and act like a human. It would be too inefficient. I do not expect that people will hold humanoid robots as a "commodity item," as the author suggested, because I think it defies logic.
We will surely see more and more robotic equipment and AI-Controlled machines, and they will be come even more ubiquitious in our daily lives than they are already. But humanoid? That would be only for entertainment reasons. For every other purpose it would be pretty senseless, I suppose.
Oh, and on a side note, I find it more than ridiculous how he cites Moore's Law to "show" how highly developed machines must be in 20 or 30 years. We all know that this so-called "Law" is basically a marketing formula by Intel, and we also know that limits are being reached already, considering how complex it is to build electronic structures on a nanometer scale (think wave lengths, product quality, necessary cleanness of production environments, energy, ...), and how much energy is needed and simply wasted as heat already. I expect processors to gain maybe one or two powers of ten when it comes to speed, but by then the focus must and will switch to higher, more sophisticated parallelism and low-power computing (e.g. through circuits performing more reversible computation). But Brain's hand-waving method of "simply extrapolating" is Sci-Fi BS, in my eyes.
1 pound = 453.59 g. Ergo, 3.11 pounds = 1.41 kg.
I think they could've shown this anti-gravity stuff to be bullshit much easier... if it were a real device defying gravity, why the hell would it lift off the ground, and why the hell should it stabilize at any certain height, such as two feet? There's nothing there that could induce an upward movement if it only "turned off gravity." It should stay at the exact same location unless it uses some extra device to accelerate it in some direction. Also, if the thing is lifted off the ground and you raise the ground below it, the thing will probably rise too - which would clearly show that it's interacting with the air most likely. A real levitating device should not change its height simply because you raise the floor below it...
No no no. You're missing the important keyword concurrent. Even for a high school with about 2,000 students, this should be enough with current computing needs. You'll hardly have more than that amount of students using the system at the same time.
I have Samba + Cyrus + Exim set up at a couple of places. I was looking into providing a central address book through OpenLDAP. So my questions to you are:
Thanks :)
Well, as he said, he can't eat boxes with blue power LEDs. He was mostly in need of someone paying him to get something to eat, not machines.