Those numbers seem suspiciously inflated. I'm going to guess the majority of these packets are icmp from bots checking ping.
There are what, 1-2 billion people currently on the internet at any one time (probably exceeds that) Let's say 99.9% don't develop malware.
That would put the number of currently active malware developers at 2,000,000. If 10% of them write a program that tries to attack microsoft.com, that's 200,000 programs. If each one of those only tries once every 10 seconds, that could be 20,000 individual programs attacking microsoft.com every second.
Ok, so maybe somewhere those numbers are inflated. Cut it down by another order of 100. That would be 200 unique pieces of malware.
Now the magic: It's not 0.1% of the internet users developing malware that targets microsoft.com. It's 40-60% of the internet users whose computers have been compromised and are attacking microsoft.com.
So 10k attacks per second? Not a stretch at all. These things scale.
In that case it is doubtful that Facebook has much in the way of trademark rights even under common law. Trademark rights on words are extremely limited, even in a specialized business context. McDonald's can own "Big Mac" but not "hamburger".
Good luck if you open up a company called Windows Software (You know, for automated control of windows). What about 'Geek Squad'.
Safety of flight testing. You shouldn't run the same system through twice (unless you have a lot of money because the stresses accumulate). It consumes physical components, and requires very specialized and calibrated test equipment. Few locations have the equipment to perform the tests. It adds up.
Think crash testing a car. Each time cosumes an entire vehicle.
Hint: Computers run more than run-of-the-mill office desktops. Like for example they control big and expensive machinery, that could halt or damage production lines and create huge issues for your entire supply chain. It all depends on what you're developing and for who.
And to expand on that... not all computers sit in offices.
The system was safety of flight critical. Testing such systems is literally physically expensive to run and not in terms of manhours alone. You are bolting it to a vib table, freezing it, cooking it, literally shocking it at some points. Some of these tests go right to the structural limits of the system, so you can't even run it on the same equipment more than once. It literally eats up another piece of hardware.
For the guy who called me a troll. Imagine if you were testing a new airbag system in a crash test. If you want to run that test again, you are going to literally destroy another vehicle (filled with sensors). For something like a BMW, you are going to be out $50-100k on just the raw materials to conduct the test.
Physical cost of performing a test? Does your QA department charge $1000 per keystroke?
Obvious troll is obvious.
Change the code in a system just before it goes into a series of tests for flight safety and reliability.
Think that changing the software won't have an effect on the performance of the system? Probably not, but I've had a system which shut down without warning at -10C. The solution was a software patch that adjusted how it responded to warnings of system performance degredation.
That's why it was such an expensive thing. I wasn't going to allow something to fly if it was tested out of configuration. Repeat of the testing was somewhere around $250k since there were a LOT of tests that had to be rerun. When a unit goes out for test, it goes from test to test to test for the most part, their paperwork said it had firmware/software versions XYZ and we later discovered that a different version was snuck in.
Obviously, your bank's data center isn't going to be considered flight safety critical, but screwing with production can be damned expensive in the right conditions.
If I found out a developer changed something in a system I tested without it going through the proper process...
Let's just say I would be very interested to hear why they shouldn't go back and rerun everything again on THEIR dime. (at the very least) In fact, we DID do just that to someone who let a revision slip into their UUT because a developer felt it would fix something and make it perform better.
It wasn't too expensive of a mistake, just $250,000 to rerun that portion of the test. Although that was just the physical cost of performing the test. I don't even want to know how much it cost in labor especially considering it was a 22 day test.
Even if the change was removed, how do I know that without physically verifying checksums (do I even trust it anymore since their CM process is obviously flawed)
It's true, you would fall under the "Anomalous trichromacy" rather than "dichromacy" category, but they only put up pics for dichromacy, where one of the colour receptors is completely missing. Still, it's quite possible for partially red-green colour blind people to confuse red and green lights despite what Tom Hudson said.. maybe not if the two lights were next to each other, but if they were shown on their own.
I failed a test once because I was actually overcompensating. The test where they show a red/green/white light over another red/green/white light.
What tripped me up? Their 'white' wasn't white. It was that crappy white you get from Sodium Vapor, or a sooty incandescent, so more of a yellow-white.
As a result: Every instance of red-green comparison I got right. But I rarely if ever declared the light to be white since what I saw wasn't WHITE (it was dim yellow/orange-white), so I assumed since I was partially colorblind it must be a faded red and I was just seeing it oddly so I took a guess.
The next time I took the test I got it perfect since I knew that their white wasn't actually going to be white as I understood it, but not before that FIRST test permanently barred me from some career options in the military. (It was too late to go back and switch since I was already locked in)
On an even more amicable note: I LOVE Avatar, if only for the regular fun bashing-sessions to be had;-)
That's why I wonder why someone would walk out. There is SO much there that is fodder for some good bashing. Maybe that is my problem and why I don't walk out, I LOVE to hate movies.
Well, I find it rude to mock movies while in the theater. There are other people there and they might be trying to enjoy the steaming pile that is projecting on the screen.
Fair. I do it in a whisper and only when I'm not next to someone not involved.
And with the current ear-splitting volume they play movies at these days? I could probably bust out a trombone and play the Price is Right 'fail' theme and someone 2 seats over probably wouldn't notice.
However, I did once get asked to stop talking by an usher during a showing of the movie 'Dick'. It did seem odd to me since my two friends and I were literally the only people in the entire auditorium. (I think they DID want us to walk out so they could just shut down)
But I would never talk at a level or near enough to someone where I'd distract them. I don't even like 'slurping' on a straw when the cup is empty.
No offense, but you must have no idea about the economic theory of Sunk Costs. It doesn't matter how much it cost to see the movie - you are not going to get that money back, and if you find out it's not worth your time you are economically better off leaving and doing something you do enjoy.
To continue the management jargon that is employed to excuse poor planning: It is what it is.
No offense, but someone with so much background in economic theory should probably spend the infinitesimal amount of time required to figure out if they would like a movie before sinking those costs. Especially to a Slashdot reader when the site was filled with commentary highlighting the exact issues for which most people found the movie to be so poor.
But on a more amicable note: It could be that I'm just easily entertained. And to be honest, I HAVE walked out of a movie before, but that was only on a free ticket at a multiplex and we just happened to be right there so there was no cost in 'evaluating' the film. We just walked over to the next theater and sat down for another movie. (I do miss having my friend be the manager of the theater)
But those pictures are designed for people with normal vision to get an idea of colour blindness, not for colour blind people to get an idea of colour blindness. To accurately portray colour blindness to you, they just need to show a normal chromatic scale..
Not quite. I'm saying that what they are showing there is an exaggeration of what most color-blind people see. The exaggeration isn't helpful since it suggests we see much less color than we actually do and leads to misconceptions.
I have the most common form of colorblindness, and the 'simulation' picture should appear to be identical to the 'control' picture if it were a true representation. Even though colorblindness is more graduated than a simple on-off of wavelengths, it should at least be close. And I'm saying that what I see there isn't even close.
It would be like discussing hay fever alergies and showing a picture of someone in anaphylactic shock.
Says the person who is defending a movie that was nothing but a series of "OOOH SHINY!!!" moments.
You mean: Says the person who wouldn't walk away from a fireworks display, advertised as '4th of July small town Fireworks show', because I for somehow confused it for an olympic-level Poi demonstration.
Depending on the job, yes. It's not one of the Federally protected disabilities. A lot of jobs require that you get a physical. So the physician will likely perform an ishihara plate test there.
Police, EMTs, Firefighters, anything relating to driving, anything relating to flying, Military. Those are the obvious. They do have some activities which rely on color coded signals.
However a GREAT many of those jobs can be performed by people with the most common form of color blindness. But no hiring manager is going to stick their neck out and take a 'risk'. Colorblindness is VERY misunderstood by the public, and as a result, we will be subjected to a great deal of discrimination because the assumption is that it's the equivalent of walking around blind.
So what will happen is that beyond some of the obvious restrictions (I can mostly understand the restrictions on pilot jobs, though even they are overly cautious, but the FAA is overprotective for a lot of items, and a lot of it is tradition, and not trying to improve what works 'ok')
So you will have someone come up with a rule that if something involves ANY COLOR EVER AT ANY TIME 'normal color vision' will become an employment requirement.
Trust me when I say this, people who are diagnosed with color blindness (even the minor and most common form) know the annoyance and frustration at seeing job postings include those words.
Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?
You may be missing your ADD meds. No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.
I just can't imagine someone having such a low tolerance that they would walk out of a movie like Avatar. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's not Manos: The Hands of Fate either.
Besides, what the hell did you expect? You are obviously someone who has very particular taste, how could you not know what you were walking into?
At $13/ticket (don't know what 3d costs around you) I could probably find something in even some of the most boring movies. Hell, mocking the movie with my friends is easily worth that amount.
n the case of medicine I would suggest they stick to primary colors for a set of basic properties (liquid, gas, etc) and back the code up with a pattern (say: red gets a straight white stripe; blue gets a zig zag red stripe, and so on) for lighting conditions where colours are hard to make out.
As a color blind individual, and thus familiar with a lot of attempts to make things 'simple', may I suggest something like this:
||| connects to ||| | connects to | -- connects to -- + connects to +
A simple labeling process can be built into making the termination of the tubes. You don't want to obscure the lines too much, and simple character based ends could eliminate color confusion and matching up a pattern down the line (which can get tricky if you only see the end of the tube and the rest is obscured by bedding, tape, etc)
And the National Association of Colorblind Nurses will sue.
You joke, but I damned well would. I've been denied many jobs that I could physically perform simply because someone who doesn't understand colorblindness lists it as a disqualifying metric in their hiring practice.
It doesn't count as a disability according to the Federal Government, but just how many damned career fields do I need to be barred from until it freaking counts as such?
Please if you are going to go with something to differentiate tubing please go with a simple pattern along with a color coding, considering the 'costs' of what these things cost, I think a 0.1cent cost per tube would be negligible when you consider you might cut nearly 10% of the male population out of the career.
There have already been pushes to make colorblind people ineligible for medical careers, the last thing we need is yet another profession that is barred to us. Colorblindness does NOT count as a disability according to the US Federal Government, but if I have another potential career cut off from me it better damned well be considered a disability.
Option 3 would have resulted in millions of Japanese starving to death. Their distribution system was demolished. As it was, tens of thousands of Japanese died of starvation that winter, and that was with massive US food aid.
Are you trying to imply that tens of millions of people were killed by the atomic bombs? Do you realize that's larger than the total combined populations of both cities? If you're going to exaggerate, might as well go for the gold.
No I didn't imply that at all. That was what was presented in the parent post as the only alternative to using nuclear weapons.
The point being, like firebombing the cities and an invasion of the mainland of Japan, there were other options, not ideal options, but the choice between NUKE or INVADE was a false dichotomy.
We certainly could have let the Soviet Union wrap up with Japan and likely seize the island for their own. It WAS an option. It wasn't an option I would have picked, but it was an option.
ie: Don't misunderstand my original statement as suggesting that we didn't end up with what is likely the ideal outcome from the situation. I just didn't like the false dichotomy suggested by the parent poster.
Slashdot Mirror
Those numbers seem suspiciously inflated. I'm going to guess the majority of these packets are icmp from bots checking ping.
There are what, 1-2 billion people currently on the internet at any one time (probably exceeds that) Let's say 99.9% don't develop malware.
That would put the number of currently active malware developers at 2,000,000. If 10% of them write a program that tries to attack microsoft.com, that's 200,000 programs. If each one of those only tries once every 10 seconds, that could be 20,000 individual programs attacking microsoft.com every second.
Ok, so maybe somewhere those numbers are inflated. Cut it down by another order of 100. That would be 200 unique pieces of malware.
Now the magic: It's not 0.1% of the internet users developing malware that targets microsoft.com. It's 40-60% of the internet users whose computers have been compromised and are attacking microsoft.com.
So 10k attacks per second? Not a stretch at all. These things scale.
Still somewhere over $5k?
I'd love to build this into something... if I could sell it to someone other than businesses looking for a way to waste money.
In that case it is doubtful that Facebook has much in the way of trademark rights even under common law. Trademark rights on words are extremely limited, even in a specialized business context. McDonald's can own "Big Mac" but not "hamburger".
Good luck if you open up a company called Windows Software (You know, for automated control of windows). What about 'Geek Squad'.
Or for one that isn't reviled by Slashdot:
Tractor Supply Company.
Safety of flight testing. You shouldn't run the same system through twice (unless you have a lot of money because the stresses accumulate). It consumes physical components, and requires very specialized and calibrated test equipment. Few locations have the equipment to perform the tests. It adds up.
Think crash testing a car. Each time cosumes an entire vehicle.
I'm pretty sure the percentage of colourblind males is less than 10. Otherwise, you're right.
Nearly 10% is less than 10%.
Otherwise, I'm still right ;)
Hint: Computers run more than run-of-the-mill office desktops. Like for example they control big and expensive machinery, that could halt or damage production lines and create huge issues for your entire supply chain. It all depends on what you're developing and for who.
And to expand on that... not all computers sit in offices.
The system was safety of flight critical. Testing such systems is literally physically expensive to run and not in terms of manhours alone. You are bolting it to a vib table, freezing it, cooking it, literally shocking it at some points. Some of these tests go right to the structural limits of the system, so you can't even run it on the same equipment more than once. It literally eats up another piece of hardware.
For the guy who called me a troll. Imagine if you were testing a new airbag system in a crash test. If you want to run that test again, you are going to literally destroy another vehicle (filled with sensors). For something like a BMW, you are going to be out $50-100k on just the raw materials to conduct the test.
Physical cost of performing a test? Does your QA department charge $1000 per keystroke?
Obvious troll is obvious.
Change the code in a system just before it goes into a series of tests for flight safety and reliability.
Think that changing the software won't have an effect on the performance of the system? Probably not, but I've had a system which shut down without warning at -10C. The solution was a software patch that adjusted how it responded to warnings of system performance degredation.
That's why it was such an expensive thing. I wasn't going to allow something to fly if it was tested out of configuration. Repeat of the testing was somewhere around $250k since there were a LOT of tests that had to be rerun. When a unit goes out for test, it goes from test to test to test for the most part, their paperwork said it had firmware/software versions XYZ and we later discovered that a different version was snuck in.
Obviously, your bank's data center isn't going to be considered flight safety critical, but screwing with production can be damned expensive in the right conditions.
Obvious troll isn't so troll.
If I found out a developer changed something in a system I tested without it going through the proper process...
Let's just say I would be very interested to hear why they shouldn't go back and rerun everything again on THEIR dime. (at the very least) In fact, we DID do just that to someone who let a revision slip into their UUT because a developer felt it would fix something and make it perform better.
It wasn't too expensive of a mistake, just $250,000 to rerun that portion of the test. Although that was just the physical cost of performing the test. I don't even want to know how much it cost in labor especially considering it was a 22 day test.
Even if the change was removed, how do I know that without physically verifying checksums (do I even trust it anymore since their CM process is obviously flawed)
It's true, you would fall under the "Anomalous trichromacy" rather than "dichromacy" category, but they only put up pics for dichromacy, where one of the colour receptors is completely missing. Still, it's quite possible for partially red-green colour blind people to confuse red and green lights despite what Tom Hudson said.. maybe not if the two lights were next to each other, but if they were shown on their own.
I failed a test once because I was actually overcompensating. The test where they show a red/green/white light over another red/green/white light.
What tripped me up? Their 'white' wasn't white. It was that crappy white you get from Sodium Vapor, or a sooty incandescent, so more of a yellow-white.
As a result: Every instance of red-green comparison I got right. But I rarely if ever declared the light to be white since what I saw wasn't WHITE (it was dim yellow/orange-white), so I assumed since I was partially colorblind it must be a faded red and I was just seeing it oddly so I took a guess.
The next time I took the test I got it perfect since I knew that their white wasn't actually going to be white as I understood it, but not before that FIRST test permanently barred me from some career options in the military. (It was too late to go back and switch since I was already locked in)
On an even more amicable note: I LOVE Avatar, if only for the regular fun bashing-sessions to be had ;-)
That's why I wonder why someone would walk out. There is SO much there that is fodder for some good bashing. Maybe that is my problem and why I don't walk out, I LOVE to hate movies.
Well, I find it rude to mock movies while in the theater. There are other people there and they might be trying to enjoy the steaming pile that is projecting on the screen.
Fair. I do it in a whisper and only when I'm not next to someone not involved.
And with the current ear-splitting volume they play movies at these days? I could probably bust out a trombone and play the Price is Right 'fail' theme and someone 2 seats over probably wouldn't notice.
However, I did once get asked to stop talking by an usher during a showing of the movie 'Dick'. It did seem odd to me since my two friends and I were literally the only people in the entire auditorium. (I think they DID want us to walk out so they could just shut down)
But I would never talk at a level or near enough to someone where I'd distract them. I don't even like 'slurping' on a straw when the cup is empty.
No offense, but you must have no idea about the economic theory of Sunk Costs.
It doesn't matter how much it cost to see the movie - you are not going to get that money back, and if you find out it's not worth your time you are economically better off leaving and doing something you do enjoy.
To continue the management jargon that is employed to excuse poor planning: It is what it is.
No offense, but someone with so much background in economic theory should probably spend the infinitesimal amount of time required to figure out if they would like a movie before sinking those costs. Especially to a Slashdot reader when the site was filled with commentary highlighting the exact issues for which most people found the movie to be so poor.
But on a more amicable note: It could be that I'm just easily entertained. And to be honest, I HAVE walked out of a movie before, but that was only on a free ticket at a multiplex and we just happened to be right there so there was no cost in 'evaluating' the film. We just walked over to the next theater and sat down for another movie. (I do miss having my friend be the manager of the theater)
But those pictures are designed for people with normal vision to get an idea of colour blindness, not for colour blind people to get an idea of colour blindness. To accurately portray colour blindness to you, they just need to show a normal chromatic scale..
Not quite. I'm saying that what they are showing there is an exaggeration of what most color-blind people see. The exaggeration isn't helpful since it suggests we see much less color than we actually do and leads to misconceptions.
I have the most common form of colorblindness, and the 'simulation' picture should appear to be identical to the 'control' picture if it were a true representation. Even though colorblindness is more graduated than a simple on-off of wavelengths, it should at least be close. And I'm saying that what I see there isn't even close.
It would be like discussing hay fever alergies and showing a picture of someone in anaphylactic shock.
Says the person who is defending a movie that was nothing but a series of "OOOH SHINY!!!" moments.
You mean: Says the person who wouldn't walk away from a fireworks display, advertised as '4th of July small town Fireworks show', because I for somehow confused it for an olympic-level Poi demonstration.
People actually ask if your color-blind?
Depending on the job, yes. It's not one of the Federally protected disabilities. A lot of jobs require that you get a physical. So the physician will likely perform an ishihara plate test there.
Police, EMTs, Firefighters, anything relating to driving, anything relating to flying, Military. Those are the obvious. They do have some activities which rely on color coded signals.
However a GREAT many of those jobs can be performed by people with the most common form of color blindness. But no hiring manager is going to stick their neck out and take a 'risk'. Colorblindness is VERY misunderstood by the public, and as a result, we will be subjected to a great deal of discrimination because the assumption is that it's the equivalent of walking around blind.
So what will happen is that beyond some of the obvious restrictions (I can mostly understand the restrictions on pilot jobs, though even they are overly cautious, but the FAA is overprotective for a lot of items, and a lot of it is tradition, and not trying to improve what works 'ok')
So you will have someone come up with a rule that if something involves ANY COLOR EVER AT ANY TIME 'normal color vision' will become an employment requirement.
Trust me when I say this, people who are diagnosed with color blindness (even the minor and most common form) know the annoyance and frustration at seeing job postings include those words.
Most of those films are rehashes of old plots, but none of them are white messiah films
When it comes to invading (hostile) aliens, you are going to need at least one of them to switch sides and lead you if you hope to stand a chance.
Higher in the gravity well = you win.
Mod the parent up. I walked out 45 minutes in at the theaters and it took 5 sittings to get through on DVD. Am I missing something?
You may be missing your ADD meds. No offense, but people like you must have a hell of a lot of money to blow if you would budget 3.5 hours of your time to go see a movie (travel+film) only to walk out and then have to figure something else to do with your remaining ~3 hours.
I just can't imagine someone having such a low tolerance that they would walk out of a movie like Avatar. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's not Manos: The Hands of Fate either.
Besides, what the hell did you expect? You are obviously someone who has very particular taste, how could you not know what you were walking into?
At $13/ticket (don't know what 3d costs around you) I could probably find something in even some of the most boring movies. Hell, mocking the movie with my friends is easily worth that amount.
n the case of medicine I would suggest they stick to primary colors for a set of basic properties (liquid, gas, etc) and back the code up with a pattern (say: red gets a straight white stripe; blue gets a zig zag red stripe, and so on) for lighting conditions where colours are hard to make out.
As a color blind individual, and thus familiar with a lot of attempts to make things 'simple', may I suggest something like this:
||| connects to |||
| connects to |
-- connects to --
+ connects to +
A simple labeling process can be built into making the termination of the tubes. You don't want to obscure the lines too much, and simple character based ends could eliminate color confusion and matching up a pattern down the line (which can get tricky if you only see the end of the tube and the rest is obscured by bedding, tape, etc)
I dunno.. if you look at the protanopia and deuteranopia pics on the wiki page for colour blindness, they look pretty difficult to tell apart to me.
I'm color-blind and those pics are nothing like what a color blind individual sees. The pictures look screwed up even to me.
And the National Association of Colorblind Nurses will sue.
You joke, but I damned well would. I've been denied many jobs that I could physically perform simply because someone who doesn't understand colorblindness lists it as a disqualifying metric in their hiring practice.
It doesn't count as a disability according to the Federal Government, but just how many damned career fields do I need to be barred from until it freaking counts as such?
Please if you are going to go with something to differentiate tubing please go with a simple pattern along with a color coding, considering the 'costs' of what these things cost, I think a 0.1cent cost per tube would be negligible when you consider you might cut nearly 10% of the male population out of the career.
There have already been pushes to make colorblind people ineligible for medical careers, the last thing we need is yet another profession that is barred to us. Colorblindness does NOT count as a disability according to the US Federal Government, but if I have another potential career cut off from me it better damned well be considered a disability.
Option 3 would have resulted in millions of Japanese starving to death. Their distribution system was demolished. As it was, tens of thousands of Japanese died of starvation that winter, and that was with massive US food aid.
Irrelevant. Option 3 remained an option.
Sounds like a slow-moving behemoth. Not the best choice for a name.
If you've ever used a good bulldozer, you might be a slow moving behemoth, but the feeling you get is of an unstoppable juggernaut.
To paraphrase a popular parody commercial:
It get's shit done.
Are you trying to imply that tens of millions of people were killed by the atomic bombs? Do you realize that's larger than the total combined populations of both cities? If you're going to exaggerate, might as well go for the gold.
No I didn't imply that at all. That was what was presented in the parent post as the only alternative to using nuclear weapons.
The point being, like firebombing the cities and an invasion of the mainland of Japan, there were other options, not ideal options, but the choice between NUKE or INVADE was a false dichotomy.
We certainly could have let the Soviet Union wrap up with Japan and likely seize the island for their own. It WAS an option. It wasn't an option I would have picked, but it was an option.
ie: Don't misunderstand my original statement as suggesting that we didn't end up with what is likely the ideal outcome from the situation. I just didn't like the false dichotomy suggested by the parent poster.
America was on the scene, with the power and the tools to get the job done, so we went ahead and did it
We do what we must, because we can.