Comment Re:I guess (Score 5, Funny) 256
Looks like the writers just...
puts on sunglasses
...soiled their genes.
puts on sunglasses
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHH!!!
Comment Re:Yes, but... (Score 4, Funny) 158
No, but it does run Netbsd.
Has Netcraft confirmed that the patient is dying?
Comment Re:Beware of namechanges (Score 1) 629
I went in to a local Shack to buy a soldering iron a couple months ago. They don't have them.
It depends on the store. The one near me has them.
I have no idea who sells soldering irons any more
The Lowes near me also has them.
I live near Boston, though, so if I need a soldering iron, I just go to "You Do It".
A Hypothesis On Segway Hate 487
theodp writes "Admit it, IT is ingenious. Also, IT is surprisingly effective for certain uses, including real cops and mall cops. And if you tried IT, you probably smiled to yourself. So why all the Segway hate? Paul Graham looks into The Trouble with the Segway and offers a hypothesis about what prompts people to shout abuse at Segway riders: 'You look smug. You don't seem to be working hard enough.' Not that someone riding a motorcycle is working any harder, adds Graham, but because he's sitting astride it, he appears to be making an effort. When you're riding a Segway you're just standing there. Make a version that doesn't look so easy for the rider — perhaps resembling skateboards or bicycles — and Segway just might capture more of the market they hoped to reach."
First New Nuclear Reactor In a Decade On Track 575
dusty writes "Plans to bring online the first new US nuclear plant since 1995 are on track, on time, and on budget
according to the Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA had one major accident with a coal ash spill of late, and one minor one. The agency has plans and workers in place to have Unit 2 at Watts Bar, near Knoxville, online by 2012. Currently over 1,800 workers are doing construction at the plant. Watts Bar #1 is the only new nuclear reactor added to the grid in the last 25 years. From the article: 'TVA estimates the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor every year will avoid the emission of about 60 million metric tons of greenhouse emissions linked with global warming. ... TVA began construction of Watts Bar in 1973, but work was suspended in 1988 when TVA's growth in power sales declined. After mothballing the unit for 19 years, TVA's board decided in 2007 to finish the reactor because it is projected to provide cheaper, no carbon-emitting power compared with the existing coal plants or purchased power it may help replace.'"
Comment Re:Bad news (Score 2, Funny) 389
In Space No One Can Eat Ice Cream
In space no one can hear you scream for ice cream. We all do it, though.
Repulsive Force Discovered In Light 176
Aurispector writes in with news that the Yale team that recently discovered an attractive force between two light beams in waveguides has now found a corresponding repulsive force. "'This completes the picture,' [team lead Hong] Tang said. 'We've shown that this is indeed a bipolar light force with both an attractive and repulsive component.' The attractive and repulsive light forces Tang's team discovered are separate from the force created by light's radiation pressure, which pushes against an object as light shines on it. Instead, they push out or pull in sideways from the direction the light travels. Previously, the engineers used the attractive force they discovered to move components on the silicon chip in one direction, such as pulling on a nanoscale switch to open it, but were unable to push it in the opposite direction. Using both forces means they can now have complete control and can manipulate components in both directions. 'We've demonstrated that these are tunable forces we can engineer,' Tang said."
Comment Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic (Score 1) 252
I may write a book, and it may have some very non obvious and novel story lines, but the book isn't patentable.
There might be a problem with that statement.
Judge Invalidates Software Patent, Citing Bilski 252
bfwebster writes "US District Court Judge Andrew Gilford (Central District of California) granted a summary judgment motion in DealerTrack v. Huber et al., finding DealerTrack's patent (US 7,181,427) — for an automated credit application processing system — invalid due to the recent In re Bilski court decision that requires a patent to either involve 'transformation' or 'a specific machine.' According to Judge Gilford's ruling, DealerTrack 'appears to concede that the claims of the '427 Patent do not meet the "transformation" prong of the Bilski test.' He then applied the 'specific machine' test and noted that, post-Bilski the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has ruled several times that 'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [Bilski] test.' Judge Gilford analyzes the claims of the '427 patent, notes that they state that the 'machine' involved could be a 'dumb terminal' and a 'personal computer,' and then concludes: 'None of the claims of the '427 Patent require the use of a "particular machine," and the patent is thus invalid under Bilski.' DealerTrack apparently plans to appeal the ruling. Interesting times ahead."
Can Urine Rescue Hydrogen-Powered Cars? 313
thecarchik writes with this interesting excerpt: "It takes a lot of energy to split hydrogen out from the other atoms to which it binds, either in natural gas or water. Which means energy analysts are skeptical about the overall energy balance of cars fueled by hydrogen. Ohio University researcher Geraldine Botte has come up with a nickel-based electrode to oxidize (NH2)2CO, otherwise known as urea, the major component of animal urine. Because urea's four hydrogen atoms are less tightly bound to nitrogen than the hydrogen bound to oxygen in water molecules, it takes less energy to break them apart."
Comment Re:It's about time (Score 1) 465
"nutcase sitting in his basement with a homemade Faraday cage because the government is using mind control on him"
Omigosh, I need to use a whole Faraday cage now?! I thought the hat was enough.
Comment Re:Only Proprietary? (Score 1) 691
There is still something that you apparently miss: Windows has vulnerabilities
There is still something that you apparently miss: Every Operating System since the dawn of time has vulnerabilities.
Humor me. Let's work backward in time, alright? Vista was released, in part, to correct or patch vulnerabilities in XP SP3. And, XP SP3 was released to patch vulnerabilities in XP SP2. XP SP2 was released to patch XP SP1. And so forth.
Having stated that my fresh install of XP SP2 was infected immediately after connecting to the web, you declare that XP SP2 was a safe operating system, and that stuff like that isn't possible. Or, at least impossible for a "properly configured" system.
That's right. One of the things I listed was exposed, and that's how they cracked you.
Then, why does MS waste their time trying to make their OS more secure, if it is so secure that SP2 couldn't be compromised, out of the box?
Why does OpenBSD waste their time trying to make their OS more secure, if it is so secure that 4.4 couldn't be compromised, out of the box?
Really, you're not making any points here - this is foolish.
No, you're just so blinded by zealotry that you won't accept the fact that maybe you did something wrong.
I know what I did with that machine,
Did you follow NIST's or SAN's advice for machine configuration?
I know the firewall was turned on,
Did you look at the exceptions?
I know that I had an antivirus installed.
You said that it flagged the attacks. Did the antivirus installation disable the firewall in favor of using its own buggy implementation?
I also know that I felt secure in the knowledge that crackers and script kiddies don't waste time scanning lame-ass dial up networks.
All networks are hostile.
All the same, the machine was hijacked in front of my eyes. You may believe it, you may dismiss it, but you can't win an argument in which you accuse me of "changing something".
Okay, fine, you didn't change anything. Was ICS enabled? What was in the exception list? Was file sharing turned on? These are obvious things to check.
Fresh, out of the box installation, hijacked. You can google for more accounts of similar experiences - or not, as you choose.
All of which have one of the issues that I previously listed wrong with them.
The Windows Firewall when properly configured deflects inbound attacks just fine. Any successful attack is due to improperly configuring the machine.
But whatever, you're trolling, so were done here.
Comment Re:Only Proprietary? (Score 1) 691
Nope. Windows firewall runs by default on XP SP2, if you'll recall. I did NOT disable the firewall. 100% clean install, all default values, nothing changed.
You had to have changed something. Either you had filesharing enabled, you configured an exception rule, you configured ICS, or Avast disabled the firewall.
A properly configured Windows Firewall (even pre-SP2) doesn't have any issues rejecting inbound traffic.
Comment Re:Only Proprietary? (Score 1) 691
And it's almost imposible(Newer seen it done) to install a Windows XP SP1 and then upgrade to SP2 before you get a virus
Turn on the firewall.
Comment Re:Only Proprietary? (Score 1) 691
In my own personal experience, I've taken possession of a totally dicked up Windows box, formatted, installed Windows from CD, installed a few apps from CD (avast included) then connected to the internet for updates. Within ten minutes, the machine was infected with yet more malware.
I call bullshit. The only way that you could have accomplished this is to purposely disable the Windows Firewall and connect the machine directly to the internet.
That's just stupid, no matter which operating system you're using.
