Calm down. You got all of that from my comment? A couple of points. 1) I actually own a MBP and have had the same share of hardware and software issues with it as I've had with my standard "PC" laptops. The biggest problem I had was Apple issued an update to OS X which either contained a bug or exposed some bug in my hardware. I suspect it was the wireless driver. Even after sending it in for service so they could replace the wireless card, it still wouldn't work. I had to BUY 10.5 to fix the problem. In many other OS I could roll back a driver if there was a problem. Not in this case. My point is this: the argument that you're paying for vetted hardware and software with limited configuration options is a double-edged sword. It can be a VERY expensive double-edged sword and I will very likely not be purchasing another Apple computer. I don't see how that makes me an anti-mac fanboy or whatever because my decision is based on actual experience. 2) My response to the author's statement was general because his statement was very general. Of course it has gotten easier over the years, my comment doesn't say it hasn't. We all remember trying to fix the old IBMs or the Compacs that hand funky proprietary systems. If you think about it that's always how it starts. You get businesses building new technologies and then after a certain amount of time a workable standard emerges (either intentionally or intentionally).

It's nice to know that Mac Pro users are finally experiencing what some of us have had for the past 15 to 20 years. As for XServes, talk about the ultimate vendor lock in...they choose the OS, they choose the hardware and you're just along for the expensive ride.

Should I get my "I told you so" bumper sticker out yet, or should I wait for a couple of more bomb shells? Mark one up for informed voters and mark one down for the cult of personality.

I was scanning the Tech Herald article which quotes FSecure. They start talking about an incremented string being the unique identifier for each newly infected system. If I understood what they're saying, I don't think that would work. The bot would fall prey to the same problems you have when doing any type of unique id on a distributed system. That is to say incrementing a value is not a guaranteed way of obtaining a unique ID because the value you are incrementing is most likely not the highest value. I think you'd have to use something like a UUID to guarantee uniqueness. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what they're saying.

When I was a kid for some reason I remember thinking that if you were rich then you had one of those dedicated rewinders so you wouldn't have to wait for your tape to finish. I don't know why I thought that, I just did. Those were the good old days... Copy protection was so much easier to overcome and it seems like fair use was more respected by both the producers and consumers. I may be wrong though. Call it a function of me being so young back then.

I'm going to run out and patent malloc and free separately. Of course I would make more money off of malloc than free. :)

Ah yes. I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for clearing that up.

Unfortunately I think the problem goes beyond mathematics and extends to technical schools of thought in general. It is disappointing that a respected publisher would publish this dribble. I think this day and age people are so desperate to get their ideas out there that they put out anything and for some reason many journals are willing to publish them. I bet you this guy's next paper will be, "I've proven P=NP!"