Slashdot Mirror

True enough. It doesn't shut down on a divide by zero. I can attest to this. It does, however, shut down on a printing of a tab character followed by several backspace characters to the console. It's a well documented bug in Windows NT, 2000 and even XP. As far as I know there have been no service packs/critical updates that have addressed this issue (I've seen it work on the machines at school and they keep fairly up to date).

Now we have some real question. Why would a robust industry-standard operating system have such a fatal flaw? Why would an exception in WinNT Console Services (CSRSS.EXE) cause a kernel panic? Granted, to get anything useful done in NT you need a command shell, but are console services THAT essential? And what MILITARY organization in their right mind uses software from a company that hasn't even ADDRESSED this known bug in the year-and-some since it was first publically discussed?

Information on said bug can be found in 2600 Magazine Volume 19 #2, or here.

Thank god my favorite blog wasn't hacked.

yeah umm i have one thing to say to that

Says Different

check your sources bud.

The fact that the trial judge in the deCSS case was stupid is not of great concern. The fact that two appeals-court judges
agreed with him is.

Because of the appeals-court decision, DMCA censorship is now the law of the land in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Unless a foreign site could somehow prevent access from those states (a difficult proposition), the only way to be really safe is to exclude the entire US, as these people have done.

Actually, maybe M$ is trying to get some hackers interested in their overpriced, yet worthless products (look Ma, I got my brand new XP. They even help me to not break copyright law! I even get a Passport with it!)

this sounds similar to the DeCSS case with 2600, but as stupid as it sounds they were still allowed to have the url posted afterwards. I wonder if these guys be able to get away with that?

if you support the small guy's ability to edit the big guy's movies and redistribute them, you must also support the big guy's ability to edit the small guy's movies.

Making a censored copy of a movie entails, by definition, making a copy of it.

Sounds like a great way to end up in jail.

PATCRP

The Hacker Quarterly? I don't care if you think it's lame, you shouldn't go around shooting magazines!

You can see 2600's pages on the matter: here and here

You can see 2600's pages on the matter: here and here

Recently forwarded to FOX's "America's Most Wanted".

Am I making this up? I wish I was.

I say extradite this fed to Russia, and hand him over to Dmitry Sklyarov. I'll leave the rest for you to imagine.

Could O'Reilly sue you if you didn't read the .NET section of their new regular expression book, simply because you own't use it? Can the movie studio sue you for fast forwarding during a movie? Or pausing it?

A related question was discussed a few months ago. The CEO of Turner Broadcasting gave an interview where he argued that skipping over commercials was theft. Even his acceptance of using the commercial break to go to the washroom was very grudging. Here is a quote from the 2600 commentary:

When asked if he considers people who go to the bathroom during a commercial to be thieves, he responded: "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it and you create a device [like Tivo] that skips certain second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds. They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a commercial."

Note, this clown seems to have been completely serious. You have to pay to read the original interview from Cableworld now, but my recollection was that even letting your attention lapse during the commercials raised his ire.

In the 1930s, with the Great Depression reducing the market for personal automobiles, General Motors Corporation made a push to convert all U.S. transit systems to rubber-tired diesel buses. This effort was supported by Congress, which, in 1935, passed the Public Utility Holding Company Act, requiring most power companies to divest themselves of public transit operations. General Motors purchased transit systems across the nation through its subsidiary, National City Lines. They quickly turned around and bought diesel buses from the parent company and discontinued rail service. The rails were abandoned, often paved over in the city streets, although many ended up being salvaged for their steel once World War II began.

Thieved from here. Here's something a bit more cheerful though :)

Ali

Alternatively, you could check local bookstores, but usually its hidden behind the counter, or behind the copies of Martha Stewart Living

Just be sure that when you buy it in a store, you pay cash, and don't give them any ID or personal info.

This is going to bite us right in the ass.

The solution to spam is technology, not litigation.

We need a better e-mail transport technology to eliminate the source of the problem. Why? Because laws can be re-interpreted and misused to screw the people who own less lawyers.

Maybe you're all breathing a sigh of releif, that those nasty spammers are finally going to get what they deserve. But soon, there will be an incident where the big corporation uses the anti-spam laws against the random jaded consumer, to slap them down for daring to e-mail a complaint about poor service. And we'll all say "but that's not what the law was intended for," mouths agape, incredulous that we've been duped once again by the oh-so-reliable American judicial system.

Ludicrous? How about the time we all bitched about cybersquatters, got a law created, and then watched as innocent people get taken to court by companies with deep pockets? In an age where hyperlinking is made a criminal offense I do not consider myself safe from any law's misuse.

Just wait, you'll see. Dance with the devil (a.k.a. lawyers) and you're going to get burned. Technology is the solution.

How about EFF? 2600? ACLU? No shortage of organizations: most of us agree with them, do you donate to them?

A lot of people actually understand technology. They sort of see something wrong and think "hey, everyone's making money off the internet and computers, why can't I?" and they press charges, sue, or generally become another nuisance to those with enough intelligence to see what's going on.
Reminds me of homer simpson, "they have the internet on computers now?"

and thought it was april fools. it's just too unreal...
question is- what do we do about it?

would that qualify as cruel and unusual punishment? is there anything in the constitution saying the crime must fit the bill?
Where does this leave honeypot systems and the like?

Will this include items suchs as peeka-booty?

This makes me want to send a 2 line email to my congressmen including these lines:

"are you fucking retarded?
How can you say that things like this are equivelant to this?

But of course I'm sure it will soon be illegal to critisize our own gov't- because that will PROVE that we're terrorists.

(Please god don't make be become a fucking political activist.)

"Brain Damage" was a two hour call-in show hosted by Emmanuel (using the name Eric Corley) which aired from 1988 to 1995. The show covered all kinds of serious topics as well as non-serious ones. Favorite regular features included Confuse The Operator, highlights from Radio Moscow, and a reading of the lunch menu by the university lunch lady. Callers contributed their over-the-phone songs, stories of their lives, and features such as the "Math Teacher Spy." There were fewer and fewer shows in the later years until it finally came to an end on January 29, 1995.

-Most technology appreciating people should realize Hollywood is an evil empire after the whole Decss incident. Hyping a Hollywood money milking series such as 'the matrix' is pretty hypocritical on a site such as slashdot that claims to be a part of the fight for free speech.

-I myself vow not to watch any Hollywood movie, including any Matrix ones, until the movie industry becomes less corrupt and hell bent on crushing peoples rights.

-Don't buy into the hype, instead donate the ticket money to the EFF.

H.O.P.E. 2002 (Hackers On Planet Earth) It's held in New York. I went to H2K, it was quite good, and if you want to learn alot, it's very good. DefCon is also good, in Las Vegas, ususally goes on the same time as blackhat. Both good conferences from what I hear.

I've found some of the monthly 2600 meetings helpful. They're a good place to go to to meet new people (beats sitting in front of the computer all day), and who knows, you just might learn something useful (or useless).

Why not attend a 2600 meeting? They take place all over ther world and are free for anyone to attend. Despite what you may think some intellegent life is often present at the meetings.

They take place on the first Friday of every month and there is a list of them all here.

But of course, there's no point in moaning. The question we need to ask is: Where do we go from here? Does 2600 still want people to distribute flyers like this one? What about extending this campaign to outside the USA, since Europe, for example, is considering making all ideas patentable. If that is the case, 2600 might like to redesign some of the flyers to make them just a bit less US-centric. For example, how many people outside the US really know what the First Amendment is?

Although the 2600 case focuses on the DMCA, which is thankfully just an American law at the minute, other countries have seen it and clearly like what they see.

So, sorry for the rambling on---but I want to know what I can do to help this cause outside the USA. I'm sure we can get massive support once people realise just how much their general freedom is at stake, and how much technology will be crippled in the name of profit.

I hope that nobody blames 2600 Magazine for their decision not to appeal. It's plain that now is not the time for such appeals, particularly given how strongly that they've been rebuffed thus far. Perhaps most importantly, Emmanuel lacks the funds (I assume) to take a case to the Supreme Court. Such things involve a tremendous amount of money.

Given the recent 2600-related news (recall that Ford dropped the suit against them over FuckGeneralMotors.com last week), I should point out that 2600 Magazine relies on merchandise sales and magazine subscriptions to stay afloat. For those that haven't heard of 2600 Magazine, I recommend that you check it out. I've subscribed since the early '90s, though it's been published continuously (every quarter) for over a decade now. Whether you want to support 2600's legal work or you'd simply like to keep current on hacker news and culture, I recommend that you subscribe.

-Waldo Jaquith

Hmm. They need to fix some of their categories!
2600.com is listed as "Politics/Religion".
attrition.org's security page is listed as "Entertainment,Mature".
Plus, many security sites are listed as "Criminal skills".

Go here and enter the sourceforge URL. On the right, "Suggest a Change" and tell them that it should not be on their list. Make your voice heard!

Not true. 2600 STILL has the page up, with the URL's intact, just not linked. See here:

http://www.2600.com/news/1227-help.html

Why not just join up with one of them? They are well organized and have been going on for years. /. probably shares much of the same crowd anyway (with perhaps a few less Mitnick fans).

Why not just join up with one of them? They are well organized and have been going on for years. /. probably shares much of the same crowd anyway (with perhaps a few less Mitnick fans).

Would there not already be a lot of /.ers at these meetings 2600

Well, Richard Stallman has a good idea that eBooks are going to "solve" that problem for publishers. He was interviewed on Off The Hook, a weekly radio show in New York, a few months ago about the topic. You can find the MP3 archive of the show here.

That kind of stretches the definition of theft a bit, doesn't it? I think we call that "murder" or something along those lines.

Anyway, people who kill people aren't bad for software businesses, pirates are.

Communists are, too.

People have become so fickle that it does not even matter what the radio stations play, it will be bought and the advertisers will make out with tons of air time. That is another reason why it is so hard for other types of music don't make it onto the radio, the stations are just fine with replaying redundent songs and regurgitating whatever the advertisers want. Support your local public-supported radio stations (NOT NPR).

2600.com can't host DeCSS, and 2600 can't directly link to other sites hosting DeCSS, but they are allowed to list the links in plaintext. Is the next step really going to be outlawing links with search criteria embedded in them? I can't believe it.

Anyway, if that actually happened, and a site like ShareReactor was forced to be castrated like 2600 was, and only textlinks were allowed, I wonder how long before a convenient workaround sprang up? e.g. A browser plugin that transformed useless plaintext links like "ILLEGAL://PointerToPointerToPointerToThoughtCrime " into clickable links for external apps.

Oh... Pssssst: DeCSS
--

FYI - There's a really good in-depth article on how uncapping works in the latest issue of 2600 Magzine -- it takes you step-by-step on the process and was written to provide information for educational purposes - although there's theoretically enough information in the article that would show someone how to do it. Check it out!

Following the 1984 theme here, Emmanuel Goldstein, aka Eric Corley owner of 2600 Magazine , holds up the BBC as "unbiased" and claims that US media has a "right wing" political agenda!

I guess state run media is the darling of the left wingers that hold Cuba, North Korea, England, France, Iraq and The Palestinian Authority up as "independant sources" and "victims of Amerikkkan imperialism".

Don't like RIAA or MPAA, then QUIT PAYING/LISTENING/WATCHING THEIR CHIT, or at least pay EPIC, EFF, and GeekPAC some bucks to offset the profit you are stuffing into Jack and Hillery's pockets. I haven't paid to go to a movie, buy a CD, or paid AOL/TIME/WARNER/CNN/DISCOVERY this year, nor will I for the rest of the year.

I'm in protest mode, and RIAA/MPAA/Sony/Warner/MGM et al can kiss my rosy red behind as long as they keep acting like spoiled children. Frankly, I don't miss the drivel so far. I listen to CD's I purchased in the past, swap CD's, books (and electronic books) & movies with friends & family, and all other legal things I can do to not PAY them. 'Course, Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner is a mite shy on common freaking sense, but that's no more than to be expected from IP control freaks.

Look, put up or shut up. Do something that hits IP profiteers in the pocket book, vote, and give money to those that are fighting for your rights, or shut up and drop it; you'll get what all cowards get sooner or later.

This one?

Everybody knows that all the best security folks advertise in the back of 2600 Magazine ;-)

I'm glad that they are bundling the newest issues of 2600 into this mad leet new blue box! Free Kevin!!!!!!

No, I don't have to do anything to stop you from trespassing on my private property.

Judges may frown on litigation where there are simple technical solutions available. Ford went after 2600 for pointing to them. That was dismissed, but is now being appealed.

Contrast that to spammers where they make efforts to hide the source and bypass filters.

But, if you see someone deep linking, you can redirect them to a page that gives your opinion of the deep linker. :)

But, you are allowing them on your private property, but forcing them to walk down the driveway instead of levitating over the grass.

Don't get me wrong, I have limits on the use of my site.

Look at cybercrime.gov.

What I don't undrestand is why google removed the links to his site? I can understand having to remove the cached copies of his site but how is having a link pointing to pages on his site in violation at all?

Case law. Universal vs. 2600/DeCSS. See the order, bottom of page 2, item 1c.

So I put a link to a website and describe the link as "Kiddie Porn" then its as illegal as actual kiddie porn?

<Drum riff>

I fully expected this day would come. I always pay cash for my 2600 magazine and any other material that is even slightly controversial. It just seems like common sense to me not to use my credit card or my bookstore bonus card when buying Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, or any book or magazine on atheism. (Was it Bush or his daddy that said he doesn't consider atheists to be citizens?)

To be honest: I don't see the parallel...

The first is an example of wasting resources detailing new regulation which looks like it was written by a male secretary who only uses TeX and drinks Jolt cola, and has serious problems identifying the priorities in life.

The second is a government docket from the USDA detailing in what seems to be the streamlining of the inspection and labeling system. The context is unfamiliar for most of us (food inspection + labeling), and he may not have don't the greatest job trying to be clear and concise.
However, He makes an honest attempt to be precise, probably because it is a docket.

Oh yeah, one of these affects the quality of our food supply.

Here's some more examples to what seems to look like stupid and complicated excerpts. (Atleast by your standard...)

Subsection 1201(b)(1) is similar to subsection 1201(a)(2), except that subsection 1201(a)(2) covers those who traffic in technology that can circumvent "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under" Title 17, whereas subsection 1201(b)(1) covers those who traffic in technology that can circumvent "protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under" Title 17. Id. 1201(a)(2), (b)(1) (emphases added). In other words, although both subsections prohibit trafficking in a circumvention technology, the focus of subsection 1201(a)(2) is circumvention of technologies designed to prevent access to a work, and the focus of subsection 1201(b)(1) is circumvention of technologies designed to permit access to a work but prevent copying of the work or some other act that infringes a copyright. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 11-12 (1998). Subsection 1201(a)(1) differs from both of these anti-trafficking subsections in that it targets the use of a circumvention technology, not the trafficking in such a technology.

Source

Wow... That looks stupid and frivilous too!!! Why can't they just make these things simple.

How about this example:

The WRR qdisc distributes bandwidth between its classes using the weighted round robin scheme. That is, like the CBQ qdisc it contains classes into which arbitrary qdiscs can be plugged. All classes which have sufficient demand will get bandwidth proportional to the weights associated with the classes. The weights can be set manually using the tc program. But they can also be made automatically decreasing for classes transferring much data.

The qdisc has a built-in classifier which assigns packets coming from or sent to different machines to different classes. Either the MAC or IP and either source or destination addresses can be used. The MAC address can only be used when the Linux box is acting as an ethernet bridge, however. The classes are automatically assigned to machines based on the packets seen.


The Source

On several recent occasions, Web sites critical of big companies -- using domains called, generically, companynamesucks.com -- have had their names revoked and given to the companies that claimed trademark violations. It's still outrageous that the companies can win these cases, but maybe the victories are transitory if the critics' sites, by other names, can still be found easily.