Slashdot Mirror

Will the Nexus 7 have a retina display? No, absolutely not, because there is no way they could hit the $199 price point.

Actually, yes.
Given Apple's own formula, a 1280x800 7" device viewed at 15" IS Retina
http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/44196/does-the-ipad-2012-3rd-generation-have-the-most-pixels-of-any-tablets-displa/44222

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5625/are-shorter-lines-easier-to-read

Several studies found that longer line lengths (80 – 100 cpl) were read faster than short line lengths (Duchnicky and Kolers, 1983; Dyson and Kipping, 1998). Contrary to these findings, other research suggests the use of shorter line lengths. Dyson and Haselgrove (2001) found that 55 characters per line were read faster than either 100 cpl or 25 cpl conditions. Similarly, a line length of 45-60 characters was recommended by Grabinger and Osman-Jouchoux (1996) based on user preferences. Bernard, Fernandez, Hull, and Chaparro (2003) found that adults preferred medium line length (76 cpl) and children preferred shorter line lengths (45 cpl) when compared to 132 characters per line.

In other words, Inconclusive and Subjective.

The bad faith you've shown in all your answers proves once and for all that you're trolling. So I win on all accounts but the ties.

1. you don't get my (hypothetical) malicious website in 15 minutes in your host file, it takes days/weeks, so you lie and you're wrong. AV get it much faster than you.

3. So why don't you try putting your favs at the bottom of your host file if it doesn't change the speed of query ? you lose.

4. You lie, proven fact. Not the same sentence (clue: punctuation), learn to write and then maybe people will understand what it is that you're trying to say. you lose and are a proven liar.

5. No, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying: "it is less exploited than windows is, although they are both a very interesting target and linux's server are targeted at least as much as windows is, per your own reasoning."

6. QUESTION: Are trojans used for botnets being installed LOCALLY by users before they can be accessed remotely ? YES. And actually you know it very well, that's why you never write anywhere "trojans are remote exploits", you always write "trojans are remotely exploited". In all your bad faith you cannot admit you're wrong, but you know that saying "trojan are remote exploits" is BS, so you don't write it, instead you try to sneak around with faulty logic, you always say: "trojans are remotely exploited" out of context. The full contex that you should write if you were honest should be: "trojans are remotely exploited once they are locally installed through user interaction". But you won't write this honest statement because you're not honest. Now I dare you to write either "trojan are remote exploits" (BS) or "trojans are remotely exploited once they are locally installed through user interaction" (reality, not a remote exploit then, since user interaction is required). You won't dare because you're a dishonest troll (I know, pleonasm).

8. You had two user account on IT security user 9122 and user 9143. 9143 has been banned and can now only be accessed through google's cache, and your illogical question ("Why has this website intentionally posted ERRONEOUS misleading information?") has been deleted as well, accessible only through google's cache (and soon to disappear even from there I guess). You loose

As for your questions, I can answer them all with one single link proving your logical fallacies: Anecdotal evidence and faulty logic. Of course you won't read nor understand it.

Here are some relevant bits of physics you might not be aware of:
  * White holes are somewhat shaky. From their Wikipedia article,

However, this region does not exist for black holes that have formed through gravitational collapse, nor are there any known physical processes through which a white hole could be formed.

There are apparently solutions to the Einstein field equations giving black/white hole pairs, but black holes do not need white holes to exist.
  * There is an interpretation of antimatter in quantum field theory as matter traveling backwards through time (that phrase is very imprecise unfortunately). More details here; I'm not qualified to really discuss it as I'm just a mathematician with an interest in physics. Still, perhaps in vague terms your parallel universe dichotomy can be replaced with the two directions of time.
  * Black holes have infinite density, not infinite mass.
  * Hawking radiation allows black holes to evaporate away if they don't eat up enough mass.

"Yeah, sure, like anyone is going to believe THAT ... as the old meme says: [citation needed] (and since nobody ever talks about you, except yourself, this is gonna be a hard citation to find)" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @04:33PM (#39861467)

First, you can write Mr. Steven Burn of malwarebytes/hpHosts on it here -> services@it-mate.co.uk as to what I put up next from emails from he and Symantec, PLUS, direct mail from ArcaVir as well (which I will produce excerpts here of both):

SYMANTEC:

Alexander,
Vikram just got back to me to let me know Symantec have now removed
the detection for your files.

Regards

Steven Burn
I.T. Mate
www.it-mate.co.uk

---

* That's regarding a "false positive" on a program I wrote that malwarebytes is hosting for me (dealing in hosts file mgt.) which Mr. Burn says IS 'excellent' & he's only seen a build from 2-3++ weeks ago (& it's gotten better still).

---

Secondly: Here's a reply from another "false positive" from ArcaVir/ArcaBit direct from the tech who analyzed the program I noted above & admitted false positive:

---

From: PaweÅ Pieniak
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:14 AM
To: Alexander Kowalski
Cc: support@arcabit.com

Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** PROOF OF FALSE POSITIVE (you folks don't seem to handle COMPRESSED EXECUTABLES correctly, see screenshot (po angelsku & po polsku bo ja jestem polak tesz albo od skod w Americze)... apk

Hello!
It`s a false positive. This false will be eliminated as soon as
posible.

In a letter dated 13 marca 2012 (16:28:12) was written :

---

Not enough? This was the BEST ONE, lol, due to some "ac troll" on /. sending me a link on a LOT of falsehoods being spouted on hosts files by a security site outta the UK:

---

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

THE ORIGINAL REPLIES of both logicalscopy & pdubs, plus a general rebuttal of their points:

"I run Windows with a pretty hefty c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file obtained from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm. I update this file as regularly as I remember and layer it with appropriate add-ons in my modern web browser of choice, A/V, and firewall solutions. Basically, I realize that a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file is protection against KNOWN threats (and only those with names!), and very little help against unknown and emerging threats (or straight up IPs). I must admit that I have not checked to see if there are stats regarding the attack/infection rates of new threats vs. known threats though I would expect that old, known threats probably still outweigh new threats simply due to volume. QUESTION: Is there any added value from running with a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file when used with modern consumer-grade anti-virus and firewall solutions? Is it a redundant layer? I admit that A/V is generally a black box to me, so I'm not sure what kinds of signatures their engines scan for, and whether hostnames are part of those signatures. Although this seems like a free extra security layer, there are "costs" with manually updating the file, and the fact that I turn off DNS caching to prevent the whole file from hanging the machine each time it reloads itself (which can be frequent). (I've migrated DNS caching to the router instead which doesn't help me when I use my laptop elsewhere.)" - by logicalscope

ANSWER:

1.) Layered security/defense in depth - which you use but "oddly" have a problem in using hosts files also, & they're easily obtained as you've shown, regularly updated by reputable sites which you "strangely omit" as a FACT from said sources (There ar

"You were doing so well, then said "rookie noobs". You have no knowledge of their qualifications" - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Monday April 16, @04:58PM (#39704093) Homepage

Same as w\ u: Disprove my points on the value of hosts files for added security, speed, reliability, and to a certain extent, anonymity (and I always do well):

"I run Windows with a pretty hefty c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file obtained from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm. I update this file as regularly as I remember and layer it with appropriate add-ons in my modern web browser of choice, A/V, and firewall solutions. Basically, I realize that a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file is protection against KNOWN threats (and only those with names!), and very little help against unknown and emerging threats (or straight up IPs). I must admit that I have not checked to see if there are stats regarding the attack/infection rates of new threats vs. known threats though I would expect that old, known threats probably still outweigh new threats simply due to volume. QUESTION: Is there any added value from running with a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file when used with modern consumer-grade anti-virus and firewall solutions? Is it a redundant layer? I admit that A/V is generally a black box to me, so I'm not sure what kinds of signatures their engines scan for, and whether hostnames are part of those signatures. Although this seems like a free extra security layer, there are "costs" with manually updating the file, and the fact that I turn off DNS caching to prevent the whole file from hanging the machine each time it reloads itself (which can be frequent). (I've migrated DNS caching to the router instead which doesn't help me when I use my laptop elsewhere.)" - by logicalscope FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

APK ANSWER:

1.) Layered security/defense in depth - which you use but "oddly" have a problem in using hosts files also, & they're easily obtained as you've shown, regularly updated by reputable sites which you "strangely omit" as a FACT from said sources (There are many reputable ones beyond them as well) as well as easily edited by end users (text editors anyone? Easier than firewall rules tables or port filters & having to know things like IANA port lists etc./et al)

* Plus automating updates of hosts files? Cake: Setting up a simple PERL or Python script/program can do it (many are online for free) as often as you like & "automagically" (I wrote my own system 32/64-bit in Delphi XE2 to do it here, and it protects the hosts file every 1/2 second, via write protect attributes, even beyond UAC protection in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/7! It's being hosted by hpHosts/malwarebytes, another member of the security community, per Mr. Steven Burn services@it-mate.co.uk (which he says is "excellent" by the way) is another freeware that can)

2.) Again - adblock weaknesses now especially (by default now, it does NOT block all ads) - hosts files have NO SUCH WEAKNESS and are easier to edit than Adblock rules (scripted vs. text record entries, easily understood and documented in hosts files themselves in Windows or Linux by default)

3.) Browsers can easily be hijacked via malicious script along with their addons (via "web bugs", server-side - IF you don't know that technique, look into it)

4.) Browser addons are LESS EFFICIENT running in Ring 3/usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode/Ring 0 (since hosts are merely a filter for the IP stack)

5.) Hosts files can do a few things your methods (adblock, firewalls, dns servers) can't like:

* A. Speed up access to your fav sites LOCALLY, especially vs. remote dns servers (speed of HDD = 7-10ms in modern disks, & MANY

THE ORIGINAL REPLIES of both logicalscopy & pdubs, plus a general rebuttal of their points here http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/13796/i-cant-post-corrections-to-an-erroneous-set-of-questions-answers-here :

"I run Windows with a pretty hefty c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file obtained from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm. I update this file as regularly as I remember and layer it with appropriate add-ons in my modern web browser of choice, A/V, and firewall solutions. Basically, I realize that a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file is protection against KNOWN threats (and only those with names!), and very little help against unknown and emerging threats (or straight up IPs). I must admit that I have not checked to see if there are stats regarding the attack/infection rates of new threats vs. known threats though I would expect that old, known threats probably still outweigh new threats simply due to volume. QUESTION: Is there any added value from running with a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file when used with modern consumer-grade anti-virus and firewall solutions? Is it a redundant layer? I admit that A/V is generally a black box to me, so I'm not sure what kinds of signatures their engines scan for, and whether hostnames are part of those signatures. Although this seems like a free extra security layer, there are "costs" with manually updating the file, and the fact that I turn off DNS caching to prevent the whole file from hanging the machine each time it reloads itself (which can be frequent). (I've migrated DNS caching to the router instead which doesn't help me when I use my laptop elsewhere.)" - by logicalscope FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

1st set of ANSWERS THAT BLEW THEIR mere "techie/networker" ERRONEOUS LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OFF THE WALL EASILY:

1.) Layered security/defense in depth - which you use but "oddly" have a problem in using hosts files also, & they're easily obtained as you've shown, regularly updated by reputable sites which you "strangely omit" as a FACT from said sources (There are many reputable ones beyond them as well) as well as easily edited by end users (text editors anyone? Easier than firewall rules tables or port filters & having to know things like IANA port lists etc./et al)

* Plus automating updates of hosts files? Cake: Setting up a simple PERL or Python script/program can do it (many are online for free) as often as you like & "automagically" (I wrote my own system 32/64-bit in Delphi XE2 to do it here, and it protects the hosts file every 1/2 second, via write protect attributes, even beyond UAC protection in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/7! It's being hosted by hpHosts/malwarebytes, another member of the security community, per Mr. Steven Burn services@it-mate.co.uk (which he says is "excellent" by the way) is another freeware that can)

2.) Again - adblock weaknesses now especially (by default now, it does NOT block all ads) - hosts files have NO SUCH WEAKNESS and are easier to edit than Adblock rules (scripted vs. text record entries, easily understood and documented in hosts files themselves in Windows or Linux by default)

3.) Browsers can easily be hijacked via malicious script along with their addons (via "web bugs", server-side - IF you don't know that technique, look into it)

4.) Browser addons are LESS EFFICIENT running in Ring 3/usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode/Ring 0 (since hosts are merely a filter for the IP stack)

5.) Hosts files can do a few things your methods (adblock, firewalls, dns servers) can't l

THE ORIGINAL REPLIES of both logicalscopy & pdubs, plus a general rebuttal of their points here http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/13796/i-cant-post-corrections-to-an-erroneous-set-of-questions-answers-here :

"I run Windows with a pretty hefty c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file obtained from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm. I update this file as regularly as I remember and layer it with appropriate add-ons in my modern web browser of choice, A/V, and firewall solutions. Basically, I realize that a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file is protection against KNOWN threats (and only those with names!), and very little help against unknown and emerging threats (or straight up IPs). I must admit that I have not checked to see if there are stats regarding the attack/infection rates of new threats vs. known threats though I would expect that old, known threats probably still outweigh new threats simply due to volume. QUESTION: Is there any added value from running with a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file when used with modern consumer-grade anti-virus and firewall solutions? Is it a redundant layer? I admit that A/V is generally a black box to me, so I'm not sure what kinds of signatures their engines scan for, and whether hostnames are part of those signatures. Although this seems like a free extra security layer, there are "costs" with manually updating the file, and the fact that I turn off DNS caching to prevent the whole file from hanging the machine each time it reloads itself (which can be frequent). (I've migrated DNS caching to the router instead which doesn't help me when I use my laptop elsewhere.)" - by logicalscope FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

1st set of ANSWERS THAT BLEW THEIR mere "techie/networker" ERRONEOUS LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OFF THE WALL EASILY:

1.) Layered security/defense in depth - which you use but "oddly" have a problem in using hosts files also, & they're easily obtained as you've shown, regularly updated by reputable sites which you "strangely omit" as a FACT from said sources (There are many reputable ones beyond them as well) as well as easily edited by end users (text editors anyone? Easier than firewall rules tables or port filters & having to know things like IANA port lists etc./et al)

* Plus automating updates of hosts files? Cake: Setting up a simple PERL or Python script/program can do it (many are online for free) as often as you like & "automagically" (I wrote my own system 32/64-bit in Delphi XE2 to do it here, and it protects the hosts file every 1/2 second, via write protect attributes, even beyond UAC protection in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/7! It's being hosted by hpHosts/malwarebytes, another member of the security community, per Mr. Steven Burn services@it-mate.co.uk (which he says is "excellent" by the way) is another freeware that can)

2.) Again - adblock weaknesses now especially (by default now, it does NOT block all ads) - hosts files have NO SUCH WEAKNESS and are easier to edit than Adblock rules (scripted vs. text record entries, easily understood and documented in hosts files themselves in Windows or Linux by default)

3.) Browsers can easily be hijacked via malicious script along with their addons (via "web bugs", server-side - IF you don't know that technique, look into it)

4.) Browser addons are LESS EFFICIENT running in Ring 3/usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode/Ring 0 (since hosts are merely a filter for the IP stack)

5.) Hosts files can do a few things your methods (adblock, firewalls, dns servers) can't l

"I've been a software engineer/programmer for 16 years, and general nerd for as long as I can remember. I'll debate anything, so long as facts are actually valued. I regard rampant profanity as a brilliant mark of stupidity." Sarten-X FROM -> http://slashdot.org/~Sarten-X

For an "alleged" software engineer (for only 1 yr. less as a pro than myself)?

How come you aren't 'living up to the words in your profile' quoted above, & you WON'T debate & MORE IMPORTANTLY DISPROVE this from me -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39681225

Hmmm?

Especially after you opened up on hosts files trolling me using another security site:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243

Which YOU obviously thought your 'security pros' could disprove my points on hosts files, and I show in that link above, and yes, on their site, they clearly, cannot!

(Which they even stooped SO LOW as to delete once but now have left it alone)

There's doctors, AND DOCTORS. There's mechanics, AND MECHANICS... and yes, there's 'security pros' AND SECURITY PROS!

To quote Mr. John Nash when asked what the difference is between "best" & "MOST BEST" (keeping the case sensitivity the same as above)? His answer?? QUITE A LOT!

* You don't live up to your words, OR your "alleged software engineer status", but you do as a troll - because you trolled me, got thrashed, & RAN from my points which disprove your "security pros" link, bigtime!

(Perhaps because it's SOLID AS A STEEL & has what I quote from Mr. Spock below?? Absolutely!)

It certainly "silenced" the folks @ the link you tried trolling me on/with here -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file/13756#13756

Especially since you tried to "troll me on HOSTS files", which a zillion dolts here have tried & failed on - same results as yourself - mere trolling & effete adhominem attacks, but NO FACTS that disprove those I posted in that link above... every single time (of 100's).

APK

P.S.=> "Sensors show the object's hull is SOLID NEUTRONIUM - A single StarShip CANNOT COMBAT IT!" - Mr. Spock, from the StarTrek TOS episode "The Doomsday Machine" by Norman Spinrad... apk

"Ah, APK... Your comments so often start out decent, then after the slightest bit of criticism, you end up making Gene Ray look sane.." - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Friday April 13, @10:06PM (#39682151) Homepage

See subject-line, & obviously not - So you can quit trying to play the "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.", because that's ALWAYS THE LAST RESORT OF TROLLS when they're on the ropes. By the way, on that note: Do you have a PhD in the psychiatric sciences, a license to practice said sciences professionally, as well as having performed a formal examination of myself to determine my alleged mental state according to you, Dr. Quack? OF COURSE NOT!

No, that further trolling b.s. of yours just doesn't stand up very well vs. this -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39681225

* If you're going to "troll me", & try use some "expert" (lol, NOT) like the words of that "pdubs" character here -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

?

Be SURE what he wrote is 100% correct, because in light of what I put down vs. it here (and there)? What he wrote doesn't "stand up" very well...

As far as your 'criticism' crap?

Please: This was TROLLING/HARASSING on your part, and yes, you did it first -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243 only to be "blown away" by facts I put out in rebuttal in the 1st link above

(I know it, the people @ that site you used know it, YOU know it... & anyone that read what I put out vs. it, KNOWS it... period!)

APK

P.S.=> It's not "criticism" if the points you use aren't solid. No, I am more convinced than ever that what's in your profile about being a "software engineer" for 16 yrs. isn't the truth on YOUR part (or you're not very good @ it) - either way, trying to play "innocent" on YOUR part isn't working, so give up on THAT, troll...

... apk

You need to read this vs. what your buddies in the link where you trolled me messed up on (& they're "security pros"? LOL!). Please, see pdubs post here:

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

Then this was my response to his mostly erroneous b.s. there:

First of all - You've made VERY FUNDAMENTAL "rookie" mistake's here on hosts files above! I welcome ANYONE to dispute these points on benefits hosts files give the end user of them in:

1.) Diskcaching taking over for "in memory speed of access" for larger hosts files vs. the faulty DNS clientside cache service in Windows

2.) How hosts files can aid security via "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"

3.) How hosts files can lessen tracking & aid "anonymity" to an extent (DNS request logs)

4.) How hosts files can circumvent DNSBL's

5.) How hosts files aid speed

6.) Added reliability hosts files can give you vs. DOWNED dns servers

7.) Added security vs. DNS poisoned redirected DNS servers (a huge RECURRING problem the past few years done via port 51/53 iirc & "bum rushing" DNS servers set into recursive mode)

8.) The fact that HOSTS can do several things noted above for anonymity, & reliability AdBlock especially + even software firewalls cannot (see Questions # 1 - 3 below)

9.) LASTLY & POSSIBLY MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED HERE BY PDUBS:

The fact hosts files are merely a kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FILTER for the IP stack (far faster operations than occurs in usermode/Ring 3/RPL 3 programs like AdBlock)... a fact of life in coding gentleman, & ONE YOU'D KNOW if you'd have programmed device drivers, vs usermode apps.

---

1st - Both gents pdubs & logicalscope above overlooked this:

The local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem caching the hosts file - Since, like any file that is referenced and subsequently re-referenced, it will get cached that way, even if one were to turn off their local DNS clientside cache in Windows!

There IS another method (in the registry dealing in TTL), but why use it with larger hosts files - it'd be redundant, wasteful, & illogical to do so, here's how/why:

First - The DNS clientside cache in Windows won't handle larger hosts files, and wastes CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O as well since the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem can assume duties caching it IF NOT ELECTRIC POWER ALSO!

(Since programs of ANY KIND tax the CPU and demand processing power & "commit charge" RAM chips also for faster processing while cached)

"Nothing rides for free" gents - a fact of life, even in computing!

Thus, running the KNOWN faulty local DNS clientside cache in Windows would be "redundantly DUMB" with large hosts files... read on:

Windows DNS clientside cache service is built on a faulty design premise in a non-flexible structure & with large hosts files, it will "lag" you, so turn it off IF you use a larger hosts file... THIS is a fact, AND a KNOWN design flaw in Windows itself!

I reported it to Microsoft LONG ago, along with the fact they removed 0 as a valid "short form" of the faster/smaller 0.0.0.0 blocking address in Windows VISTA/7/Server 2008 on 12/09/2008's "MS PATCH TUESDAY" but, Windows 2000 (post SP2 iirc), XP, & Server 2003 CAN STILL USE IT! Dumb & odd - a mistake in efficiency, no questions asked!

blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true&PageIndex=3#comments

So - how can I support that?

BASIC CSC-101 coursework on file access & parsing data in said files!

(YES - Even hosts which is merely a line-by-line record entry based text file, nothing more):

Since 0 especially (the short form of 0.0.0.0 AND what they removed the ability to use) IS small

I read your profile per my subject above: I think you're FULL OF it, & this proves it below...

You state You've been a software engineer for 16 yrs.? 1 yr. less professionally than I in fact!

(30++ yrs. total time though here since 1982 coding computers from midrange/mainframes into Client Server designs currently/professionally)

That said?

How could you BLATANTLY OVERLOOK these points on HOSTS files I used vs. your "experts" @ the link you posted?

(Especially since I can justify them via how device drivers work vs. usermode apps AND basic CSC-101 file access/parsing)?

To wit "point-by-point" as is my usual style backed by facts AND EXACTLY WHAT I USED vs. the fools in your link you posted (some 'experts', lol - not! More like noobs or techies trying to play "smart"):

---

First of all - You've made VERY FUNDAMENTAL "rookie" mistake's here on hosts files above! I welcome ANYONE to dispute these points on benefits hosts files give the end user of them in:

1.) Diskcaching taking over for "in memory speed of access" for larger hosts files vs. the faulty DNS clientside cache service in Windows

2.) How hosts files can aid security via "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"

3.) How hosts files can lessen tracking & aid "anonymity" to an extent (DNS request logs)

4.) How hosts files can circumvent DNSBL's

5.) How hosts files aid speed

6.) Added reliability hosts files can give you vs. DOWNED dns servers

7.) Added security vs. DNS poisoned redirected DNS servers (a huge RECURRING problem the past few years done via port 51/53 iirc & "bum rushing" DNS servers set into recursive mode)

8.) The fact that HOSTS can do several things noted above for anonymity, & reliability AdBlock especially + even software firewalls cannot

9.) LASTLY & POSSIBLY MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED HERE BY PDUBS:

The fact hosts files are merely a kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FILTER for the IP stack (far faster operations than occurs in usermode/Ring 3/RPL 3 programs like AdBlock)...

A fact of life in coding gentleman, & ONE YOU'D KNOW if you'd have programmed device drivers, vs usermode apps.

---

* Once more, I read your profile, and your claim of being a 'software engineer' isn't 'cutting it' vs. the above... & like your experts in the link below you posted? I welcome debate on the above - I'll take GREAT PLEASURE in 'ripping you in 1/2' for trolling me in fact!

So, either you're NOT MUCH OF A "software engineer" your profile claims & I DOUBT after the above?

OR

You need to actually get a degree in CSC - based on the above, because any 101 CSC class and file access methods + datastructures classes would have educated you on (as well as device driver programming)!

EXACTLY how I 'dusted' the "wannabe experts" in the link you posted here:

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

?

No, I don't think so on your end... as to your CLAIM of being a "software engineer" and for 16 yrs... no way.

APK

P.S.=> In fact, after what I posted there? Again:

I challenge you to disprove its points "Mr. Bullshitter", because if you don't KNOW those points?

NO WAY You are A SOFTWARE ENGINEER... period (or you never had any classical CSC education training or you're just stupid - take your pick!)... apk

That's what u get for trying 2 "troll me" - they overlook diskcaches - here was my reply correcting them, and later THEIR faulty response my reply corrects:

---

"A mistake's been made here on hosts files above: Both gents above overlooked the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem caching the hosts file, because like any file that is referenced and subsequently re-referenced, it will get cached that way, even if one were to turn off their local DNS clientside cache in Windows!

(Which one has to with larger hosts files since it is built on a faulty premise in a non-flexible structure - this is a design problem in Windows itself, Linux for example has no such issue (it is 1 thing I will give Linux in fact, over Windows))

Thus, the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem will take over caching hosts file data for faster "in memory" lookups of its record entries, just like the DNS clientside cache does.

This is basic stuff fellas, you overlooked it.

Sincerely,

Alexander Peter Kowalski
apk"

---

Their replies and faults were the following quotes from both gents:

---

"As you've pointed out, it causes a major slowdown with DNS lookups (it linearly parses the text file on DNS cache miss). That's because the hosts file was never intended to be used as a blacklist."

---

* Which is a gigantically fundamental error considering the point I brought to light above... & to partially use the words of the erroneous fellow above?

"That's why techies were never meant to be system programmers"

(Oh, they're good @ memorizing some facts, & using manuals to do rote jobs, but when it comes to actual understanding of the inner "guts" of an OS? You can see their "clear fail" above...)

APK

P.S.=> So much for the "experts" at the url you posted... they're not very expert -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file and so much for your pitiful attempt @ trolling me... apk

I hear you can also drop in a hosts file...

Not in one advertisement, not by one Cisco or NetGear rep among the parade that goes through here every year, not by one network engineer. Gore was obviously given some talking points by his handlers and flubbed one of the words.

I'm afraid you're just persisting in your small-world ignorance. Have you ever heard of Time Berners-Lee? Given that he invented the World Wide Web, I think he qualifies as someone who knows what he's talking about. He pronounces it "root-ers" not "rowt-ers".

Maybe you need to see it confirmed elsewhere?
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2389/what-is-the-correct-way-to-pronounce-router
http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic39874.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbGAOroACGc

Given that I have corrected you already on this and you're continuing to deny it, you're now firmly in the camp of liar. Even more so than the journalists who aren't familiar with firearm taxonomy. At least they can claim ignorance, you've now lost that defense.

Considering that pi represented as a decimal number is infinitely long, it would eventually contain the encoding for every song in existence.

Actually, that does not necessarily follow.

It's not known whether pi contains every finite-length sequence in its decimal expansion (although most people believe it to be true). In fact, our knowledge is even worse than that (from Wikipedia):

It is for instance unknown whether sqrt(2), pi, ln(2) or e is normal (but all of them are strongly conjectured to be normal, because of some empirical evidence). It is not even known whether all digits occur infinitely often in the decimal expansions of those constants.

Here's some more discussion about that: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/96632/do-the-digits-of-pi-contain-every-possible-finite-length-digit-sequence

There is a Stack Exchange site for this -- codereview.stackexchange.com

http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/ is a great place to ask game development related questions.

The second "law" is really just statistics though (law of large numbers anyone?), and as with most statistics people are still arguing about what it really means.

StackExchange now has a physics section, and this issue was very recently addressed:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21028/second-law-of-thermodynamics-why-is-it-only-almost-always-true-that-entropy-i

This was brought up when kernel.org was compromised last year. The decentralized nature of git makes that really hard to sneak by, especially if you use the kind of process controls that the Linux kernel uses. Legitimate commits go through maintainers, and maintainers will definitely flip if they see code pulls into their repository that they didn't commit. Some deeper discussion about how you can't just sneak things into the past history is here: http://security.stackexchange.com/a/6771/836

At least they make it easy to delete your Google+ profile and data.

"Why, oh WHY can't I just go back to the fully-functional Gnome 2"

Use Debian, and:

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/10764/how-to-remove-gnome-3-and-restore-gnome2-x

Firstly, you can post questions here: http://gis.stackexchange.com/ and they will be answered. It seems to be a pretty good community, I have been posting on there for a little while.

Secondly, I don't use databases a lot, but I recommend that you do what you suggest. Make a Google Map and make a CSV for folks to download.

The following URL contains a comprehensive list of topics that should help you build your hardened web application :) http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/46716/what-should-every-programmer-know-about-web-development

Actually IOS does allow you to develop in C++ if you want.
http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/11079/objective-c-or-c-for-ios-games
and here
http://iphonedevelopertips.com/cpp/c-on-iphone-part-1.html
for examples.
To be honest I have worked in C++ and Objective-C and I like Objective-C better. When I work on Windows or Linux I use C++ because that is the better supported language on those platforms. On IOS I use Objective C.

Copyright (c) YEAR, OWNER

All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

-------
More here:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/75436/relicense-bsd-2-3-clause-code-to-gpl

Maybe he is simply a bad communicator in general, or bad at communicating to the business stakeholders. From his point of view it would be a good idea, because he sees IT as a separate discipline from engineering (in the sense of the particular discipline of television engineering I presume). He knows it would be better for him if he was in a separate IT department, but he doesn't know how to sell it to the business. There have been times where I felt I was right, but lacked the domain knowledge to make the case to the other side. For example, look at this question on english.stackexchange.com. I emailed ESR and requested he answer this question because I knew he had 1) good communication skills, 2) a better understanding of English and languages in general then I had, and 3) an understanding of DNS. While I am an OK communicator, I lack the in depth domain knowledge of linguistics to put forth an argument as eloquently as he does. To put it another way, pretend you wanted a raise. You know why its good for you, and you may understand why you are undervalued. However, you may not know how to sell it to your boss.

Maybe he is simply a bad communicator in general, or bad at communicating to the business stakeholders. From his point of view it would be a good idea, because he sees IT as a separate discipline from engineering (in the sense of the particular discipline of television engineering I presume). He knows it would be better for him if he was in a separate IT department, but he doesn't know how to sell it to the business. There have been times where I felt I was right, but lacked the domain knowledge to make the case to the other side. For example, look at this question on english.stackexchange.com. I emailed ESR and requested he answer this question because I knew he had 1) good communication skills, 2) a better understanding of English and languages in general then I had, and 3) an understanding of DNS. While I am an OK communicator, I lack the in depth domain knowledge of linguistics to put forth an argument as eloquently as he does. To put it another way, pretend you wanted a raise. You know why its good for you, and you may understand why you are undervalued. However, you may not know how to sell it to your boss.

Or if you're feeling extra clever, you could straight up disable the keyboard and rely on the mouse for selecting answers. It would have to be enabled at the beginning for the user to enter his or her credentials, but then you could disable it during the actual test (there's no way to exit fullscreen with only a mouse), and then re-enable it upon completion. The site I linked to explains how to both enable and disable the entire keyboard programmatically. The linked site produces a shell script... In Java, you could run that shell script with: Process.Start(@"./scriptname.sh").

Even if you do sign away all rights to your code, there is a small handful of states whose laws override those contract provisions.

For example, I live in Kansas, and Statute 44-130 explicitly states that employment contract provisions about code I write on my own time using only my own resources are null and void. There are a few limitations to that, of course - the coding I do has to be unrelated to my workplace and not derived from work I do at the office, and I have to disclose to my employer what those projects are.

This was covered a little more in-depth in a question on OnStartups, one of the StackExchange sites.

The Voynich Manuscript is almost certainly random nonsense:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6085/has-it-been-mathematicaly-determined-that-the-voynich-manuscript-is-not-gibberis

The History Channel also had a feature on it, which raised the interesting point that mysterious books of nonsense were a hot item around the date of printing.

http://www.treadmill-desk.com/ log the miles _while_ working. Build one yourself on the cheap http://www.extremehowto.com/xh/article.asp?article_id=60365 Or get a height-adjustable desk http://www.geekdesk.com/ http://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/1928/how-do-i-make-a-height-adjustable-desk

I disagree with much of what he said, but this point is actually easy to corroborate:
See -- C++ Renaissance at Microsoft, Craig Symonds and Mohsen Agsen: C++ Renaissance, and What does the latest "C++ Renaissance" mean?

This doesn't mean they're abandoning C#, however.

Yes, there are measurements which indicate that photons have zero mass, and that at least certain kinds of neutrinos have nonzero mass. They are certainly not the same particle, and there's no way the neutrinos could be less massive than photons - even if photons do have a nonzero mass, we've measured that it has to be many orders of magnitude smaller than the known mass differences between different kinds of neutrinos.

Incidentally, "speed of light" c does not necessarily mean the speed of /light/ (photons) - see this for example. c is just a particular universal constant. It happens that massless particles, like photons (as far as we can tell), travel at this speed. Unfortunately we are stuck with the name "speed of light" from the days before relativity, when people didn't know that this speed was significant in any manner other than being the speed of light. The results from OPERA seemed to indicate that the neutrinos were traveling faster than c, so even if the photon did have a significant mass (and thus light did not actually travel at the "speed of light"), the results would still be just as surprising as they are.

If that were true, then they could just use OpenID to accomplish the same goal.

Many sites that use OpenID for logins make it easy by providing pre-configured FaceBook, Google, and Yahoo buttons along with an 'Other' button for those who want to provide their own OpenID URL. For example, StackExchange sites provide five buttons and a more link on their login page. This makes it trivially easy for most people, possible for most of the rest and provides alternatives for geeks and contrarians.

If that were true, then they could just use OpenID to accomplish the same goal.

Many sites that use OpenID for logins make it easy by providing pre-configured FaceBook, Google, and Yahoo buttons along with an 'Other' button for those who want to provide their own OpenID URL. For example, StackExchange sites provide five buttons and a more link on their login page. This makes it trivially easy for most people, possible for most of the rest and provides alternatives for geeks and contrarians.

Also, I'd been wondering from a programming point of view how the heck you can run up such an enormous bill: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/48117/how-do-software-projects-go-over-budget-and-under-deliver [stackexchange.com]

very bl00dy easy when you have contractors billing £1000 a day for sitting on their thumbs waiting for others to give them the bits they're waiting for...

Summary of the system thus far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health

I suppose it's peanuts now, but the guy who was in charge of the project decided not to charge the failed contractors £1 bln, and then went on to work for a consultancy.

Also, I'd been wondering from a programming point of view how the heck you can run up such an enormous bill:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/48117/how-do-software-projects-go-over-budget-and-under-deliver

Sir – Here's a comparison Is Japan's nuclear disaster âoeon parâ with Chernobyl? that you (and others) may find interestig.

The argument is basically that hoarding will make Bitcoins so valuable that nobody will be willing to offer people enough to part with them. Does that pass the giggle test? Another way of stating the argument is this, "If gold is $2,000/oz today but people think it will be $5,000/oz next year, nobody will trade any gold today." Again, think about it. Does that pass the giggle test either? http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/408/does-hoarding-really-hurt-bitcoin

The Stackexchange Skeptics web-site has a relatively thorough and well cited wiki, Is Japan's nuclear disaster "on par" with Chernobyl), that compares the two disasters using a number of objective metrics.

It seems fairly apparent based on that wiki that while Fukushima is a serious nuclear event, it is a fraction of the calamity that Chernobyl was, using the available objective data.

You don't think Google or Microsoft can make notaries? .. They have bots that scour and cache the internet already. Grabbing the ssl certificate of a site and caching it isn't that much more to deal with. Plus, I have the option of hosting a notary at home if I want.

The idea is to get a proof of concept out there, and a decent implementation of it I might add (I'm running it at work, home, and school). We just need to get the major browser vendors onboard (MS, Google, Apple), and then get it rolling.

The beauty of it is that the current https infrastructure doesn't need to change. If a certificate is signed, and it checks out at both the client and notary level, it's valid. Same goes for self-signed certificates.

According to these guys, there is already a convergence notary fork in the works using Google's help.
http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6778/how-does-convergence-ca-replacement-prevent-its-notaries-from-being-mitmd-as-w

There has been a lot of push at the recent DEFCON conferences, and associated conversation since, to look at alternatives to the current CA system. Moxie Marlinspike has been pushing a remote-view notary system called which is currently a Firefox plug, and Dan Kaminsky has been pushing for DNSSEC.

There has been an awful lot of discussion about the technical details of SSL certificates on the Security StackExchange (Stack Overflow cousin) website, including the related blog post I penned: A Risk-Based Look at Fixing the Certificate Authority Problem.

There has been a lot of push at the recent DEFCON conferences, and associated conversation since, to look at alternatives to the current CA system. Moxie Marlinspike has been pushing a remote-view notary system called which is currently a Firefox plug, and Dan Kaminsky has been pushing for DNSSEC.

There has been an awful lot of discussion about the technical details of SSL certificates on the Security StackExchange (Stack Overflow cousin) website, including the related blog post I penned: A Risk-Based Look at Fixing the Certificate Authority Problem.

Besides the articles that were linked to, I'd also check out somebody's question of "Trustworthiness of kernel.org post attack" at http://security.stackexchange.com/q/6768/836 (the site is a cousin to stackoverflow.com).

I reposted your question to Physics Stack Exchange so you can get input from an additional group of people, several of whom have actually studied GR. (Disclaimer: it's not my website, but I'm a frequent contributor) Of course, most of the prerequisites I would think of have already been mentioned here (Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, special relativity, linear algebra, multivariable calculus, differential equations, differential geometry), but on PSE you won't have to filter out a bunch of irrelevant comments ;-)

For what it's worth, the main "thrust" of GR is encapsulated in two equations, which you can find here among other places: the geodesic equation and the Einstein field equations. You can use those to guide your progress: once you know enough to understand what they mean, you've successfully learned the basics of GR.

I reposted your question to Physics Stack Exchange so you can get input from an additional group of people, several of whom have actually studied GR. (Disclaimer: it's not my website, but I'm a frequent contributor) Of course, most of the prerequisites I would think of have already been mentioned here (Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, special relativity, linear algebra, multivariable calculus, differential equations, differential geometry), but on PSE you won't have to filter out a bunch of irrelevant comments ;-)

For what it's worth, the main "thrust" of GR is encapsulated in two equations, which you can find here among other places: the geodesic equation and the Einstein field equations. You can use those to guide your progress: once you know enough to understand what they mean, you've successfully learned the basics of GR.

Someone mod parent post up please ... its the original story poster.

And my feedback. The Kinect is a potentially great piece of hardware but...
Being protected from a potentially eyeblinding 60 mW infrared laser, with only crackable, diffraction gratings to disperse the beam across the room is a bit too risky for me.

This video shows that accidentally bringing your eye one or two inches, even with the Kinect optics intact, can blind you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qLDzLYPG-w

Think of when you may get your face accidentally too close... like when switching something on or off in AV equipment... or worse, children starting into the projector.

Balanced discussion here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2625/is-the-kinect-ir-laser-safe
(see the end of the page, where I found the YouTube link above)

Interesting you used Markdown syntax for your link. May I ask why you chose to?

If I had to guess, it's because he hangs out on the SE family of sites

At least you can find some help there.

Try StackExchange.