What if all 1 billion Chinese, all running Linux, suddenly started pinging all of the US biggest eCommerce sites?
Admins at backbones would start disconnecting routes to China/Asia. That would end the attack pretty quickly, and China would have to beg to be reconnected to the rest of the world. Distributed DoS attacks require machines on a large number of varied networks, not just a large number of machines.
Some DoS attacks take advantage of server software. However, I believe the attack here was an attack on bandwidth. In such attacks, the target is generally flooded by more pings/TCP SYN packets/etc than their pipe can handle, even if the computer itself responds immediately and is well within an acceptable load. These attacks generally work by tricking a large number of inoncents, in conjunction with cracked accounts, into sending traffic to the same target.
Hmm... I could imagine the crap that would be posted here bashing MSFT if Yahoo was using NT/IIS. However, since they were using FreeBSD, we won't hear a peep from anyone.
In general, blaming a failure resulting from a distributed DoS attack on the OS is wrong, unless the attack exploits a specific OS vulnerability, which was not the case here. Usual complaints about NT on/. are about security holes, not about an inability to handle massive DDoS attacks.
Yeah, if you had enough fuel (keeping in mind that you need more fuel to compensate for the mass of the fuel), you could keep an object in a geostationary position at an arbitrary altitude. I hesitate to use words like "orbit" or "satellite" to describe such a scenario, however. Keep in mind that this would be more like a high-altitude plane/rocket than a satellite. The whole point of satellites is that they are in stable orbits, so they don't need to be firing thrusters all the time.
Really, though, I was just quibbling. Because a satellite can't be kept up that way for any appreciable length of time, barring a major advancement in energy storage, one would be better off just sending a plane.
Strictly speaking, the codependency can be broken, but it would require a continuous expenditure of energy to maintain its orbit. FAPP, it would run out of energy too quickly.
The problem is a general lack of variety. The computer industry, right now, is dominated almost entirely by white men, and mainly those with a background in computers. Because computers are such a large part of many of our lives, we cannot afford to have them controlled by such a small group. Computer companies need to hire people of both sexes, of all ethnic backgrounds. They need to hire artists, writers, and other such people. [Emphasis mine]
God help us, peopele with a background in computers are dominating the computer industry! The horror!
Computer companies can and will hire the most skilled people in the pool of available applicants. If they fail to hire someone skilled because that person is not a white male, that will put them at a competitive disadvantage compared to the company the snaps that person up. Of course, existing laws prohibit such discrimination anyway. If there aren't enough skilled minorities and women in the pool of applicants, that problem should be solved earlier, in the education system, rather than by hiring proportionally more minority applicants to compensate for the imbalance in the pool of applicants.
As for hiring writers and artists, what are you talking about? Of course, if someone is skilled in both writing/art and computers, that person can and should be placed in a job that requires computer skills. But surely you can't suggest that companies hire writers and artists for jobs that they don't have skills to do, just for the sake of diversity. Maybe newspapers should start hiring computer programmers with poor language skills, for diversity.
Forgive me if I don't jump in the air and scream "At last! Non-belief in God is intellectually credible! I can stop this Christianity lark and go out into the evil, bad world as an atheist with my intellectual pride intact..."
Come on... Atheists and theists alike should be able to agree that the article is pseudoscientific nonsense, as you'll no doubt find out if you look at other comments.
Without some form of copyright protection, the zillion-dollar corporations have no incentive to spend mega-$$$ generating the entertainment that people love.
CSS is not copyright protection! With expensive DVD-writing equipment (BTW, expensive recording equipment is the only copyright protection of any sort the industry ever had), anyone can copy a DVD without DeCSS! Pirates in Hong Kong have been doing this for years, without DeCSS!
This is not about protecting intellectual property, this is about an artificial, government-supported monopoly on devices that play DVDs (the government support is in the form of a stupid law called DMCA, which restricts reverse engineering of certain technologies, and thus creates a barrier to free market competition).
No. You can delete running binaries, but you can't overwrite them, even as root (aside from actually mucking with/dev/hda or something). When you installed Netscape, you (or the install script or whatever) probably deleted the old file first.
I did write a program. However, I only tried to find bases that worked with both dates. So 8 and 16 weren't included, as well as many others that only work with one or the other.
The dates 12/14/1774 and 6/22/1462 are all-even-digit numbers if expressed in base 25, 26, 48, 51, 52, 55, 59, 66, 71-73, 78-80, 87, 88, 98, 119-121, 137-146, 163-177, 209-221, 293-295, 355-365, 592-731, or any base greater than or equal to 1775.
I'm not sure why 1642 was "wrong," though, unless you were looking specifically for one of bases 25, 26, 52, 55, 59, 71, 78, 119-121, 137-146, 165-177, 209-221, or 293-295, all of which work with 1462 but not 1642.
You're just arbitrarily defining yourself to be correct. I can just as easily say, 0 is a number: it's the number of hundreds, tens, and ones in "2000".
I can do the math to prove that both infinity and zero are not numbers. Unfortunately, HTML (and especially the limited/. HTML set) do not lend me the flexibility to write it nor do I have the time to write it, nor do I really care to, NOR do I think that many people would be able to understand it
Infinity is indeed not a number. However, under the definitions of numbers used by mathematicians worldwide, zero is a number. Of course, if you use your own definition of number, you can easily define it in such a way that zero is not a number. However, I doubt very much that your number system would be useful in the way numbers are normally used.
Also, refusing to support your assertions is a good sign that you're wrong.
No, you don't need infinity to be a number to take limits approaching infinity, because they are formally defined using epsilon-delta theory.
Off the top of my head, if the limit of f(x) as x approaches infinity is L, that is defined as meaning that, for any positive number epsilon, there exists a number delta such that, for any number x that is greater than delta, the equality abs(f(x)-L)
In other words, you can get arbitrarily close to the limit at some value x=delta, and any value of the function at a greater value of x will be closer to the limit than it was at x=delta.
It stands for Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.
Check out www.badsoftware.com or www.2bguide.com. Also, look at the bottom of the article for links. It even gives the e-mail address of someone to contact if you want to help.
However, I still maintain that unless the poster thought that people can be broken monolithically into cultural groups by race, he should have referred to cultural groups instead of using terms which delineate based strictly on race.
I disagree even more strongly with white people designing tests that don't take into account the way non-white people think [Emphasis mine]
What the hell? Can somebody explain how this line of thought isn't considered racist? I was going to post something about how these kinds of things make a hidden asumption that minorities' brains are different, but you went right out and said it.
You aren't paying for the media, you're paying for the content on the media.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that consumers don't have the right to copy the content for personal use. For example, when hard drives get larger and cheaper, as you mentioned, what if I want to copy a DVD I own onto my laptop's hard drive so I can watch it on a plane without wasting battery life powering a DVD drive. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to copy DVD's onto hard drives.
It's impossible to tell whether you have a genuine copy of the DVD, except when it's used on their player.
But, there's no way of knowing if it's a genuine copy even with their player. Pirates in Hong Kong have been selling bit-for-bit copies of DVDs since before CSS was broken. CSS is playback protection, not copy protection. It forces makers of DVD players to buy licenses from the DVD CCA, and accomplishes nothing else.
Though Mr. Valenti made numerous false statements in his article, that was not one of them. His article quoted from subsection 1201(b) of the DMCA. What you call the "actual text" is from subsection 1201(a). His quote from the DMCA was perfectly accurate. Really, do you think anyone is stupid enough to think they could misquote a public law and not have anyone notice? I'm not saying that the MPAA's actions aren't stupid, but they're not that stupid.
That said, I like Valenti's section better anyway. After all, one could argue that since CSS protects against playback but not copying, and since controlling playback is not a right of copyright owners, that CSS isn't a technological measure that falls under that section of the Act. (I'm probably wrong, but it's an interesting thought.)
Slashdot Mirror
What if all 1 billion Chinese, all running Linux, suddenly started pinging all of the US biggest eCommerce sites?
Admins at backbones would start disconnecting routes to China/Asia. That would end the attack pretty quickly, and China would have to beg to be reconnected to the rest of the world. Distributed DoS attacks require machines on a large number of varied networks, not just a large number of machines.
Some DoS attacks take advantage of server software. However, I believe the attack here was an attack on bandwidth. In such attacks, the target is generally flooded by more pings/TCP SYN packets/etc than their pipe can handle, even if the computer itself responds immediately and is well within an acceptable load. These attacks generally work by tricking a large number of inoncents, in conjunction with cracked accounts, into sending traffic to the same target.
Hmm... I could imagine the crap that would be posted here bashing MSFT if Yahoo was using NT/IIS. However, since they were using FreeBSD, we won't hear a peep from anyone.
In general, blaming a failure resulting from a distributed DoS attack on the OS is wrong, unless the attack exploits a specific OS vulnerability, which was not the case here. Usual complaints about NT on /. are about security holes, not about an inability to handle massive DDoS attacks.
Yeah, if you had enough fuel (keeping in mind that you need more fuel to compensate for the mass of the fuel), you could keep an object in a geostationary position at an arbitrary altitude. I hesitate to use words like "orbit" or "satellite" to describe such a scenario, however. Keep in mind that this would be more like a high-altitude plane/rocket than a satellite. The whole point of satellites is that they are in stable orbits, so they don't need to be firing thrusters all the time.
Really, though, I was just quibbling. Because a satellite can't be kept up that way for any appreciable length of time, barring a major advancement in energy storage, one would be better off just sending a plane.
Strictly speaking, the codependency can be broken, but it would require a continuous expenditure of energy to maintain its orbit. FAPP, it would run out of energy too quickly.
The problem is a general lack of variety. The computer industry, right now, is dominated almost entirely by white men, and mainly those with a background in computers. Because computers are such a large part of many of our lives, we cannot afford to have them controlled by such a small group. Computer companies need to hire people of both sexes, of all ethnic backgrounds. They need to hire artists, writers, and other such people. [Emphasis mine]
God help us, peopele with a background in computers are dominating the computer industry! The horror!
Computer companies can and will hire the most skilled people in the pool of available applicants. If they fail to hire someone skilled because that person is not a white male, that will put them at a competitive disadvantage compared to the company the snaps that person up. Of course, existing laws prohibit such discrimination anyway. If there aren't enough skilled minorities and women in the pool of applicants, that problem should be solved earlier, in the education system, rather than by hiring proportionally more minority applicants to compensate for the imbalance in the pool of applicants.
As for hiring writers and artists, what are you talking about? Of course, if someone is skilled in both writing/art and computers, that person can and should be placed in a job that requires computer skills. But surely you can't suggest that companies hire writers and artists for jobs that they don't have skills to do, just for the sake of diversity. Maybe newspapers should start hiring computer programmers with poor language skills, for diversity.
Forgive me if I don't jump in the air and scream "At last! Non-belief in God is intellectually credible! I can stop this Christianity lark and go out into the evil, bad world as an atheist with my intellectual pride intact..."
Come on... Atheists and theists alike should be able to agree that the article is pseudoscientific nonsense, as you'll no doubt find out if you look at other comments.
never before have we had travelling ssh daemons!
It'd be nice to use the ssh client on a PDA, but why would you want to run the daemon on the road?
Without some form of copyright protection, the zillion-dollar corporations have no incentive to spend mega-$$$ generating the entertainment that people love.
CSS is not copyright protection! With expensive DVD-writing equipment (BTW, expensive recording equipment is the only copyright protection of any sort the industry ever had), anyone can copy a DVD without DeCSS! Pirates in Hong Kong have been doing this for years, without DeCSS!
This is not about protecting intellectual property, this is about an artificial, government-supported monopoly on devices that play DVDs (the government support is in the form of a stupid law called DMCA, which restricts reverse engineering of certain technologies, and thus creates a barrier to free market competition).
No, no. It's just a pretty picture of some source code. Right?
Err. By saying "3l33t cracker dude", don't you think he was referring to a script kiddies?
I disagree. I think he's simply correctly interpreting the DMCA. It's the fault of Congress for passing the DMCA.
No. You can delete running binaries, but you can't overwrite them, even as root (aside from actually mucking with /dev/hda or something). When you installed Netscape, you (or the install script or whatever) probably deleted the old file first.
I did write a program. However, I only tried to find bases that worked with both dates. So 8 and 16 weren't included, as well as many others that only work with one or the other.
You should also check your e-mail.
The dates 12/14/1774 and 6/22/1462 are all-even-digit numbers if expressed in base 25, 26, 48, 51, 52, 55, 59, 66, 71-73, 78-80, 87, 88, 98, 119-121, 137-146, 163-177, 209-221, 293-295, 355-365, 592-731, or any base greater than or equal to 1775.
I'm not sure why 1642 was "wrong," though, unless you were looking specifically for one of bases 25, 26, 52, 55, 59, 71, 78, 119-121, 137-146, 165-177, 209-221, or 293-295, all of which work with 1462 but not 1642.
He wasn't defining integer, he was defining even! Why is it considered recursion to use the same word twice is your definition?
Just to restate his definition: An even number is an integer of the form N=2n, where n is an integer.
So, if 0=2*0, and 0 is an integer, than 0 is even. Whether or not 0 is an integer is an entirely different argument.
I can construct proof's that show zero is odd, and different proof's that show it's even.
Yeah, and I can construct proofs that 0=1.
They're not valid, though. Now what's your point?
You're just arbitrarily defining yourself to be correct. I can just as easily say, 0 is a number: it's the number of hundreds, tens, and ones in "2000".
I can do the math to prove that both infinity and zero are not numbers. Unfortunately, HTML (and especially the limited /. HTML set) do not lend me the flexibility to write it nor do I have the time to write it, nor do I really care to, NOR do I think that many people would be able to understand it
Infinity is indeed not a number. However, under the definitions of numbers used by mathematicians worldwide, zero is a number. Of course, if you use your own definition of number, you can easily define it in such a way that zero is not a number. However, I doubt very much that your number system would be useful in the way numbers are normally used.
Also, refusing to support your assertions is a good sign that you're wrong.
No, you don't need infinity to be a number to take limits approaching infinity, because they are formally defined using epsilon-delta theory.
Off the top of my head, if the limit of f(x) as x approaches infinity is L, that is defined as meaning that, for any positive number epsilon, there exists a number delta such that, for any number x that is greater than delta, the equality abs(f(x)-L)
In other words, you can get arbitrarily close to the limit at some value x=delta, and any value of the function at a greater value of x will be closer to the limit than it was at x=delta.
It stands for Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.
Check out www.badsoftware.com or www.2bguide.com. Also, look at the bottom of the article for links. It even gives the e-mail address of someone to contact if you want to help.
Your point is perfectly valid.
However, I still maintain that unless the poster thought that people can be broken monolithically into cultural groups by race, he should have referred to cultural groups instead of using terms which delineate based strictly on race.
I disagree even more strongly with white people designing tests that don't take into account the way non-white people think [Emphasis mine]
What the hell? Can somebody explain how this line of thought isn't considered racist? I was going to post something about how these kinds of things make a hidden asumption that minorities' brains are different, but you went right out and said it.
You aren't paying for the media, you're paying for the content on the media.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that consumers don't have the right to copy the content for personal use. For example, when hard drives get larger and cheaper, as you mentioned, what if I want to copy a DVD I own onto my laptop's hard drive so I can watch it on a plane without wasting battery life powering a DVD drive. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to copy DVD's onto hard drives.
It's impossible to tell whether you have a genuine copy of the DVD, except when it's used on their player.
But, there's no way of knowing if it's a genuine copy even with their player. Pirates in Hong Kong have been selling bit-for-bit copies of DVDs since before CSS was broken. CSS is playback protection, not copy protection. It forces makers of DVD players to buy licenses from the DVD CCA, and accomplishes nothing else.
Bzzt...wrong.
Though Mr. Valenti made numerous false statements in his article, that was not one of them. His article quoted from subsection 1201(b) of the DMCA. What you call the "actual text" is from subsection 1201(a). His quote from the DMCA was perfectly accurate. Really, do you think anyone is stupid enough to think they could misquote a public law and not have anyone notice? I'm not saying that the MPAA's actions aren't stupid, but they're not that stupid.
That said, I like Valenti's section better anyway. After all, one could argue that since CSS protects against playback but not copying, and since controlling playback is not a right of copyright owners, that CSS isn't a technological measure that falls under that section of the Act. (I'm probably wrong, but it's an interesting thought.)